# Dog Reading beyond Pryor, McConnell, Donaldson, Ruugas?



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

The staples of R+ training, Pryor, Pat McConnell, Jean Donaldson, Ruugas, Clothier, and variants of books from similar authors, I've basically read a good chunk of em, and if I haven't, I have probably read the information in some form or another. 

I'm not looking for another training book and definitely not a step-by-step training method book. I want to explore more about what we know about dog cognition and what we understand about them internally. I've heard names like David Mech and Stanley Coren thrown around. Anything to recommend?


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

I'm interested to see what others suggest. I'm planning to pick up John Bradshaw's _Dog Sense: How the New Science of Dog Behavior Can Make You A Better Friend to Your Pet_ as it appears to be a fairly recent title on the subject. _Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know_ by Alexandra Horowitz is another book I've seen recommended and is also fairly recent. I "know" Coren from his S&P text, but I'm not familiar with his canine research.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

All of Stanley Coren's books are good. Some of the referenced research findings may not be up to date, but most are. David Mech, as far as I know, does not claim to know dogs - he is a Wolf researcher. Not sure about any books, but you can search online for some of his papers - very accessible. I've said I like Ian Dunbar, but I think he's mostly training. Every time I read a Cesar Millan book, I pick up some interesting tidbits, even though I disagree with his philosophy - you do have to be knowledgeable to evaluate his suggestions.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

I agree on Millan. He shares some useful opinions regarding stuff like over excitement, no touch no talk no eye contact, introducing a dog nose first instead of sound first, stuff that's basically common sense but is largely ignored. His basis is off, but he's not without value.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

No mention of Turid Rugaas ... not necessarily dog training, and not quite cognition.... more communication...and anecdotal, but valuable.


----------



## Zoey's Mommy (Mar 3, 2012)

Have you read _Dog Sense: How the New Science of Dog Behavior Can Make You a Better Friend to Your Pet _ by John Bradshaw? 

Here's an NPR interview, http://www.npr.org/2011/05/26/136497064/the-new-science-of-understanding-dog-behavior

I listened to it as an audio book, and I thought some of it was absolutely intruiging. Additionally, it changed my attitude, for the better, about what behavior to correct and what is just my dog being a dog.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

hanksimon said:


> No mention of Turid Rugaas ... not necessarily dog training, and not quite cognition.... more communication...and anecdotal, but valuable.


I did mention Rugaas, both in the thread title and post, except I spelled it Ruugas. Her book was valuable in its own right.





Zoey's Mommy said:


> Have you read _Dog Sense: How the New Science of Dog Behavior Can Make You a Better Friend to Your Pet _ by John Bradshaw?
> 
> Here's an NPR interview, http://www.npr.org/2011/05/26/136497064/the-new-science-of-understanding-dog-behavior
> 
> I listened to it as an audio book, and I thought some of it was absolutely intruiging. Additionally, it changed my attitude, for the better, about what behavior to correct and what is just my dog being a dog.


Cool, I will check out the NPR interview.


----------



## GreatDaneMom (Sep 21, 2007)

i recently attended a seminar on "canine emotions" it was really really cool. it showed pic of dogs during the same emotion as a human and placed them side by side, and showed all the similarities. it also showed things like, when people look at other people their eyes go to the right (i believe it was) of the persons face, and then they put dogs in front of a slideshow of different things. when they looked at other objects they looked right on, but with humans they looked to the right of their face right away, like we do.


----------



## Zoey's Mommy (Mar 3, 2012)

qingcong said:


> Cool, I will check out the NPR interview.


he talks about the studies on Silver Foxes (I think, don't quote me on that. but it was an animal used by furriers, so pretty readily available breeding stock) over like 60 years and how the bred them to be be more docile. he also had some university studies about interacting with puppies week by week within the first 6 weeks after birth, basically narrowing down THE most important weeks. It was pretty awesome. He kind of drone in place, but it was all worth it in the end.


----------



## zdonBGSU (May 7, 2011)

most popular writing on science are usually based on a well established scientific paradigm, so by the time something hits barnes and noble, there would have to have an abundance of empirical research (decade +). if you read scientific writing, my guess is that even the more recent research on canine cognition is still based on skinnerian's behaviorism... though, someone correct me if I'm wrong. I could be completely off, but at least thats the way with popular writing on human psychology...

oh oops, as far as reading, I don't know many books, but I do find http://www.clickersolutions.com/ to have a ton of really good information and clarification on some of the science that I think majority of the pop training books skim over, which causes a lot of confusion and different interpretation by different authors (which is fine, different things work for different dogs obv)


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Yeah, a lot of "pop training" books, which I guess is just about all of the training books available on amazon/B&N, give just a glance at the science. That's okay with me, because I'm not a psychologist or ethologist and anything too heavy in the details may be over my head. I read some detailed scientific papers before and they are a bit of a chore, just like the papers in my field. A summary of the findings and what they mean for the everyday trainer is enough for me. Quite honestly, I learned a lot from certain folks on this forum, specifically RBark. It was hard for me to stomach some of the things he would say, but I thought about them and they always made more sense than the preconceived notion I had in my head.


----------



## a7dk (Mar 30, 2011)

I see that some have already suggested John Bradshaw's "Dog Sense" - just want to share my 2 cents. That was a fantastic book! It was extremely interesting and educational. I learned a lot. Bradshaw goes into some detail about actual scientific research rather than anecdotal evidence. It's not really a training book, more of a book about cognition and what and how dogs understand the world.


----------



## FG167 (Jun 1, 2012)

I've found Brenda Aloff's books very insightful and thoughtful regarding the way that dogs work...along with "how" to train but I think they provide more of an understanding of dogs/training.


----------



## CatintheHat (Jun 7, 2009)

zdonBGSU said:


> most popular writing on science are usually based on a well established scientific paradigm, so by the time something hits barnes and noble, there would have to have an abundance of empirical research (decade +). if you read scientific writing, my guess is that even the more recent research on canine cognition is still based on skinnerian's behaviorism... though, someone correct me if I'm wrong. I could be completely off, but at least thats the way with popular writing on human psychology...


Cognitive psychology and evolutionary psychology are active areas of study of human behavior. Cognitive ethology, sociobiology, and behavioral ecology are active areas of research in animal behavior. 

I agree that clickersolutions.com is a great resource. They have a recommended reading page. 

Dog Sense is probably the best currently available book for a general audience. 

The Behavioral Biology of Dogs is a review of some of the more recent findings in canine research. It is pretty accessible and well-referenced. The actual content is much broader than the title suggests, and the coverage of actual dog behavior is quite shallow. It is a worthwhile read though. 

It goes well beyond dogs, but Animal Minds is a fairly accessible, extremely well referenced, and very thought-provoking tour of cognitive ethology by one of the founders of the discipline.


----------



## Crazy Daisy (Apr 16, 2012)

I don't have any suggestions myself, but just thought perhaps you have a college nearby with a good library? I would think there might be more interesting and less widely-published books or papers there.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

"Accepted" dog training methods are based on behaviorism, clicker training, positive reinforcement, etc. Research in Cognitive studies and educational psychology applied to dogs is comparatively sparse, because sources are funding were hard to come by, except in recent years. A few universities have research institutions devoted to cognitive research in dogs, and explanations of Rico and Chaser are accepted as being outside pure behaviorism. But, I haven't seen any popular, accessible books that talk about higher order learning, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation applied to dogs.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

I know you said you've read Karen Pryor. But if you haven't read Reaching the Animal Mind, it's a definite recommend. Mech writes about wolves. Early stuff is way different from what he currently believes. I've yet to understand why anyone takes Stanley Coren seriously. Not a dog specific book, but I found "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers" by Robert Sapolsky" a very good read on neurobiology and was recommended reading from both Turid Rugaas and Suzanne Clothier


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

I've read Reaching the Animal Mind from Pryor. It was a great book. I think it may be too advanced for a beginner, but I found it very insightful for myself.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I tend to not like most of the writings on dogs, I think they sell dogs short on what they think, feel, understand, how they learn etc.... Like how smart they are.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

dogdragoness said:


> I tend to not like most of the writings on dogs, I think they sell dogs short on what they think, feel, understand, how they learn etc.... Like how smart they are.



But see, what exactly qualifies an everyday owner like you and I to be an expert on dog cognition and feeling? I drive a car everyday, but that doesn't make me a car mechanic or mechanical engineer. I own a dog and can train him, but that doesn't make me an expert on his brain.


----------



## Zoey's Mommy (Mar 3, 2012)

dogdragoness said:


> I tend to not like most of the writings on dogs, I think they sell dogs short on what they think, feel, understand, how they learn etc.... Like how smart they are.


interesting, in the past you've shared you have adult ADHD and so do I. _For the Love of the Dog_ by Patricia McConnelly had some GREAT stuff about body language, so good in fact, it really helped me with reading body language in people. Matter of fact, there's a boy with ADHD in my basic obedience class, he's there for a service project; I passed the book along to him because it was so insightful on dogs and humans alike!


----------



## Zoey's Mommy (Mar 3, 2012)

qingcong said:


> But see, what exactly qualifies an everyday owner like you and I to be an expert on dog cognition and feeling? I drive a car everyday, but that doesn't make me a car mechanic or mechanical engineer. I own a dog and can train him, but that doesn't make me an expert on his brain.


this is true, for most. Personally, my working memory is so lousy that I can't memorize rote information, I have to understand/feel/visualize how it "works" to remember how to complete a task... 

yes, I do understand how much of a car operates.... and there's no way I could train with Emmett, without at least feeling like I understand a snippet how he experiences me when I try to communicate with him.

Much of what McConnell and Bradshaw bears out not only in anecdotes, but also scientific sense.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Zoey's Mommy said:


> yes, I do understand how much of a car operates.... and there's no way I could train with Emmett, without at least feeling like I understand a snippet how he experiences me when I try to communicate with him.
> 
> Much of what McConnell and Bradshaw bears out not only in anecdotes, but also scientific sense.



I don't think feeling how my dog experiences me helps me with training, quite frankly because I don't know what's going on his head. I can only see what happens outside. Because I work on behavior with him a lot, I can gather subtle cues he gives off that tip me off on what might happen next. I don't need to feel what he feels to communicate with him. By the same token, it's almost a near certainty my dog and all dogs cannot project theory of mind onto me. If they can, it's very very limited in relation to ours. He doesn't need to know how I feel to operate me. Just like I have with him, he's also been able to gather subtle cues about myself that tip him off on certain things that come next.

I was over at a friend's house one time and she kept giving me a play by play description on her dogs, "She's play barking right now." "she's barking because she's jealous" etc. She could have been right, could have been wrong, but making those assessments don't really do anything. They don't help you to figure out what to do to address the issue. They're just good for having a laugh.


----------



## CatintheHat (Jun 7, 2009)

hanksimon said:


> "Accepted" dog training methods are based on behaviorism, clicker training, positive reinforcement, etc. Research in Cognitive studies and educational psychology applied to dogs is comparatively sparse, because sources are funding were hard to come by, except in recent years. A few universities have research institutions devoted to cognitive research in dogs, and explanations of Rico and Chaser are accepted as being outside pure behaviorism. But, I haven't seen any popular, accessible books that talk about higher order learning, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation applied to dogs.


It is certainly true that associative learning is the state of the art in dog and other (non-human) animal behavior management and modification. Positive reinforcement and LIEBI are the standards. 

That said, radical behaviorism is well outside of the mainstream in modern psychology. Cognitivism has been the prevailing paradigm for few decades now. 

I am only aware of one book on canine cognition for general audiences: Inside of a Dog. I haven't read it yet, but it looks interesting.


----------



## Deaf Dogs (May 28, 2012)

"Inside of a Dog" is very good, as is "Dog Sense". Another one you may be interested in is "How the Dog Became the Dog" by Mark Derr. It's a fantastic book on the evolution of the dog, that is very up to date. here's a bit of info on it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-derr/dogs-domesticated_b_1146340.html

I dont know if you're interested in that too, but as my library is similar to yours, I thought you perhaps might like it


----------



## ben00x (Jun 5, 2012)

cookieface said:


> _Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know_ by Alexandra Horowitz is another book I've seen recommended and is also fairly recent.


I've read this book and it is excellent if you're trying to learn more about how dogs actually perceive their world. It really made me appreciate my puppy a whole lot more when I was through reading it.


----------



## ofthelogos (Mar 1, 2012)

I prefer Raymond Coppinger to Derr. Derr is a journalist, Coppinger is a research scientist who bred sled dogs and studied genetics. His book http://www.amazon.com/Dogs-Startlin..._B001ITRNRK_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1339422038&sr=1-2 is a great read.
Bradshaw is great. Horowitz is good too (I thought bradshaw was better). 
It's not specific to dogs, but Temple Grandin's stuff is an interesting read (even if I disagree with some of her conclusions). 
I don't know if you have iTunes, but the CBC radio show 'Ideas' did a great 3 part series called "Dogs Themselves" that intervied people like Horowitz and other researchers on dog behavior and cognition. You can download it as a podcast or find it on their website. It's a great listen


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

If there's a book out there that can help me understand why shaping was the key to unlock his mind and why he loves it so (too?) much, I'd appreciate suggestions. 

Doesn't matter how hard I make it - he's still going and determined to figure it out, even though I know he's "saying" 'Man, this is HARD!' by the way his tail lowers some and his movements aren't slow but are very deliberate, like he's pondering the situation.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

qingcong said:


> I was over at a friend's house one time and she kept giving me a play by play description on her dogs, "She's play barking right now." "she's barking because she's jealous" etc. She could have been right, could have been wrong, but making those assessments don't really do anything. They don't help you to figure out what to do to address the issue. They're just good for having a laugh.


I think it depends.

Let's say we're shaping. He's barking instead of doing whatever. 

Depending on the context and what he's doing in addition, I can see if he's:

-wanting to play
-barking at a squirrel outside
-barking because he thinks that's what I want
-barking because he hears something 
-needs to pee

Depending on which of those it is, I will respond differently.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

KBLover said:


> I think it depends.
> 
> Let's say we're shaping. He's barking instead of doing whatever.
> 
> ...





If the goal is to teach a specific behavior in all contexts, then the context shouldn't matter, unless it's totally unrealistic like "SIT on flaming hot coals". If we start making excuses for why behavior doesn't happen correctly, then we're untraining the behavior by not enforcing it. There's the mindset of, "he knows sit, he's just being stubborn because of ..." and pretty soon the dog fails to sit in just about all contexts because the owner has failed to adequately proof the behavior and instead offers excuse after excuse for why it doesn't happen right.


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

KBLover said:


> If there's a book out there that can help me understand why shaping was the key to unlock his mind and why he loves it so (too?) much, I'd appreciate suggestions.
> 
> Doesn't matter how hard I make it - he's still going and determined to figure it out, even though I know he's "saying" 'Man, this is HARD!' by the way his tail lowers some and his movements aren't slow but are very deliberate, like he's pondering the situation.


 Have you read Karen Pryor's "Reaching the Animal Mind"? It has the answers to your questions.


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

qingcong said:


> If the goal is to teach a specific behavior in all contexts, then the context shouldn't matter, unless it's totally unrealistic like "SIT on flaming hot coals". If we start making excuses for why behavior doesn't happen correctly, then we're untraining the behavior by not enforcing it. There's the mindset of, "he knows sit, he's just being stubborn because of ..." and pretty soon the dog fails to sit in just about all contexts because the owner has failed to adequately proof the behavior and instead offers excuse after excuse for why it doesn't happen right.


But she's talking about shaping not teaching a specific behavior that is already learned in all contexts. If your dog isn't into "playing" shaping at the moment wouldn't it be useful to know why so you can solve the problem and continue your training?

Also if we are proofing a behavior, say reinforcing sit outside in the park. If the dog isn't cooperating but I can't figure out why, when the actual reason is that he's afraid of the basketball noises coming from the court nearby, then I wouldn't realize that I need to address his fears before we can work on training sit. IMO being able to recognize fear, anxiety, happiness, alertness, playfulness etc. are all really important tools for understanding your dog so you can work as a team rather than being a person commanding an animal.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Gally said:


> If the dog isn't cooperating but I can't figure out why, when the actual reason is that he's afraid of the basketball noises coming from the court nearby, then I wouldn't realize that I need to address his fears before we can work on training sit. IMO being able to recognize fear, anxiety, happiness, alertness, playfulness etc. are all really important tools for understanding your dog so you can work as a team rather than being a person commanding an animal.



I don't disagree, I just see it in a different way. I don't try to understand my dog from inside-out, I go from outside-in. I start with what I can observe, being cognizant of triggers and cues and seeing what effect they have on the dog. If I start assigning emotions right off the bat, I'm probably going to be wrong because it's a practice in anthropomorphism instead of reality. Instead of wasting my time assigning emotions, I'd rather be solving problems, preventing problems, and maintaining desired behavior.

That said, the reason why I started this thread is because I can get a little too heavy in the OC and CC side and I find myself still a bit in the dark on some things.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> I don't disagree, I just see it in a different way. I don't try to understand my dog from inside-out, I go from outside-in. I start with what I can observe, being cognizant of triggers and cues and seeing what effect they have on the dog. If I start assigning emotions right off the bat, I'm probably going to be wrong because it's a practice in anthropomorphism instead of reality. .


Whether it is anthropomorphism or not depends on whether I am projecting or observing. I'm a big believer in operant conditioning. But I think there's more to having a relationship with another being than simply programming behavior. Sometimes behavior overlies more basic emotions and concerns, and if you don't care to dig deeper and make that leap into what another may be experiencing, you don't have the whole picture, and therefore may not be successful except in a superficial way. There's a huge difference (IMO) between assuming dogs get the same meaning from stuff that we do, and being curious enough to actually explore what their world may look like to them. Are you familiar with the term *Umwelt"? It's a part of ethological study that Suzanne Clothier turned me on to when I attended her Wolf Park seminar several years ago. While talking about books, a great little read is a children's book titled "View from the Oak" http://www.amazon.com/The-View-Oak-Creatures-Literature/dp/1565846362


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

I definitely take observation of my dogs body language, vocalizations and movement before trying to determine what he may be feeling or experiencing. I won't always get it right and there is no way to know for sure but for me there is so much to be gained from trying. For me it has deepened my relationship with Gally and allowed me to try to better his life in ways that are meaningful to him.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

qingcong said:


> If the goal is to teach a specific behavior in all contexts, then the context shouldn't matter, unless it's totally unrealistic like "SIT on flaming hot coals". If we start making excuses for why behavior doesn't happen correctly, then we're untraining the behavior by not enforcing it. There's the mindset of, "he knows sit, he's just being stubborn because of ..." and pretty soon the dog fails to sit in just about all contexts because the owner has failed to adequately proof the behavior and instead offers excuse after excuse for why it doesn't happen right.


...What?

Who said I'm making excuses? Plus, if the behavior is UNKNOWN - what am I going to enforce? Also, if he's fearful, why am I going to enforce the behavior instead of removing what's causing the behavior to fail? If he's scared, removing him from the scary thing is going to lead to success since the fear is causing the failed behavior. If I want him to perform in the face of the scary behavior, then I need to approach it accordingly, not just "enforce it" (flooding, basically).

Also, context is never irrelevant. If it was, we wouldn't need to work on proofing and generalization, so that doesn't make sense to me. Not to mention emotional states are also contexts, some need more teaching than others, depending on the dog and human in question.

It's not excuse, it's actually analyzing and observing what's happening in the dog via the window we have, his behavior. Using that information can lead me to success because I'm understanding what's making him fail instead of just "forcing" him to do it, ignoring what he's trying to communicate to me. Why is he failing in this context? The answer that can change my approach to TEACHING the behavior in that context instead of just "enforcing" things.

The fact he was sitting on the porch while our house was burning down tells me that I haven't failed to condition sit, sit on the porch, or anything else. Let alone the fact he remembered all of his training through the ensuing months of chaos as a result of that fire. Or when we were practicing recall and I changed it by recalling him across the street - he stopped on his own because he knows not to go across the street without cued. I don't think I'm making any excuses, failing to condition for various contexts or anything else. I just look for possible reasons why he failed in that situation and explore my approach for teaching whatever it is in that context so he can grasp it and succeed.



qingcong said:


> Instead of wasting my time assigning emotions, I'd rather be solving problems, preventing problems, and maintaining desired behavior.


Even in classical conditioning, emotion/perception is important, considering that's half the purpose of the method (changing the dogs emotional response/perception to a stimulus).

And why the heck do you think I try to read Wally and understand his behaviors, and what insight that could be going on in his mind as a result (going back to shaping again, if he's trying something that's off the track, it's not just important, imo, that he's off track, but what he's trying could give insight to what he's thinking/understanding so far in the process, which can lead to "frame the question" in a different way)? To solve problems, prevent problems, and develop behaviors in his mind so I can capture them and then apply them to other situations and at the same time maintaining them because not only are they getting rewarded, but they give him new ways to interact with his environment. He's definitely a "take what I learn and try it on everything" dog. So instead of ignoring that, I use it.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

KBLover said:


> ...What?
> 
> Who said I'm making excuses? Plus, if the behavior is UNKNOWN - what am I going to enforce? Also, if he's fearful, why am I going to enforce the behavior instead of removing what's causing the behavior to fail? If he's scared, removing him from the scary thing is going to lead to success since the fear is causing the failed behavior. If I want him to perform in the face of the scary behavior, then I need to approach it accordingly, not just "enforce it" (flooding, basically).
> 
> ...




I wasn't criticizing you in particular, just making a general comment on why people fail at proofing training.

So, one of the things I've learned in the past, I'm not a psych, biology, or ethology major or anything, but I'm aware of this kind of thing... If you are in the practice of studying a subject, you write down what you can _observe_. You cannot observe emotions, but you can observe body movements, and then you can observe what happens afterwards. From those body movements and from what happens afterwards, then you can take a stab at interpreting the inner workings of the dog. You don't start from the inner workings to justify everything else. Doing that is not science, it's using theory of mind, which leads to all sorts of irrational ideas.


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

I think the thing that doesn't make sense for me with what you're saying is that you say you can't see emotions because they are part of the "inner workings" of the dog, not observable directly. But, dogs wear their emotions on their sleeve so to speak. If you know what you're looking for in body language it is pretty easy, even for an average owner, to pick out basic emotions like fear and joy. Dog's don't have the capacity to lie from what I've observed and read, what their body language is saying is what they are feeling, the same body language will always mean they are happy or fearful, it can be observed and will be repeated and could be recreated in a scientific study.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Gally said:


> I think the thing that doesn't make sense for me with what you're saying is that you say you can't see emotions because they are part of the "inner workings" of the dog, not observable directly. But, dogs wear their emotions on their sleeve so to speak. If you know what you're looking for in body language it is pretty easy, even for an average owner, to pick out basic emotions like fear and joy. Dog's don't have the capacity to lie from what I've observed and read, what their body language is saying is what they are feeling, the same body language will always mean they are happy or fearful, it can be observed and will be repeated and could be recreated in a scientific study.




Don't get me wrong, I'll sit around and daydream and have a good laugh with friends over my dog's behavior and I'll call it "happy" "sad" all I want. That's just harmless humanization. When it comes time to implement a course of action, like if there's a problem behavior or if I'm trying to teach something new, I throw out anything that's irrelevant and focus solely on things that can affect how the training session will go - for example signs of stress or signs of engagement. I don't need to know if the stress is making the dog "sad", all I need to know is if the stress will be detrimental to the dog's ability to learn and I will either stop or figure out if a trigger is causing the stress and work on desensitizing dog to the trigger.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

qingcong said:


> But see, what exactly qualifies an everyday owner like you and I to be an expert on dog cognition and feeling? I drive a car everyday, but that doesn't make me a car mechanic or mechanical engineer. I own a dog and can train him, but that doesn't make me an expert on his brain.


Didn't say I was an expert on ALL dogs... (tho I'm not without knowledge either lol) but I am an expert on MINE. 

Also, just because a dog refuses to obey a command doesn't mean it's not full proof, there are a lot of variables in the world that could account for disobeying a command. For example, Buddy has had some ill treatment in thr past. If I call him to me gently & nicely ask him to sit, he does but if I use a 'training' voice then he shuts down. It's not that he doesn't know what sit means, it's just that he has a low threshold for precieved aggression & will throw calming/appeasement behaviors. 

With Josefina it's thr opposite, if you ask nicely as I do with Buddy she won't take the command seriously, so we use our 'coach' voices with her Lol.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> I wasn't criticizing you in particular, just making a general comment on why people fail at proofing training.
> 
> So, one of the things I've learned in the past, I'm not a psych, biology, or ethology major or anything, but I'm aware of this kind of thing... If you are in the practice of studying a subject, you write down what you can _observe_. You cannot observe emotions, but you can observe body movements, and then you can observe what happens afterwards. From those body movements and from what happens afterwards, then you can take a stab at interpreting the inner workings of the dog. You don't start from the inner workings to justify everything else. Doing that is not science, it's using theory of mind, which leads to all sorts of irrational ideas.


I gotta say, if you can't observe emotional response in dogs, you're really not paying attention. And if your only resource is observing behaviors that you've taught, you probably aren't getting much further than the performance of learned and cued behavior. I can tell a lot by *how* the dog performs the behaviors. Are they enthusiastic? Are they simply compliant? Are they doing the behavior but not willingly? All these things point to emotional state, and unlike humans, dogs tend not to try to hide their emotions. And frequently (unless your dog is a robot) emotion influences behavior and needs to be addressed.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

Qingcong said that he can't observe emotions, and I agree with that precise statement, but I also think it is splitting hairs too finely. As Pawzk9 said, most of us recognize the emotions driving specific behaviors.

We've had folks ask for help b/c their puppy is growling. We may not do something from the online report, but we know that a puppy growls from anger, play, or b/c it feels good. And lots of times, if you see a 10 week old puppy growling, you can recognize the driving emotion, altho it might be hard to explain the subtle difference in behavior to a new owner.

Darwin reported that many animals have expressions and gestures that represent emotions, Turid Rugaas suggested it for dogs, and Paul Ekman published the definitive dictionary of human emotions mapped to the 'universal' facial expressions... Ekman can't say why you're feeling that emotion, but from a photo, or better a short video, he can scientifically identify the emotion of human subjects.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Look at it from the point of view of the dog. Can the dog observe and sense our different states? I think that answer is a resounding yes. Dogs are incredibly perceptive of us, because they have to be in order to survive in our world. 

Now, do dogs go labeling us as "happy" "sad" "jealous" "angry"? No. They don't have a concept of what those terms mean. Their only reference is what happens after we are in those states. It's what happens afterwards that gives the observable state meaning. Classical conditioning eh?

I go for the same type of communication with my dog that he does with me. Some of you seem to have interpreted what I said as a kind of rigid robotic operant conditioning approach, but that is a misunderstanding.


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

I think I understand what you're saying now. Your first few comments came off as though you didn't really care or that you didn't want to even try to understand the dogs point of view, I see now that's not what you were trying to say at all.

It still seems like you may be limiting your viewpoint by disregarding some parts of your dogs experience. Maybe it's just a difference in terminology though.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Gally said:


> I think I understand what you're saying now. Your first few comments came off as though you didn't really care or that you didn't want to even try to understand the dogs point of view, I see now that's not what you were trying to say at all.
> 
> It still seems like you may be limiting your viewpoint by disregarding some parts of your dogs experience. Maybe it's just a difference in terminology though.





I disregard the parts that cannot be verified and are thus useless, except for having a good laugh over a cup of tea with your buddies. If we apply theory of mind instead of observation, then we come up with all sorts of crazy stuff. 

I mean, that's about how the dominance viewpoint came about and why it still exists. Not many people know much about canine social structure, but we think we do, because we project our own feelings of hierarchy and control onto the dogs. You'll often see on The Dog Whisperer, people seem to just get it when Millan says something like, "See, you are not pack leader." They're like, "oooooh". Even though "pack leader" is a vague term, people project what they *think* it means and it _seems_ to make sense, but in reality, "pack leader" means something different to different people and can have different meanings in different situations, and as a result, is meaningless. 

Point being, there's a way to empirically verify each step so that you know you can be right and then there's a way to come up with crazy ideas that make no sense, or at best, could be right could be wrong. So, the original point of my post, was to find information out there that has analyzed the dog's inner workings using the former method. There's been some good book recommendations. I will check them out.


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

Well I will just extend the recommendations for Inside of a Dog and Dog Sense as great books on the subject.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

qingcong said:


> Look at it from the point of view of the dog. Can the dog observe and sense our different states? I think that answer is a resounding yes. Dogs are incredibly perceptive of us, because they have to be in order to survive in our world.
> 
> Now, do dogs go labeling us as "happy" "sad" "jealous" "angry"? No. They don't have a concept of what those terms mean. Their only reference is what happens after we are in those states. It's what happens afterwards that gives the observable state meaning. Classical conditioning eh?
> 
> I go for the same type of communication with my dog that he does with me. Some of you seem to have interpreted what I said as a kind of rigid robotic operant conditioning approach, but that is a misunderstanding.


Just because they don't have a concept doesn't mean they don't feel them. They may not be able to say (tho I choose to believe otherwise.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> Now, do dogs go labeling us as "happy" "sad" "jealous" "angry"? No. They don't have a concept of what those terms mean. Their only reference is what happens after we are in those states. It's what happens afterwards that gives the observable state meaning. Classical conditioning eh?
> erstanding.


Well, dogs generally don't use our language, but how do you know what concepts dogs do and don't have? Guessing what dogs may conceptuallize seems more unlikely than pinpointing what emotion a dog may be experiencing.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> I disregard the parts that cannot be verified and are thus useless, except for having a good laugh over a cup of tea with your buddies. .


Very few things in life can be absolutely verified - including much scientific "theory". Most advances in knowledge come from people who have the curiosity to wonder "what if?" (and then the people who apply tests to that theory.) One problem I have with Jean Donaldson's "Culture Clash" is the fact that, while it was absolutely necessary to swing the pendulum back from dominance theory, it tends to make people less willing to wonder about how dogs think, feel and experience their world. We tend to shy away from wondering how it is for our friends. Being open and curious is not the same thing as projecting one's own ego And the truth of things is usually in the middle somewhere between both extremes.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

qingcong said:


> Look at it from the point of view of the dog. Can the dog observe and sense our different states? I think that answer is a resounding yes. Dogs are incredibly perceptive of us, because they have to be in order to survive in our world.
> 
> Now, do dogs go labeling us as "happy" "sad" "jealous" "angry"? No. They don't have a concept of what those terms mean. Their only reference is what happens after we are in those states. It's what happens afterwards that gives the observable state meaning. Classical conditioning eh?
> 
> I go for the same type of communication with my dog that he does with me. Some of you seem to have interpreted what I said as a kind of rigid robotic operant conditioning approach, but that is a misunderstanding.


Why can't it be both?


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, dogs generally don't use our language, but how do you know what concepts dogs do and don't have? Guessing what dogs may conceptuallize seems more unlikely than pinpointing what emotion a dog may be experiencing.


See, dog cognition and animal cognition is the subject that I want to learn more about. In this case, I'm not blindly guessing at what dogs conceptualize, I'm making a pretty educated guess that dogs _cannot_ conceptualize emotions and project it onto other beings. I don't know much about animal cognition, but my understanding is that humans are unique in their ability to think abstractly. Other animals may have it to some degree, but humans are best at it, and dogs are probably way down the ladder in terms of abstract thinking. 

Point being, dogs probably don't spend any time wondering how we feel, because they probably don't have the capacity to think that way. Yet, they are fully functional social animals. This kind of thing can be tested by doing a scan of the brain and seeing if there is activity in the area responsible for abstract thought. There are probably also other ways of testing it without a brain scan. I've seen and read before in books and TV shows, that both dogs and humans release the same hormone, oxytocin, when a petting session is underway. Using this kind of knowledge, it is possible to conclude that dog and human are feeling something similar. 





Pawzk9 said:


> Very few things in life can be absolutely verified - including much scientific "theory". Most advances in knowledge come from people who have the curiosity to wonder "what if?" (and then the people who apply tests to that theory.) One problem I have with Jean Donaldson's "Culture Clash" is the fact that, while it was absolutely necessary to swing the pendulum back from dominance theory, it tends to make people less willing to wonder about how dogs think, feel and experience their world.


Quite the contrary, I think too many people still make too many inane comments on dog behavior because they wonder, and wonder blatantly incorrectly on how dogs think, feel, and experience their world. Look at the number of threads on this forum where people say stuff like, "he knows he's not supposed to pee there, but...." or "is he trying to show me he's dominant?" and stuff like that. If anything, Culture Clash has not had enough of an impact. 

I don't understand why you say very few things in life can be absolutely verified. That doesn't make sense to me.





> We tend to shy away from wondering how it is for our friends. Being open and curious is not the same thing as projecting one's own ego And the truth of things is usually in the middle somewhere between both extremes.


I agree, we should be open-minded in all aspects of our life. 





dogdragoness said:


> Why can't it be both?


Both what?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> See, dog cognition and animal cognition is the subject that I want to learn more about. In this case, I'm not blindly guessing at what dogs conceptualize, I'm making a pretty educated guess that dogs _cannot_ conceptualize emotions and project it onto other beings. I don't know much about animal cognition, but my understanding is that humans are unique in their ability to think abstractly. Other animals may have it to some degree, but humans are best at it, and dogs are probably way down the ladder in terms of abstract thinking.
> 
> Point being, dogs probably don't spend any time wondering how we feel, because they probably don't have the capacity to think that way. Yet, they are fully functional social animals. This kind of thing can be tested by doing a scan of the brain and seeing if there is activity in the area responsible for abstract thought. There are probably also other ways of testing it without a brain scan. I've seen and read before in books and TV shows, that both dogs and humans release the same hormone, oxytocin, when a petting session is underway. Using this kind of knowledge, it is possible to conclude that dog and human are feeling something similar.
> <snip>I don't understand why you say very few things in life can be absolutely verified. That doesn't make sense to me.


I doubt that dogs "project" emotions on us, but I think they are fully capable of having many of the same emotions AND they are capable often of noticing what emotions we are experiencing, and reacting to that. You can do a brain scan, and measure blood chemistry, and those things may be able to suggest certain emotional responses, but as you say, it is still only a conclusion. It's a conclusion I have based on numerous personal experiences, but I can't prove it. Just out of curiosity, what are the many (as opposed to very few) things in life that can be absolutely verified. Our "facts" are simply our current beliefs based on current levels of knowledge and our understanding of them. Shoot, we can't even verify where we come from, how the world came into being or where we go when we die. The older I get, the more I realize that I don't know. And that's okay, because nobody knows.



qingcong said:


> Quite the contrary, I think too many people still make too many inane comments on dog behavior because they wonder, and wonder blatantly incorrectly on how dogs think, feel, and experience their world. Look at the number of threads on this forum where people say stuff like, "he knows he's not supposed to pee there, but...." or "is he trying to show me he's dominant?" and stuff like that. If anything, Culture Clash has not had enough of an impact.



Well, certainly it's my goal to see people treat dogs better, but I've never quite been comfortable telling them that dogs are lemon brains and simply input output units, and so we should treat them kindly for that reason. I prefer to think that I can put my ego aside enough to think they are brilliant salient creatures and I can treat them with respect even if they don't agree with me all the time.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

I dunno if we want to get into the philosophy of the scientific method, but here are some biscuits to chew on:
1. Skinner stated that ALL was Behaviorism and there was nothing in the mind, unless it presented as an observable.
2. Noam Chomsky (not intentionally) overthrough the blackbox idea by showing that people have an internal model of syntax, independent of semantics: "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" - A good sentence that makes no sense.
3. The fact that we have a 'mental model' opens the door for Cognitive Psychology (basis for Education Psychology).
4. I agree that a dog may not label our emotional states, but he does label them indicating internal thought and cognition.
5. However, he may not have a sophisticated theory of mind... BUT.... I have seen a dog 'attack' another dog in play... and have the victim freak out... Then, the 'bullying' dog will give a high pitched bark and maybe a playbow... It's so natural and smooth, you may ignore it. It's just like when a some puppies adjust during Bite Inhibition training. You might argue that a softer bite is pure behaviorism - I'm avoiding that debate for the moment - but some of the side behaviors: bark and playbow that can sometimes accompany this training, strike me as indication of a theory of mind and a mental model of others...
6. Mammals have similar basic emotions and drives. There is a loose mapping across species. I believe that mirrow neurons can fire in recognition.... but I don't pretend to know the line between recognition and anthropomophism.
7. The research tests for cognition have to be a bit more subtle, but there is some progress at a few universities.
8. But you can set up your own tests for cognition, by setting up or just observing when additional behaviors are presented, which are above and beyond those needed for the activity at hand... A Playbow is one, work such as that with Chaser and Rico is another, some of the subtlties of Calming Signals persent another opportunity...
9. And when a good scientific, evidence-based experiment is designed, the research tries to include many possible reasons, tests to discriminate the reasons, randomness to help with generalization, and double-blind work to avoid pre-conception. When new knowledge reveals new underlying reasons, the science progresses... in psychology and in physics...


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> I doubt that dogs "project" emotions on us, but I think they are fully capable of having many of the same emotions AND they are capable often of noticing what emotions we are experiencing, and reacting to that. You can do a brain scan, and measure blood chemistry, and those things may be able to suggest certain emotional responses, but as you say, it is still only a conclusion. It's a conclusion I have based on numerous personal experiences, but I can't prove it.


Well, if a brain scan and blood chemistry and whatever biological change is detected, and the same biological change is detected in a different animal, then it's easy to conclude that the two animals are experiencing the same biological change, and quite possibly the same mental state. If a dog has the same biological state changes that a human has, then we can say the dog is capable of that particular emotion. 






> Just out of curiosity, what are the many (as opposed to very few) things in life that can be absolutely verified. Our "facts" are simply our current beliefs based on current levels of knowledge and our understanding of them. Shoot, we can't even verify where we come from, how the world came into being or where we go when we die.


Things are verified everyday. I don't know what qualifies as "absolutely verified", but things can be verified enough to be useful, such as operant and classical conditioning. We can make planes fly because of verifiable laws of physics. Just the other day I verified that the foul smell outside my house was indeed coming from my trash bin.





> Well, certainly it's my goal to see people treat dogs better, but I've never quite been comfortable telling them that dogs are lemon brains and simply input output units, and so we should treat them kindly for that reason. I prefer to think that I can put my ego aside enough to think they are brilliant salient creatures and I can treat them with respect even if they don't agree with me all the time.


The input/output model applies even to humans; difference being humans are more complex in/out models than dogs. Whenever I am stumped by my gf's behavior, I refer back to OC & CC and it all makes perfect sense. I have been successful using CC on her. OC is a bit harder to pull off. Even though she is the same species as me, I still have no idea what's in her brain sometimes. How can I possibly know what a dog is thinking? In the end, it doesn't really even matter because our behavior is not based on what we're thinking deep inside, we're all governed by OC and CC anyways. With dogs, probably the vast majority of OC and CC is dictated by external stimuli whereas with humans that have imaginations and evolving thoughts, OC and CC may be dictated more internally than externally. For example, I can reward my own hypothetical behavior with my own thoughts whereas a dog is not capable of that. But that's just my thoughts, I don't know that for sure.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> The input/output model applies even to humans; difference being humans are more complex in/out models than dogs. Whenever I am stumped by my gf's behavior, I refer back to OC & CC and it all makes perfect sense. I have been successful using CC on her. OC is a bit harder to pull off. Even though she is the same species as me, I still have no idea what's in her brain sometimes. How can I possibly know what a dog is thinking? In the end, it doesn't really even matter because our behavior is not based on what we're thinking deep inside, we're all governed by OC and CC anyways. With dogs, probably the vast majority of OC and CC is dictated by external stimuli whereas with humans that have imaginations and evolving thoughts, OC and CC may be dictated more internally than externally. For example, I can reward my own hypothetical behavior with my own thoughts whereas a dog is not capable of that. But that's just my thoughts, I don't know that for sure.


So, since you can't know exactly what is going on with her, are you uncurious? Just treat her with OC and CC and everything will be fine? I honestly don't know WHAT dogs are capable of, though I've seen some things that input/output don't exactly explain. I've had dogs generate very clear communication with me on matters that have nothing to do with training, and I've seen some interesting indications of imagination in dogs. Had one dog who would come home from practicing herding with ducks who would gather up shoes from around the house and seem to pretend they were ducks. I think if we discount the possibility that dogs are more than lemon brains, we will not notice things that indicate that they are.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

I just got a bunch of new books based on recommendations (not just from DF), and Stanley Coren's "How to Speak Dog" is deeply disappointing so far.  Right off the bat (chapter 1) he starts talking about dogs trying to dominate people... One woman says her dog is "too affectionate" towards her and it's "wimpy" because he was supposed to be a guard dog. Coren says the affection and attention is actually the dog telling her he's higher status and trying to dominate her.

Sigh. Is there a list somewhere that divides all dog books ever into pro-dominance vs non-dominance?


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> So, since you can't know exactly what is going on with her, are you uncurious? Just treat her with OC and CC and everything will be fine? I honestly don't know WHAT dogs are capable of, though I've seen some things that input/output don't exactly explain. I've had dogs generate very clear communication with me on matters that have nothing to do with training, and I've seen some interesting indications of imagination in dogs. Had one dog who would come home from practicing herding with ducks who would gather up shoes from around the house and seem to pretend they were ducks. I think if we discount the possibility that dogs are more than lemon brains, we will not notice things that indicate that they are.



I think I'm very curious about my dog and my gf, from an OC and CC point of view. I think about the way her parents interact with her and then some of the respondent behaviors I see from her, then some of the things that I do and some of the things I have inadvertently conditioned with her. From there I can gather what kinds of things make the subject tick, what kinds of things the subject finds rewarding/punishing and what kinds of things have been conditioned and thus are able to be re-conditioned. 

For some people, the Skinner/Pavlov thing is just a cold isolated science experiment with little bearing on everyday life and how to interact with another being. I used to belong to that category of people. The more I go about things, the more I see Skinner/Pavlov's principles in EVERYTHING. EVERY single interaction I have with another human or animal is a form of CC and OC, there are no exceptions. The interesting part is that animals are dynamic, things are always being re-conditioned, whether we're aware or not. The evolution of behavior is a very curious thing.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

If you'd like examples on Non-Behaviorism, consider that people and dogs can learn rules. And, as Pawzk9 experienced, they can combine two different rules by themselves for new learning. Although they have learned, according to behaviorism, there is no learning until a new behavior is expressed. Higher order rules, without shaping, is not behaviorism. Google Rico and Chaser for two good counter-excamples to behaviorism in dogs.

If you've trained your dog to sit, you may have had to explicitly generalize the training to different locations (Behaviorism). But if you teach the dog to shake or to turn a few weeks/months later, you'll find that he complies independent of location. ... And, he will Sit without any praise or feedback. THe conventional explanation is that he gets an internal reward... but that's a stretch from how behaviorism is defined.... It's easily explained within Cognitive Psychology.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Not books, and not directly related to the current discussion, but... There have been several episodes of _Nature_ ("A Murder of Crows," "Animals Behaving Badly," and one about elephants, among others) and some older _Scientific American Frontiers_ that deal with animal learning. All fascinating, plus the PBS web site often includes additional material and references.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

hanksimon said:


> If you'd like examples on Non-Behaviorism, consider that people and dogs can learn rules. And, as Pawzk9 experienced, they can combine two different rules by themselves for new learning. Although they have learned, according to behaviorism, there is no learning until a new behavior is expressed. Higher order rules, without shaping, is not behaviorism. Google Rico and Chaser for two good counter-excamples to behaviorism in dogs.
> 
> If you've trained your dog to sit, you may have had to explicitly generalize the training to different locations (Behaviorism). But if you teach the dog to shake or to turn a few weeks/months later, you'll find that he complies independent of location. ... And, he will Sit without any praise or feedback. THe conventional explanation is that he gets an internal reward... but that's a stretch from how behaviorism is defined.... It's easily explained within Cognitive Psychology.




Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that cognitive psychology doesn't explain behavior. It's a study of internal mental processes. So if a dog shows the ability for higher thought, then the higher thought can be explained through cog. psych, but the behavior itself is still OC right? What do you mean by "dogs can learn rules"? I've never heard that before.

I've seen Rico and Chaser. They are extraordinary, especially how they can use deductive reasoning to single out something they've never heard before. Border collies are kind of a breed apart in their ability to "understand" human language. Good luck teaching my dog to do what Chaser does. I also saw a show where some dog kept making actual shapes out of his toys. That was some crazy stuff. It's kind of unsettling that a dog can possibly think on such a high level - that maybe some border collie out there is actually understanding human conversation at a toddler level. I like dogs because they are simple and are my bridge to mother nature, not because they are a surrogate human.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

Cognitive psychology includes many of the activities explained in Behavioral. (There's a more recent branch of psychology called constructivist - but I don't have experience with it. It's based on creating contexts for situation-based reactions, understanding, and learning, I think). As a rough estimate, if we oversimplify Behavioral ( OC ) as stimulus-response; then Cognitive is Stimulus-thought-response ... but that is dangerously oversimplified... 

Think of a dog learning a rule as an internalized "If I do X, then Y happens". Again, to over simplify: If I ask my dog to fetch the ball and put it in the toy box, you can make the argument that I used OC and shaping to train him... Not a bad argument. But, I want to elevate it and say that he has internalized a rule, b/c maybe I can snap my finger to get the dog's attention, point at the ball and say box... w/o explicitly teaching this sequence, and the dog will generalize. In fact, I'll go two more steps, I can say my dog's name, look at the ball, then nod toward the box, and he'll put the ball away... And, I can do this with a number of objects. I've never taught this specific behavior, but after 10 years of interaction, my dog has learned these rules. (In fact, my dog doesn't do this behavior, but he does an analogous behavior that's more complicated than needed for this discussion.)

I believe that all dogs have the potential for "higher thought" or at least more clever learning; we just miss the opportunity for training at a young age. I have a quack theory that I can take any 8 - 10 week puppy, train him, and when he's an adult, he'll be able to unwind himself if he gets caught in his leash or tied up around a pole, and he will be able to understand to run to the gate to get on the other side of a fence, from any location. You'd have to account for the different learning styles of sight-hounds, terriers, and herders. (Of course this may be analogous to taking a child and turning him into a doctor, lawyer, engineer  )

The owner said that it took about 3 years (or he waited that long) to teach Chaser to fast map, discriminating unknown toys. With patience and early training, I think you could teach many hunting dogs or herding dogs to have a large vocabulary. And, service dogs already perform at a high level. There's some side discussion that Chaser and Rico were selecting based on scent not sight, but I'm not sure that it affects the fast mapping discussion. As far as understanding discussion, I know folks who spell in front of their dogs... and the dogs are learning the spelling  (I think that's simple pattern recognition). My dog tends to ignore the conversation, unless we're talking to him or gesturing to him.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Hanksmion>> I have actually seen a dog learn to unwind themselves when they get tangled up or heir leash wrapped around something, josefina does that all the time, when she was younger I tied her when we were working in thr been to keep her out of trouble, after a few times of wrapping herself around the table let she was tied to & me in winding her she learned to do it herself .

I mean if a dog can distinguish btw their different toys & understand the names to each one (those of you who saw the program 'dog genius' will know what I'm talking about)


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

My dog can do a lot of practical "genius" things, but I don't expect that he can unwind himself... b/c I've never had him 'tied up' or near a pole or tree, when he was on a long lead. I can't guess how long it might take for him to learn or figure it out, if ever???

But, I think that those many little examples, like Josefina unwinding, demonstrate that more is going on than simple stimulus response. It clearly works, it works on people, it works well for initial learning, but I think it can be greatly extended so that pet dogs learn how to learn. In the 1960s, few of us taught our dogs - Lassie and Rin Tin Tin were impossible... Now KBLOver (a self-proclaimed amateur?) is trying to teach Wally behaviors beyond Lassie  If we unlock (document) the cognitive stuff, we could start another Karen Pryor revolution....


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

hanksimon said:


> Cognitive psychology includes many of the activities explained in Behavioral. (There's a more recent branch of psychology called constructivist - but I don't have experience with it. It's based on creating contexts for situation-based reactions, understanding, and learning, I think). As a rough estimate, if we oversimplify Behavioral ( OC ) as stimulus-response; then Cognitive is Stimulus-thought-response ... but that is dangerously oversimplified...


Good stuff. The way I understand it is, every interaction with the outside world is OC or CC. Certain people will have a tendency towards certain behaviors (slacking off, studying hard, surfing web forums, etc) because of what they inherently find rewarding & punishing. 

I have a tendency to plan in advance, because I have been most successful going into an activity well prepared. Some people prefer to do stuff cold turkey, because maybe in the past they have been rewarded with good results while not having to put in any work. For example, the difference between a 97% or 100% on a test probably doesn't make enough of a difference to encourage some to prepare harder for next time. Now, those spur of the moment types, they may _understand(cognitive?)_ that planning should be better, but they don't do the behavior because it's not necessary for their success. And for most, being lazy instead of being proactive is more rewarding (at least in the short term). Now, if we were able to rig up the environment so that these people achieved a much greater value reward for preparing, would they start preparing more? Most likely, yes. Those who value good grades (a conditioned reward), and can improve from a 50% to a 90% will learn to prepare. To me, the OC perspective is all I need to analyze the behavior of preparing. 

Now, what exactly does the cognitive aspect help me with? That's what I don't understand. 






> Think of a dog learning a rule as an internalized "If I do X, then Y happens". Again, to over simplify: If I ask my dog to fetch the ball and put it in the toy box, you can make the argument that I used OC and shaping to train him... Not a bad argument. But, I want to elevate it and say that he has internalized a rule, b/c maybe I can snap my finger to get the dog's attention, point at the ball and say box... w/o explicitly teaching this sequence, and the dog will generalize. In fact, I'll go two more steps, I can say my dog's name, look at the ball, then nod toward the box, and he'll put the ball away... And, I can do this with a number of objects. I've never taught this specific behavior, but after 10 years of interaction, my dog has learned these rules. (In fact, my dog doesn't do this behavior, but he does an analogous behavior that's more complicated than needed for this discussion.)


I think the argument could be made that somehow the behavior evolved over time (was it cognitive or through inadvertant shaping?) and the cue was simplified to a simple stare and point or whatever you do.






> I believe that all dogs have the potential for "higher thought" or at least more clever learning; we just miss the opportunity for training at a young age.


I think all dogs at any age can "learn to learn" as they call it. As for whether a dog can figure out more complicated laws of physics such as untangling, undoing a crate, that's probably something the dog needs to be born with.







> As far as understanding discussion, I know folks who spell in front of their dogs... and the dogs are learning the spelling  (I think that's simple pattern recognition). My dog tends to ignore the conversation, unless we're talking to him or gesturing to him.


Right, and the dog's who have learned to read. It's just visual stimulus discrimination, same as verbal stimulus discrimination. Verbal stimulus discrimination is not the same thing as "knowing sit", as some owners might be led to think.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

hanksimon said:


> My dog can do a lot of practical "genius" things, but I don't expect that he can unwind himself... b/c I've never had him 'tied up' or near a pole or tree, when he was on a long lead. I can't guess how long it might take for him to learn or figure it out, if ever???
> 
> But, I think that those many little examples, like Josefina unwinding, demonstrate that more is going on than simple stimulus response. It clearly works, it works on people, it works well for initial learning, but I think it can be greatly extended so that pet dogs learn how to learn. In the 1960s, few of us taught our dogs - Lassie and Rin Tin Tin were impossible... Now KBLOver (a self-proclaimed amateur?) is trying to teach Wally behaviors beyond Lassie  If we unlock (document) the cognitive stuff, we could start another Karen Pryor revolution....


Actually "unwinding" is one of the behaviors in Sue Ailsby's "Levels" Training. I think while Ken Ramirez is working with OC, his work with teaching dogs such differences as bigger and smaller indicates a little extra level in cognition. One thing my dogs have done (that I didn't teach and didn't reward) is they will go get another dog if I am wanting dogs in the house and that dog isn't coming. This worked great when my old Utility dog Cybill went deaf in her old age, and Jack made it his job to alert her to come in the house. This indicates to me that the dog has figured out (without OC or CC) that A) I am wanting that particular dog and B) who is who. It also indicates a fair amount of cooperation. Also (at least with Jack and Cybill) that he understood she couldn't respond to my voice for some reason. I never taught him this. I never specifically rewarded the behavior (although I thought it was pretty cool) and I fail to see what personal benefit (reinforcer) he earned by consistently being her "ears." I've also had other dogs suss out situations they'd never been trained for or reinforced for.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> Actually "unwinding" is one of the behaviors in Sue Ailsby's "Levels" Training. I think while Ken Ramirez is working with OC, his work with teaching dogs such differences as bigger and smaller indicates a little extra level in cognition. One thing my dogs have done (that I didn't teach and didn't reward) is they will go get another dog if I am wanting dogs in the house and that dog isn't coming. This worked great when my old Utility dog Cybill went deaf in her old age, and Jack made it his job to alert her to come in the house. This indicates to me that the dog has figured out (without OC or CC) that A) I am wanting that particular dog and B) who is who. It also indicates a fair amount of cooperation. Also (at least with Jack and Cybill) that he understood she couldn't respond to my voice for some reason. I never taught him this. I never specifically rewarded the behavior (although I thought it was pretty cool) and I fail to see what personal benefit (reinforcer) he earned by consistently being her "ears." I've also had other dogs suss out situations they'd never been trained for or reinforced for.



That's pretty cool. The ability to figure out something like that clearly indicates a higher level of cognition, but the actual behavior of doing it has to be explained by OC. Even though you may not have rewarded it intentionally, there must be something rewarding about it. I know when bossman is having a meeting and one of our guys is missing, I'll gladly pop out of my chair to find them.

A thing I noticed about your descriptions - you are not necessarily describing behavior, you are interpreting behavior. "they will go get another dog if I am wanting dogs in the house and that dog isn't coming" "Jack made it his job to alert her to come in the house" "he understood she couldn't respond to my voice for some reason". I could see the same behavior and have a different interpretation. "Go get another dog" is not describing behavior, "run outside and herd other dog into house" is a description of behavior. You are probably aware of the distinction. Specific descriptions allow us to empirically analyze behavior whereas interpretations get our theory of mind working.


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

Has anyone played the "do as I do/mirror" game or the "show me something new" game with their dog? I think they are interesting training techniques that may show parts of canine cognition that aren't often talked about.

"Do as I do" is where you ask the dog to mirror or copy your behavior. Jennifer Arnold talks about it in her book Through a Dog's Eyes. Usually you start out with something they already know, do it yourself by sitting down or whatever it may be, give the mirror command and then give the cue for sit. Eventually the dog starts to copy your behavior when you say "do it" rather than waiting for the regular cue. Over time you can teach new behaviors using this technique. I've gotten Gally to do a couple of new behaviors this way but we haven't spent too much time on it. Arnold talks about teaching her dog complicated behaviors with this technique.

"Show me something new" is where you start with a shaping game but then instead of looking for a specific behavior you ask for a new behavior for each click. It's been used with dolphins and primates to get them thinking creatively. Pryor suggests that dogs may be capable of thinking creatively enough to make up new behaviors and be able to play this game. There is a section of it in her book Reaching the Animal Mind, called 101 Things to Do With a Box: Creative Dogs.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> "Go get another dog" is not describing behavior, "run outside and herd other dog into house" is a description of behavior. You are probably aware of the distinction. Specific descriptions allow us to empirically analyze behavior whereas interpretations get our theory of mind working.


How is going to get another dog *not* a description of behavior? I just don't feel the need to limit my descriptions in the ways that you seem to think they should be limited. I also think that "running outside and herding dogs" in is a much bigger assumption. I can assure you that Jack DID herd, and it was a completely different attitude and behavior than when he'd go get the old deaf lady.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> How is going to get another dog *not* a description of behavior? I just don't feel the need to limit my descriptions in the ways that you seem to think they should be limited. I also think that "running outside and herding dogs" in is a much bigger assumption. I can assure you that Jack DID herd, and it was a completely different attitude and behavior than when he'd go get the old deaf lady.



"go get another dog" implies you understand the dog's motivation or thought process. Maybe he simply liked going outside and interacting with the other dog, maybe the other dog's name became a cue to run outside and interact with other dog. Unless Jack said, "c'mon old lady, lets get back inside", it's impossible to know that Jack's intent was to get the other dog inside.

Lets change herd to push as perhaps herd carries some weight with it. "Run outside and push dog inside" is an _exact_ description of what the dog does and contains no interpretations.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> "go get another dog" implies you understand the dog's motivation or thought process. Maybe he simply liked going outside and interacting with the other dog, maybe the other dog's name became a cue to run outside and interact with other dog. Unless Jack said, "c'mon old lady, lets get back inside", it's impossible to know that Jack's intent was to get the other dog inside.
> 
> Lets change herd to push as perhaps herd carries some weight with it. "Run outside and push dog inside" is an _exact_ description of what the dog does and contains no interpretations.


No. He didn't herd her and he didn't "push" her. He went to where she was and she followed him back to the house. Consistently. Every time. It was sad for the first few days after I had to put the Beanie dog down. He'd still go out and look for her when I called dogs in. I think it's very odd that you have such a hard time with a description of a dog going and getting another dog. Would you be equally averse to describing a dog getting a dumb bell or a ball? It's a pretty simple description of a readily observable behavior (even if you don't approve my willingness to speculate what it may say about the dog's cognition) I actually find your descriptions more "leading" and presumptuous than mine. Herding, indeed! Now I did have another dog (Jack's half sister, Cybill's grand daughter) who would literally herd the cat back into the house when she (the cat) snuck out the door. If herding movements didn't do the job, Emma would literally cage the cat within her legs and walk her back in. I never taught her this, either. If there'd been titles for herding cats, she'd have had more than started and open titles.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> I think it's very odd that you have such a hard time with a description of a dog going and getting another dog. Would you be equally averse to describing a dog getting a dumb bell or a ball? It's a pretty simple description of a readily observable behavior (even if you don't approve my willingness to speculate what it may say about the dog's cognition)


That's a good point, and no I would not disagree with the description of "getting a toy". The part that threw me off was "they will go get another dog if _I am wanting dogs in the house and that dog isn't coming_". Part in italics is the questionable part.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

I think that 'fetching' is so cool. B.F. Skinner used to make very powerful arguments to further Behaviorism as the explanation. I don't know if he also had stock in buggy whip makers  I also don't know what conversation he may have had with Noam Chomsky, whose theory of syntax, helped bring Cognitive psychology to the forefront. Robert Gagne is a resource for "rule learning" in educational psychology.

@Gally: I've never tried the mirror game. This sounds like something KBLover and Wally might be good at. However, my dog is 'creative.' He doesn't know the cue "Show me something new," but during training sessions, if he doesn't do want I want (Can't you read my mind?), and I don't give a strong NRM, then he'll throw behaviors at me ... just like what happens in clicker training. On the other hand, he is very good at manipulating strangers to go from a standing position and scratching his ears, to dropping to a knee... to rub his belly ... I did not teach him that trick !

@Pawzk9: I like Sue Ailsby a lot. She sounds like a pure clicker trainer with her multiple levels, but I feel strongly that I could make a good case for her teaching her dogs to think... She's imply to successful at repeatedly being able to train a dog who has learned how to learn. ... I think she could teach a sight hound to fast map as well as Chaser the border collie 

@qingcong: External interaction - If I say "Angry thoughts, I have" You parse and understand my odd syntax, you may respond, and you may invoke a memory of Yoda. Your understanding and response are not behaviorism; an emotion reaction may be behavioral.

Strategic planning: Immediate vs. delayed gratification may be behavioral. However, the ability to plan vs. the inability, so it is much more work is a mix. To take to the extreme: I like to read and read a lot. My vision is degrading, so I don't read as much. People who have dyslexia may read much less, because it simply takes more effort. Not just the reward, but the reward vs. effort trade-off, which is a little more complex.

The cognitive aspect helps you to fine tune your interactions and training, because you realize that there is some thinking going on during the training that help or hinder the training. For example, if you tell your dog to Sit-Stay, and he scratching or licks his nose, he may be using Calming Signals to express his inner mental state: "Daddy, I'm tired, I wanna lie down" Or "I'm lonely, can I come sit next to you?" And, then he breaks his Stay. If you recognize those signals, you can anticipate the behavior and reinforce the Stay, before the dog breaks it, or you can release it, maintaining his level of success.... I bet Pawzk9 does this all the time, automatically.

>>> "behavior evolved over time" This wasn't shaping, b/c the dog put the gestures together from different instances. The point can be made for behaviorism, but I think the cognitive approach is simpler.

>>> "the dog's who have learned to read" I don't believe that you've missed all of my 'bragging'  that I taught my dog to read. I assumed it was a simple pattern match, a simple stimulus - response; but a study of Baboons who learned to read, suggested that they learned to recognize subtle rules of which words are valid....suggesting letter-order recognition... but that's a different discussion.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

hanksimon said:


> The cognitive aspect helps you to fine tune your interactions and training, because you realize that there is some thinking going on during the training that help or hinder the training. For example, if you tell your dog to Sit-Stay, and he scratching or licks his nose, he may be using Calming Signals to express his inner mental state: "Daddy, I'm tired, I wanna lie down" Or "I'm lonely, can I come sit next to you?" And, then he breaks his Stay. If you recognize those signals, you can anticipate the behavior and reinforce the Stay, before the dog breaks it, or you can release it, maintaining his level of success.... I bet Pawzk9 does this all the time, automatically.


I agree with this. Recognizing muscle movements and taking action as early as possible is what separates the good ones from the ones who don't get results. That said, I don't need to know anything about dog cognition to recognize body language. In its most fundamental form, I liken working with a dog with driving a car. You get better at it the more you do it. I can anticipate when my car will hiccup and let off of the gas before it happens. The thing I am operating on can be alive or mechanical or whatever. I don't need to know about it to be able to work it. It's like treating your subject as a black box, sometimes that is completely adequate for what you need to do. 

My dad used to comment to my sister and I that as soon as we had physics and geometry under our belts, we'd be better pool players. Um, right... because as we know about angles and force we'll know how to hit the ball better? Nah. To me, that explains how people who have no clue what OC is manage to train their dogs to do _some_ stuff. Of course, with a firm grasp of OC, you have a much better background to get started.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Surfing around Duke's Evolutionary Anthropology site headed by Brian Hare, I found their recommendation of this book - http://www.amazon.com/Behaviour-Evolution-Cognition-Oxford-Biology/dp/0199295859

Description on amazon says "This is the first book to collate and synthesise the recent burgeoning primary research literature on dog behaviour, evolution and cognition. The author presents a new ecological approach to the understanding of dog behaviour, demonstrating how dogs can be the subject of rigorous and productive scientific study without the need to confine them to a laboratory environment."

Sounds exactly like what I want, but the $100 is not what I want!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> That's a good point, and no I would not disagree with the description of "getting a toy". The part that threw me off was "they will go get another dog if _I am wanting dogs in the house and that dog isn't coming_". Part in italics is the questionable part.


 The emotion involved (wanting the dogs inside) is mine so I think it is safe to assume that I know what my thought was at the time. The dog's behavior is to get the other dog (not herd, not push). Now either that is behavior or it's not. But nevermind. I see no need to couch every single thing I think or say in operant conditioning terms. I'm happy to use OC when it serves my purposes (which it frequently does). But I've moved past needing to see all interactions in that framework. I find it limiting. YMMV


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

hanksimon said:


> @Pawzk9: I like Sue Ailsby a lot. She sounds like a pure clicker trainer with her multiple levels, but I feel strongly that I could make a good case for her teaching her dogs to think... She's imply to successful at repeatedly being able to train a dog who has learned how to learn. ... I think she could teach a sight hound to fast map as well as Chaser the border collie
> .


Having been to a couple of seminars with Sue, I can guarantee you that one of her main goals is not just teaching behavior but to teach problem solving skills. I don't know, I sort of thought that was the goal of most good clicker trainers.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> I agree with this. Recognizing muscle movements and taking action as early as possible is what separates the good ones from the ones who don't get results. That said, I don't need to know anything about dog cognition to recognize body language. In its most fundamental form, I liken working with a dog with driving a car. You get better at it the more you do it. I can anticipate when my car will hiccup and let off of the gas before it happens. The thing I am operating on can be alive or mechanical or whatever. I don't need to know about it to be able to work it. It's like treating your subject as a black box, sometimes that is completely adequate for what you need to do.
> .


Gah. I have no interest in training black boxes. If that was what I thought I was doing, I don't think dog training would interest me. And I like my little PT Cruiser, but I'm not particularly interested in it other than as a way to get from point A to point B.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I don't have to do this anymore (has her on tie down that is) this was at my other job before this one when we were riding horses for safety reasons) the lead wasn't terrible long, like the length of your average leash whatever that is. I literally saw her 'working it out' when thr leash got stuck & she had to double back to fix it. 

Paws>> that was a sweet story about the dog getting & caring for the deaf one.

I also saw something on animal planet a while back about a dog who went for help when his masters house was on fire & he was pinned in, he went til he found the cops & rescue that were trying to find thr houses remote location & led them back to it. Also another dog was 'smart enough' to lead family members to his injured 10 yr old master on thr families ranch & even made them turn around when they went the wrong way.

Perhaps we don't give dogs enough credit & I don't know why some ppl (not those on this forum, I have run into plenty of 'outside' ppl) insist on 'dumbing down' dogs. I happen to think that a dog is one of he smartest creatures out there . They have soooooobmuch more cognative reasoning skills then horses believe me :/


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> The emotion involved (wanting the dogs inside) is mine so I think it is safe to assume that I know what my thought was at the time. The dog's behavior is to get the other dog (not herd, not push). Now either that is behavior or it's not. But nevermind. I see no need to couch every single thing I think or say in operant conditioning terms. I'm happy to use OC when it serves my purposes (which it frequently does). But I've moved past needing to see all interactions in that framework. I find it limiting. YMMV


To me it isn't about viewing things through the lens of OC, it's about seeing things through no lens at all, as a completely honest and unbiased account of what happened. That's the challenge, and why is it important? Because an accurate account of what happened can lead to an accurate solution. If I'm describing an issue to the car mechanic I can say, "my car is being a butt, it hates me" or I can be specific and say "when I hit 45mph I hear a rattling noise from the front". One description is helpful, one is just good for a laugh.







Pawzk9 said:


> Gah. I have no interest in training black boxes. If that was what I thought I was doing, I don't think dog training would interest me. And I like my little PT Cruiser, but I'm not particularly interested in it other than as a way to get from point A to point B.


I see a lot of experienced trainers comment on how they've moved beyond OC. I'm not exactly sure what that means. The more I train, the MORE OC I see and the better I get at it. A physicist doesn't move beyond the laws of gravity, they may not have to think about it as much, but they don't transcend fundamental laws. I guess the trainers who are "beyond OC" are probably experiencing something similar to a musician who no longer has to think about improvising in terms of scales, I dunno.







dogdragoness said:


> Perhaps we don't give dogs enough credit & I don't know why some ppl (not those on this forum, I have run into plenty of 'outside' ppl) insist on 'dumbing down' dogs. I happen to think that a dog is one of he smartest creatures out there . They have soooooobmuch more cognative reasoning skills then horses believe me :/


Predators in general have more intelligence than prey animals because it's required for their survival. That said, put a dog up against a human, chimp, dolphin, raven, whale, elephant - no competition, not even close. It's not an insult to the dog, it's a blatant truth. They have so much more to offer me than their intelligence.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

>>>Predators in general have more intelligence 
Elephants, water buffaloes, whales, dolphins, rats, foxes are not at the top of the food chain, and may be prey 

In water or swamps, the same may be true of people 

>>> beyond the laws of gravity 
When I want astronomy calculations, I use General Relativity, rather than gravity, so that I can account for additional details, which aren't explained by gravity. I also get the info explained by gravity. 

Going beyond behaviorism (not just OC) to Cognitive psychology allows you to understand things such as fast mapping (Chaser), which cannot be explained without a mental model.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

hanksimon said:


> Going beyond behaviorism (not just OC) to Cognitive psychology allows you to understand things such as fast mapping (Chaser), which cannot be explained without a mental model.


Yeah, I can see that. I think the connection between cog psych and beh psych may be that, if you have an idea of the cognitive aspect of your subject, you can be aware of what kinds of behaviors are possible to train using OC and what will be beyond the scope of the subject. The actual behavior of fast mapping or practicing piano or doing algebra problems is behavioral, but the ability to do such activities is cognitive.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Right now I am reading _When Pigs Fly!: Training Success with Impossible Dogs_ by Jane Killion. As I mostly have stubborn hounds, I consider myself an owner of impossible dogs, so I'm very interested in finishing the book and following the training advice. Traditional training classes haven't worked for me much, so I'm interested to see how her advice differs from that of the trainers that I have gone to.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> To me it isn't about viewing things through the lens of OC, it's about seeing things through no lens at all, as a completely honest and unbiased account of what happened. That's the challenge, and why is it important? Because an accurate account of what happened can lead to an accurate solution. If I'm describing an issue to the car mechanic I can say, "my car is being a butt, it hates me" or I can be specific and say "when I hit 45mph I hear a rattling noise from the front". One description is helpful, one is just good for a laugh..



I don't think that thinking dogs have a motive is the same as thinking a car has a motive. In "Bones Would Rain From the Sky" which I loved and you would probably hate, Suzanne Clothier talks about "pigs in a poke" and how difficult it can be to guess at even what one of our own species is experiencing. And yet, she think it is worth the effort. Wish I could find the book for a direct quote, but I can't find my home copy and not going back down to the school to get my copy there. She sorta suggests that if you care about another being, you are likely interested in their internal workings. The external model will give some clues but there is much that doesn't show. She thinks it is fine to guess what a dog is thinking, as long as you ask the dog "Is this so for you?" There is a huge difference between being really interested in what is going on in your dog's mind/emotions/body and projecting your own ego onto the dog. Now, Suzanne isn't big on behavioral geekspeak, but she's one of the most intuitive and observant dog people I know, and usually makles a lot of sense. I tend to pay attention to what she has to say. Her method is Relationship Centered Training, and I get a lot from that, but I also stray from it in that I use a lot more straight operant conditioning than she does. And I don't find the two to be in conflict with each other.



qingcong said:


> I see a lot of experienced trainers comment on how they've moved beyond OC. I'm not exactly sure what that means. The more I train, the MORE OC I see and the better I get at it. A physicist doesn't move beyond the laws of gravity, they may not have to think about it as much, but they don't transcend fundamental laws. I guess the trainers who are "beyond OC" are probably experiencing something similar to a musician who no longer has to think about improvising in terms of scales, I dunno...


LOL. It would be difficult to transend the laws of gravity, but once upon a time, before Isaac Newton sat under that apple tree, there was no theory of gravity because nobody had previously thought to come up with an explanation of why humans (and apples) don't float. Before Copernicus and Galileo, it was known fact that the sun revolved around the earth, and not only did most people not question that, those who did were subject to charges of heresy. People who stay well in the bounds of a certain belief system (and I do think that believing that all behavior and all learning can be fully described by CC and OC is a belief system) seldom come up with new and revolutionary insights or ideas because they have been trained (or trained themselves) not to see things which cannot be explained in their belief system. As Rufus (Chris Rock) said in "Dogma" (one of my very favorite movies) "I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier"
I find operant conditioning to be a wonderful tool - especially for communicating with those who do not share our language, but even for those who do, I think it works very well. And I like stuff that is effective. I also find it a useful drill to run a problem through the quadrants to help me come up with a good training strategy. Back when I first started clicker training, it was fun and amazing to figure out all the ways I could describe behavior in those terms. But, you know, I don't think it is able to describe everything. And it is often that hidden part of "dog" that fascinates me a lot more than what behavior I can mechanically install, and keeps me interested in dog training. I've always been more artist than scientist, though. 





qingcong said:


> Predators in general have more intelligence than prey animals because it's required for their survival. That said, put a dog up against a human, chimp, dolphin, raven, whale, elephant - no competition, not even close. It's not an insult to the dog, it's a blatant truth. They have so much more to offer me than their intelligence ...


Scuse? You DON'T think that not being dinner is an issue of survival for prey animals? I think all animals are "intelligent" in ways which enhance their chances of survival. Honey bees are capable of amazing navigation and communicating location through a complex dance to other members of the hive. Most people couldn't do that. In herding, I've seen how quickly an old ewe (and most people think sheep are stupid) can suss out a weak dog, and just as quickly recognize a dog who has power. In terms of survival, dogs are very intelligent indeed. Chimps, whales and elephants may have intelligence that we can readily recognize as being similar to our own, but they are endangered and losing ground as species. Dogs, on the other hand, by finding an environmental niche where they are helpful to humans are astoundingly successful as a species. Look how many of them there are!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> That said, I don't need to know anything about dog cognition to recognize body language. In its most fundamental form, I liken working with a dog with driving a car. You get better at it the more you do it. I can anticipate when my car will hiccup and let off of the gas before it happens. The thing I am operating on can be alive or mechanical or whatever. I don't need to know about it to be able to work it. It's like treating your subject as a black box, sometimes that is completely adequate for what you need to do.
> 
> .


So, do you think you are training the car? Or is the car training you?


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

Suzanne Clothier writes in Bones Would Rain from the Sky:

“To the extent that we’re trapped in our bodies and cannot even begin to communicate more than a tiny fraction of the internal, lightning-fast torrent of our thoughts and feelings, it could be said that all of us constitute “a pig in a poke.” Those looking on from outside the “poke” (sack) can only guess based on the gyrations and the squeals precisely what might be happening to the “pig” inside(…) How then could we possibly know what was going on in that poke? We guess.

How well we guess depends on a number of factors. One is simply this- are we truly curious about the pig in the poke? If we don't really care one way or another about what might or might not be happening with that pig in the poke, we will not devote the energy required to satisfy our curiosity. Another factor is experience- have we ever dealt with a pig in a poke before? Obviously, a first time Poker is going to have a different set of guesses than someone who deals with pigs in pokes all the time. Most important, though, is this: How much empathy do we bring to the situation?

We can see the pig in a poke in a number of ways. One view is the purely mechanical: the pig is contained, thus we can do what we like with him, though we do wish he’d stop squealing. Another option is the pragmatic approach: We feel badly that the pig is contained, but we can’t waste time dreaming up better way to transport a pig from point A to point B. There is also the empathetic approach: We try to imagine how it might be inside that poke, how we might make this easier on the pig, wonder about possibly better ways to transport pigs- and we do wish he’d stop squealing.

The empathetic approach is, without question, sometimes very time consuming. It requires that we work in slow, careful ways, going past merely treating an animal fairly as we achieve our goals and moving into working with an animal as a partner. It also requires a willingness to see the world from the animal’s point of view, followed by a thoughtful contemplation of that perspective. Empathy shapes our view so that the other perspective is included as part of our consideration; deeply felt, this may shift our own perspective and our goals considerably. The empathetic approach is the only one that allows dynamic quality of connection; without empathy, we are merely driving toward our own goals no matter how that may affect the other. Intimacy is not possible on such a one-way street. Although it requires more from us, in the end I think the results and the relationships possible when we work from an empathetic point of view far outweigh and drawbacks.”


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Gally said:


> Suzanne Clothier writes in Bones Would Rain from the Sky:
> 
> “To the extent that we’re trapped in our bodies and cannot even begin to communicate more than a tiny fraction of the internal, lightning-fast torrent of our thoughts and feelings, it could be said that all of us constitute “a pig in a poke.” Those looking on from outside the “poke” (sack) can only guess based on the gyrations and the squeals precisely what might be happening to the “pig” inside(…) How then could we possibly know what was going on in that poke? We guess.
> 
> ...


THANK YOU! That is the exact passage I was thinking of.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> I don't think that thinking dogs have a motive is the same as thinking a car has a motive. In "Bones Would Rain From the Sky" which I loved and you would probably hate, Suzanne Clothier talks about "pigs in a poke" and how difficult it can be to guess at even what one of our own species is experiencing.


Funny you should say that. I started on that book and couldn't finish it. I got as far as the pig part. I think I made it about 2/3 of the way through. I remember the part about introducing the dog to a turkey. I don't know if I hated it, but it was hard on me at times. I probably still have the bookmark in there and at some point I may decide to give it another go. I liked parts of it.






> LOL. It would be difficult to transend the laws of gravity, but once upon a time, before Isaac Newton sat under that apple tree, there was no theory of gravity because nobody had previously thought to come up with an explanation of why humans (and apples) don't float. Before Copernicus and Galileo, it was known fact that the sun revolved around the earth, and not only did most people not question that, those who did were subject to charges of heresy. People who stay well in the bounds of a certain belief system (and I do think that believing that all behavior and all learning can be fully described by CC and OC is a belief system) seldom come up with new and revolutionary insights or ideas because they have been trained (or trained themselves) not to see things which cannot be explained in their belief system. As Rufus (Chris Rock) said in "Dogma" (one of my very favorite movies) "I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier"
> I find operant conditioning to be a wonderful tool - especially for communicating with those who do not share our language, but even for those who do, I think it works very well. And I like stuff that is effective. I also find it a useful drill to run a problem through the quadrants to help me come up with a good training strategy. Back when I first started clicker training, it was fun and amazing to figure out all the ways I could describe behavior in those terms. But, you know, I don't think it is able to describe everything. And it is often that hidden part of "dog" that fascinates me a lot more than what behavior I can mechanically install, and keeps me interested in dog training. I've always been more artist than scientist, though.


I don't live by belief systems. My belief is to not have beliefs, I guess. I can't stand static beliefs, especially ones that clearly make no sense. I make it a point to be dynamic, to always be learning and updating, just like dogs. I don't see it as a belief system that I describe behavior through OC and CC, it's that it makes the most sense to me and no other explanation makes as much sense. If something else came along that made more sense, I'd be all over it. Cognition explains connecting dots in the brain, but does not explain why the behavior was done. I can't think of anything else that influences behavior. I think there's a difference between exploring OC and CC and simply accepting it.







Pawzk9 said:


> So, do you think you are training the car? Or is the car training you?


Ah, great question. Since the car is inanimate, it cannot be trained of course. The car is training me. Even if I'm training a dog, the dog is training me as well. Correct behavior is rewarding to me and so I will likely do more training in the future. Poor behavior is aversive and is a form of -R to make me work harder. For others it's +P in that they learn to avoid the problem situation.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> I can't think of anything else that influences behavior. I think there's a difference between exploring OC and CC and simply accepting it.


What do you think about Jaak Panksepp's SEEKING system. It works very well with OC theory, (and explains a reason why dogs may really like clicker training) but isn't exactly inside it, unless you are considering brain chemistry as R+. But that's not exactly a reinforcer you can control.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> What do you think about Jaak Panksepp's SEEKING system. It works very well with OC theory, (and explains a reason why dogs may really like clicker training) but isn't exactly inside it, unless you are considering brain chemistry as R+. But that's not exactly a reinforcer you can control.



My introduction to SEEK was through Pryor's "Reaching the Animal Mind". I'm not terribly familiar with the ideas, but I don't see anything wrong with what I've seen. My theory is that behavior is driven by survival. Somewhere along the way, humans needed to survive on electronic gadgets. Seeking is right in line with that need to survive. It explains why people will gladly change phones or cars, why guitar players who have enough money, will own as many guitars as their bank account can allow.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

qingcong said:


> My introduction to SEEK was through Pryor's "Reaching the Animal Mind". I'm not terribly familiar with the ideas, but I don't see anything wrong with what I've seen. My theory is that behavior is driven by survival. Somewhere along the way, humans needed to survive on electronic gadgets. Seeking is right in line with that need to survive. It explains why people will gladly change phones or cars, why guitar players who have enough money, will own as many guitars as their bank account can allow.


Poking my head in to ignore the original purpose of this thread and point out that, to the guitar player, every single one of those guitars sounds unique and he finds it absolutely necessary to have each one, because that one in the upper left corner has the sweetest Esus7 you've ever heard, while the one 3 guitars down has a sublime Am.

(I live with a musician. They are _weird_.)


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Amaryllis said:


> Poking my head in to ignore the original purpose of this thread and point out that, to the guitar player, every single one of those guitars sounds unique and he finds it absolutely necessary to have each one, because that one in the upper left corner has the sweetest Esus7 you've ever heard, while the one 3 guitars down has a sublime Am.




Exactly... the next guitar may just be THE one. Fortunately for my bank account (I'm also a guitar player), I've learned to SEEK good playing instead of expensive gear.


----------

