Where Is Dog Training Heading?

[Kavik]

I am also told when instructing not to do too much talking but to do stuff - and that people don't want to hear the theory behind things. I do try to explain why something like circle work or targeting or walking through a ladder is important and how it links in with agility.

[corvus]

If you had enough background to ask about establishing operations of your first trainer, you really could have been capable of choosing someone who could talk the language of theory.

I didn't, and haven't said I did. I know about EOs now. But it's beside the point. You can't claim that someone should know better just because they know some background stuff. As people keep telling me, there is a difference between book smarts and actual experience. If I've never looked for a trainer before, but learnt some great stuff from trainers online, why would I think there was anything to ask about? I just cared that the trainer used positive methods. Which turned out not to be true anyway.

If you didn't ask the right questions three times before hiring, that's just weirdly ineffectual. And yes, it's disillusioning; not disheartening, that was your term for how you felt.

So am I to take it that you think it shouldn't be so hard to find a professional trainer that knows about things like establishing operations and Premack? I would so love to hear that. It might just make my bright, idealistic face light up again.

I find this discussion quite bizarre. Why can't I be someone that simultaneously knows some learning theory and yet has very little experience with trainers? I've got better at picking them, but each time I pick a trainer, I know more theory than I did last time, so it is hard to keep track of what is a reasonable expectation. Why shouldn't I expect professional trainers to know more than I do? They are the ones with the formal education in it. Why can't I be a normal dog owner just with a special interest in training? Why can't the average professional trainer cater for that kind of dog owner?

[JulesP]

You are wanting something a little different than what the average pupil wants Corvus. So I agree you need to get smarter in finding instructors out there that will cater to you.

I went to a dressage clinic once with the wonderful Manolo Mendez. I was in heaven. Some of the people got to do no riding at all as he just talked to them. Most people were really pissed off. I loved how technical he was. Funnily I got to do more riding then most people.

Finding the right instructor for you is a very personal thing. You going to go through quite a few until you find the right one. I am talking private instructors here.

All the trainers that are online are people that love to talk about training

[bedazzledx2]

You know if you came to WA for a visit I'm sure your bright idealistic face would be radiant Some really really good trainers here who also understand the theory.

If you had enough background to ask about establishing operations of your first trainer, you really could have been capable of choosing someone who could talk the language of theory.

I didn't, and haven't said I did. I know about EOs now. But it's beside the point. You can't claim that someone should know better just because they know some background stuff. As people keep telling me, there is a difference between book smarts and actual experience. If I've never looked for a trainer before, but learnt some great stuff from trainers online, why would I think there was anything to ask about? I just cared that the trainer used positive methods. Which turned out not to be true anyway.

If you didn't ask the right questions three times before hiring, that's just weirdly ineffectual. And yes, it's disillusioning; not disheartening, that was your term for how you felt.

So am I to take it that you think it shouldn't be so hard to find a professional trainer that knows about things like establishing operations and Premack? I would so love to hear that. It might just make my bright, idealistic face light up again.

I find this discussion quite bizarre. Why can't I be someone that simultaneously knows some learning theory and yet has very little experience with trainers? I've got better at picking them, but each time I pick a trainer, I know more theory than I did last time, so it is hard to keep track of what is a reasonable expectation. Why shouldn't I expect professional trainers to know more than I do? They are the ones with the formal education in it. Why can't I be a normal dog owner just with a special interest in training? Why can't the average professional trainer cater for that kind of dog owner?

[Diva]

I don't think it's easy to find a great trainer, but I think it's easy to avoid the ones that don't suit if you have enough background knowledge to know what the right questions are upfront. I certainly found one who could enage in the theory - but then I put the effort in to find a compatible provider, as I would with any unregulated service industry.

People's ability to be effective in the world and make good choices as opposed to just talking the talk is an interesting dichotomy to me - it's what makes a good trainer too imo, and often what makes people not listen to a very academic sounding viewpoint. It completely colours who I listen to, I'm an outcomes focussed kind of person. But I'll leave it at that, we have done the conversation to death. I've found it very enlightening.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Diva

[mita]

Why can't the average professional trainer cater for that kind of dog owner?

Because 'that kind of dog owner' might be looking in the wrong place for the level of technicality that interests them.

The 'average professional trainer' covers the training needs of dogs across the average range. And is likely to have the basic knowledge of dog learning & behaviour, in order to do that.

Those trainers or behaviorists who deal with dogs, for whom that is insufficient, are likely to have more in- depth technical knowledge. And be more involved with research data and how it's observed, collected and analysed. So that 'kind of dog owner' might find a lot in common with them.

But, if that owner's dog's needs fall only in the average range, why would they be taking their dog there? Just my opinion, but that would seem like over-servicing.

Edited March 21, 2011 by mita

[The Spotted Devil]

corvus, what you are looking for I have lucked upon with one particular friend/mentor/competitor. We learn from each other, share our goals/achievements/training problems, our conversations are often rather involved and we also manage to solve the world's problems at the same time

Edited March 21, 2011 by The Spotted Devil

[Vickie]

I hope you never get a stockdog & start to train it Corvus.

You will get VERY frustrated!

[JulesP]

I hope you never get a stockdog & start to train it Corvus.

You will get VERY frustrated!

I dunno about that Vickie. Corvus would have had a lovely time with the US herding instructor my herding group got out here and with the one that is here at the moment. It all peeved me a bit as it made herding way too technical and for once I was enjoying not being technical. It spoilt it for me a bit. I just want to go chase sheep around the paddock

[m-j]

Just out of curiousity, what do trainers/instructors consider to be the appropriate theories to pass on to owners looking for basic obedience?

[Aidan3]

Just out of curiousity, what do trainers/instructors consider to be the appropriate theories to pass on to owners looking for basic obedience?

I like them to be able to explain the difference between operant and classical conditioning, using the Rescorla-Wagner model and Herrnstein's Matching Law to illustrate the difference. If they can do that, I let them have their car keys back.

Failing that, if they can show me they know when to click and treat, and how to satisfy themselves that the response is actually increasing and how to back up if it isn't, I'm happy.

Good question, btw, worth thinking about.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Aidan2

[corvus]

But, if that owner's dog's needs fall only in the average range, why would they be taking their dog there? Just my opinion, but that would seem like over-servicing.

:p You haven't met Erik!

I guess I have trouble accepting that my idea of training is a specialised area of training in the industry. What drives me to gather more and more theory is the never-ending quest to find explanations for the things I observe. To me, training hinges on that. I can't imagine how I could train without it. I can certainly explain to someone with zero learning theory knowledge how I trained my dogs to do something, but I can't fathom being asked to go into more detail and not being able to.

Vickie, I don't think I'm ever likely to get a stock dog, so don't worry! I'm not really sure what you were getting at, though. Even instinctive behaviour can be broken down into small parts and has the likes of affective neuroscience, motivation and drive theory to explain it. I do not know how I could ever live in harmony with Erik if I didn't know anything about that. I learnt precisely because Erik was hard to manage with associative learning alone.

I currently don't need a stockdog. I do a mean job of moving my hare around without touching him and without provoking him to bolt all on my own. It's all in the balance of body weight and reading his body language, but I'm much better at it now that I understand the theory behind pressure release training! I used to think working with him was organic and instinctual. I've changed my mind about that.

Bedazzled, next time I'm over that way visiting my sister I'm gonna make you introduce me! My idealistic face can light up a whole room when fully radiant.

[Aidan3]

I guess I have trouble accepting that my idea of training is a specialised area of training in the industry. What drives me to gather more and more theory is the never-ending quest to find explanations for the things I observe. To me, training hinges on that.

To you, yes. Not to everyone though. Your idea of training is not a specialised area of training, but it's not necessary to know all the details to be able to train a dog. For those of us who like to get at the "truth" of the subject (so far as we can), I think it's better to watch and then translate for your own benefit. To me, that's what the theory is all about - it puts stuff into a framework that we can use, and allows us to get rid of the stuff that never really worked and extend the stuff that does really work.

I'd say some basic scientific competence was possibly more important than learning theory in this regard, but the more time I spend around academics the more I realise that people don't always generalise stuff like that very well.

[m-j]

Just out of curiousity, what do trainers/instructors consider to be the appropriate theories to pass on to owners looking for basic obedience?

I like them to be able to explain the difference between operant and classical conditioning, using the Rescorla-Wagner model and Herrnstein's Matching Law to illustrate the difference. If they can do that, I let them have their car keys back.

Failing that, if they can show me they know when to click and treat, and how to satisfy themselves that the response is actually increasing and how to back up if it isn't, I'm happy.

Good question, btw, worth thinking about.

:rolleyes: Good idea I would like a new car, cept ma math is worst than ma ingleesh.

[Staff'n'Toller]

Just out of curiousity, what do trainers/instructors consider to be the appropriate theories to pass on to owners looking for basic obedience?

R+

P-

What can happen when you use P+?

Primary and secondary reinforcers.

Successive approximation.

Generalisation.

Luring and shaping.

Intermediate levels:

Back-chaining and stimulus package.

Latent learning.

[Vickie]

t

Vickie, I don't think I'm ever likely to get a stock dog, so don't worry! I'm not really sure what you were getting at, though.

i was getting at the fact that most people teaching stockwork are unlikely to be discussing much learning theory. I find it easiest to listen & try to do what they say, although I do ask the occasional question.

Of course there is theory involved, as with everything...but good luck to anyone who thinks it will be discussed in any detail by the average Aussie stockperson :rolleyes:

[JulesP]

t

Vickie, I don't think I'm ever likely to get a stock dog, so don't worry! I'm not really sure what you were getting at, though.

i was getting at the fact that most people teaching stockwork are unlikely to be discussing much learning theory. I find it easiest to listen & try to do what they say, although I do ask the occasional question.

Of course there is theory involved, as with everything...but good luck to anyone who thinks it will be discussed in any detail by the average Aussie stockperson :rolleyes:

;)

[Vickie]

To you, yes. Not to everyone though. Your idea of training is not a specialised area of training, but it's not necessary to know all the details to be able to train a dog. For those of us who like to get at the "truth" of the subject (so far as we can), I think it's better to watch and then translate for your own benefit. To me, that's what the theory is all about - it puts stuff into a framework that we can use, and allows us to get rid of the stuff that never really worked and extend the stuff that does really work.

:rolleyes: I think this suits & sums up most of us perfectly. I find learning easier by doing. Not to say I don't think about the how's & why's, I do. But i only feel the need to discuss them extensively when I encounter issues/barriers/breakthroughs.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Vickie

[JulesP]

Just out of curiousity, what do trainers/instructors consider to be the appropriate theories to pass on to owners looking for basic obedience?

I explain classical conditioning when discussing charging the marker word. It is usually met with totally blank don't care looks. The only thing that I talk about that does get interest is NILIF. This is with pet owners at a club in a group class. Maybe this is why I am frustrated with teaching at the moment.

[Aidan3]

The only thing that I talk about that does get interest is NILIF.

That's a really, really good practical example of positive reinforcement and extinction procedures (or "reward" and "ignore it" procedures )

I'll be honest with you, I've never really "got" why a lot of writers and instructors teach classical conditioning in relation to the clicker. The only thing I'm worried about when using a clicker (provided the dog isn't sound sensitive) is whether or not I get more of the response I clicked.