Topic For Discussion - Keep It Nice, Folks ;)

[Kavik]

I compete in agility, so a good amount of arousal is helpful :)

Nitro gets overaroused very easily, where he cannot listen or think well. When he is overaroused he will bark, do zoomies, and when he was a puppy he would bite (luckily we have fixed that part now!). He will also sometimes fixate on a person or dog and it is hard to break that focus on them (he wants to visit them), especially if they are moving as he likes to chase. That is obviously not conducive to training :) We are working through it, but it is not easy. So it is certainly possible for them to be overaroused, and I think it is important to be able to read your dog's emotional state.

[Willem]

I compete in agility, so a good amount of arousal is helpful :)

Nitro gets overaroused very easily, where he cannot listen or think well. When he is overaroused he will bark, do zoomies, and when he was a puppy he would bite (luckily we have fixed that part now!). He will also sometimes fixate on a person or dog and it is hard to break that focus on them (he wants to visit them), especially if they are moving as he likes to chase. That is obviously not conducive to training :) We are working through it, but it is not easy. So it is certainly possible for them to be overaroused, and I think it is important to be able to read your dog's emotional state.

if you read Corvus' article she mentioned above (here the link) it makes actually a pretty interesting reading; I have to read it a few times more for a better digestion :) (it is pretty theoretical), but what I can take from my first reading is: for the most efficient trainings outcome you have to maintain the optimal affective state and arousal level - which IMO makes sense. To high or to low or a negative emotion and the trainings result will be compromised. The challenge: I guess it is pretty tricky to determine these optimal windows, and also if you would know it (I guess the optimum thresholds will also change over time which makes it even harder) it would be pretty tricky to maintain it.

Me too having sometimes problems that she goes nuts during agility...so according to the above the best approach is to get her back into these 'windows' (where ever they are) where she is still interested in the training, but not over-aroused. Agility is a far more complex training than what I do with the flick pole, here actually I want her overaroused for training the 'break-up' response as that's the task of this game! - the task in agility is obviously different.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Willem

[Kavik]

Yes keeping them at the optimal arousal state for performance is tricky :) and each dog is different. With Kaos, I had to work to keep his arousal higher and rev him up. With Nitro I have to watch that his arousal doesn't get too high :laugh:

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Willem

Discussing dog training with you is very difficult.

The scientists have very specific definitions for the words they use.

We can't have a discussion if you constantly change the definitions of technically specific words to suit yourself.

Ignoring means that the dog knows the cue but decide to ignore you and does something else (and that's just

undesirable behaviour).

A human can rarely claim to know what a dog knows. A dog might be able to respond to a cue in a specific context (place, state of excitement etc) but that cue is unknown in a different context. This is because dogs are largely crap at generalising.

So your understanding of what "ignore" means is clearly different to what Corvus (or any of the rest of us) mean by it. when Corvus (or Bob Bailey) study training methods - they do not concern themselves with what the dog might know or understand or feel. Only what the dog does or doesn't do. The dog's response. So no response might be considered "ignoring", and dead dogs are very good at that.

Changing the definition of a word doesn't make you right and the rest of us wrong. It just makes you impossible to have a useful discussion with.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

PS if you want the fast dog in Agility - you don't try to bring the arousal down, you try to bring the ability to respond under that arousal - up.

I've done this with my dog. Otherwise you end up with a dog that is careful and slow. You might get a pass but you aren't likely to get a trophy.

[Willem]

Willem

Discussing dog training with you is very difficult.

The scientists have very specific definitions for the words they use.

We can't have a discussion if you constantly change the definitions of technically specific words to suit yourself.

Ignoring means that the dog knows the cue but decide to ignore you and does something else (and that's just

undesirable behaviour).

A human can rarely claim to know what a dog knows. A dog might be able to respond to a cue in a specific context (place, state of excitement etc) but that cue is unknown in a different context. This is because dogs are largely crap at generalising.

So your understanding of what "ignore" means is clearly different to what Corvus (or any of the rest of us) mean by it. when Corvus (or Bob Bailey) study training methods - they do not concern themselves with what the dog might know or understand or feel. Only what the dog does or doesn't do. The dog's response. So no response might be considered "ignoring", and dead dogs are very good at that.

Changing the definition of a word doesn't make you right and the rest of us wrong. It just makes you impossible to have a useful discussion with.

ok, got it (sorry, didn't recognized that the majority of this forum are scientist and behaviourists who speak a different language than the minority of normal mortals respectively having difficulties to understand what I mean :) )

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

majority of this forum are scientist and behaviourists who speak a different language than the minority of normal mortals

The majority of this forum are dog obsessed, and the (competition) training obsessed are very up to date on the language.

That doesn't mean you can't have a discussion, but I'd rather it wasn't about what the words mean. But you make it that by redefining them to suit yourself.

Eg Punishment has a specific meaning related to reducing a behaviour.

You can't redefine it to mean doing something that makes a dog feel bad.

You don't know how the dog feels about it.

It might be something the dog likes but the dog likes and will work harder for something else on offer...

eg food vs opportunity to chase sheep (again).

[Simply Grand]

Arousal is very important! Dogs certainly can become too aroused to listen and respond to cues. You can train them to work in a highly aroused state, but it does not happen automatically and takes time and effort. Some dogs are naturally more easily overaroused. One of my struggles with Nitro at the moment :laugh:

Dogs also can be too worried/anxious to listen and respond to cues.

I understand that some people prefer that their dog doesn't get overexcited or reach a high aroused state (and they may have good reasons for this), but I don't want a 'robot' dog, so if my dog gets overexcited it is o.k....as long as I still can control it and can break it up if required. Hence the training with the flirt / flick pole...when the rag moves in front of her she trembles ...everything in her is just waiting for the 'Take-it'...and then bang she goes nuts....while she is chasing the rag in a very high aroused state I can train LEAVE-IT (she comes back to me in heel position), DROP...STAND, SIT...and all happens in a controlled environment....that works for my dog, other dogs might find this game boring so or their only play it on the 'usual treat earning scheme' at a lower arousal level (which doesn't give the same results).

There is a difference between a dog highly aroused and in drive to do something like training or working, including Shutzhund, bitework, tracking, or playing with a flirt pole and a dog that is highly aroused because it feels as though another dog (or other threat) may be going to seriously injure or kill it.

A dog that does not respond to their recall while they are fending off a dog that is trying to harm them, or that they feel is trying to harm them, is NOT a poorly trained dog, it is a dog that doesn't have room in its brain right then for anything other than protecting itself.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Simply Grand

[Willem]

to get back to the article this thread started with here some comments / statements from people that are recognized - at least somehow - as experts in this realm and mentioned in the previous posts:

Bob Baily when asked 'Do you consider yourself a clicker trainer? Why or why not?':

I am not a clicker trainer. I have used a clicker, and quite successfully. Keller and Marian Breland were using clickers in 1943. In the modern use of the name CLICKER TRAINER, punishment, especially positive punishment, is "disallowed." I allow myself to use punishment if I believe it is necessary to accomplish the task and if the task merits the use of punishment. I rarely have need of punishment.'

source: http://www.clickersolutions.com/interviews/bailey.htm

Cesar Millan (from the book 'Be The Pack Leader' / page 44 - ISBN 978 0 340 97645 6):

'What I do is rehabilitation, although I absolutely 100% believe in positive reinforcement techniques for training purposes and rehabilitation, too, whenever possible. My philosophy about discipline and correction with any animal, for any purpose, is that they should always be applied with the least force necessary to accomplish the behaviour you asking for. And I do use positive reinforcement and food rewards all the time, in the appropriate situation. But I also believe there is a time and a place for every technique. The issue that many in the "positive-only" school of behaviour seem to have with me is that they believe I should be using treats and clickers to redirect some of the behaviour that I choose to correct with energy, body language, eye contact, and physical touch. I believe my techniques work on very difficult aggressive, obsessive, or anxious cases because they are a simple, common-sense approach based entirely on Mother Nature.'

Karen Pryor in a discussion about 'Aversive or Punishment':

...'If in real life you have to wade in with an aversive to stop something from happening—if you must yank a baby away from the light socket, stop a dog from grabbing the roast chicken off the table—so be it. Animals do reprimand (the official biologist term) their young and each other.

You'll have interrupted or stopped a dangerous event. Just don't kid yourself that you've taught or guaranteed any particular change for the future.'

source: http://www.clickertraining.com/node/1395

[Steph M]

Think its time to stop feeding the troll.

[Willem]

Willem

Discussing dog training with you is very difficult.

The scientists have very specific definitions for the words they use.

We can't have a discussion if you constantly change the definitions of technically specific words to suit yourself.

Ignoring means that the dog knows the cue but decide to ignore you and does something else (and that's just

undesirable behaviour).

A human can rarely claim to know what a dog knows. A dog might be able to respond to a cue in a specific context (place, state of excitement etc) but that cue is unknown in a different context. This is because dogs are largely crap at generalising.

So your understanding of what "ignore" means is clearly different to what Corvus (or any of the rest of us) mean by it. when Corvus (or Bob Bailey) study training methods - they do not concern themselves with what the dog might know or understand or feel. Only what the dog does or doesn't do. The dog's response. So no response might be considered "ignoring", and dead dogs are very good at that.

Changing the definition of a word doesn't make you right and the rest of us wrong. It just makes you impossible to have a useful discussion with.

maybe it doesn't help that also people experienced in this realm seem to use the terms loosely, e.g. I found this on the Karen Pryor site:

"Clicker trainers use no punishment."

Incorrect. Clicker trainers use negative punishment, which is the removal of something the dog wants. For example, ""penalty yards" (TM pending, Lana Horton)" is a common method used in teaching loose leash walking. The dog sees something it wants. As long as the dog walks nicely, the trainer lets it walk toward what it wants. However, if the dog pulls, the trainer walks the dog backwards. Walk nicely; get what you want—positive reinforcement. Pull; lose what you want—negative punishment. This method is extremely clear to the dog, because getting or losing what it wants is controlled by the dog's actions.

wrt the example the author of this article uses for negative punishment: yes, the dog loose what he wants, but the measure she applies (walking the dog backwards) requires that she applies also tension on the leash and force....which is positive punishment / aversive, or?...when Karen P. talks about the 'roast chicken on the table' (see my last post) she calls it aversive...

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

wrt the example the author of this article uses for negative punishment: yes, the dog loose what he wants, but the measure she applies (walking the dog backwards) requires that she applies also tension on the leash and force....which is positive punishment / aversive, or?...when Karen P. talks about the 'roast chicken on the table' (see my last post) she calls it aversive...

Aversive is not the same as positive punishment (aversive is not the same as negative re-inforcement).

It's only punishment if the behaviour decreases.

Hence

You'll have interrupted or stopped a dangerous event. Just don't kid yourself that you've taught or guaranteed any particular change for the future.'

Not getting the chicken (across the busy road) is aversive to the dog (something it doesn't like - depending on the dog), but the event described is not "punishment" because the next time dog sees chicken - its just as likely to attempt to get the chicken. No learning has taken place and no behaviour has changed.

she applies also tension on the leash and force....which is positive punishment / aversive

In this case - who is applying the tension and force? The trainer or the dog? When I'm training loose lead - I don't pull the dog backwards, I just stop moving forwards. You don't really get any learning or change in behaviour (re-inforcement or punishment) until the dog makes a choice of its own that you can encourage or discourage. If you're making the choices for the dog - nothing is going to change - you're not increasing or decreasing a behaviour so you're not punishing or re-inforcing.

Yes some trainers who claim to be "purely positive" are misusing the scientific based language but I don't think Karen Pryor and those part of her group do that.

But you, Willem, confuse the jargon with every post.

I hear you Steph.

I'm sick of arguing the semantics.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

2013 study on dog aggression towards humans...

One of the correlations is between aggression and training with aversives ie +P or -R

http://www.appliedanimalbehaviour.com/action/doSearch?searchType=quick&searchText=+Gemma+J.+Richards&occurrences=author&journalCode=applan&searchScope=fullSite

The use of positive punishment or negative reinforcement based training methods was associated with increased chance of aggression to family and unfamiliar people outside the house.

I had trouble (errors) trying to get the abstract and stuff up. Corvus might have better access to an online copy. I do wish academic texts included better layout for readability (line breaks between ideas).

edit which is not wish.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Mrs Rusty Bucket

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Steve White just shared this...

http://pupniron.com/laurie-s-blog/blog/just-shut-up-and-train

Agility people, you're great and completely off the hook here. It's no wonder people continue to flock to that sport because it is user friendly, forgiving and welcoming to all.

Except Agility - at least in ANKC - no +P allowed. No scolding or hitting the dog in the ring. No slip chain collars.