Positive Re-enforcement Only Techniques

[pgm]

Tess32: A dog that hangs its head and runs off when you get home after it ripped up your couch 5 hours ago LOOKS guilty and if we use external cues, guilt would be the emotion I'd call that kind of behaviour. But would most experienced dog trainers conclude guilt, or just claim it is a dog that is expecting punishment and thus, acting submissively?

PGM: I think you have to be experienced yes, there are differences. But a dog that hangs his head is giving some kind of cue, whether or how we interpret this is a matter of contention, but the dog is giving a cue that can be read.

Tess32: Actually I think very often it comes down to the trainer's bias. A purely positive, OC fan (and that aint Orange County!) will interpret the dog very differently than a trainer who adheres to the dominance model no matter how many dogs they see.

PGM: as you may have guessed by now, I have little time for theory. A person may have dozens of qualifications in behavioral science besides his/her name - it wouldn't count a fig to me. If said person also had 20-30 years experience working and training dogs then I might listen. But either way, if they started sprouting theory to me I would go somewhere else.

[Vickie]

PGM: as you may have guessed by now, I have little time for theory. A person may have dozens of qualifications in behavioral science besides his/her name - it wouldn't count a fig to me. If said person also had 20-30 years experience working and training dogs then I might listen. But either way, if they started sprouting theory to me I would go somewhere else.

PGM,

I may be taking you too literally again and I certainly agree with placing value in experience. My point is why limit the concept of theory to qualifications in behavioural science, it to me is as pointless as attributing a positive or traditional status to a trainer. As humans, we all theorise, it's what seperates up from the animals, LOL. It's inevitable, if fact, what you are giving us here in this thread is a heap of theories. Any good dog trainer with have their own theories, gained from a variety of theories from others as well as their own experiences.

In many ways I think dogs are easier to read the minds of than people. They are like children who haven't yet learnt to lie & hide things. The best part is, they never get to this point.

I think this has been a valuable thread. There are so many aspects to dog training. With such a wide audience it is very hard to make generalised statements about the effectiveness of any given method for any given dog to perform any given behaviour with any given reliability.

For example, I'm not knocking Boxagirl for this post:

"I believe that positive methods CAN work on ALL dogs, if used correctley.

A GREAT book on positive dog treaining is "The Complete Idiot's Guide To Positive Dog Training" by Pam Dennison. It is probably the best and most informative book I have ever read. It is simple and explains the theory and science behind all the behaviors. It covers basically every aspect of dog training, and actually explains why positive dog training is better. It completely changes the way you think when training a dog (and actually makes you stop and think before just yelling or yanking the leash!!) I strongly suggest that anyone who is interested in dog training reads this book."

and I haven't seen the book, but

"It is simple and explains the theory and science behind all the behaviors."

would question the above statement.

I know plenty of people who are very good trainers in their field with certain types of dogs. What happens when you train a dog who is completely hard wired by instinct to do a task, or alternately one who is completely unsuitable for that task.

I think to really have this conversation it needs to get more specific...are we talking about teaching a dog to sit here? or a much more complex chain of behaviours?

Personally I have a lot more respect for the people who actually know what the ultimate reward IS for their dog (something I'm finding not many know) than someone who claims to use rewards exclusively...something I believe is pretty much impossible.

Edited February 11, 2005 by vpzn

[pgm]

VPZN: "My point is why limit the concept of theory to qualifications in behavioural science, it to me is as pointless as attributing a positive or traditional status to a trainer."

PGM: Let me say that that is a very good point. It is one of my frustrations (at least from the perspective I inhabit) that people appear to be incapable of appreciating the great and profound thought that is behind traditional methods. It is to do with our cultural infatuation with science, it is almost as if people do not recognize thought at all, unless it wrapped in the discourse of science. Or at least what thought there is outside the realm science, is a pale imitation of the real thing.

But thought is thought wherever you find it, it does not take on a special status simply because it is wrapped in the vocabulary of science. It is rather the absense of thought that I find is most often wrapped in the garb of scientific terms.

Personally, I believe that the proof of a trainer and or his or her methods begins and ends in the dog. I am inclined to say, show me your dog and I will be able to tell whether you can train or not. Show me your theory on the other hand, and all I will be able tell is whether or not you are one of Skinner's many idiot savants.

Edited February 11, 2005 by pgm

[Clicking Mad]

...

Edited January 7, 2008 by Clicking Mad

[Guest kelbyrd]

Go outside the box, and look and feel and smell the way a dog does, try to become as much of a dog as you can, get on all 4's for the day and look at how they have to see things, just try it. even for an hour. I teach positive training, is it what works for everyone, problably not, and that is OK. I am not a behavourist, or a doggie physologist. I am just an owner and trainer for over 30 yrs. So I ,on my on decided to see how a dog see's us. Interesting, especially the body language us humans sometimes display in teaching a dog, maybe that is why the dog get confussed and or frustrated. Just my way sometimes of working with a dog with a negative attitude!!!

[boxagirl]

Sorry, I do not believe my post before was very clear. I stated that positive dog training techniques CAN work on ALL dogs. I meant to say that if used correctly used, 100% positive techniques can work on all dogs, at some point during there lifetime. If a dog has been trained his whole life, it may be harder for the positive techniques to work and will take alot longer for the dog to grasp the concept than a puppy. However, if the same dog was trained from the start using 100% positive techniques it would have worked. I'm not saying that other training techniques don't work, I'm just saying that positive training does.

Positive re-enforcement training doesn't mean that the dog doesn't get punished, They do! But the punishment isn't physical or verbal, they are simply ignored when acting inappropriately, or if that is un appropriate in a certain situation the dog is redirected into another more appropriate behavior.

Also, in my beginning statement, I stated that positive only techniques can work for all DOGS, not all people.

Even the act of putting a leash on, if the leash has any pressure on the dog's neck, imposes something other than positive reinforcement

Even dogs who pull and are completely unleash trained, get excited when the lead comes out. So abit of pressure on their neck mustn't be too bad.

Although, most positive trainers associate the leash with a good thing, and teach the dog not to pull from the start. A key with positive dog training (I think) is trying to prevent behavioral problems before they start.

Anyway this is JMH, I have learnt about lots of different training methods and stuck with the one that works for me and my dogs.

[Kavik]

You have just said something very useful - positive only training is most useful if started straight away.

The problem then is with dogs that have no previous training or manners - positive only is very difficult with them (especially if they weigh twice as much as you ).

And I agree with Sidoney - you cannot control every situation, life is unpredictable, and dogs (being animals, not machines) are also unpredictable. In this, I don't think positive only training is realistic.

[pgm]

Clicking Mad: I have noticed my dogs temperament change, both to being generally more happy and also a little of taking advantage of my new "no correction" style.

PGM: it is an interesting question as to what people mean by happy? I was watching people train agility the other day, and whilst I would say that the dogs were quite responsive to their handlers (they were of course using treats constantly) and looked quite 'happy', their happiness to my eyes looked frivilous and immature.

And I do wonder whether this outward expression of 'happiness' which resembles the behavior of a puppy is more for the sake of the handler's self esteem than for the benefit of a dog.

[Vickie]

PGM: it is an interesting question as to what people mean by happy? I was watching people train agility the other day, and whilst I would say that the dogs were quite responsive to their handlers (they were of course using treats constantly) and looked quite 'happy', their happiness to my eyes looked frivilous and immature.

And I do wonder whether this outward expression of 'happiness' which resembles the behavior of a puppy is more for the sake of the handler's self esteem than for the benefit of a dog.

Why does it matter? Agility is fun, it's meant to be a happy game. The majority of people out there doing agility just want to have some fun. Believe me, any kind of happiness on the dog and handlers part are immensley preferable to the some of the miserable people with their miserable dogs who regularly come to lessons. I have to wonder why they bother.

All my dogs have enormous motivation for agility, and 2 of 3 of them would turn up their nose at a treat if I tried to offer them one, the other will take something at the end of a run, if I offer it. There's nothing wrong with that either. It's the way they have been bred & the way they have been trained. That is not to say that I don't reward my dogs for doing agility b/c I do, I just happen to know what they want more than anything...and I give it to them. It's very easy to inadvertantly train a dog in a negative manner in agility, regardless of whether you are giving them treats or not, again it's about knowing what they want. Not all dogs are capable of the same motivation levels nor have the same aptitude for different activities. You can train most dogs to have motivation in agility but not all dogs cope with repetitive exercises or become obsessed by the game itself and some are just more naturally suited and for them, agility will become serious work.

Having dogs who find the activity more rewarding than any external reward you could offer provides it's own set of challenges in training and not every handler is suited to nor wants this.

Most people want to have fun & I don't think it's something that the dog can fake.

Edited February 12, 2005 by vpzn

[Guest kelbyrd]

Good point, When i teach my dogs any form of training/teaching, I make it a game and they don't really have a clue that it is any more than just that. So when working with my dogs in teaching obed, or agility is just like playing ball with them,, i keep eveything positive and happy and a very up attitiude and with that they are more than willing to learn/perform. because it is only a game in there thought pattern.

[abzndbonnie]

nice advice. This has been an interesting thread from the very start.

I think that going on what kelbyrd said that they think it's a game. I love that way because i think if the dog's being punished then why is that a reason to listen to you? They are just not going to want to do something bad because they are going to get hurt. I think if they think it's fun they are going to be WAY more interested in you than with anything or anyone else around.And they are going to be more happy. Just my points continue i like reading this one

abz

[Clicking Mad]

...

Edited January 7, 2008 by Clicking Mad

[Guest Tess32]

PGM: it is an interesting question as to what people mean by happy? I was watching people train agility the other day, and whilst I would say that the dogs were quite responsive to their handlers (they were of course using treats constantly) and looked quite 'happy', their happiness to my eyes looked frivilous and immature.

- I really don't understand your point.

An adult dog acting like an immature puppy because it's happy and bouncy and is enjoying the task? Not a crime to me! I want my dog to *enjoy* what he does, and I *want* to reward him, if that's food or toys or anything.

If he wants to be fivilous...good on him! I don't want a serious, profound dog when he's just meant to be having some fun.

How can the happiness be for the handler's self esteem?

Nat

Edited February 13, 2005 by Tess32

[sidoney]

Hiya all

Been a bit busy to respond for a bit, but I'd like to pick up on a few threads that have occurred through this conversation now. In the interests of brevity I'll try to keep each to a reasonable length.

1. Theory vs. method

I don’t see how one can say you can have theory or method without each other. At its most simple, a theory is an organised set of ideas that attempts to explain or predict something. Method, at its simplest, is an ordered way of doing something.

Theory and method go together; theory underlies how the method is organised. Method would be useless without the ability to predict outcomes. Method without theory, faced with something new, has nothing. Theory allows the development of method. On the other hand, theory, without method, has no way of doing anything, and can achieve nothing.

Yes one can take a method and apply it without knowing anything of the theory. Most people do this when they use a recipe to bake a cake. They may try to develop new cakes or ways of combining ingredients – trial and error – some will turn out and some won’t. Bakers on the other hand, know how the ingredients combine to give the results (theory), and can then develop new kinds of baked products without the same kind of wastage. As stated above, when faced with a situation that the method doesn’t cover, or when trying to develop something new, without some theory, all would be trial and error – wouldn’t want to do that with my dog.

2. Regarding behaviourism

For some reason, pgm seems to have a particular aversion to behaviourism and/or behaviourists. Thankfully others are more open minded. To throw out behaviourism in total is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Certainly Behaviourism as an ideological construct is a product of the time in which it was developed, when Rational Science was thought to be the way to Discover Universal Truths For The Benefit Of Mankind (note gender specific language).

Behaviourism is no longer thought of as The Way to explain and predict all behaviours (except perhaps by some minority although I am not aware of them). However, it is still a very useful theory when applied to training animals, and can be (and is) used effectively, with an appreciation of its limitations, by animal trainers from many different fields in achieving their goals.

3. Whether one can know what “goes on in a dog’s mind”

I previously stated that I did not know what went on in a dog’s mind as I could not see in there. The response to this was the suggestion that that one can understand what goes on in a dog’s mind, to the same extent as one can understand what goes on in a person’s mind. This was set up as a contradiction to my statement, although I am not sure that it contradicts what I said at all.

I categorically reject any idea that one can “know” what goes on in any other creature’s mind, and suggest that one can only guess, and that with dogs, the guesses are less accurate than with people. Even with language, the most complex communication tool, what one person says may be understood in a different way by the person who hears – due to many different factors, including characteristics of language itself.

Although dogs do communicate, they have no language. They also have very different sensory systems, physical structures, instincts, and ranges of behaviours to ours. (Note that "instinct" and other psychological descriptions are constructs - they do not represent any "real thing" although such ideas as instinct, memory, personality etc. enter the field of "common sense knowledge" as representing "real things" - this is a whole other topic.) In many ways, despite dogs being the species most closely allied to humans, they are alien to humans, and the best anyone can do, even the most experienced, is to make (more or less) educated guesses as to what may be going on in their minds.

I agree with Nat when she says that how a person interprets a dog’s behaviours will vary depending on the training history and beliefs that person has.

4. Whether dogs can make moral judgements

It was suggested that dogs are able to have some ability to make judgements of right and wrong. I am not sure the extent of the ethical reasoning that was implied by that statement.

While it is common for people to infer moral behaviour in dogs (“he knows he did the wrong thing/he feels guilty, just look at him”), this sets up a dangerous situation for the dogs themselves. They become subjected to similar kinds of (ineffective) procedures of justice to those that are inflicted upon humans. Humans are supposed to know “right” from “wrong” and are punished for doing “wrong”. It is no secret that this is ineffective. Humans that are repeatedly “wrong” are then labelled “bad”. One can see a similar kind of process with dogs.

The implications of this process are not good for dogs. Individual dogs or groups of dogs, that have been subjected to inappropriate conditions and experiences, become labelled “bad”. Although the dog is only being a dog, and responding to its environment, the dog is the one that is killed, while the owners decide that was a “bad dog” and go on to get another one that they treat just as inappropriately. When groups of dogs are treated inappropriately, the group of dogs becomes labelled as “bad” (rather than the owners). We can see the fall-out from this in sanctioning laws such as “breed specific legislation”. I am not saying this process is the sole contributing process, but it would certainly have its effect.

5. Regarding “immature” happiness in agility

The above is a judgemental statement. If a dog is active and energetic, that is a good thing for agility. Many pet owners want their dog to be a “good dog” and by that, they seem to mean the old “seen and not heard”, “speak when spoken to” and so on that children used to get. A subdued dog as a “good dog”. It sits and lies down and comes when called and doesn’t bark unnecessarily.

A dog that is subdued won’t be any good at a sport that requires high speed like agility. Such a dog might make it around the course accurately, but it won’t have the kind of energy and motivation that will make it fast. Some people have dogs for whom the agility itself is the reward, but for most dogs (like my Vizslas), the high level of motivation has to be created externally. For my Vizslas, that is a combination of play and food. I also note that for the dogs that enjoy agility for its own sake, it is not difficult to teach those dogs that agility is not fun at all.

The ultimate agility run is like balancing on a knife edge between speed and control – you want the dog at as high a level of arousal as you can manage, while still keeping the dog responding to you. Without that, you won’t get the extra speed that makes the difference between a reasonable run and a great run.

I should mention, this kind of high level of motivation is needed for any dog that is asked to do anything that requires particular intensity or duration – see Sam’s post above re the scent dogs – these dogs are required to work for an extended time and may go some long time without finding the scent that brings their reward – they need to be very motivated to sustain that.

Edited February 13, 2005 by sidoney

[Rusky]

Just wondering what you mean by this as I am unsure

"sidoney said

I also note that for the dogs that enjoy agility for its own sake, it is not difficult to teach those dogs that agility is not fun at all."

sorry should have said that I think that dogs who enjoy agility for its own sake really enjoy it and it is hard to discourage them or their enthusiasm.

Edited February 13, 2005 by Rusky

[sidoney]

Oh! Sorry I was unclear there.

Dogs that enjoy it for its own sake, esp. if not trained in the foundations, can tend to take things into their own paws, and make up their own course. Also not wait for the handler to start them, etc.

Handlers who yell at their dogs for this, or who are harsh in other ways, or who try to suppress their dogs' enjoyment of the activity in order to get "control" (in the early days, handlers of fast dogs were frequently told to "slow the dog down"), can make unpleasant associations with agility and agility equipment for their dogs. Hence the dog learning that agility is NOT fun.

I was talking last year at a seminar to a the owner of an older Kelpie that had started out very fast. She had been told to slow her dog down. Her Kelpie lost her enthusiasm and was never as fast again.

Most Kelpies, Borders, Coolies, etc. don't have "hard" temperaments.

LOL Rusky I just noticed, you and I have almost the same number of posts.

Edited February 13, 2005 by sidoney

[Rusky]

gotcha thanks Sidoney

[Vickie]

Dogs that enjoy it for its own sake, esp. if not trained in the foundations, can tend to take things into their own paws, and make up their own course. Also not wait for the handler to start them, etc.

Handlers who yell at their dogs for this, or who are harsh in other ways, or who try to suppress their dogs' enjoyment of the activity in order to get "control"

I'd like to add to this. Even without being intentionally "harsh", there is another hurdle here to overcome.

If a dog is extremely fast & motivated, the handler requires absolutely perfect timing. These dogs need to rely 100% on the handlers body language & there are no 2nd chances. If there are 3 obstacles in a straight line, and you want the dog to take the 1st 2 but turn before the 3rd, you need to know exactly when to turn/call the dog. This point can & will be different depending on the dog.

Many dogs who are experts in reading body language, will also read the slump of the handlers shoulders, when they took that 3rd jump b/c the handlers body language/call was late. They may also wonder why the the handler is drilling them on the same thing over & over again...when as far as they are concerned, they got it right.

I try as hard as possible, when my timing is wrong, to keep my dog going, pretend that was what I wanted & then work out what the hell I did wrong while my dog has a break.

I gave a lesson last week to a dog who was working very wide and I was trying to tighten him up. The owner couldn't understand why I was rewarding the dog...even when he turned too early & missed the jump completely. To me this was progress as he was just following the cues he had been given, which is actually the ultimate goal in agility.

[Tabata]

I try as hard as possible, when my timing is wrong, to keep my dog going, pretend that was what I wanted & then work out what the hell I did wrong while my dog has a break.

vpzn,

your post reminded me of an article I have bookmarked, written by Bob Bailey about the importance of keeping things moving in agility training - basically saying it is the handler who sets the pace. I wonder if you've seen it - if not, it's here:

Bob Bailey on keeping things moving

[Vickie]

Thanks Tabata,

I hadn't seen it. While the points he is making are different to mine, I think they are all very good ones. I have seen that behaviour a lot at seminars...it drives me crazy, it's unfair to the dogs & rude to the presenter.

I think we all all guilty of it a bit...I know personally that I run my dogs much better in a trial than in training as I am able to maintain better flow throughout a course in a trial. Also the adrenalin of a trial seems to give me personally speed that I can't seem to simulate in training. I know it's not fair to my dogs & although they seem to give it their all regardless, it is something I am always working on.

Edited February 14, 2005 by vpzn