Craig Murray Dog Training

[JulesP]

Ok you want your dogs to sit before you open a door. The dogs know what sit means. Would you reward that sit with food?

[Aidan3]

Ok you want your dogs to sit before you open a door. The dogs know what sit means. Would you reward that sit with food?

Does the dog want to go out the door?

[JulesP]

In the door

[Aidan3]

OK, "in" it is! Either way, the behaviour is being rewarded every single time. Food isn't necessary to maintain it, although it might be useful to shape the initial mechanics of the behaviour.

[Staranais]

Seriously though, I think that's a problematic analogy because we don't know what a dog-human relationship IS to the dog. We don't know, so how can we say what constitutes a healthy or unhealthy relationship? We only have their behaviour to go by. I feel like a traitor to my cause because I'm the first one to consider animal emotions in behaviour, but saying that a dog should do things for you because you offer them a social reward afterwards is to me just making the assumption that the dog should value that social reward as much as you value a social reward.

I don't think a healthy dog-human relationship is that hard to pick. You can't ask the dog how it feels, but you can look at the behaviour. The dog will act like it respects the owner, trusts the owner, and values interacting with the owner as an end in itself.

I think it is also telling that we can agree that there is a dog-human relationship. That's why my dog is a companion first, and a piece of work equipment second. If I didn't think she valued our relationship, if I thought she only actually worked for the food and had no real desire for my company, then I'd honestly have no interest in having her in the house - she'd be a piece of work equipment, nothing more. She'd live in her run full time, and get taken out when I wanted to exercise or work her. After all, why would I bother giving a dog any social attention if the dog didn't value that attention?

What's so great about praise? It's a lot of squeaky noise and excited energy. Many dogs find that exciting, but if you don't have a dog that gets excited by that why should that mean they don't find you exciting or rewarding to be with? Maybe they just aren't into dancing and squeaky noises. Kivi isn't. He likes a good cuddle, though. He'll perform for a chest rub.

That, to me, counts as praise/attention. It is a social reward.

It doesn't matter, though, as my point is what makes simple, known behaviours in a low distraction environment different to every other training scenario? Aren't you just offering a low level reward in an environment that is sufficiently boring to allow it to be enough to maintain an easy behaviour the dog barely cares about anyway?

Perhaps I should rephrase, since I am obviously not being clear enough. I don't think that a low distraction environment is a different environment with special rules, I think it is a minimum standard to show the dog at least minimally values you. If your dog won't perform simple behaviours for praise or attention in a low distraction environment, as a minimum, then I think there is a relationship issue - the dog obviously doesn't value your attention or praise, as it won't work for it even when there are no competing distractions.

It might not worry some people, but that is a problem I would want to fix, if it was going on with my dogs.

If the dog happens to find your attention valuable enough that they will work for it in a high distraction environment, even better.

[huski]

Er, Huski, I was offering an explanation for why what you do works so well and how it's different to what I do. I didn't realise you were only interested in talking about your dogs and your training method.

You were the one drawing comparisons I was just giving an example of why I do it the way I do it.

I think we're on different wavelengths. The point to me is to condition my dog to do what he's asked. As far as I'm concerned every time I reward is money in the bank for the day I forget my treat pouch or something. It shouldn't matter how many behaviours I ask for without treating in between, because if it's properly conditioned it will take a fair bit to convince them that they aren't getting a treat any moment. If their attention wanes then it's not properly conditioned and my reward rate is way too low.

My point was that you have no way of knowing which way would work better (i.e. rewarding every time for every command vs using a random reward schedule) if you had to ask the dog to work for an extended period of time whilst still keeping them in drive/interested/hanging on. When you have to work your dog for x amount of time with no reward, you have to find a way to keep them interested and anticipating the reward. I don't know if your way would work or not, because I haven't done it that way, which is why I asked. I do see lots of people whose dogs lose interest when they have a predictable reward schedule i.e. the dog is always rewarded at the end of the exercise, so they lose interest half way through.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

my dog has an amazing recall. if i call her she burns up the ground to come to me...why.....well she has been taught to do it and evry now and then she gets a treat...not all the times but somtimes and she never knows when sometimes is. so just in case she might miss out, she hurls herself to me every time.

i am not a trainer but i think intermittent reinforcement is sometimes the most powerful.

oh, and i expect her to come so i dont make a big fuss of her if i have no food...i mean, its her job to recall to me.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[corvus]

I don't think a healthy dog-human relationship is that hard to pick. You can't ask the dog how it feels, but you can look at the behaviour. The dog will act like it respects the owner, trusts the owner, and values interacting with the owner as an end in itself.

I don't want to go on and on about this, but I really feel like we're not understanding each other and I'd like us to understand each other.

A while ago my OH asked me what I thought would happen if we stopped rewarding our dogs with food all the time. Would they cease to care about us all together? I said I thought they wouldn't because we are so much more to them than a source of treats, which they don't actually need. We feed them meals, give them water, take them fun places, snuggle with them on the couch, let them sneak up onto the bed for cuddles, play with them, run with them, sleep in the same room as them and just be with them so often. Our relationship with them is built on rewards. Not just food rewards, but a whole plethora of things they want and like. Everything they like to do they do with us or we give them directly. We are constantly talking to them, interacting with them, playing with them, training with them, making them a part of our lives. When we are with them, we always know where they are and they always know where we are. We keep tabs on each other. We bond. They are hardwired to form social bonds. I know what they look like when they have momentarily lost us. It's panic. So if we were to see our dogs cease caring about us all together, we would have to uncouple ourselves from every rewarding stimuli they experience. This is because we have spent the last couple of years deliberately associating ourselves with every rewarding stimuli they experience.

So I'm hearing from you, the dog should value you socially rather than value the rewards you dispense. I'm saying how could the dog NOT value us socially if we are associated with every rewarding stimuli they experience? Every time we reward them it's money in the bank and we are building on that relationship. We are increasing our social value at the same time. They want to hang with us because good stuff happens to them when they do. The food rewards are a drop in the ocean. If we ONLY ever used food rewards, then I can see how we would mean nothing but food to our dogs, but we don't. We couldn't if we tried.

That, to me, counts as praise/attention. It is a social reward.

Then my dogs work for praise.

I don't think that a low distraction environment is a different environment with special rules, I think it is a minimum standard to show the dog at least minimally values you. If your dog won't perform simple behaviours for praise or attention in a low distraction environment, as a minimum, then I think there is a relationship issue - the dog obviously doesn't value your attention or praise, as it won't work for it even when there are no competing distractions.

Oh, I see.

I agree in principle, with the caveat that by "praise" we mean any sort of social reward. However I do think that you could have plenty of value there but have a dog that won't work for a social reward purely because they have never been asked to before. So what? Just teach 'em if you want them to work for a social reward. Doesn't necessarily mean they don't care about you.

Incidentally, my dogs have very good recalls as well. A recall is one of the few things that gets Kivi running. I reward every time with high value food treats (and sometimes play for Erik). They come and come fast because I have effectively just called out "Who wants a piece of steak!" Sometimes I only have crappy dog food or bread or something really lame, but it doesn't seem to bother them. The variable reward schedule does work and it works well as far as science knows. I just think it's easier to reward every time.

[corvus]

OK, "in" it is! Either way, the behaviour is being rewarded every single time. Food isn't necessary to maintain it, although it might be useful to shape the initial mechanics of the behaviour.

What he said. I reward with what the dog wants. If Erik wants to jump all over me in greeting, he needs to sit or down first. He uses it to "ask" for me to invite him to jump all over me. He has a very cute "I'm downing, could I please jump on you for a cuddle and a tickle?" look.

I'm a bit slack about doors and only enforce it when I first come home. Erik downs and Kivi sits or the door doesn't get opened. It stays open a lot when I'm home. Almost nothing is rewarded exclusively with food, but almost everything is rewarded with food much of the time.

[Erny]

I reward with what the dog wants. If Erik wants to jump all over me in greeting, he needs to sit or down first. He uses it to "ask" for me to invite him to jump all over me. He has a very cute "I'm downing, could I please jump on you for a cuddle and a tickle?" look.

What makes you think he is "asking"? Could it not be possible that he is demanding you invite him up to jump all over you? What would make you think this isn't possible?

Jumping all over me isn't what I'd want to train for .... I'd be flattened by the boisterousness of my boy. Mind you, being jumped all over by any dog isn't my cup of tea. Naturally it occurs because of the work I do, but I train to discourage it.

I'm a bit slack about doors and only enforce it when I first come home. Erik downs and Kivi sits or the door doesn't get opened.

We train quite differently - I train so that if I want to open the door for myself, I can, rather than have to sacrifice what I want to do (eg open the door to go inside) because my dog might not want to do what I've taught him to do to gain entry (or exit).

Edited July 23, 2010 by Erny

[JulesP]

OK, "in" it is! Either way, the behaviour is being rewarded every single time. Food isn't necessary to maintain it, although it might be useful to shape the initial mechanics of the behaviour.

What he said. I reward with what the dog wants. If Erik wants to jump all over me in greeting, he needs to sit or down first. He uses it to "ask" for me to invite him to jump all over me. He has a very cute "I'm downing, could I please jump on you for a cuddle and a tickle?" look.

I'm a bit slack about doors and only enforce it when I first come home. Erik downs and Kivi sits or the door doesn't get opened. It stays open a lot when I'm home. Almost nothing is rewarded exclusively with food, but almost everything is rewarded with food much of the time.

OK but you have sort of made it sound like you carry food around everywhere and reward the dog with food for everything.

I have no idea what you are actually doing to be honest.

[MonElite]

So I'm hearing from you, the dog should value you socially rather than value the rewards you dispense. I'm saying how could the dog NOT value us socially if we are associated with every rewarding stimuli they experience?

All my dogs will no social value and virtually no respect for someone new they meet, yet they will be super happy to take treats from them.

In fact if my BF is giving my dogs a treat I can still call them have no treats and they will come to me as they have a high social value for me.

So in my opinion dispensing treats does not equal social value.

Edited July 23, 2010 by MonElite

[corvus]

OK but you have sort of made it sound like you carry food around everywhere and reward the dog with food for everything.

I DO carry food with me everywhere and I do reward just about everything with it quite frequently. What I don't do is reward exclusively with food. My dogs don't always want food and I think it's important to diversify rewards as much as possible.

There is an interesting blog article by Patricia McConnell talking about primary and secondary reinforcers as spoken about by Ken Ramirez, who has been training exotic animals for 30 years. It is here: http://www.theotherendoftheleash.com/using...z#comment-17683

She reports that Ken classifies praise and social interactions as a secondary reinforcer and that he encourages everyone to use their SRs sparingly and follow them up with PRs as often as possible to strengthen them. That includes things like rubbing a dog's belly. He makes those comments based on a requirement for very reliable behaviour (it's not cool when an Orca doesn't do what it's told).

I won't agree with it or disagree with it except to say that I treat praise as a secondary reinforcer whether it is for my dogs or not.

For those interested, Ken Ramirez is speaking at the APDT conference here at the end of October.

[corvus]

All my dogs will no social value and virtually no respect for someone new they meet, yet they will be super happy to take treats from them.

In fact if my BF is giving my dogs a treat I can still call them have no treats and they will come to me as they have a high social value for me.

So in my opinion dispensing treats does not equal social value.

EXACTLY! That is exactly what I'm saying! My point is we are SO MUCH MORE to them than a treat dispenser, even if we take treats everywhere and use them a lot. I'm trying to say that ALL the good things we do with our dogs are cumulative, not just treats, but treats and all the other fun and enjoyable stuff we do with them.

[Staranais]

I don't think that a low distraction environment is a different environment with special rules, I think it is a minimum standard to show the dog at least minimally values you. If your dog won't perform simple behaviours for praise or attention in a low distraction environment, as a minimum, then I think there is a relationship issue - the dog obviously doesn't value your attention or praise, as it won't work for it even when there are no competing distractions.

Oh, I see.

I agree in principle, with the caveat that by "praise" we mean any sort of social reward. However I do think that you could have plenty of value there but have a dog that won't work for a social reward purely because they have never been asked to before. So what? Just teach 'em if you want them to work for a social reward. Doesn't necessarily mean they don't care about you.

Then I think we are on the same page. If the dog would be quite prepared to work for the social reward, except that you have just never asked them to do so, I think that is different to a dog that wouldn't work for the social reward even though he understood what you wanted.

I would however very much disagree with the idea that social rewards are secondary reinforcers. To a pack drive animal, interaction with the pack/family is a primary reinforcer. A particular form of praise (such as the words "good dog") may well be a secondary reinforcer, but the desire for social interaction itself is primary - it does not need to be conditioned in order for it to have value. (I mean, think about it - if social interaction was only a secondary reinforcer, then the dog would not value it in and of itself, so placing the dog in complete social deprivation would not be cruel).

Some dogs may show very little interest in social interaction unless it is paired with a primary reinforcer, but IMO this is simply because they are constantly given attention for free. A dog free fed kibble all day is unlikely to work very hard for kibble, either. Doesn't mean that food isn't a primary reinforcer.

Incidentally, my dogs have very good recalls as well. A recall is one of the few things that gets Kivi running. I reward every time with high value food treats (and sometimes play for Erik). They come and come fast because I have effectively just called out "Who wants a piece of steak!"

Both my cats have a super recall for the same reason. The malligator's isn't quite 100% yet, but that is a topic for another thread...

[corvus]

Then I think we are on the same page.

Yes. Finally.

I would however very much disagree with the idea that social rewards are secondary reinforcers. To a pack drive animal, interaction with the pack/family is a primary reinforcer. A particular form of praise (such as the words "good dog") may well be a secondary reinforcer, but the desire for social interaction itself is primary - it does not need to be conditioned in order for it to have value. (I mean, think about it - if social interaction was only a secondary reinforcer, then the dog would not value it in and of itself, so placing the dog in complete social deprivation would not be cruel).

I think that's a fair call. I have to do some more thinking on this. Traditionally speaking social contact isn't a PR because a dog can live without it. But I've started to think in terms of whether a dog has an appetite for something rather than whether something is a primary or secondary reinforcer. I don't know if that's particularly accurate, but it makes more sense to me.

Under that way of thinking, I end up with appetites that are large and appetites that a small and things dogs just like but don't have an appetite for. There are several appetites that can be easily satisfied just by the things we do with our dogs, and I think social comes under that one. The fact of the matter is I'm always going to giving out the love for free. I might ask for a behaviour sometimes, but the majority of the time I'm like "My dog wants a cuddle! Come on up!" OH is about ten times worse.

But, there are other things to consider as well. Example, opponent process theory, which if I understand it correctly may mean that some appetites are developed. I think social interaction may be one of those. A pariah dog or stray may have no appetite at all for social interaction with anyone except when it comes to sex, but where dogs are raised in an environment where they do get a lot of that, they may develop a need for it? At least, I notice with both exercise and social interactions that the more you give them the more they tend to want. Although maybe that not an OPT thing as it seems more like a habituation thing. I dunno.

Sorry to the OP for taking it so far off topic!

Some dogs may show very little interest in social interaction unless it is paired with a primary reinforcer, but IMO this is simply because they are constantly given attention for free. A dog free fed kibble all day is unlikely to work very hard for kibble, either. Doesn't mean that food isn't a primary reinforcer.

Both my cats have a super recall for the same reason. The malligator's isn't quite 100% yet, but that is a topic for another thread...

I used to know a small herd of sheep that would literally gallop to wherever the farm hand was whistling from. He started out whistling whenever he put food out for them and ended up using it to move them around between paddocks. He was a good intuitive trainer, though. He nearly always gave them some food when they got there. ;)

[Staranais]

Traditionally speaking social contact isn't a PR because a dog can live without it. But I've started to think in terms of whether a dog has an appetite for something rather than whether something is a primary or secondary reinforcer. I don't know if that's particularly accurate, but it makes more sense to me.

If that were the case, then sex wouldn't be a primary reinforcer either? You can live without it. But I can think of few more powerful primary motivators!

I've always been taught that a PR is simply something that is reinforcing without being conditioned.