# What's your definition of a well-trained dog?



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

I have my idea. I was curious to hear what kinds of things other people value in training.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

Interesting topic, because from what I've seen, it can vary a lot. 

To me, a well-behaved dog is not the same thing as a well-trained dog. I would describe Kit as well-trained, or at least extensively trained, because she has good recall, good attention, and knows a million behaviors. She reads me very well and anticipates what I want from her. But I would not describe her as well-behaved. To me, well-behaved is calm, and with good people-manners (i.e. sits politely for petting, etc.). I know I'm in the minority when I say that I don't want a dog that is well-behaved.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> I know I'm in the minority when I say that I don't want a dog that is well-behaved.


Why do you want a dog that is not well-behaved?


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

I'd say that naturally well-behaved dogs are generally quite low drive, that's why they don't get into trouble. They're content just going for a walk and then just napping until the owner is ready to do stuff with them again. Medium/high drive dogs go for a walk, then look for other stuff to occupy them, so unless you channel that drive into something non-destructive, they'll get into trouble. I find, personally, that low drive dogs are very easy to live with, but medium/high drive dogs are more fun. 

I'd say Pixie is quite low drive, and she's seriously the perfect pet dog. She never gets into trouble and her self control is really good. She's difficult to motivate for agility and obedience stuff though, she tends to do well in short bursts and that's it. Obi is medium drive, and he struggles with self control, and his stays are not as good as I'd like. He's really easy to motivate for training, and he will keep going for ages with the same level of enthusiasm. But once we get home he needs something to do, like a chew toy or cardboard to rip up or similar. He demands much more of my time than what Pixie does.

But back to the question. To me a well-trained dog is a dog that knows several different commands and knows them well. Doesn't matter if it's obedience or some other sport, but it has to be more than one command, and it has to be reliable. So a dog that has a really reliable sit, but knows no other commands isn't well-trained.

I would consider my own dogs well trained, they know all the basic obedience stuff, are fairly reliable even at a distance, and they also know a bunch of tricks.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

I think context is important. A well trained family dog needs to have the basics: appropriate greeting behaviours, decent LLW, sit, downstay, recall and good bite inhibition. A well trained sports or obedience dog needs much more than that. To me, well trained is a SAFE DOG. Safe to take places, safe to meet people and other dogs (under proper circumstances) and safe to let off leash in appropriate areas.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

To me, well trained is a SAFE DOG. Safe to take places, safe to meet people and other dogs (under proper circumstances) and safe to let off leash in appropriate areas.>>>

Ill go with GottaLuvMutts as to a diff between well trained and well behaved. Trixie is fairly well trained but not always well behaved. And regardless of her training level I could never truly trust her in certain situations. She was born nervous and thats her default


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

jiml said:


> To me, well trained is a SAFE DOG. Safe to take places, safe to meet people and other dogs (under proper circumstances) and safe to let off leash in appropriate areas.>>>
> 
> Ill go with GottaLuvMutts as to a diff between well trained and well behaved. Trixie is fairly well trained but not always well behaved. And regardless of her training level I could never truly trust her in certain situations. She was born nervous and thats her default


I'll go with GottaLuvMutts too. BIG difference. I've got a funny feeling Caeda will eventually be reasonably well trained, but never completely well behaved. Unlike Lil_fuzzy I've got a VERY drivey dog. I also agree with you jiml, a well trained dog is a safe dog, but IMO a well behaved dog is even safer. 
To me a well trained dog will sit, down, stand, stay, drop and ESPECIALLY Come when you tell it to with little to no hesitation (I'm talking well trained pet, not a well trained working dog). A well trained and well behaved dog will do ALL of these things, and maybe more without being told in the right circumstances. For instance Caeda can be well behaved sometimes, she knows she will be asked to "down" before we greet her so we can put our things down when we get home from work, she has been told to for months Quite often she sees us pull up and she goes into a down by herself, though she can only restrain herself so long right now before the wiggle takes over . To me, that is well trained and well behaved (well....if she could restrain herself a little longer, it'll take time). Caeda is drivey and hyper, still a puppy of course, but I think some of it will last into adulthood, and that is her "defect", not saying it is completely bad, but it makes her a little more poorly behaved.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I think well-trained implies a great deal of consistency in different circumstances/environments, regardless of whether you're talking about manners or obedience or sport or whatever. I also agree with the distinction between well behaved and well trained. (I'd personally rather have a well behaved dog than a well trained dog.)


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Those who make the distinction between well-trained and well-behaved - is training not just the manipulation of behavior?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Well yes, but when I think of a dog who is well-behaved, in my mind that is a dog that naturally acts how humans think "good dogs" act vs having been trained to do something you ask it to do. I've had well behaved dogs that didn't have a lick of training in their lives (except what they may have picked up through osmosis or what I didn't intentionally train). 

Although there's certainly no reason that a well trained dog can't also be well behaved... I think to me at least it has to do with the kinds of behaviors you're talking about and whether they are things you asked the dog to do or it "just does". It's all sort of wooly, I admit, I hope I explained it ok.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> Those who make the distinction between well-trained and well-behaved - is training not just the manipulation of behavior?


I've noticed in a lot of people's definitions, a well behaved dog is a dog who doesn't offer much. If the dog isn't doing anything, he's certainly not being naughty. I think I prefer a well educated dog to a well trained dog and certainly to a well behaved dog. A well educated dog has learned how to learn, how to experiment, how to offer possible solutions to a situation. A well trained dog can respond to your solutions to a situation and be obedient. Some dogs are naturally well behaved, but some of them don't offer much because the way they have been trained has taught them that too much thinking, and too much action, is dangerous. I love corrupting those dogs.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

qingcong said:


> What's your definition of a well-trained dog?


WELL-TRAINED DOG: One who fetches beer from the fridge, AND puts the empties away too. :rockon:


Sorry, I know you guys were trying to have a SERIOUS discussion here, but .... :eyebrows:


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

I also think there is a distinction between well-trained and well-behaved. 

IMO, a well-behaved dog will follow the rules/structure/boundaries of the environment it is in without direction from the handler. 

A well-trained dog will obey cues from the handler in a variety of different situations.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

+two said:


> I also think there is a distinction between well-trained and well-behaved.
> 
> IMO, a well-behaved dog will follow the rules/structure/boundaries of the environment it is in without direction from the handler.
> 
> A well-trained dog will obey cues from the handler in a variety of different situations.


That's what I was trying to say, but more succinct.


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

I think I'm going to have to jump on the bandwagon. 

My childhood cairn terrier was very well behaved. She had no training -- walked terribly on the leash (but walked right next to you if you let her off leash), came when called frequently, liked nothing more than to lay next to you on the couch all day, was very friendly with strangers but still polite, 0 aggression, 0 fear. Got drivey for tennis balls but that was pretty much it. She didn't offer any "bad" behaviors, and I don't think there was any conscious effort to teach her to be that way.

I think "well-trained" implies intentional dialogue between human and dog. A dog who doesn't jump up because he has never thought to try it is well-behaved (in that capacity). A dog who doesn't jump up because there has been effort put in by the human to teach an alternative behavior (sit or down, etc) or to teach that jumping up doesn't get rewarded is well-trained. I think a dog can be various mixes for all kinds of different behaviors.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Lol fuzzy im afraid I have to disagree with you when you say a "well behaved dog" is low drive. Izze is VERY well behaved (well trained... Not so much, she knows NOTHING beyond the basics... Sit, stay, come, down, wait are all she knows) but she just naturally does the right thing 90% of the time. I csn leave her loose in the house & she will just lay on her bed & not mess anything up, not the trash, nothing.

Jo on the other hand is what I would consider very "well trained" she knows & is willing to learn ANYTHING & picks it up quickly but well behaved, I wouldn't say she is, she will try to pick naughty stuff off the ground (shell drop it tho) she digs & she needs to be fenced or confined as she is a roamer. Izze doesn't need a fence, she will not leave me.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

+two said:


> I also think there is a distinction between well-trained and well-behaved.
> 
> IMO, a well-behaved dog will follow the rules/structure/boundaries of the environment it is in without direction from the handler.
> 
> A well-trained dog will obey cues from the handler in a variety of different situations.


+2, +two -- well said.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

Cracker said:


> To me, well trained is a SAFE DOG. Safe to take places, safe to meet people and other dogs (under proper circumstances) and safe to let off leash in appropriate areas.


Eh, I have to disagree, Lady is a very well trained dog, trained to do all sorts of stuff, agility when her back was good, obedience, rally, herding, but she wasn't safe to meet other dogs, she has dog aggression, she doesn't mind it when they are around, but they need to leave her around, and I would never consider her "safe" to meet new dogs under any circumstances, she aggresses off leash and on in any environment.

Well-trained= Knows a variety of commands and can perform them in any circumstance without question, aka, 99% reliable (because we dogs are thinking creatures and therefore never 100%  ) 

Well-behaved= Doesn't jump on guests, counter surf, or engage in other inappropriate behaviors.

IMO drive has nothing to do with it.

Lady-high drive-well trained and behaved (except with other dogs, that's her weak spot)
Roonie-Low drive-okay trained, okay behaved
Kodi-medium drive -poorly trained, poorly behaved (but he still has a lot of mental growing to do, hes a puppy on the inside, a 60 pound dog on the outside.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

qingcong said:


> Why do you want a dog that is not well-behaved?


Hard to explain. I want (and have) a dog that tests boundaries. That has too much enthusiasm to play by the rules. That offers behaviors. That has an attitude. That thinks for themself. Naturally well-behaved dogs who just do as their told...well, I think I'd get bored pretty quickly. More than anything, I want a dog that will present a challenge for me.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Izze used to be like that when she was younger, testy, but she is no longer, she outgrew that crud at around 2. I hope Jo will too, she "knows" she isn't supposed to wonder off (which is the big one around here) but she can't be trusted, so she has to be managed accordingly til we get our fence built. Izze is well behaved but not well trained, she is aggressive to certain animals/ppl who don't "belong" where she lives (we work on a ranch that houses race horses, a few other ppl work here too) she quickly learns to distinguish btw the ppl who belong & those who dont, same with animals, she has np with animals on the property (goats.. There is a pet one here, dogs etc...) but if a strange dog shows up... Look out & im not bragging... But she "knows" how to kill another animal, she has killed numerous rabbits & such as well as a couple of coyotes that threatened me & my horse one day back when she was a young dog. Is she doesn't harm something, its BC she did t want to :/.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Hard to explain. I want (and have) a dog that tests boundaries. That has too much enthusiasm to play by the rules. That offers behaviors. That has an attitude. That thinks for themself. Naturally well-behaved dogs who just do as their told...well, I think I'd get bored pretty quickly. More than anything, I want a dog that will present a challenge for me.


I believe I know what you're getting at.

Kaki is, for the most part, a well behaved dog. I've put in plenty of training too but I'm working with what she gives me which isn't always a lot. 
There may be more fearful/underconfident dogs in my future but not as an only dog. I want a companion that will talk back more. Dialogue needs to be more than "Yes, Ma'am" and "No, Ma'am" for me. 

I get total warm fuzzy moments when Kaki cuts lose and is NOT well behaved. "Awwwww, you just bit my ankle again!! Good for you." I can't help but laugh when she screams at me or at squirrels. Screaming is relatively new from her.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> I've noticed in a lot of people's definitions, a well behaved dog is a dog who doesn't offer much. If the dog isn't doing anything, he's certainly not being naughty. I think I prefer a well educated dog to a well trained dog and certainly to a well behaved dog. A well educated dog has learned how to learn, how to experiment, how to offer possible solutions to a situation. A well trained dog can respond to your solutions to a situation and be obedient. Some dogs are naturally well behaved, but some of them don't offer much because the way they have been trained has taught them that too much thinking, and too much action, is dangerous. I love corrupting those dogs.


Very interesting. So... I mean, the whole point of training a dog, to me at least, is so that the dog can be better behaved - so that the dog can coexist with the human world in a harmonious way. 

What you say about a dog who offers behaviors, I'm on board with that. I want my dog to THINK. However, I think there's a certain point where the shapers get into training for the sake of training and not training for the sake of the dog.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)




----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Hard to explain. I want (and have) a dog that tests boundaries. That has too much enthusiasm to play by the rules. That offers behaviors. That has an attitude. That thinks for themself. Naturally well-behaved dogs who just do as their told...well, I think I'd get bored pretty quickly. More than anything, I want a dog that will present a challenge for me.



I totally understand where you're coming from. In the end, isn't your goal to shape all of that energy and enthusiasm into desirable behavior, at which point your dog can be considered "well-behaved"?


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

RBark said:


>




Yes, this is the popular definition of a "well-trained" dog.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> Very interesting. So... I mean, the whole point of training a dog, to me at least, is so that the dog can be better behaved - so that the dog can coexist with the human world in a harmonious way.
> 
> What you say about a dog who offers behaviors, I'm on board with that. I want my dog to THINK. However, I think there's a certain point where the shapers get into training for the sake of training and not training for the sake of the dog.


Well, I certainly shape a lot of behaviors I don't need except in a sport setting (or because they are so incredibly cute, or because my dog finds them fun and funny) But there are many other things I want my dogs to discover for themselves (give me eye contact at door ways, sit for greetings, keep the leash loose if you want to go that direction, etc.) because I don't want to have to constantly be telling them what to do. I think PART of the point of training a dog is so that the dog can be better behaved. I think another part is increasing communication and relationship, a common language and a bond. 

Some dogs are well behaved in a specific enviornment because they know what to expect in that environment. Some people intentionally expand that environment for their dogs. A dog may be well behaved around other dogs because they are naturally appropriate and not afraid of other dogs (which may be an inherent trait). They may be well trained around other dogs because their owner micromanages them, and they have been taught to stare at their owner instead of the scary dog. They may be well educated around other dogs because their owner has taken time to associate dogs with good stuff, and allow them to discover ways to deal with dogs besides staring at them and vocalize at them.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

My dog is intelligent, well-trained, well-behaved with people and dogs, but only 50% compliant with distractions, and independent. He has talked back to me since he was a pup... he performs, but may complain about it.

I think the point of training is not to get lots of behaviors and tricks (even though I do that), but to increase understanding of the rules, as well as communication as far as possible. 

I like PawzK9's definition of an educated dog. My dog is educated, understanding how to learn, and socialized, trying to engage everyone but walks away calmly when rebuffed.

When he retrieves the beer from the fridge, he takes a swig first, and checks for a few remaining drops when he disposes it. He's learned to do that with other beverages, and knows how to unscrew the top.  (No, he doesn't screw it back on, but he doesn't put an empty or near-empty container back in the fridge.)


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

At first, I was going to say that I consider my dogs well-behaved versus well-trained. I tend to say this because they don't really do anything special. They don't retrieve, they don't self-stack, they have no idea what weave poles are. But they _are _extremely well-behaved. They don't beg at the table, they don't jump on the furniture, they don't steal things off the kitchen counter, they don't eat my shoes or my drywall when I'm gone, they don't jump on people, they don't pull on the leash, they don't pick fights with other dogs, they don't growl at me when I go to take something away from them, they don't bark incessantly, etc, etc. These are all things that I have consciously trained away because they are behaviors that bother me. So I guess if I've trained them not to behave in those ways and they don't behave in those ways, then they are not just well-behaved, they are also well-trained.

Basically I want to own dogs that are a pleasure for me to be around. As long as I can get along with them and they are not a menace or a nuisance to others, I'm content with their "training."


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Okay, I guess I'm going to have to try again. lol.

My dog is somewhat fearful and leash reactive. I have trained her to come when called, leave it, sit, down and a few little tricks that release stress for her (spin both ways, jump on cue). These skills that I have trained in her are for her safety and the safety of others. I consider this well trained.

My dog accompanies most everywhere (I'm a dogwalker). She shops with me, goes to puppy training class, etc. She doesn't jump on people, bark at strangers in stores or on the street, will stay quietly outside a cafe while I get a coffee. She hasn't countersurfed in years, never was a chewer, will lay quietly while on visits to friends etc. I consider this well behaved.

All of my training goes towards my dog feeling safe, being safe and not being a threat to others. The rest is gravy.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

But what society thinks is a well trained dog may not be what I consider a well trained dog, behaviors that society thinks is Important i dont consider as such to others my dogs might not be well trained OR well behaved... Oh well


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Cracker said:


> I think context is important. A well trained family dog needs to have the basics: appropriate greeting behaviours, decent LLW, sit, downstay, recall and good bite inhibition. A well trained sports or obedience dog needs much more than that. To me, well trained is a SAFE DOG. Safe to take places, safe to meet people and other dogs (under proper circumstances) and safe to let off leash in appropriate areas.


i have a slight qualm with this as i feel that safety comes as a whole consisting of both aspects of dog behavior and aspects of human behavior. two dogs...relatively equivalent behavioral situation...one owner paying attention..the other not. one dog is therefore safer imo than the other..the one with the attentive owner..


which follows from the fact that i don't look at a dog as a singular unit unless they don't actually have an owner. i consider "well trained" to include taking the measure of the owner's behavior as well. when i look at you and your dog..im looking at you as a cohesive unit and judging you on that basis. your dog could have excellent reflexes, be attentive and intuitive and could still come off as ill trained/inept if the owner is bumbling timing, not paying attention, being reactionary or overly punitive etc.


----------



## dantero (Feb 2, 2011)

People see my dogs all the time and think they are well behaved. They aren't, they are well trained. They aren't badly behaved but they aren't well behaved either LOL They don't come out of the crate/vehicle until I tell them they can, they have titles in a wide variety of sports, they have a wide range of behaviors they know that aren't sport specific but just taught "because", etc. Around the house I leave them loose when I'm not home, but in the bedroom because if I gave them the run of the house they would probably get into the trash or steal something off the table. When it's just family at home they are calm and just hang out, when people come over they rush the door barking, and then pester those people to play fetch or tug with them. They may or may not jump on you, and if you put your plate of food down on the coffee table and I'm not there to tell them "no" you aren't going to have any food when you get back from the bathroom. Are they horrible monsters to live with? No, because I don't do things like leave my plate on the coffee table, I tell them "off" when I don't want them jumping on me but I do invite them to jump up on me sometimes also. Basically they live by my rules, don't do things I don't want, and do the things I do want. IE well trained, not well behaved, at least not by the normal pet owner's standards. It's training (what I teach them) vs behavior (what comes naturally).

There really is a difference between the two, and that difference can get a lot of owners into trouble, they see a very well trained dog out in public, and think they want one just like that, assuming it's naturally well behaved. They go get a member of that breed, and can't figure out why their dog doesn't just magically act like the dogs they have met, having no idea how much training went into the dog to modify it's behaviors.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i have a slight qualm with this as i feel that safety comes as a whole consisting of both aspects of dog behavior and aspects of human behavior. two dogs...relatively equivalent behavioral situation...one owner paying attention..the other not. one dog is therefore safer imo than the other..the one with the attentive owner..
> 
> 
> which follows from the fact that i don't look at a dog as a singular unit unless they don't actually have an owner. i consider "well trained" to include taking the measure of the owner's behavior as well. when i look at you and your dog..im looking at you as a cohesive unit and judging you on that basis. your dog could have excellent reflexes, be attentive and intuitive and could still come off as ill trained/inept if the owner is bumbling timing, not paying attention, being reactionary or overly punitive etc.


You can have a qualm..but only if it's slight..lol.
I totally agree with what you say. Good dog AND good behaviour/training is what makes a dog safe..not just ONE or the other.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

This is a good topic! It really makes you think!

Harper knows sit, stay, turn around (our command for spin), quiet, gentle, settle, shake, look, touch. He has no behavior problems at home. He doesn't chew shoes or woodwork, he doesn't have accidents, he doesn't have separation anxiety, he isn't destructive. He has no resource guarding issues. He can entertain himself, and he's a big cuddler. He will follow commands willingly, and seems to love to do a good job at whatever he does. He's agreeable and attentive. If you knew this Harper, you'd think he was a well trained dog.

But, Harper is leash reactive and fearful. When he was a very young puppy he was frightened on walks and around other dogs. Not knowing any better, my behavior did NOTHING to help him overcome this. After finding this site and doing some other research, I have tried super hard to make Harper feel safe, which, in turn, makes me feel more confident that he's going to behave in a safe way, and that, in turn, makes other people think he's safe.

We've also worked to get him to feel safe by finding his threshold (the distance he needs to feel safe and not react around other dogs), keeping under that threshold, getting his attenion, and very gradually, expanding his threshold. We use our training/commands on walks to help him feel confident, and also to get his attention away from his trigger when we have to.

He is so much better, but, sometimes, something will freak him out. Maybe it's a motorcycle (he HATES that!) that just happens to zoom by at the same exact time as another dog approaches. Maybe, it's the high school cross country track team that occasionally runs by on our walking route. Every once in awhile, the stars align and he has a reactive episode. And, if you were watching him when that happened, you'd think he was aggressive and untrained.

So, for me, as trained as he is, and as hard as Harper and I work,you wouldn't think he was well behaved or even well trained if you saw him at one of his bad moments. 
I guess my point is, can training always manipulate the behavior, creating a well behaved dog? I mean, I consider him a work in progress, and reading Cracker's post, with her fearful dog gives me hope. But, I guess I'm just doubting that training can help *all *dogs be well behaved in *all* situations.


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

Mandy is well trained when we do our obedience routine, ShutzH, carting, or whatever we're doing for the moment ... That doesn't mean that she necessarily offer those kinds of behaviors out of context, some go with the avenue they're trained for and nothing else, while other behaviors carries over to every day life. 
She was well behaved today when I could walk with her across "Jack Rabbit Field" (in our local state forest) unleashed and when she came back on recall even though she was tracking a rabbit (she came back running/hopping backwards and whining, but she came back, lol). 
My dog is both well behaved and well trained and I still get numerous 'offers' of behaviors I'm not always expecting and she makes me laugh all the time. Most of all, she loves to train. That is seriously the most fun she has. If she sees me go towards our practice area she'll come running from wherever she is, hopping and skipping hoping for a training session, that's the only reason we've trained as far as we have.


----------



## R.Scott (Sep 18, 2011)

To me:

A well-behaved dog is one that doesn't bite, doesn't bark wildly at random things, and doesn't go to the bathroom in the house, just an all-round good good.
A well-trained dog is one that knows how to sit, down, stay, come, fetch, drop, speak, dance, and practically does everything it's told to do with the command only being spoken once.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

hanksimon said:


> My dog is intelligent, well-trained, well-behaved with people and dogs, but only 50% compliant with distractions, and independent. He has talked back to me since he was a pup... he performs, but may complain about it.



I think this part here points out some philosophical differences between you and I. I don't want to make my dog do stuff he doesn't want to do. Whatever I train him to do, I want him to be glad to do it, not do it just because I told him to do it. I never bust out a verbal cue if I can't bet $10 that he'll do it or if I can't enforce it somehow.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

I have pretty low standards but as long as the dog is not acting aggressively towards people/dogs in an environment, doesn't try to knock people over, chase after stuff that isn't a toy I've thrown or at least can be called back when chasing something that's good enough for me.

Edit: I forgot no barking randomly or continuously. Alert barking is fine but when told to quiet down will comply.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

doxiemommy said:


> So, for me, as trained as he is, and as hard as Harper and I work,you wouldn't think he was well behaved or even well trained if you saw him at one of his bad moments.
> I guess my point is, can training always manipulate the behavior, creating a well behaved dog? I mean, I consider him a work in progress, and reading Cracker's post, with her fearful dog gives me hope. But, I guess I'm just doubting that training can help *all *dogs be well behaved in *all* situations.



A dog's genetic make up will always dictate their initial reaction to an unfamiliar situation. I think our goal as trainers is to try to expose the dog to as many situations as possible so that there are no unfamiliar situations to the dog. If you know a situation is going to be rough because your dog's default reaction is to freak and you know that you have not done the required training for the situation, then the dog probably would be safer not being exposed to that scenario in the meantime. Sometimes real life takes over and we unfortunately have to deal, but we need to learn for next time and have a gameplan in case.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> which follows from the fact that i don't look at a dog as a singular unit unless they don't actually have an owner. i consider "well trained" to include taking the measure of the owner's behavior as well. when i look at you and your dog..im looking at you as a cohesive unit and judging you on that basis. your dog could have excellent reflexes, be attentive and intuitive and could still come off as ill trained/inept if the owner is bumbling timing, not paying attention, being reactionary or overly punitive etc.



Yeah, I agree with this, which is why I've done a lot of inconclusive thinking about Pawzk9's idea of a "well educated" dog. It seems that the definition of well educated is just a very well trained dog, a dog who has learned how to learn, but the education could quickly deteriorate in the hands of a hack trainer. To me, I equate education with knowledge, something permanent. So is a well educated dog even possible? I don't know.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

to me it includes:

-walking loose leash on FLAT collars
-the ability to easily switch between heel and "free walking"
-solid recall
-solid sit and down
-not harrassing other dogs or animals(staring and following is ok, just no nipping or picking on) 
-hand me body parts for grooming/first aid(ie, Happy got a cut on her ear and it got all built up and goopy, to clean it up we took out a bowl of warm soapy water and Happy laid her ear in the water to soak without fuss)
-"check in" with me regularly when off leash
-NEVER walk on the road without a direct order(ie if space is short, I will walk on the road, but the dogs are to remain on the sidewalk)
-a short greeting is OK, but "crazy" dogs drive me batty, running and skidding around me whining is NOT ok, I will loose my temper VERY quickly.
-no jumping up unless asked 

I am not a total disiplinarian, but when I spend 9 hours a day around large dogs with no manners, the last thing I want to come home to is 7 dogs doing the same thing! I was not even close to this strict before I started working at the daycare lol, the more hours I worked there the stricter I got on my dogs lol


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

qingcong said:


> So... I mean, the whole point of training a dog, to me at least, is so that the dog can be better behaved - so that the dog can coexist with the human world in a harmonious way.


And herein lies the answer to your question: "Isn't your goal to shape all of that energy and enthusiasm into a desirable behavior?" My answer is no. I'm not trying to shape the energy and enthusiasm into anything, because that would imply that they're a bad thing that I'm trying to extinguish or change, which is not the case. Instead, I'm trying to channel the enthusiasm into productive activities such as agility, tricks, and disc. But I still want that energy and enthusiasm to remain. For me, the point of training isn't to get the dog to better coexist with humans. Instead, training is a lifetime journey, and even the best behaved dog can benefit from it. It's not for the sake of the humans, but for the sake of the dog, who needs to use that brain. 

That said, any new dog will need to be taught to coexist with humans in a harmonious way before you can begin to train other things. Example, the dog should learn bite inhibition before "spin". Most people stop training when they can coexist happily with their canine at its current level of training. I just don't see why learning has to end there.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

qingcong said:


> A dog's genetic make up will always dictate their initial reaction to an unfamiliar situation. I think our goal as trainers is to try to expose the dog to as many situations as possible so that there are no unfamiliar situations to the dog. If you know a situation is going to be rough because your dog's default reaction is to freak and you know that you have not done the required training for the situation, then the dog probably would be safer not being exposed to that scenario in the meantime. Sometimes real life takes over and we unfortunately have to deal, but we need to learn for next time and have a gameplan in case.


But, that's my point about having a reactive dog....we have done the training, lots and lots of training, and employed a behaviorist. And, 90% of the time he is calm in situations that used to trigger his reactivity. So, let's suppose two of his triggers happen at the same time, the motorcycle and the other dog approaching. He could deal with the motorcycle, he could deal with the dog, but both together triggered a reaction. So, once that trigger has caused him to be reactive, he's past his threshold, and the best thing I can do is move away from the dog, go to a quiet area, and get him focused with some training exercises.

In all our training, and working with him, I know to watch for things that might trigger him, and prepare, timing is everything, but, as you say, real life, and a motorcycle zooming from nowhere makes the do-able challenge of the approaching dog suddenly not do-able. So, this lovely, sweet, cuddly, agreeable dog becomes a growling mess.
Thankfully not nearly as often as before, though! 

Now, Abby, on the other hand, she will walk quietly at my side, no matter what we see. She doesn't bark, or really react to anything. But, at home, she's not quite as agreeable as Harper. She will definitely respond, but she can be a tiny little firecracker, at times! If you ran into us on one of Harper's bad days, you'd think Abby was, by far, the better trained, and better behaved of the two. But, on most days, they both have good manners.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

qingcong said:


> Yeah, I agree with this, which is why I've done a lot of inconclusive thinking about Pawzk9's idea of a "well educated" dog. It seems that the definition of well educated is just a very well trained dog, a dog who has learned how to learn, but the education could quickly deteriorate in the hands of a hack trainer. To me, I equate education with knowledge, something permanent. So is a well educated dog even possible? I don't know.


there's something you are missing. 

education isnt permanent. not even in humans. the very nature of the brain denies the assertion that education has a finite quality to it. 

i can go to college, make good grades and thereby get into the habit of doing what im told in a timely fashion, qualifying me for any number of cubicle zombie positions. this would be training. 

or. . . i can go to college, develop solid logical foundations, embrace sound philosophy, beef up my critical thinking skills, explore the knowledge im given and work to grow it in a productive manner. this would be education. 

on that basis. . extrapolated to dogs. . . i want an educated dog. of course that doesnt mean i want a dog who can discuss Kant or rational functions. i want a partner. i dont want a subservient automaton.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> there's something you are missing.
> 
> education isnt permanent. not even in humans. the very nature of the brain denies the assertion that education has a finite quality to it.


Yeah, I was thinking about this before and I can't really think of anything in my life that I actually know infinitely. Addition is pretty simple, but ask me to add numbers in the thousands and I might get it wrong. If I'm drunk I might get 3+4 wrong. 





> i can go to college, make good grades and thereby get into the habit of doing what im told in a timely fashion, qualifying me for any number of cubicle zombie positions. this would be training.
> 
> or. . . i can go to college, develop solid logical foundations, embrace sound philosophy, beef up my critical thinking skills, explore the knowledge im given and work to grow it in a productive manner. this would be education.


Are these your definitions or the commonly accepted definitions of well-trained and well-educated? My human equivalent of a well-educated person is a professor, one who got good grades and plays by the rules in life. The description you give for a well-educated person sounds a little bit more like a self-taught highly-motivated college drop-out like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. 

I've never heard of the term "well-educated" used on a dog before I started this thread. It's an interesting idea.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> And herein lies the answer to your question: "Isn't your goal to shape all of that energy and enthusiasm into a desirable behavior?" My answer is no. I'm not trying to shape the energy and enthusiasm into anything, because that would imply that they're a bad thing that I'm trying to extinguish or change, which is not the case.


Even if all of that energy and enthusiasm manifests itself into chewing up furniture, jumping and nipping at your kids, lunging at people and dogs on the sidewalk, etc? For a lot of people, as evidenced by Dog Whisperer, It's Me or The Dog, and people on these forums, just training the dog to coexist in a human setting is a lifelong commitment. 





> That said, any new dog will need to be taught to coexist with humans in a harmonious way before you can begin to train other things. Example, the dog should learn bite inhibition before "spin". Most people stop training when they can coexist happily with their canine at its current level of training. I just don't see why learning has to end there.


Agreed, I always want to challenge my dog's body and mind. It's not fair that every animal in the world except for the common house dog gets to work.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

qingcong said:


> Are these your definitions or the commonly accepted definitions of well-trained and well-educated? My human equivalent of a well-educated person is a professor, one who got good grades and plays by the rules in life. The description you give for a well-educated person sounds a little bit more like a self-taught highly-motivated college drop-out like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.


Bill Gates type dude and professor type dude are the same guy by my view. they can and do apply the knowledge theyve accumulated using the skills they used to accumulate them.

it's my metaphorically inclined explanation rather than any solid attempt at putting forth a definition of any kind. 



I've never heard of the term "well-educated" used on a dog before I started this thread. It's an interesting idea.[/QUOTE]


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Originally Posted by Pawzk9 
I've noticed in a lot of people's definitions, a well behaved dog is a dog who doesn't offer much. If the dog isn't doing anything, he's certainly not being naughty. I think I prefer a well educated dog to a well trained dog and certainly to a well behaved dog. A well educated dog has learned how to learn, how to experiment, how to offer possible solutions to a situation. A well trained dog can respond to your solutions to a situation and be obedient. Some dogs are naturally well behaved, but some of them don't offer much because the way they have been trained has taught them that too much thinking, and too much action, is dangerous. I love corrupting those dogs.>>>>>

LOL, yeah those well behaved non thinking dogs must have been made that way by prong collars. unbelievable

I think your definition of a well behaved dog is diff than mine.


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

jiml said:


> LOL, yeah those well behaved non thinking dogs must have been made that way by prong collars. unbelievable
> 
> I think your definition of a well behaved dog is diff than mine.


We clearly all have different definitions, but Pawz didn't say anything about prong collars, so I'm not totally sure what you're getting at here. Is this your sincere opinion or were you trying to poke fun at something Pawz didn't actually say?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> Yeah, I was thinking about this before and I can't really think of anything in my life that I actually know infinitely. Addition is pretty simple, but ask me to add numbers in the thousands and I might get it wrong. If I'm drunk I might get 3+4 wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think of well trained as being able to follow directions well. I think of well educated as having enough information to be able to figure out the likely correct response without directions. THat would be whether you are diplomaed or not. I don't really expect my dogs to be able to design i-pods, but I'd like for them to know what to do with a leash, and what the proper position for being greeted might be without me having to tell them..


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Wouldn't the working definition of a well-educated dog/person also mean that the dog/person is also well-trained?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

qingcong said:


> Wouldn't the working definition of a well-educated dog/person also mean that the dog/person is also well-trained?


From my point of view, no. I mean, a well-educated person/dog _could_ be well-trained. But to me training is to do a specific behavior. You get trained to do your bank clerking job, if you were well-trained you'd be a good bank clerk. Being well-educated is more general, has a broader spectrum. You know how to think for yourself and how to use that thinking.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Willowy said:


> Being well-educated is more general, has a broader spectrum. You know how to think for yourself and how to use that thinking.


A lot of people are born with this skill and are naturally better at it than others. Does that make them more educated than the ones who have intentionally practiced trying to think critically?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> Wouldn't the working definition of a well-educated dog/person also mean that the dog/person is also well-trained?


Yes, but I think it goes beyond that. It's not just a dog knowing how to respond to a cue (or command) it's a dog who knows what will work in a situation without necessarily being told.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> A lot of people are born with this skill and are naturally better at it than others. Does that make them more educated than the ones who have intentionally practiced trying to think critically?


Different people (and dogs?) have different degrees of talent in various areas. But the skill is always going to improve with nurturing. That's true for the individual with talent and true of the individual with less talent.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

qingcong said:


> Even if all of that energy and enthusiasm manifests itself into chewing up furniture, jumping and nipping at your kids, lunging at people and dogs on the sidewalk, etc? For a lot of people, as evidenced by Dog Whisperer, It's Me or The Dog, and people on these forums, just training the dog to coexist in a human setting is a lifelong commitment.


Well, sure. You have to make sure that the dog is trained enough that it's not a burden to live with. As I said, this kind of training is paramount, and must come first. A lot of people never get beyond it. But what if you do? What if you can peacefully co-exist with your dog and all of its current behaviors. Then the dog just becomes a lump on a log? I can't see my dog tolerating that for long. She might start acting out, which wouldn't be her fault, and isn't a training issue, in my opinion. 

But let's go back to the original topic...

I'm toying with an idea: What if well-behaved is something ingrained (i.e. genetic), and well-trained is something you can change (i.e. environmental). Maybe that's what you all have been talking about already. But it sort of resonates with me: Kit is very well-trained, but no matter how much time/effort I put into it, or how much exercise she gets, she will never be well-behaved. And that's ok by me. As far as I'm concerned, being well-behaved is overrated (within reason, of course, though - no one likes a dog that chews furniture, mauls children, and attacks other dogs).

Also, qing, how many professors do you know personally? I wouldn't necessarily say that they "play by the rules in life". Generally, they're very curious, think critically, and have a passion for their area of interest. But they can absolutely be rule breakers. In some areas of interest, it takes a rule-breaker personality to be successful.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> Different people (and dogs?) have different degrees of talent in various areas. But the skill is always going to improve with nurturing. That's true for the individual with talent and true of the individual with less talent.


Yes, exactly. I will discuss my thoughts on this in my last paragraph.





GottaLuvMutts said:


> Also, qing, how many professors do you know personally? I wouldn't necessarily say that they "play by the rules in life". Generally, they're very curious, think critically, and have a passion for their area of interest. But they can absolutely be rule breakers. In some areas of interest, it takes a rule-breaker personality to be successful.


Actually... I bought it up because I work in a lab at an engineering school so I know a lot of profs here. My dad is a professor. I agree there is a lot of overlap between professors and simply creative type thinkers. Maybe it wasn't the best example to use, but I felt that the definition of "well-educated" was starting to get a little watered down, that it simply meant it was a rebellious thinker.

It's kind of funny how everybody except for me became an expert on the definition of a well-educated dog all of a sudden. I think I understand what you guys are saying, but I believe the definition of well-educated needs to be revised from what has been given. Maybe it should go more like this - "a well-educated dog is a dog who with extensive training from a human has learned to solve problems in a way the human appreciates". Does any problem solving dog qualify as educated? Think about it; would we call a dog who has figured out how to escape the crate, open pantry doors, and will soon figure out how to wiggle out of its buckle collar on a walk well-educated? Without a clear definition we create lots of grey areas.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

FilleBelle said:


> We clearly all have different definitions, but Pawz didn't say anything about prong collars, so I'm not totally sure what you're getting at here. Is this your sincere opinion or were you trying to poke fun at something Pawz didn't actually say?



maybe im reading to far into this quote "Some dogs are naturally well behaved, but some of them don't offer much because the way they have been trained has taught them that too much thinking, and too much action, is dangerous."


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

jiml said:


> maybe im reading to far into this quote "Some dogs are naturally well behaved, but some of them don't offer much because the way they have been trained has taught them that too much thinking, and too much action, is dangerous."


It seems like Pawz is referring to shut down dogs. The way these dogs have been taught leads them to doing absolutely nothing because that's the only way they know to avoid aversives. Many, many people would call a shut down dog a well behaved dog. I would know as I used to own one.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> maybe im reading to far into this quote "Some dogs are naturally well behaved, but some of them don't offer much because the way they have been trained has taught them that too much thinking, and too much action, is dangerous."


It mentions "some". If it doesn't describe your dog, no reason to take offense. I think you are reading too much into it.


----------



## Sibe (Nov 21, 2010)

-Is immediately responsive to your commands no matter what distractions.
-Has good manners. Like no jumping up on people uninvited, no counter surfing or getting into the trash, no begging, no excessive barking.
-Has impulse control, for example won't lunge out the front door as soon as it's opened.
-Knows basic obedience like sit, down, stay, and come. Doesn't pull when on a walk.
-Is well socialized. Plays nice with dogs of all sizes and ages, doesn't panic around any specific group like children, people with hats, old men, etc., as well as not being afraid of or reacting to random things like statues or shiny floors or mirrors.
-Respects a person's space. I can't stand when a dog just throws itself at you and is pushy and demanding for your attention and won't back off.


----------



## Averyismypei (May 24, 2010)

To me well trained would be, a polite dog. One who knows how to act accordingly, a well balanced dog. One that knows it, ly down, come, stay, doesn't bark and bark, no pulling the lead on walks, no jumping on people. But then when its play time runs and plays happily. Not a robot dog, just one that has good manners.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Averyismypei said:


> To me well trained would be, a polite dog. One who knows how to act accordingly, a well balanced dog. One that knows it, ly down, come, stay, doesn't bark and bark, no pulling the lead on walks, no jumping on people. But then when its play time runs and plays happily. Not a robot dog, just one that has good manners.



What if a dog is naturally like that even if the human made no attempt to create those behaviors? Is the dog still well trained?


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Instead of just asking a bunch of questions, I'll finally post my thoughts. 

A lot of people keep bringing up the difference between well-behaved and well-trained. There is not a mutually exclusive relationship between those two. A dog can be well-behaved because he naturally is or because he's been trained that way. Training is simply the altering of behavior, it's not about obeying cues. I would consider obeying cues to be more or less a whipped dog. 

My idea of well-trained is basically a variation of the literal definition of well-trained, from an operant conditioning point of view. Training = Operant Conditioning = Increasing or decreasing behavior through consequences. Now, a dog who learns that jumping can get the leash put on is an example of a training. The behavior of jumping has increased, but I would not consider that well-trained because the human made no deliberate attempt to train that. Also, a dog who is well-trained in House A may need to be completely retrained in House B. So then again there's some grey area. 

I think my definition of well-trained is, "A dog who with the deliberate attempt from a human has learned specific behaviors to do and to not do in all scenarios that the dog will encounter in life".


----------



## Puptart (Jan 25, 2011)

As long as they show the carpet the same consideration they show me it's all good lol


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

qingcong said:


> Instead of just asking a bunch of questions, I'll finally post my thoughts.
> 
> A lot of people keep bringing up the difference between well-behaved and well-trained. There is not a mutually exclusive relationship between those two. A dog can be well-behaved because he naturally is or because he's been trained that way. Training is simply the altering of behavior, it's not about obeying cues. *I would consider obeying cues to be more or less a whipped dog.*
> 
> ...



Errr, no. My dogs obey cues, but they do it because they think it's fun (due to how they were trained) and because they think there's possibly a reward in it for them. I wouldn't consider them "whipped". Whipped to me suggests they are grudgingly obeying because they have to, not because they want to.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

lil_fuzzy said:


> Errr, no. My dogs obey cues, but they do it because they think it's fun (due to how they were trained) and because they think there's possibly a reward in it for them. I wouldn't consider them "whipped". Whipped to me suggests they are grudgingly obeying because they have to, not because they want to.


Absolutely, I agree. Having stimulus control when presented a cue can be achieved with R+ or R-. My feeling is, "obeying" indicates the dog is doing it because the human said so, implying that R- was used. I don't like to think of my dog as "obeying" my cues, I want him to be willing to do it for himself because good things happen, which is achieved through R+. So yes, we're on the same page. 

In this thread I felt that people started to frown on a well-trained dog as if it's a dog who only does stuff when told to. That's the old fashion, aversive training definition of "well-trained". I don't think of dogs trained using R+ as the robot dogs of the past.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

I agree this thread seems to be leaning towards saying that dogs that obey and behave themselves are low drive or shut down..which is total BS. I own 2 working BCs, a Toller and a JRT, I dont know what "low drive" is lol, I am also not a strictly postive trainer, but my dogs listen and are not shut down, they offer behaviours when I WANT them too, and obey commands when I give them commands. I apperntly expect a lot from my dogs compared to other people..but like I said I used to tolate a lot more till I started working at a daycare..and after a day of dogs hurling themselves at me, slamming me into fences, running around my feet in exitments whining and moving so fast I cant catch them, barking in my face, ignoring recalls, yanking on leashes, biting if I grab their collars, fighting me if I need to do bandage changes etc..? dealing with anything silier at home? no thanks!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Miss Bugs said:


> I agree this thread seems to be leaning towards saying that dogs that obey and behave themselves are low drive or shut down..which is total BS.


I would LOVE to know just where in this thread you think you read that.


----------



## libbenstein (Aug 23, 2010)

As i read though this post, i admit i didn't read everything, there seems to be a trend going on here...the old argument of nurture vs nature, and personal opinion. i think we all pretty much agree that a well behaved/trained dog will not potty where they are not suppose to but to me a well behaved/trained dog will not get on the furniture without being invited and i know there are several out there that don't believe that. it really comes down to (IMO) that well behaved dogs learned how to learn when they were puppies, they learned how to problem solve and learned consequences (like when you were a kid, you only stuck your tongue on the flagpole in winter once) compared to being told what to do all the time. i think my boys are very well behaved but then again i love to be smothered with puppy kisses and lovin' when i get home from work. i love having them follow me around the house to talk to. i think the fact that i can have a conversation with my dogs is awesome (and to those of you that do that...do you hear the inflection in their "voice" like i do?) but MR learned how to walk on a leash, it started out really bad with him pulling all the time but the more he pulled the slower i would go, now he walks next to me, most of the time, and it is time for his bother to learn.

do you guys know what i mean?


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> I would LOVE to know just where in this thread you think you read that.


I think that she was implying that it was implied...lol. Which I think it was also.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> I think that she was implying that it was implied...lol. Which I think it was also.


The thing about "implied" is that it is frequently in the mind of the reader, even if not in the mind of the writer. I'm not responsible for what anyone reads into my posts.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> The thing about "implied" is that it is frequently in the mind of the reader, even if not in the mind of the writer. I'm not responsible for what anyone reads into my posts.


Actually Miss Bugs said the THREAD is leaning in that direction, and YOUR post wasn't the only one she was referring to (if she was referring to yours at all) when she made that generalization....
As an example, qingcong actually said,"I would consider obeying cues to be, more or less, a whipped dog".

So, if she got the idea that the thread was leaning in the direction of "dogs that obey and behave themselves are low drive or shut down..." it wasn't just from you. Don't take it so personally.... 
It's just her (and dogdragoness') view on what you and others have been saying.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> Instead of just asking a bunch of questions, I'll finally post my thoughts.
> 
> A lot of people keep bringing up the difference between well-behaved and well-trained. There is not a mutually exclusive relationship between those two. A dog can be well-behaved because he naturally is or because he's been trained that way. Training is simply the altering of behavior, it's not about obeying cues. I would consider obeying cues to be more or less a whipped dog.
> .


What does obeying cues have to do with being whipped? I certainly want my dog to take some cues from the environment (leash is on, don't make it tight, door opens, check with the human) but there are many occasions when I expect them to obey my cues. But they don't look whipped, and I don't whip them to get it to happen.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

I think when qingcong said,"I would consider obeying cues to be, more or less, a whipped dog", that statement was going to be mis-interpreted by ...'someone' that a trained dog is a beaten down dog. I think we all agree that is not the case.

(If I hit my dog, he thinks I want to play. I have to yell also. When I stop yelling, then he bites... b/c I must be playing  )

However, I want to elevate above the "operant conditioning point of view" to a Gagne' Educational Psychology (Cognitive) point of view that dogs are thinking animals. My personal belief/interpretation is that operant conditioning is a good method for establishing communication, so that a dog starts to learn the rules. 

Although we all have dogs that don't do exactly what we want, I believe that many of us have experienced dogs who have observed and learned over the years to anticipate our habits and gestures. This could be explained by operant conditioning, but it is Not intentional training. A common example is the dog who learns to retrieve his leash as you prepare to take him for a walk. Another example is Chaser (and maybe Rico) who understand how to retrieve Novel toys.

I don't think that these behaviors fit into the conventional boundaries of behavioral psychology ;-)


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> What does obeying cues have to do with being whipped? I certainly want my dog to take some cues from the environment (leash is on, don't make it tight, door opens, check with the human) but there are many occasions when I expect them to obey my cues. But they don't look whipped, and I don't whip them to get it to happen.



I have a hard time justifying the term "obey" with regards to communicating with my dog. To obey makes it sound one-sided, and I always want the lines of communication to go both ways. The reason why it bugs me is that if a dog does not correctly perform the cue, then we might misinterpret it as "not obeying" us. If we see it as disobedience, we have no choice but to use an aversive method until the dog "obeys" us, when really the dog just needs more training.


----------

