# Does Operant Conditioning for Dummies Exist?



## Analogdog (Apr 3, 2012)

I must be on my 10th book on dog training that dives off the deep end into the details of operant conditioning. I guess I need to figure this out, and I seem to be having trouble especially with the 4 types and how they are different.

I guess I must be a little slow on the uptake, as I still can't fix it in my brain. Anyway is there some book, pdf, image that caused you to get operant conditioning?

Yes, I am looking into dog training as a career.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Analogdog said:


> I must be on my 10th book on dog training that dives off the deep end into the details of operant conditioning. I guess I need to figure this out, and I seem to be having trouble especially with the 4 types and how they are different.
> 
> I guess I must be a little slow on the uptake, as I still can't fix it in my brain. Anyway is there some book, pdf, image that caused you to get operant conditioning?
> 
> Yes, I am looking into dog training as a career.


Have you read "Don't Shoot the Dog" by Karen Pryor?


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

I think the problem is that operant conditioning uses words in weird ways. What confused me is the use of the words "positive" and "negative". Unlike normal conversation, where "positive" means "good" and "negative" means "bad", in OC, "positive" means "adding" and "negative" means "taking away". Once I figured that out, it started to click.

Actually, "Operant conditioning for dummies" is a popular google search. This article seems fairly good.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

What have you read already? That might help suggest something new to you. 

You might find a basic psychology or education text that has a good explanation. Also, Sophia Yin has a few articles / blog posts on her site (here's one example: Which category of operant conditioning is it?).


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

It helps me if I break the words down individually.
Negative = Taking away a stimulus
Positive = Adding a stimulus
Punishment = A stimulus the dog finds unpleasant (aversive)
Reinforcement = A stimulus the dog finds rewarding 

With operant conditioning you are always either trying to increasing the likelihood of a behavior reoccurring or decrease the likelihood of it reoccurring by providing consequences the dog finds either aversive or rewarding. 

One of the confusing things for me is that it is what the DOG finds aversive or rewarding so it can vary between dogs. For example, one dog might find being squirted with a squirt bottle aversive while another might enjoy it and find it reinforcing.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

To add to Gally's comments, 

punishment = reduces likelihood of behavior occurring
reinforcement = increases likelihood of behavior occurring


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

When you would use them:

To increase the likelihood of a behavior reoccurring you could use:
a) positive reinforcement ex. giving a treat when a dog does something desired
b) negative reinforcement ex. relieving pressure on a collar when a dog does something desired

To decrease the likelihood of a behavior reoccurring you could use:
a) positive punishment ex. giving a corrective leash pop when a dog does something undesired
b) negative punishment ex. taking a treat away when a dog does something undesired


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

I think another part of the confusion is that many situations could be classified as more than one quadrant, depending on how you look at it. For instance, say you have a prong collar on a dog (I wouldn't) and the collar gigs the dog. If it works, is it positive punishment (the act of pulling has been punished by the collar and so is less likely to occur) or negative reinforcment. (the act of walking with a loose leash is rewarded by the collar discomfort being relieved)? It can be seen as both or either, and opposite quadrants (+P/-R or +R/-P) are frequently used together to make the point clearer. (you jump on me, the attention goes away (-P) and then you keep your feet on the ground, you get attention AND cookies! (+R)


----------



## Analogdog (Apr 3, 2012)

This is a great thread, glad to hear you all have been stumped in the past, too. I am planning to read "Don't Shoot the Dog" when I get home from a short vacation. Thanks all.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Gally said:


> When you would use them:
> 
> To increase the likelihood of a behavior reoccurring you could use:
> a) positive reinforcement ex. giving a treat when a dog does something desired
> ...



Yep. 

Operant conditioning isn't that hard. I think people complicate it more than it really is. 

In essence, you're either:

Giving the dog something he likes (+R)
Taking away something he likes (-P)
Taking away something he DOESN'T like (-R)
Giving him something he DOESN'T like (+P)

That's really it. Honestly. Even including the "it depends on the dog part" because what the dog likes or doesn't like depends, well, on the dog.

The real key is timing and knowing what behavior you're applying that to so that he's receiving what you think you're telling him and not something completely different. That's where the real "explaining to the dog" happens.


----------



## Contact_Zone (Oct 5, 2010)

Analogdog said:


> I am planning to read "Don't Shoot the Dog"


..and when you're done, you can start reading "Reaching the animal mind" by the same author...


----------



## james downey (Jul 31, 2012)

The book to read on Operant condition is "how dog's learn" by Dr. Bausch and Dr. Bailey. That's all the book is about is operant conditioning. 

Also, like Pawz said. It's not how the trainer precieves the training that make things fall into once sector of the OP quadrant...it's how the dog views it. And Postive punishment is not positive punishment unless: the addition of the stimulus stops the behavior....So you do not know after the fact.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

Another piece of the puzzle is Extinction - a behavior that is ignored will fade away, potentially going through an extinction burst.
Eating, barking, biting, chasing, digging, sleeping, sex are self rewarding.

Ian Dunbar - http://www.dogstardaily.com/free-downloads comes up with clever operant applications and solutions.

A rough history: Pavlov discovered Classical conditioning, Thorndike applied it to learning, Skinner did the definitive work on 'modern' operant conditioning, and I believe that Bailey studied under Skinner.
(Noam Chomsky did the research that helped re-direct to Cognitive Psychology, and Gagne helped define education psychology.)


----------



## Analogdog (Apr 3, 2012)

Contact_Zone said:


> ..and when you're done, you can start reading "Reaching the animal mind" by the same author...


Its really quite funny as I have both the books on my reading shelf from earlier pondering what to read. I guess I just have been reading to correct the behavior problems with Rosie. Boy is she an emotional behavior junkie.


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

On a trick training forum, I just stickied a thread about this. It's a confusing concept for most. but it's been well explained here  

Both books are very good at explaining OC


----------



## Contact_Zone (Oct 5, 2010)

hanksimon said:


> Another piece of the puzzle is Extinction - *a behavior that is ignored will fade away*, potentially going through an extinction burst.
> Eating, barking, biting, chasing, digging, sleeping, sex are self rewarding.


...And the self-rewarding behaviours will not fade away simply by ignoring them.




james downey said:


> And Postive punishment is not positive punishment unless: the addition of the stimulus stops the behavior


What would you call hitting a dog on the head while he's doing a self reinforcing behaviour (let's say digging a hole) when the stimulus (hit on the head) does not stop the behavior (digging) ?
Hitting on the head is called "punishment" if it works...and if it doesn't, it's called "cruelty" or "abuse" ?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Contact_Zone said:


> What would you call hitting a dog on the head while he's doing a self reinforcing behaviour (let's say digging a hole) when the stimulus (hit on the head) does not stop the behavior (digging) ?
> Hitting on the head is called "punishment" if it works...and if it doesn't, it's called "cruelty" or "abuse" ?


It means the intensity of the signal did not match or overcome the drive/focus/emotional intensity of the dog. If he's eating off the ground and I just tap his head lightly, I'm not abusing him, but my signal is not intense enough to make him pay attention to it. The same principle as when a cued behavior is not maintained (or performed) in high-drive or high-emotion situations.

If I wanted to, I could hit Wally on the head hard enough to make him stop doing whatever, probably even eating. However, the question is then, is that intensity or that signal one I should use on him? 

Of course, hitting him is out of the question for me. But I could give his recall cue, a behavior that's conditioned so strongly that it cuts through his drive and is able to steer him back to me. You could argue that is a punishment unless I reward the act of him coming to me. He obviously wanted to chase the rabbit and I denied it with the recall (you could argue it's negative punishment, I withdrew him from something he liked, though most just call it 'redirection'), but then the act of recalling was rewarded (positive reinforcement), so the end result is that he's apt to recall since it leads to a reward, even if initially it means turning away from something he liked.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KBLover said:


> It means the intensity of the signal did not match or overcome the drive/focus/emotional intensity of the dog. If he's eating off the ground and I just tap his head lightly, I'm not abusing him, but my signal is not intense enough to make him pay attention to it. The same principle as when a cued behavior is not maintained (or performed) in high-drive or high-emotion situations.
> 
> If I wanted to, I could hit Wally on the head hard enough to make him stop doing whatever, probably even eating. However, the question is then, is that intensity or that signal one I should use on him?
> 
> Of course, hitting him is out of the question for me. But I could give his recall cue, a behavior that's conditioned so strongly that it cuts through his drive and is able to steer him back to me. You could argue that is a punishment unless I reward the act of him coming to me. He obviously wanted to chase the rabbit and I denied it with the recall (you could argue it's negative punishment, I withdrew him from something he liked, though most just call it 'redirection'), but then the act of recalling was rewarded (positive reinforcement), so the end result is that he's apt to recall since it leads to a reward, even if initially it means turning away from something he liked.


Naw, I think trying to call cuing an incompatible behavior as punishment is a pretty far stretch. Does Wally consider a recall as an aversive worth avoiding? I doubt it. And as long as you have plenty of money in the bank, and have spent a some time on varying your reinforcement schedule in some way, he's likely to see it as a possible opportunity to earn reward. (and, I would hope if you called him away from something really difficult, you'd give some sort of reinforcement, even if you don't have food on you..


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Naw, I think trying to call cuing an incompatible behavior as punishment is a pretty far stretch. Does Wally consider a recall as an aversive worth avoiding? I doubt it. And as long as you have plenty of money in the bank, and have spent a some time on varying your reinforcement schedule in some way, he's likely to see it as a possible opportunity to earn reward. (and, I would hope if you called him away from something really difficult, you'd give some sort of reinforcement, even if you don't have food on you..



Oh I definitely do. Usually, I let him chase me around and stuff since he want to chase - he can chase me. I'm safe...usually  (I like to surprise him once in a while to keep him on his toes during the game  I figure prey can be pretty unpredictable, so it maybe it gives it a little more "realism"). Then he can jump up on me (or I fall out like a fool and he promptly POUNCES on me...it would hurt if he was a Newfoundland...I might be missing some ribs then LOL)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I've always had trouble with the concept of "it's only punishment if it works" thing. If someone smacks the snot out of their kid for doing something, and he runs right out and does it again, it's not punishment? Then what IS it called? Yeah, that's confusing for me.


----------



## Analogdog (Apr 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> I've always had trouble with the concept of "it's only punishment if it works" thing. If someone smacks the snot out of their kid for doing something, and he runs right out and does it again, it's not punishment? Then what IS it called? Yeah, that's confusing for me.


Child Abuse? With the child acting out because of it? The joy of punishment.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I think there's effective punishment and ineffective punishment, but it's still punishment. . .


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

Yet sometimes the punishment is enjoyed, then it's not punishment. same with rewards, it's only a reward if the dog (or child) wants it. Sometimes what we think is a reward, might be a punishment for the dog, or vice-versa. 

eg.1- dog acts up when he sees another dog. you think that removing the dog from the situation is punishment (-P) because he wants to play, in reality it's a reward (+R) because the dog is afraid of the other dog. In this instance, you've rewarded the dog for acting up, and your dog will continue to act in this way as he was rewarded for it, when you thought you were decreasing the behaviour by punishing them for it. 

eg2- You reward (+R) your dog for sitting by vigorous petting, when in reality, the dog does not enjoy the contact and feels uncomfortable and therefore punished (+P). The dog is going to be less likely to sit next time because you punished him for it, when you thought he would be more likely to sit because you thought you were rewarding him.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

But what if the punishment IS clearly aversive, obviously not enjoyed, but isn't effective for whatever reason?


----------



## Contact_Zone (Oct 5, 2010)

Willowy said:


> But what if the punishment IS clearly aversive, obviously not enjoyed, but isn't effective for whatever reason?


That is what I meant by my message posted earlier.
Punishment is punishment, wether it works or not.
If it's not effective, it needs to be escalated.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I've always had trouble with the concept of "it's only punishment if it works" thing. If someone smacks the snot out of their kid for doing something, and he runs right out and does it again, it's not punishment? Then what IS it called? Yeah, that's confusing for me.


IMO, you're confusing intention with result. 

I don't care about intention. I only care about the result. If the action didn't diminish the occurrence of the behavior, it was not a punisher. If the action didn't increase the occurrence of the behavior, it was not a reinforcer. What the user intended is a non-factor.

In operent conditioning, the *operent* is what matters, and how the frequency of behavior changes (or failed to). 

What is an action intended to be a punisher called when it doesn't decrease behavior? Ineffective.



Willowy said:


> But what if the punishment IS clearly aversive, obviously not enjoyed, but isn't effective for whatever reason?


If it didn't diminsh the behavior, it was not a punishment. Punishment, by definition, diminishes the behavior it was applied to. It also wasn't very aversive because...well an aversive makes the operant avoid whatever the aversive was applied to/or whatever caused the aversive to occur to the operant, by definition.

Otherwise, it was just a consumption of energy for a ineffective non-result. Also known as a waste of time.


----------



## Contact_Zone (Oct 5, 2010)

KBLover said:


> What is an action intended to be a punisher called when it doesn't decrease behavior? Ineffective.


An ineffective punishment.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Contact_Zone said:


> An ineffective punishment.


Can't be a punishment if it didn't decrease the behavior. That's the definition of a punishment - something that decreases the behavior it was applied to.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

It's still punishment. Really, as someone who was emotionally damaged by physical punishment, which I found VERY aversive and extremely unpleasant, but never once changed my behavior (in the desired manner anyway), I can't agree that ineffective punishment needs to be escalated or that it's not punishment. It needs to be changed but not escalated, and it may be a waste of time/energy/emotional health, but it's still punishment.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Willowy said:


> It's still punishment. Really, as someone who was emotionally damaged by physical punishment, which I found VERY aversive and extremely unpleasant, but never once changed my behavior (in the desired manner anyway), I can't agree that ineffective punishment needs to be escalated or that it's not punishment. It needs to be changed but not escalated, and it may be a waste of time/energy/emotional health, but it's still punishment.


I'm sorry for what's happened in your past, but what KBLover is trying to stay that in the *theory of operant conditioning* (which is what this treat is about), what we might consider a punishment is not a punishment within the context of operant conditioning unless it reduces the frequency of the behavior. That is how it is defined within the context of operative conditioning, which has its own set of rules and definitions outside of how those words are used in day-to-day life. Just like "positive" and "negative" are also defined slightly differently within the same theory than normally used.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yes, the secret geek-speak that was previously denied to exist . Really, it's super confusing to the average dog owner.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I've always had trouble with the concept of "it's only punishment if it works" thing. If someone smacks the snot out of their kid for doing something, and he runs right out and does it again, it's not punishment? Then what IS it called? Yeah, that's confusing for me.


That's the definition in Operant Conditioning terms. If you were to read up a bit on it, you'd probably understand that it is not the common use of punishment (which is not very well definied.) In OC it has a definition. And part of that definition is that it must change behavior (either increase or decrease the probability). If it doesn't decrease the probability of behavior, it's not punishment, because it isn't working. So it could be A) abuse B) nagging or C) management (Mr. Bank Robber can't be robbing banks while in the penitentiary, but if he goes back to that occupation once he gets out, it didn't really have the effect of punishing him, no matter how hard the prosecuters are slapping each other on the back over the penalty.) It's not really rocket science.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

LOL, I could probably understand it if it was rocket science. But no matter how much I think I understand the principles of dog training, I have never successfully trained a dog to do/not do anything (except potty training, which is more of a management/guiding of natural behaviors kind of thing).


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I think there's effective punishment and ineffective punishment, but it's still punishment. . .


That's like saying there is effective learning and ineffective learning. If nothing is learned (ineffective) it's not learning. Operant conditioning IS about learning.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> LOL, I could probably understand it if it was rocket science. But no matter how much I think I understand the principles of dog training, I have never successfully trained a dog to do/not do anything (except potty training, which is more of a management/guiding of natural behaviors kind of thing).


Was that a personal choice? I've met people who thought it was "unethical" to train their dogs. Personally, I think both they and their dogs were missing out on something very valuable.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

No, I've tried and tried. I took Willow to 4-H classes. I got pretty good at making her offer a "submissive response" (4-H teaches that all "corrections" must be severe enough to elicit a submissive response), but no actual trained behaviors (and she didn't trust me). I took Penny to the Kennel Club training, and I can make her shriek and thrash around when she feels a prong collar, but no trained behaviors (and now she doesn't trust me). I bought all the "recommend reading" books on positive training and tried some of that, but no success with trained behaviors (but at least the boys still trust me). I either have the worst timing in the world or there is something about training I'm incapable of understanding.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

How about: http://www.dogstardaily.com/free-downloads ? AND
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1W_3CDVVqo ?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't click on videos/downloads from my phone so I don't know what they're about. . .but thanks. I'm just being whiny. My dogs are old and there's no reason they need trained behaviors now. Although it would be nice to have a dog that walks on a loose leash. . .I've never had that happen. But basically we're all comfortable with each other, no reason to shake up the status quo. When they're gone and I get a new dog I'll be scared to death, though.

To keep it on topic, yes, I would like an "Operant Conditioning for Dummies"! Hopefully it could explain the more confusing things in a way I could understand (ya know, more like rocket science ).


----------



## Contact_Zone (Oct 5, 2010)

KBLover said:


> Can't be a punishment if it didn't decrease the behavior. That's the definition of a punishment - something that decreases the behavior it was applied to.


If I can't call it "ineffective punishment", I will call it "abuse".
Hitting a dog is either punishment or abuse.
I don't do either anyway.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Willowy said:


> I don't click on videos/downloads from my phone so I don't know what they're about. . .but thanks. I'm just being whiny. My dogs are old and there's no reason they need trained behaviors now. Although it would be nice to have a dog that walks on a loose leash. . .I've never had that happen. But basically we're all comfortable with each other, no reason to shake up the status quo. When they're gone and I get a new dog I'll be scared to death, though.
> 
> To keep it on topic, yes, I would like an "Operant Conditioning for Dummies"! Hopefully it could explain the more confusing things in a way I could understand (ya know, more like rocket science ).


Dog training is confusing to me too. I used to dog sit to get more experience with dogs, in preparation for the time when I would actually have my own (i.e. now), and I had no idea what I was doing. It wasn't until we started going to a training class that it really started to click. For me, I understood the theory, but I didn't understand how to properly apply it. I'm still not very good at applying it to situations outside of what we've learned in class, and I intend to keep taking classes as long as I can afford them and I feel like we (both me and Snowball) are learning from them. Hopefully one day I'll be able to train my future dog all on my own! :biggrin1:


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> But what if the punishment IS clearly aversive, obviously not enjoyed, but isn't effective for whatever reason?


Then it is still not punishment, in the behavioral sense.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

1. One of the reasons that OC is confusing is b/c it is not all encompassing, it is only a small portion of the psychology and the learning that is going on. And, in everyday life you recognize that, even though you may not be able to articulate it. For example, if you give the dog a treat and he "thinks" 'I'm a good dog!' then that is NOT OC, b/c the dog did not present an observable change in behavior .... which is a defined pre-requisite for Behaviorism and operant conditioning (Hey, it's psychology, not necessarily life  ).
2. There are other types of psychology: Learning theory, Education Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, and so on; which encompass more aspects of 'life' than Behaviorism, but behaviorism was there first 
3. For this thread and for Behaviorism and OC only... Punishment must result in a change in behavior... The same is true with Reinforcement .. If you don't get an observable change in behavior (Stopping a behavior or Continuing a behavior), then "Nothing" happened !!! This is a limitation of behaviorism, b/c as dog owners many of us can see that 'something' happened ... and then a pure Behaviorist would say, "You got an observed change in behavior" and that discussion might result in a circular path that doesn't get you anywhere... But that's OK, b/c as long as there is an observable change ... 
4. I hope that's not too confusing ... Behaviorism is effective, but limited and incomplete.
5. If you hit your dog, that may not be punishment ... ask any Lab, Rott, or Pit owner... especially if we hit the dog with our hand... And the dog turns, looks at you, and says, "wanna play, wanna play !!!" 
6. I still like Ian Dunbar as a practical OC for Dummies, as well as Karen Pryor's original "Don't Shoot the Dog!" from the early 1980s.
7. One method for Sit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1W_3CDVVqo
8. and Down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I0O6ktNJuA&feature=relmfu


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

hanksimon said:


> 1. One of the reasons that OC is confusing is b/c it is not all encompassing, it is only a small portion of the psychology and the learning that is going on. And, in everyday life you recognize that, even though you may not be able to articulate it. For example, if you give the dog a treat and he "thinks" 'I'm a good dog!' then that is NOT OC, b/c the dog did not present an observable change in behavior .... which is a defined pre-requisite for Behaviorism and operant conditioning (Hey, it's psychology, not necessarily life  ).


Depends. If I give Wally a "random" treat: 

-He may actually keep doing whatever he was doing. If he was just standing there - he's going to keep standing there with his eyes wide and ears out. No doubt alert for more "food from the sky". 

-He may get wound up, likely expressing his happiness and it coming out through increased energy and activity. Getting playful, barking, trying to draw attention, etc.

-He may offer something else. "If that worked, maybe this will, too." Perhaps an indication that we might be starting a "shaping game".

-He'll likely start sniffing the area of none of the above happen "for too long" (how ever he determine that), or if the above happen, but then stop "for too long".

Those are changes in his behavior patterns, so it there was something to observe, but all of those may not fall under OC, but still resulted in changes in behavior pattern (i.e. if I didn't give a "random" treat, he wouldn't have done anything differently than he usually does in that situation).



hanksimon said:


> 2. There are other types of psychology: Learning theory, Education Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, and so on; which encompass more aspects of 'life' than Behaviorism, but behaviorism was there first


How do you use them to train/communicate with a dog, though? I absolutely want to go beyond "just" OC, but I have not found any methods to using, say, Education Psychology, on Wally. So I stick with using OC and CC in a lot of varied ways as I can think of, or just making him figure stuff out with shaping. The only other non-OC/CC method I've seen and have been able to utilize with some success is calming signals. Not OC/CC, but can and do change behavior.



hanksimon said:


> 3. For this thread and for Behaviorism and OC only... Punishment must result in a change in behavior... The same is true with Reinforcement .. If you don't get an observable change in behavior (Stopping a behavior or Continuing a behavior), then "Nothing" happened !!! This is a limitation of behaviorism, b/c as dog owners many of us can see that 'something' happened ... and then a pure Behaviorist would say, "You got an observed change in behavior" and that discussion might result in a circular path that doesn't get you anywhere... But that's OK, b/c as long as there is an observable change ...


I don't see that as a limitation of behaviorism. Maybe a limitation in observing behavioral changes on the part of us owners/trainers. Something always happens. The questions are, imo, "What happened?", "Can I use it?", "Can I replicate it?", "Is it what I wanted/something that is desirable/useful, and if not, where did I go wrong?", "How did the dog interpret the consequence and to what did behavior did he see it applied? (perhaps I decreased another behavior instead, but since I wasn't looking for that behavior to change, I conclude that 'nothing happened', when the real conclusion is, 'my observation skills still suck and need more work')"


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

Not sure if this is nitpicking, but I think that "He may actually keep doing whatever he was doing. If he was just standing there " may fall under the category that nothing changed... when you know that he's 'thinking' more "food from the sky???". To me, this is a difference between behavioral vs. Cognitive.

I think you're already advancing beyond pure behavioral methods, b/c Wally has learned how to learn ... And you're having 'trouble' figuring out what else to teach and how else to challenge Wally, as he learns increasingly complex task, more and more quickly. As I warn folks with border collies: Don't leave Wally alone with the keys to the car.  Three suggestions:

1. Sue Ailsby's Levels of training (Doggies Zen?) http://sue-eh.ca/ strikes me as an excellent application of of using clicker training to teach a dog how to learn increasing complex rules, effectively learning how to learn ... which is a foundation of Cognitive Psychology and education psychology.

2. Rico and Chaser http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/science/18dog.html?pagewanted=all AND
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6479QAJuz8 are examples of Fast Mapping, which can't be explained under any Behavioral theories.... Although we 'know' that our dogs think , proving it takes researchers a bit longer.

3. Calming Signals - I've observed and reacted to my dog's calming signals, ever since I learned about them. Altho Turid originally implied that they were 'pre-aggression' and not trainable, she no longer teaches this idea in her courses, and had recommended that we observe and try to understand what we see. I did, and my dog used to wink at me with 'anxiety'. But now he may wink at anticipation of play, and may yawn as a 'request' for a bit more belly rubbing (or an indication of his dissatisfaction that i stopped  ) 
My point is that enhanced communication (like teaching an infant Sign Language), provides an additional level of interaction... I don't have the time and patience for a more rigorous, randomized, double-blind study with a control group. But, anecdotal, wishful thinking is adequate for me right now


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

hanksimon said:


> Not sure if this is nitpicking, but I think that "He may actually keep doing whatever he was doing. If he was just standing there " may fall under the category that nothing changed... when you know that he's 'thinking' more "food from the sky???". To me, this is a difference between behavioral vs. Cognitive.


Could be. Won't say you're wrong or even really disagree. Where does anticipation/pattern recognition or "wait and see what might happen" fall in? Cognitive sounds as good a place as any. Of course, if he stands there instead of the more typical lying down, would that also not be a behavioral change? The "random" treat came while he was still standing - so now he keeps standing. A case could be made for both. In other words, "I got a treat for standing, and just in case it happens again, I'll keep standing in this spot." You could even argue that's how +R actually does work, or the why of "why positive reinforcement works". Perhaps it's why learning tends to accelerate under +R methods, it might combine both behavioral and cognitive more readily.

I like to say "behavior is a window to the mind", which is why I'm primarily became interested in behaviorism - because I REALLY want to get in his mind. I found that if I look close enough (a skill I'm still learning), I can "see" what he's thinking based on what he does and when his behavior changes, especially during learning something new or a different spin on something, what he's thinking about changes, especially once he recognizes the difference in the scenario. He's like "oh now I see!" and his behavior changes in response. I see the behavior change, it's lining up towards the correct answer, and I can say 'Yep, he's starting to get it'.




hanksimon said:


> I think you're already advancing beyond pure behavioral methods, b/c Wally has learned how to learn ... And you're having 'trouble' figuring out what else to teach and how else to challenge Wally, as he learns increasingly complex task, more and more quickly. As I warn folks with border collies: Don't leave Wally alone with the keys to the car.  Three suggestions:
> 
> 1. Sue Ailsby's Levels of training (Doggies Zen?) http://sue-eh.ca/ strikes me as an excellent application of of using clicker training to teach a dog how to learn increasing complex rules, effectively learning how to learn ... which is a foundation of Cognitive Psychology and education psychology.
> 
> ...


Ailsby's levels are one of the first things I ran across when looking for things to teach Wally and a sort of progression  (which is nice for me since I'm more...I guess scatter-brained LOL. I want to teach this, and oh hey this looks cool, I'll start this and so on. Amazing he's progressed as he has under such "wild west" type training!). I should revisit them. 

2. Fast Mapping. Now I have a term for it to search google with. Thanks!

3. I LOVE calming signals. I think discovering those really gave me a "push" to see another side of things and what else I might have been missing with Wally's body language. (A lot, it turns out. I noticed other ways he tries to show me what he wants along with behaviors he developed from basic ones he's learned in an effort to communicate). 

Heheh I hear you about the rigorous methods. Anecdotal is good enough for me, too. After all, if it works with Wally, does it really matter if it was 'disproven' in a fuller study? I already know I have the "10th dog" (i.e. 9 out of 10 dogs do something one way, Wally is the 10th dog that's not 'doing it right' LOL)


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

hanksimon said:


> 3. Calming Signals - I've observed and reacted to my dog's calming signals, ever since I learned about them. Altho Turid originally implied that they were 'pre-aggression' and not trainable, she no longer teaches this idea in her courses, and had recommended that we observe and try to understand what we see. I did, and my dog used to wink at me with 'anxiety'. But now he may wink at anticipation of play, and may yawn as a 'request' for a bit more belly rubbing (or an indication of his dissatisfaction that i stopped


Calming signals intrigues me... we were given a "calming protocol" to try for dog class. Can you recommend any good books, websites, etc. with more information?


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

@Gingerkid - I think 'calming protocol' is a method to cue your dog to 'settle.' "Calming Signals" are an informal but rigorous (?)observation of dog's body language theorectically related to wolf body language. They are frequently overlooked expressions which more subtle (and may be precursors to) tail wagging, snarling, barking, etc. There are 30 basic calming signals, and I believe there are about 20 more 'variations.' Google: "Calming Signals" "Turid Rugaas" to get a good taste. Take what you read with a grain of salt, because they aren't rigorous science, but more at the observation/categorization level of research. The Knowledge will improve your observation skills.

@KBLover - OK, I'm wrong and I disagree!  Practical implementation is different than limited theory. And from a definition perspective, behaviorism requires a blackbox, no theory of mind, and change of behavior is the ONLY indication of learning. Of course, we know better in fact... But are we discussing fact or theory  Floor wax or dessert topping?

>>Where does anticipation/pattern recognition or "wait and see what might happen" fall in? Cognitive 
I Agree, but I want to distinguish between the two approaches. I think folks have trouble with OC b/c they can see their dogs thinking... "getting it" ... and OC requires a change in behavior. OC is proven to work (I agree with this) and the research in cognitive methods used in dog training is not yet proven to work. However, these methods are used in school. Researchers just haven't had the funding to create a Cognitive curriculum for dog training IMHO. 

Initially, I believe that an 8 week old puppy (or maybe a little younger) really is close to a 'mindless' black box and the behavioral methods work mainly as described... But, the light grows brighter, the puppy learns to adapt (better than we do), and 'reasons out' that he can get "food from the sky" by pushing the right button. Ever watch Wally, early on, throwing a Sit or a Down... trying to teach you to give him a treat : -) At that point, I think Cognitive methods would be more effective, if we knew what to do... And, I believe that the Thinking Dog gives a behavior without treats, b/c he is thinking. So, +R is needed early on from a kinda black box perspective, but I think it is only a marker ("Yes, that's what I mean") as opposed to ("Good Dog, Click, Here's your reward")... as the dog learns how to learn, learning that words have meanings. Early on, if you say Sit, you get a Sit. Then you teach Down... and you also get a Sit... and with enough cues, I believe the pup discriminates.... Cognitively... thinking ... rather than just reacting behaviorally... 

I think you are already well into Wally's mind... and if he is like Shep ( or better!!!!) then he already knows more than you recognize


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

hanksimon said:


> @KBLover - OK, I'm wrong and I disagree!  Practical implementation is different than limited theory. And from a definition perspective, behaviorism requires a blackbox, no theory of mind, and change of behavior is the ONLY indication of learning. Of course, we know better in fact... But are we discussing fact or theory  Floor wax or dessert topping?


Which ever one is dessert topping because I'm hungry LOL 



hanksimon said:


> >>Where does anticipation/pattern recognition or "wait and see what might happen" fall in? Cognitive
> I Agree, but I want to distinguish between the two approaches. I think folks have trouble with OC b/c they can see their dogs thinking... "getting it" ... and OC requires a change in behavior. OC is proven to work (I agree with this) and the research in cognitive methods used in dog training is not yet proven to work. However, these methods are used in school. Researchers just haven't had the funding to create a Cognitive curriculum for dog training IMHO.


True, but, on the road to "getting it" the behavior is constantly changing. Maybe because I'm so shaping addicted I see it that way since shaping, you hardly ever get the whole thing but see little 'changes in behavior' that signal he's "getting it".

Or maybe shaping is purely cognitive with the OC part just being the reward marker?



hanksimon said:


> Initially, I believe that an 8 week old puppy (or maybe a little younger) really is close to a 'mindless' black box and the behavioral methods work mainly as described... But, the light grows brighter, the puppy learns to adapt (better than we do), and 'reasons out' that he can get "food from the sky" by pushing the right button. Ever watch Wally, early on, throwing a Sit or a Down... trying to teach you to give him a treat : -) At that point, I think Cognitive methods would be more effective, if we knew what to do... And, I believe that the Thinking Dog gives a behavior without treats, b/c he is thinking.


If I had a dollar for every time Wally does that, I'd be rich and probably could fund that research for a Cognitive training method  

I mean, all I have to do is have something he'd like to have and he's going to town. If I wait long enough, he'll start looking around for things to do! I showed that to my mom and she was like "that's kinda scary, he's looking for things to do something to". Then with the throwing, she was like "he's trying to think what object to throw - literally looking at each one and picking one out, like he saying 'this one is more likely to be the right one'." And then I really freaked her out when I took away each thing as he threw it (which also prompted a bark each time like "HEY, I can't throw it if you taking it!"). Then when there was nothing left, he started looking around the room. That just freaked her out. "He's looking for something to throw!" He'll be looking around and whining ("I can't find anything!" behavior?). Eventually, he tried to throw the throw rug (hey, it's a throw rug, right? So does that mean it's a rug I throw? *rimshot*)

I notice he almost gets annoyed (at the object) like "why isn't this stupid thing doing right to make him give me a treat??!!" He shakes it harder, slaps his paws on it like he's pissed. LOL



hanksimon said:


> So, +R is needed early on from a kinda black box perspective, but I think it is only a marker ("Yes, that's what I mean") as opposed to ("Good Dog, Click, Here's your reward")... as the dog learns how to learn, learning that words have meanings. Early on, if you say Sit, you get a Sit. Then you teach Down... and you also get a Sit... and with enough cues, I believe the pup discriminates.... Cognitively... thinking ... rather than just reacting behaviorally...


I agree. He's definitely thinking about what the word means. I also agree with your R+ idea that it is a marker that shows "that's what I mean" or "that's what that means". Then after that, there's definitely thought going on. If I had a dollar for his "pondering moments", I'd be rich. The staring at an object trying to figure out what 'game' I'm playing, the stop and look back when he's not quite sure what I said "did he really say 'abajo' or something else? I should check." Those "is this it?" looks at me during shaping. Or the "HEY, LOOK AT THIS AND SEE IF ITS RIGHT" bark/noises if I don't notice quite on time he's tried something else (I look away as my no-reward marker during shaping).



hanksimon said:


> I think you are already well into Wally's mind... and if he is like Shep ( or better!!!!) then he already knows more than you recognize


LOL I wouldn't be surprised. 

And, yeah, I will take your "don't let the border collie have the car keys" to heart


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

We can add something that the dog likes when he does what we want. 
We can remove something the dog likes when he doesn't do what we want. WE can add something the dog doesn't like when he does what we don't want. 
We can remove something the dog doesn't like when he does what we want. 

The consequences have to meaningful to the dog and they have to be timely. If I give him food for sitting and he is not hungry it is not meaningful. If I take him in the house after training and give a hungry dog a steak, even though meaningful it is not timely.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

@jiml - <KBLover/Hank Hijack> I believe that from an OC context providing a treat to a well-fed dog should still be +R. However, we are all taught to train a hungry dog. I can't make a strong case, but I feel ( not OC  ) that provides a case for Canine Cognitive thinking.

@KBLover continuing <KBLover/Hank Hijack> I think that many researchers agree that training theory has not yet caught up with current implementations. Ian Dunbar gets in trouble b/c his instructive reprimand doesn't really fit in OC, and he tries to shoehorn it in... It's kinda like physics in early 1900s, when people invented 'ether' to explain the speed of light ... and Einstein saw that we don't need it... (BTW, is the Boson Field the 'ether' of 2012 ?) So, what we need is a Caninestein to document the unification transition from OC to Cognitive methods of Dog Training... It might be easier to teach Wally how to stickshift 

I strongly believe that many OC results are really Cognitive results attained through +R etc., due to our lack of more encompassing Cognitive methods. The Sue Ailsby levels have an anology in Education Psychology (Gagne) or Rule order learning and higher order rules. There's also a Synthesis level. I believe that any 'behavior' or activity that requires a change in the internal state of mind (as opposed to an internal black box) will fall into the Cognitive camp. Of course, I can change your thinking by using OC methods, such as feeding you a dessert topping. You might be interested in contacting Chaser's owner, he's a frienldy retired psychologist. You can easily track down his email via the papers and Youtube videos. One question to consider, in the OC to Cognitive transition: Can you recall when Wally was about 8 - 10 weeks and when you taught him Sit/Down/Come (?)... and do you remember the complex mix of behaviors... and when he 'got' it?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

hanksimon said:


> @KBLover continuing <KBLover/Hank Hijack> I think that many researchers agree that training theory has not yet caught up with current implementations. Ian Dunbar gets in trouble b/c his instructive reprimand doesn't really fit in OC, and he tries to shoehorn it in... It's kinda like physics in early 1900s, when people invented 'ether' to explain the speed of light ... and Einstein saw that we don't need it... (BTW, is the Boson Field the 'ether' of 2012 ?) So, what we need is a Caninestein to document the unification transition from OC to Cognitive methods of Dog Training... It might be easier to teach Wally how to stickshift


I need to look up Dunbar's instructive reprimand (never heard of that until now), but is that similar to a no-reward marker? 

And, yeah, it might be easier to teach Wally to stickshift. Thankfully, his paws can't reach the pedals so he couldn't use that knowledge LOL.



hanksimon said:


> I strongly believe that many OC results are really Cognitive results attained through +R etc., due to our lack of more encompassing Cognitive methods. The Sue Ailsby levels have an anology in Education Psychology (Gagne) or Rule order learning and higher order rules. There's also a Synthesis level. I believe that any 'behavior' or activity that requires a change in the internal state of mind (as opposed to an internal black box) will fall into the Cognitive camp. Of course, I can change your thinking by using OC methods, such as feeding you a dessert topping. You might be interested in contacting Chaser's owner, he's a frienldy retired psychologist. You can easily track down his email via the papers and Youtube videos. One question to consider, in the OC to Cognitive transition: Can you recall when Wally was about 8 - 10 weeks and when you taught him Sit/Down/Come (?)... and do you remember the complex mix of behaviors... and when he 'got' it?


Unfortunately, no, because I didn't come into Wally's life until he was just over a year old. Wally was taken from a bad Coton breeder and was neglected, undersocialized (which likely contributed to his fearful nature then as well as a cautious personality in general), and not even groomed (and you've seen his coat, imagine that not groomed in months???). My mom cried because he had to lose just about ALL of his hair, and that was one of the endearing qualities about him already. 

That said, I did remember having to teach him these things.

Sit: I tried capturing right after charging the clicker. I just did a c/t every time he went from a stand to a sit. I'd move to get him to follow me, then wait until he sat again. Whenever he sat on his own, I'd c/t him. Sitting became the answer to life for him (still is, really). "When I don't know what to do, sit." Especially back then when he was really fearful. Sitting became something of a communication with variances. When he was scared, he'd reach up like he was jumping up on me (we worked on that, too, since once he got the fact that I was not interested in eating him, he started jumping up on me like dogs do, so I then worked on the four-on-the-floor thing), tap my leg with his paws and sit looking at whatever concerned him. I imagine those were "safe" behaviors. Things he could do when he could not do what I wanted. He may have thought I wouldn't get mad because "sitting always brings good things". Of course, I never did get mad at him, especially when I saw why he was doing it (pointing something that's scaring/concerning him.

Down: This was my first lesson in vary your damn cues, KBLover. I had already taught him "downstairs". Of course in my stupidity, I wanted to teach him "down" as the cue for laying down. I was like "why can't he get it?" I started looking at what he was doing, he would be looking around. I'm like...what's he looking for? Stairs! Duh! He probably thought I meant "downstairs" and he can't find stairs to go down! (Would be a challenge to find stairs in an open field...) When I use "drop" instead...he got it in 2 days. *facepalm* Now trying to teach the fold back (i.e. the cool lay down) was effort. Now, this he doesn't really use in communication so much, unless, I guess, if sitting and staring a hole in the side of my head gets too tiring. He'll lay down and stare a hole in the side of my head.

Come: Lesson 2 in "try a new cue". I don't know if it's my voice or what, but 'come' never worked reliably. Anyway, initially, he was like "WTF is going on here?" when I c/t him for this 'new' behavior of following me. I would feed him something he had to chew a little to give myself chance to move away. It's funny because he'd eat the treat and then sorta tilt his head a little like "that was good but why did you give me that?" Then when I started moving away, his head tilted again (while eating the treat lol) and the I c/t for him taking a step to me. Then we stood there like a standoff. And then...he sat (when in doubt, sit). Oh the curve I threw at him when I turned around, not taking his sit. He just looked at me like "WHAT. THE. EFF. IS. THAT. ABOUT?"). 

So there we were. Me standing, half-turned away, him sitting and wondering why I haven't clicked that clicky box and thrown him a treat. If this was a cartoon, you could cue the sun and moon going by really quick at this point. Then, he was like "well if he's going to change the rules, eff this, I'm getting up." CLICK. Long distance treat. 

Another WTF moment. He stood there. Pondering. He started walking. Another c/t. Then he tried a sit again. Nope. Then he it's like he got an idea - "maybe he can't see me". So he walked up towards me, with me c/t the whole time. And then he sat in front of me for a c/t. 

Then, me being the taskmaster and measuring progress in bread balls and repetition, "maybe we can get a little closer next time", we did it again. Fast forward to about the 20th trip down the hall, and he was like "well maybe I need to sit in his face because he's blind." So he RAN up to me and flopped his butt down. Click. Dump Bread balls on the floor. Pat side and tell him how good he is (as he's devouring the bread balls) call it a day. Fast forward to about 200x later with him running up to me and sitting (little did I know I was shaping and upping criteria, I just thought, when I'm learning something new, I take it in degrees of difficulty so why not teach the dog the same way? No idea there was a fancy term for it "successive approximation". I thought it was "when you don't succeed, try again", and "don't bite off more than you can chew"), I put the chew...cue to it. "Come" did not work. I mean, he ran up to me, well because that's what it was the last 200x so...but when I asked him to sit and stay (we had worked on "stay" about 150x, between those 200x of recall because I figured, "having him stay in one spot would be useful in teaching him to come when I signal, not just because I'm 10 feet away so he can sit in front of me, suppose there's a road there, etc", and btw, I'm not making these numbers up - the amount of bread balls he ate is how I tracked our repetitions - I would tell you in slices of bread or old pancakes, but that might be too weird to say "4 slices of bread later, he got it"). ANYWAY, "Come" didn't do anything. He just stood...I mean sat...there. "Here", for whatever reason, made him charge at me and sit. Whatever. "Here" it is. (pun intended).

And to think I used to wonder why he was so tired. I mean, he just walked up and down the hall. Probably a LOT of information and stuff for his brain to sort out. He used to dream constantly. Oh and as a side effect, he has a killer "Front" now. He was confused about it, but then when he realized it's the same "charge at me and sit in front of me", he was like "well why didn't you just say so? Could have BEEN done this." Sometimes I wonder if my recall should just be "Front" LOL.

Oh and there's the whole "Dora influence". And no idea why Spanish cues he picked up in a serious hurry. As far as I know, his 'breeder' wasn't Spanish or he didn't live with/have exposure to Spanish speakers. It was shocking how fast I could just change the cue to a Spanish word equivalent (for my own keep it straight), and he would get it like I've been saying arriba, abajo, vamanos, afuera, and adentro all my life to him.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

So Cool !!! I think you can see when he 'got' it... But I don't think he was passed the empty slate by the time you got him.

Instructive reprimand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NWCKr6NLo8

AKA RRNR http://reactivechampion.blogspot.com/2010/12/ian-dunbar-seminar-punishment-dog-con.html

AKA RRC http://www.boulderdog.net/2011/03/30/rover-sit-sit-sit-sitsitsit-the-giveaway/

Respond to Intervention - http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/binary-feedback-puts-b-balanced-dog-training


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Thanks for the links.

Hmm.. that instructive reprimand I do (and didn't know it). I just thought of it just telling him what I need him to do, which is incompatible. 

Now the Dog-con system confuses me, probably for the same reason it confused the author of the blog entry:

"This concept absolutely hurt my brain when I first heard it, because when I give a cue, it’s generally because I want Maisy to do it. It took me awhile to figure out that there are times when I don’t really mean it."

I can't think of a time I give Wally a direction and don't care if he does it. If I don't care what he's doing...why am I giving him an instruction (and I don't, I let him do whatever...or nothing...like right now). If course, he might not do it, to which I'll do the "increased voice" thing. But it doesn't mean I didn't "really want him to do it" the first time. I'm trying to 'cut through the distraction' that's preventing him from doing it, no? I mean, even if we're playing a game, an instruction I'm giving him is either teaching the game or having "follow the rules" of the game. It just sounds like it's over complicating things. 

I mean, why cue "here" if I don't care if Wally comes or not? 


In the third link:
"Enter repeating the cue. Here’s how it might go:

Seated in your chair, quietly say, “Rover, sit.”
Rover, who is about 4 feet away, continues sniffing the jar.
Stand up and say, “Rover. Sit. Sit.” Then give the hand signal for sit.
Rover doesn’t sit. He doesn’t even hear you. He’s absorbed in pushing the jar, that he just knocked over, around the floor.
Take 1 step towards Rover, and say “Rover. Sit. Sit!,” Give the hand signal for sit once. Then, twice.
Rover looks at you as if to say, “You want something?”
Don’t take another step. Stand where you are. Say, “R-o-v-e-r. S-i-t!” Followed by your hand signal.
Rover sits!
“Thank you.”
Then say, “Rover, come,” and back up a few steps so Rover moves toward you.
“Sit.”
Rover sits in front of you.
“Good dog. Go play.”
"

Wouldn't it be easier and clearer for the dog just to body block, ask for the sit, when he sits, then use Premack and let him harass the daylights out of the jar? Am I missing something?


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

First, you have a good relationship and method with Wally. Ignore Dunbar as appropriate  His advice is to the general, average dog owner (with a hard headed Lab  )
DogCon - if you always mean it and you always get 100% compliance AND performance, don't worry about it. I do lots of work with Shep off-leash ... and horror of horrors, he doesn't have a 100% recall (so he is off-leash only in fenced areas... however, he know how to find open gates - that's a different story. So, if I'm walking and he smells a leftover P&J sandwich, he does a seek and acquire while I'll blissfully keep walking. If I am far I say come, if I am close I say Come! and start running towards him. In the first case, he cocks an ear towards me (using an ear rather than a finger  ) then eats the sandwich. In the second case, he looks at me, takes out his iPhone, calculates how much time he has before I reach him, ... then eats the sandwich..., running with it in his mouth if needed. If I rage at him and look like I'm getting close, he'll drop the sandwich. (If I don't toss the sandwich in the trash he will remember where it is ... for up to a week... perhaps it tastes better as it ages.) Those are an extreme example of DogCon. Lesser violent examples include calling him to come finish drinking from the faucet, calling him to come closer so that I can brush his teeth, or calling him to come outside for potty. All these cases, to various degrees, he may come to look, trying to decide if he really wants a drink (or would prefer to eat), or if he wants me to brush his teeth (feels bad but tastes good), or if he wants to go outside (getting up from a nice sleep... before bedtime). 

Premack - Yes, Premack is better, but this example is a little different. Dunbar is really trying to deal with incomplete or partial compliance. The dog knows what Sit or Come means, but he is not 100% compliant in performance or in position. So, if the dog is distracted in the process of obeying, the repeated cue (escalated) will 'distract' him from the distraction, improving his compliance. Or if the dog Comes, then stands or Sits 5 feet away, the repeated Come helps to communicate that Come means 1 foot away, improving performance. Or if the dog sits to the side, or lies to the side, rather than in Sphinx position, then the repeated cue with a little luring,guiding may help improve positioning. 

I don't consider this to be the best method, but within the Luring approach, it helps with fine tuning. In any case, it documents a method, as you said, that we all use in one way or another. And, Dunbar's research improves our implementation.

I don't know how well it would work in a pure Shaping approach, but when you reach a Shaping miscommunication or timing issue, it may help. In a Capture approach, I think Dunbar's method is a natural for maintaining independent thinking. (Dunbar calls it OC, but can't really categorize it. I believe that it is a natural bridge between OC and Cognitive methods, but I can't put it into words, yet.)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

gingerkid said:


> Calming signals intrigues me... we were given a "calming protocol" to try for dog class. Can you recommend any good books, websites, etc. with more information?


If you are looking for a protocol, google Dr Karen Overall relaxation protocol and you should get lots of hits. If you are looking for info on calming signals google Turid Rugaas calming signals and you should get lots of hits. Or her book Calming Signals and the companion video.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Pawzk9 said:


> If you are looking for a protocol, google Dr Karen Overall relaxation protocol and you should get lots of hits. If you are looking for info on calming signals google Turid Rugaas calming signals and you should get lots of hits. Or her book Calming Signals and the companion video.


Thanks, I already had a calming protocol (As it was given in class... and we were doing most of it already anyway, go figure!). I've already read most of Turid Rugaas's website, but I'll check out the book. From the website, it sounds like it will be an interesting read.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

The book is about 75 pages... and appears to be a quick read. But after I observed all of the signals that I'd been missing, I went back and re-read. Then, I started to see variations, for example, most people describe a comparatively stationary or bouncy playbow, but you can watch two adolescents running and playing, and see what I'd call a running playbow, as they change directions.

After I got over the 'guilt' at how unhappy my dog was (now that I could see his anxiety Calming Signals), I got over it. My dog my dog was unhappy if I told him not to jump on the couch (never allowed), and unhappy when I opened the fridge and didn't feed him... (he never gets people food), and he didn't like it when we were trying to go to sleep, and he wouldn't settle, so we made him sleep on the floor.... Oh well, it's a dog's life


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Ian Dunbar gets in trouble b/c his instructive reprimand doesn't really fit in OC>>>

It fits fine. Ian argues for using words, emotion, and facial expresions to show displeasure as pos punishment. he is against physical corrections and even over reliance on clickers past the initial learning phase as they lack emotion.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KBLover said:


> I need to look up Dunbar's instructive reprimand (never heard of that until now), but is that similar to a no-reward marker?
> 
> .


I've seen him do it. I'd call it more attune to Negative Reinforcement (repeat "command" (cos it SURE doesn't sound like a cue) with increasingly greater intimidation until the dog does it.


----------

