# Dogs Don't Understand "No"?



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

I've heard it said (here and elsewhere) that dogs don't understand the use of the word "no", so we should always teach them what we DO want them to do instead of what we DON'T want them to do. 

I would like to know why people say this. I've heard that they don't understand it because it's an abstract concept and that it's non-specific, but I'd like to know _why _people think that dogs can't understand an abstract or non-specific command. What's evidence is this belief based on? 

To be honest and in the interest of full disclosure, I believe that my dogs absolutely know what 'no' means, just as they know what 'sit' means and what 'quiet' means. And my intent is to challenge the idea that dogs aren't capable of understanding the concept of "no".  

When I'm cooking, I quite frequently drop something on the floor and my dogs will eat it. Today, I dropped a juicy chunk of onion and as soon as I did, I said "no" and the dogs didn't move from where they were lying, even though they wanted the tasty morsel and stared at it until I picked it up. So, in my book, they _did _understand that they were being asked to refrain from exercising their innate response to food on the floor and all four of them obeyed. 

So, if I'm wrong, what _DID _they understand? Because I think "no" is like a stop sign. Whatever they're about to do or ARE doing, I'm telling them to stop. 

I'd really like to hear from everyone; those of you who use the command "no" and those of you who hold the belief that dogs don't understand the concept of "no". 

I've been curious about this for years and have never gotten an answer that makes sense to me, so I'd really appreciate your thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

From my experience most dog guardians use "no" to warn the dog that punishment is coming - at some point the guardian will enforce "no" with aversion. So really what the dog is learning is how to avoid punishment, not that his previous behavior isn't preferred. Example, owner absent, dog still does unwanted behavior. 

The dog can't learn no = no chew, no pee, no eat, no chase - the use of "no" in this example is indiscriminate. Your dog learns sit because "sit" is reinforced upon one discriminate behavior. A stop sign has one universal meaning. If we're indiscriminately using no to stop many different behaviors, how could the dog learn what behavior that is? Ever tried to get a sit by telling your dog "no" when he's standing? 

Honestly, we don't have a clue what the dog understands in our cues, all we can understand is the observed behavior (is it what we want or not); it's very easy to be fooled that a dog understands the concepts in our English. doG forbid I ever import a dog from a country with a different language. However, I don't believe it is necessary to guess at what the dog is thinking. So, we employ the law of parsimony, and keep training.


----------



## Cheetah (May 25, 2006)

Dogs aren't born understanding what "no" means. Dogs are born speaking dog, not english. Although, most learn over time that "no" means something bad for them. And then, dogs only learn what WE teach them "no" means. For instance, my dogs know that "no" means "that's not right. Try again." Not that they've done something bad. Because when they're in trouble I don't use "no." Heck, you could use the word "banana" when your dog is bad and eventually the dog will know that "banana" means they're in trouble lol.


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

I don't mean this to sound snotty... really!

But I want to say, "Who cares if dogs know what it means, as long as it works!" and that's how I feel.

If I say, "No, Rigby" my dog stops doing whatever he is doing, and waits for further instruction and/or just gives up his quest (depending on the situation). For example, if he starts to get off the bed right now, I could say, "No. Stay." to let him know I want him to remain there. Or, if he starts to reach for my Hot Pocket, I could say "No" and he would stop.

That said, I DO think we should teach dogs what to do, instead of what NOT to do, but I think it is extreme to suggest we should never tell a dog, "No/Stop/Enough" or any other such word.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

If I say no to a dog it means stop what you are doing no more, no less.


----------



## Mudra (Nov 1, 2007)

I am not a dog expert. What I do know is that my dogs seem to understand what I mean when I say NO. Example: The dogs always try to bring stuff from outside whenever they come in the house or when they want to bring their inside toys outside. I tell them NO and they drop whatever they have in their mouth before they step inside/outside. There are other things they do that I almost always use NO.  One of which is NO LICKING MOMMY's ears.


----------



## pamperedpups (Dec 7, 2006)

In your examples, Foyerhawk, if you are telling your dog, "No. Stay," why not just tell him to "Stay," or "Wait"? If he is reaching for something you don't want him to reach for or have instead of saying, "No," why not be more clear and tell him to "Leave it"? If you insist on using No, does that mean you want your dog to stop moving (stay) with his mouth open over the Hot Pocket if that's what he's doing in the moment you say No?


----------



## MoonStr80 (Oct 9, 2006)

I've learn if you say to many words may confuse the dog. If you say a word that is QUICK and not to many syllables that dog will catch on. Most command we use are either one or two syllables. Anyhow dogs do not know English, Spanish, Greek they're taught what we have trained them, like what Cheetah said if you use the word Banana instead of No the dog will catch up think Banana means the dog did something bad


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Ever tried to get a sit by telling your dog "no" when he's standing?


Yes. And it worked. It was during sit-stay training.

He was sitting - he stood up, I said no and he sat back down. 

He lied down - I said no. He got back in sit position.


"No" means go back to what you were doing before to him. I don't know or care how he came up with that, just I don't know how he came up with the pawing my leg from learning how to paw target or touching my leg with his nose, after he's done pottying/sniffing. I just take it and run with it. I may ask out of curiosity, but I don't look nature's gifts in the mouth.


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

The problem is not so much that dogs don't understand "no" as it is that "no" doesn't permanently change a dog's behavior. You can say "no" every time a dog does something you don't like, but until you teach it what you DO like, it's going to keep trying that behavior. You can't just say "No, don't jump on people." You have to say, "No, don't jump on people. Yes, sit quietly and wait to be petted."


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

KBLover said:


> Yes. And it worked. It was during sit-stay training.
> 
> He was sitting - he stood up, I said no and he sat back down.
> 
> He lied down - I said no. He got back in sit position.


And some dogs bark, and some dogs roll on their back, and some dogs pee on themselves...and all these dogs know "sit" means sit. 

I don't question dogs will work for reinforcement. I question, and haven't found enough evidence to conclude a dog knows "no". 

Now try another experiment...while you're dog is sitting, say "no", what does he do? If he doesn't start running around in circles barking at the moon and dive into belly flop, he doesn't know what this "no" meant. 

Some dogs are creative enough to do exactly that, but I wouldn't confuse a dog's creativity in gaining reinforcement for an understanding of "no".


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

No, if he was reaching for a hot pocket, I would just say, "no"

They were two separate examples. But, we are also discussing a dog with the dignity of royalty, and absolutely no behavior issues. We have long since worked out what words mean to us


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Dogs seem capable of binary computing. Yes = that; No = not that.

The problem with "no" (especially with a puppy) is that it becomes an all purpose word, and eventually signifies nothing. Watch somebody chasing a 10 week old puppy around, and if you put the commentary to music it would sound like the opening bars of _Land of a Thousand Dances_.

It's generally better to teach a dog something vs. not something, but the latter works for some things.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

I guess in order to truly conclude a dog knows "no", he'd have to understand what we wanted in the next progression of a behavior. For example, if a dog was in down and we said "no" he should sit. If we said "no" again, he should stand. If we said "no" again, he should walk. If we said "no" again, he should run. If we said "no" again, he should fly? I don't know how he we know we wanted to go back to down though. 

You can train in all these behaviors upon separate cues, but I've never seen a dog demonstrate this ability...to take in enough information from one cue to know what progression in the behavior we ultimately want. 

Heck, do kids even know what "no" means? I've never seen a parent tell their child "no you can't have a lollipop", and the kid try patience. The kid usually chooses screaming and crying, because sometimes that works. The dog will do what works too. If allowed to try another behavior works, he'll do that. Does that mean he knows "no"? If acting submissive works to avoid punishment, the dog will do that too. Does that mean he knows "no"? 

It would be difficult to prove these things over simpler explanations for the occurrence.


----------



## Lil Red Express (Jan 18, 2009)

Mine totally understands it ! Its whether he chooses to listen to me or not , at the time of incident


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

FilleBelle said:


> The problem is not so much that dogs don't understand "no" as it is that "no" doesn't permanently change a dog's behavior.


I don't use it to permanently change his behavior. I use it as an interrupter. I understand being against a person yelling, "Bruno, No! No! No! Stop it"! at every behavior, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about using it to give the dog information. 

"No" is not a command like "sit". It's information that I'm relaying to the dog, whether it means "that's not it, try again" or "don't eat that pill I just dropped on the floor" or "stop biting your sister's neck". Those aren't specific commands like "sit" and "wait", but it's still information I'm passing to the dog to let him know what is acceptable or "right".

And those who are talking about other languages and such, that's not the issue. I know I could say "banana" instead of "no" and the dog would learn what "banana" meant. And I'm not suggesting dogs understand English. But I'm talking about the dog's understanding of the *concept *of "stop doing that" or "don't do that" without being told something else to do. 



Curbside Prophet said:


> Now try another experiment...while you're dog is sitting, say "no", what does he do?


That doesn't make sense. If you were sitting on the couch and your friend approached and said "No" what would YOU do? Does that mean you don't understand the concept of the word no? Of course not. Nobody is talking about using it as a command by itself. It has to be taken in context. If you reached for the remote and your friend said, "No", you'd stop. Just like the dogs do. _That's_ what I'm talking about. The use of the word as an interrupter to stop a dog from doing something. 



Marsh Muppet said:


> It's generally better to teach a dog something vs. not something, but the latter works for some things.


I agree. But my curiosity and challenge is for those who say that dogs don't understand the concept of "no". I think they do. 

I have a question. For those of you are against the use of the word "no" when dealing with dogs, what do you say to a dog who's making a play for the onion I just dropped on the floor? The kitchen is filled with the aroma of homemade beef and vegetable soup (and I'm a dynamite cook) and I have given them a few tasty bites of slow-roasted beef and raw carrots during the morning... The piece of onion slips out of my hand and rolls over to within 4 inches of the dog's mouth. What do you do? Or say?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

FourIsCompany said:


> That doesn't make sense. If you were sitting on the couch and your friend approached and said "No" what would YOU do?


This is my friend? There isn't a snake under my foot on the next step? I'd likely run and jump in their lap. Did I pass? Strangely, this is what a lot of dogs do. 



> Does that mean you don't understand the concept of the word no?


Short of any other informative antecedents, I absolutely would not know what my friend's "no" meant. I'd have to guess at my friends intentions. I, being of the same species and somewhat intelligent would likely guess right...this doesn't prove your point. How am I suppose to know "no" meant "no approach"? What if she meant 'no noise' or 'no breath'? Just because the word is in your description does not mean I have the slightest idea what my friend's "no" meant...short of any other informative antecedents.

If "no" just means 'do something else', why aren't we telling the dog to do that something else? I have a feeling the answer has to do more with human nature than what the dog is capable of learning. *shrug*



FourIsCompany said:


> I have a question. For those of you are against the use of the word "no" when dealing with dogs, what do you say to a dog who's making a play for the onion I just dropped on the floor?


Have I taught the dog "leave it"? If so "leave it" = mouth does not touch object, a specific behavior. If I haven't taught "leave it", I'll manage the situation before hand, by crating the dog. If I haven't thought of crating the dog, I'll step on the onion so that the dog doesn't have access to it.


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

Whether dog understands "no" as we understand it as adult human beings, again I ask if it matters  If your dog does what you want when you say "no" and is conditioned to respond to it in a way which pleases you, then what is wrong with saying the word?


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

CP - You were making the point of the dog just sitting there and the owner saying "no" to it. Of course he doesn't know what that means and neither would you if you were sitting and someone said it to you. But if you were reaching for the remote and someone said, "no", you WOULD know what they meant. Just like the dog does. The informative antecedent is in your head: "I'm going to grab the remote".



Curbside Prophet said:


> Short of any other informative antecedents, I absolutely would not know what my friend's "no" meant.


Exactly. That's my point. If your friend came over and you were so happy to see them that you hugged them hard and accidentally hurt them, if they said "Stop", you would know what they meant. And you would stop. Because the informative antecedent is the hugging. It doesn't have to be explicitly spoken. They wouldn't have to tell you, "Put your arms at your sides" to get you to stop hugging them. 



> How am I suppose to know "no" meant "no approach"?


You're not. Just as the dog who is just sitting there doesn't know. There has to be a context or an informative antecedent, if you will. And I'm suggesting that that can be implied without being directly spoken. 



> If "no" just means 'do something else', why aren't we telling the dog to do that something else?


It doesn't mean "do something else" it means "stop what you are doing". And the reason I don't tell the dog what else to do is that I don't CARE what he does. It's not my position to tell him how to redirect his behavior. 



> I'll manage the situation before hand, by crating the dog. If I haven't thought of crating the dog, I'll step on the onion so that the dog doesn't have access to it.


I think it's a matter, then, of my unwillingness to micromanage my dogs' actions. I'm just not willing. My dogs don't have crates and I don't believe in physically restraining them or preventing them from doing something with physical interference *when a word from me will do.* I guess it's all a matter of different preferences and viewpoints. Because I strive to keep physical restraints and interference out of it. I strive to control the situation with my voice. 

I really think that's the difference. And it's very enlightening. So, thank you.  From all I've read, it's not that dogs don't understand the concept, it's that some people prefer to manage or control the environment or the dog's actions, so the dog doesn't have a choice to "misbehave", and I don't have any problem with that. In fact, I do that, too, but only when I can't think of another way to deal with it. I'd MUCH rather tell the dog not to do something and let him figure out what he _DOES _want to do instead of me taking away the choice by telling him what to do. 

My dogs do know "leave it" but it just didn't enter my brain in that second.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Foyerhawk said:


> If your dog does what you want when you say "no" and is conditioned to respond to it in a way which pleases you, then what is wrong with saying the word?


Not a darn thing, but don't take this the wrong way...it has nothing to do with what pleases you. It has to do with how dogs learn. You say no harm, no foul, but that doesn't tell us much about the dog's behavior. What pleases you may not be enough to please me with my dog's behavior.


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

Oh, I absolutely agree, there.

I'm pretty dog savvy, and am a fairly good trainer. I can read a dog, and I absolutely understand that dogs do what works in their worlds to get what they want. 

I'm just saying I am not hung up on the word.

Do dogs grasp "No" the way we do? Probably not, and certainly they don't understand WHY something is "off limits" and that's okay. I don't expect them to.

Fun discussion- thanks!


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

FourIsCompany said:


> But if you were reaching for the remote and someone said, "no", you WOULD know what they meant. Just like the dog does. The informative antecedent is in your head: "I'm going to grab the remote".


Would I? Why? An informative antecedent would be something tangible in the environment...not what's in my head, and not what's in the other person's head. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with grabbing a remote.

Let's try your experiment now.

"No." 

Now tell me what I meant with this no? 



> Exactly. That's my point. If your friend came over and you were so happy to see them that you hugged them hard and accidentally hurt them, if they said "Stop", you would know what they meant. And you would stop. Because the informative antecedent is the hugging. It doesn't have to be explicitly spoken. They wouldn't have to tell you, "Put your arms at your sides" to get you to stop hugging them.


I think you're going to find this a fruitless exercise. Have you seen the Popeye cartoon where Popeye is kissing Olive Oil and she repeatedly says "Don't" "Stop" "Don't" "Stop", and Popeye keeps kissing her...that's your dog. Dogs know what's reinforcing. To Popeye, kissing (a behavior) Olive Oil was reinforcing. When you tell you're dog "no", sure he may stop a behavior but it's the removal of the aversion he finds reinforcing. 

If your dog didn't heed your warning are you going to say "no, no, no, no"? And stop when the dog ceases the behavior? If so, that's negative reinforcement. Does your does understand "no"? Or does he know a pleasant mommy follows ceasing the target behavior? I wouldn't argue a dog can learn a behavior from the removal of aversion. I would argue the dog understood the word "no". 



> You're not. Just as the dog who is just sitting there doesn't know. There has to be a context or an informative antecedent, if you will. And I'm suggesting that that can be implied without being directly spoken.


And if the dog guesses wrong what happens? 



> It doesn't mean "do something else" it means "stop what you are doing". And the reason I don't tell the dog what else to do is that I don't CARE what he does. It's not my position to tell him how to redirect his behavior.


So if your dog acts submissively, you don't care? I don't believe this is what you're suggesting, but this is exactly what you're saying, and exactly why I wouldn't recommend using indiscriminate punishment. 



> I think it's a matter, then, of my unwillingness to micromanage my dogs' actions. I'm just not willing. My dogs don't have crates and I don't believe in physically restraining them or preventing them from doing something with physical interference *when a word from me will do.*


Micromanage? Teaching your dog what behaviors are preferred is micromanagement? Then I am a micromanager and darn proud of it. 



> I guess it's all a matter of different preferences and viewpoints. Because I strive to keep physical restraints and interference out of it. I strive to control the situation with my voice.


I did not suggest the crate would be needed forever. I would suggest the crate be used until you've taught a behavior your dog can prefer that is compatible with what you want. 



> From all I've read, it's not that dogs don't understand the concept, it's that some people prefer to manage or control the environment or the dog's actions, so the dog doesn't have a choice to "misbehave", and I don't have any problem with that.


Not from me LOL, I still say dog's don't understand "no". My preferrences are that the dog learns behavior (specific behavior). You say this is so because the dog doesn't have a choice. No. The dog has a choice...her choice just happens to be in alignment with what I want, so we're both happy. 

I expect my dog to "misbehave" in the learning, and I expect my dog to have preferrences too. My responsibility as her guardian is to know when her preferrences are safe or ok, and when they are not. When they are not, there's is no choice ...because she doesn't know her safety is in question or what behavior I want.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Let's try your experiment now.
> 
> "No."
> 
> Now tell me what I meant with this no?


I'm not sure why you're arguing this point. *We agree* that a "no" without context means nothing.  



> If your dog didn't heed your warning are you going to say "no, no, no, no"?


No. I wouldn't say that. If he didn't get it the first time, then he didn't know what I meant. Why would I repeat it? But he obviously _does _know what it meant, because he stopped and didn't go for the onion. 



> Does your does understand "no"? Or does he know a pleasant mommy follows ceasing the target behavior?


I am always a pleasant mommy.  And I'm not shouting or freaking out or anything of the sort. I say the word "No" in the same tone of voice as I would say anything else to them. They really do know the word, believe it or not. 



> I wouldn't argue a dog can learn a behavior from the removal of aversion.


What aversion??? 



> And if the dog guesses wrong what happens?


Then I've misjudged something and it's my responsibility to find out how to make him understand. 

[qouote]
So if your dog acts submissively, you don't care? I don't believe this is what you're suggesting, but this is exactly what you're saying, and exactly why I wouldn't recommend using indiscriminate punishment. [/quote]

But they don't act submissively. I don't use it as a punishment. It's information for them. And it's not indiscriminate because I don't just walk up to them and say NO. There's a context. The informative antecedent doesn't have to be something *tangible *in the environment. It can be a thought, an intent, an action, an event. 



> Micromanage? Teaching your dog what behaviors are preferred is micromanagement?


Not necessarily. But you did say that you'd rather tell your dog what to do or interfere with his ability to do it rather than tell him not to do something and let him work it out on his own. And it wasn't an insult. So, you should be proud.  It's just a difference of style as far as I can tell. 



> I still say dog's don't understand "no".


Okay. And I say mine do. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I can't speak for anyone else's dogs. But I taught "no", *not *as a punishment, but as a way of informing the dog that what he's about to do is not in alignment with with what I want or expect from him. 



> I expect my dog to "misbehave" in the learning, and I expect my dog to have preferrences too. My responsibility as her guardian is to know when her preferrences are safe or ok, and when they are not. When they are not, there's is no choice ...because she doesn't know her safety is in question or what behavior I want.


I agree 100% with this paragraph. So at least we agree on something. 

And I'm not convinced that my dogs (or any dogs) don't understand the concept of No.


----------



## Entwine (Jan 14, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Heck, do kids even know what "no" means? *I've never seen a parent tell their child "no you can't have a lollipop", and the kid try patience.* The kid usually chooses screaming and crying, because sometimes that works.


I disagree completely. I've worked with children for approximately five years now, in home and in private preschools/elementary schools and the ONLY children that behave in that way are the ones reinforced to cry for their desired object. 

A VERY recent example of what good parenting can do: A two-and-a-half year-old I watch during the day often asks for candy or to watch his favorite show Mickey Mouse Clubhouse. If the answer is no, he simply says "Alright" and we move on to something else, whether that be something pleasant of unpleasant for him. He may or may not get what he wants. I do not give him an alternative other than what was already in progress.

An exercise I utilize in my after care class is one that teaches patience as well. I work with 2-3 year-olds. Every single one that is in my class consistently chooses patience over crying/hitting/screaming. If they ask for something they cannot have, I inform them that the answer is "no". If they begin to argue or "fuss", I inform them that they have a choice to make. They can either stay calm and behave in an acceptable manner and thus continue to play, or they can choose to throw a doG awful fit and get nothing, not even attention. It only takes about three times of this speech before they accept "no" without protest.

You are absolutely right--they do what works.

I'm not attempting to argue with you about whether or not children or dogs unstand "no" as we do. I simply had to share MY experience with children.. And it is not that they never/rarely try patience.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

*Heck, do kids even know what "no" means? I've never seen a parent tell their child "no you can't have a lollipop", and the kid try patience. The kid usually chooses screaming and crying, because sometimes that works.*

LOL that only works if the kid's parents have let it work.  And a well trained kid won't usually throw a brat fit. In fact, they can accept no quite calmly and move onto to other things.

Entwine, you are correct.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

FourIsCompany said:


> I'm not sure why you're arguing this point. *We agree* that a "no" without context means nothing.


I am arguing the point because you're leaning towards a dog's motivation being equal to ours. That's dangerous stuff, and not fair to the dog. 



> No. I wouldn't say that. If he didn't get it the first time, then he didn't know what I meant. Why would I repeat it?


You would repeat it to reinforce some other okay-behavior. It's no different than if someone repeatedly jerked on a dog's leash until the dog sat. The ceasing of the jerks reinforces a preferred behavior, sitting. 



> But he obviously _does _know what it meant, because he stopped and didn't go for the onion.


It is not obvious what the dog knows other than he knows aversion makes him do something else. I don't argue this point...I just don't see why I would need to introduce aversion into my training. 



> I am always a pleasant mommy.  And I'm not shouting or freaking out or anything of the sort. I say the word "No" in the same tone of voice as I would say anything else to them. They really do know the word, believe it or not.


If you dropped the onion tomorrow and your dog reaches for it, sorry, no, he doesn't know what "no" means. Presumably "no" means don't eat the onion? No? Then why did he reach for it the next day? 

If you're suggesting punishment is effective if the behavior does not diminish, you're reading the wrong literature. 



> What aversion???


The dog decides the aversion. If no is effective, like you say, it must be aversive. That is the definition of punishment. If it is not effective, not only does the dog not know what it means, you're wasting your time. 



> Then I've misjudged something and it's my responsibility to find out how to make him understand.


And how would you do that? 



> But they don't act submissively.


That wasn't the question I asked. But some dogs pee all over themselves when told "no", even as discretely as you do. Are you okay with that? 



> I don't use it as a punishment.


Than why use it at all?



> It's information for them. And it's not indiscriminate because I don't just walk up to them and say NO. The informative antecedent doesn't have to be something *tangible *in the environment. It can be a thought, an intent, an action, an event.


If you're going to just say the opposite of what I say as proof to some logic, I'm still missing the logic. My intent on grabbing the remote was to change the channel. What is intrinsically wrong with using the remote? I hear my friend so "no", but at some point my friend needs to tell me why in order for me to really understand. In other words I need to know my friend's motivation. Your dog is no different. So please tell me what motivates the dog to cease? And please don't tell me it's because the dog wants to do it for me (I just caught him in the act!). 



> But I taught "no", *not *as a punishment, but as a way of informing the dog that what he's about to do is not in alignment with with what I want or expect from him.


How did you teach it?



> And I'm not convinced that my dogs (or any dogs) don't understand the concept of No.


It's not for me to convince you. You wanted a counter argument, and I think I did a fair job at giving you what you wanted...I could be wrong. Had I known you needed to be convinced, I likely would not have given you this effort.



Entwine said:


> I disagree completely. I've worked with children for approximately five years now, in home and in private preschools/elementary schools and the ONLY children that behave in that way are the ones reinforced to cry for their desired object.


Where in my post did I imply patience could not be reinforced? Where in my post did I imply crying could not be reinforced? My point was/is the dog/child will do what works (what's reinforced), and from what you just said, you're agreeing with me. 



> ...or they can choose to throw a doG awful fit and get nothing, not even attention.


This is an example of negative punishment. I don't know any dog that finds the word "no" appetitive, so your example does not follow. 



> You are absolutely right--they do what works.


Ah, so you don't disagree with me after all. 



> I'm not attempting to argue with you about whether or not children or dogs unstand "no" as we do. I simply had to share MY experience with children.. And it is not that they never/rarely try patience.


I appreciate that, however, I think you took my words out of context. Just because I've never seen a child try patience over a lollipop, this does not mean I believe they can't learn or try patience.

The first thing a newborn does is cry for comfort. He usually gets it. This is a hard habit to humanely break without reinforcing some other behavior incompatible with crying. Sucking on a pacifier is a preferred behavior by many parents over crying.


----------



## Entwine (Jan 14, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Ah, so you don't disagree with me after all.
> 
> 
> I appreciate that, however, I think you took my words out of context. Just because I've never seen a child try patience over a lollipop, this does not mean I believe they can't learn or try patience.
> ...


All I was trying to communicate with my post was counter experience to your own with children. It has very little to do with debating a point. 

I'll quote myself here: "I simply had to share MY experience with children.. And it is not that they never/rarely try patience."

Anyway, I'm not interested in debating opinions that are based on personal experiences, and I fail to see why you spent so much time dissecting my post and analyzing it. ;U 

I agree with you most of the time, as I'm currently studying learning theory and psychology in general and your logic is spot-on. I think that you are an excellent communicator and a formidable debater. So, enjoy the forum.

That goes to everyone as well.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Isn't it possible that "no" merely interrupts behavior? Then, praise/reward reinforces the aforementioned interruption. Maybe?

Since we agree that we don't actually know how the dog sees things, it seems a bit presumptuous to say that "no" is aversive. We can only judge that from the dog's reaction to it.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Entwine said:


> All I was trying to communicate with my post was counter experience to your own with children. It has very little to do with debating a point.
> 
> I'll quote myself here: "I simply had to share MY experience with children.. And it is not that they never/rarely try patience."


Oh, I thought when you said you disagreed with me completely you meant it.  



> ...I fail to see why you spent so much time dissecting my post and analyzing it. ;U


How much time do you believe I spent? Why would you call it "much time"? Ok, that deserves two . But I've prepared a video response to answer your question.




That's not me btw. 



> I think that you are an excellent communicator and a formidable debater. So, enjoy the forum.


Thank you for the accolades. I don't usually acknowledge them, but I will say if anyone finds my button pushing not enjoyable, they need to rethink why they're here. Not saying that's you, I have no reason to believe what you're saying is true, but thank you for being kind anyway.



Marsh Muppet said:


> Isn't it possible that "no" merely interrupts behavior?


Yes.



> Then, praise/reward reinforces the aforementioned interruption. Maybe?


That would be Thondike's law.



> We can only judge that from the dog's reaction to it.


Yes, by quantifying behavior. That's the only way we can prove its effect or non-effect.


----------



## LastChance (May 8, 2009)

Of course dogs don't understand what "No" means. 

No is OUR language, not theirs. 

But what they DO understand is your tone, body language, energy WHEN you use that word. They become familiar with it. Then they condition themselves to understand that when you use that word its NO good. 

Same thing with "Your a Good Boy/Girl". Rarely would you say those words in an angry voice. If you get a puppy and start using another word INSTEAD of NO with the same tone, body language, gestures and energy as you do when you use the word NO, it will have the same effect. 

TRY IT. 

Get a puppy and instead of saying NO. Use the word "Peanut Butter". Whatever. If you can say it in an angry "bad dog" kind of way. That dog will soon attribute that word to his/her actions and your reaction.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

This is an interesting discussion.. but.. I don't think dogs understand "no" as "No".. and honestly, most ppl don't either.. (or they hear it selectively). 

I rarely use No. On Dogs. 

I usually use an alternative commmand. If Atka is headed for the Bedroom because she and Oliver are playing and Oliver scoots in there.. and NO DOGS IN THE BEDRROM is the rule, I redirect her to sit, stand, wait, go to mat.. whatever. 

As WVasko says, NO is an interrupter... it is STOP.. 

While I have used this in the past, I find a learned cue more efficient to stop or change or redirect a behavior I don't want. <shrug> 

One thing I have had fun with is "Uhh.. that's not it.." when clicker training a new behavior and my dog is offering previously rewarded behaviors. Each one that is absolutely NOT what I am looking for gets that phrase. She will often stop and look at me and give a rolling bark growl noise as if to say, "What do you MEAN thats not IT!? I have done EVERYTHING and it's STILL NOT IT? WHATS WRONG WITH YOU!" OK.. anthrpomorphising a lot.. but it all can get pretty silly at times. 

Do dog's understand NO? I doubt it. They understand your tone of voice and body position and if you are threatening to them. The response of stopping what they are doing in response to NO is to replace what they are doing with some sort of submission or redirection to avoid what they find aversive (or what has been followed by an aversive it\f that is how you train). 

Often I think of a Peanuts Movie when I think what might be going on in my dog's mind when I say anything. I imagine it is sort of like when the teacher talks.. completely unintelligible noise and jabber with a few cues in there that come thru with understanding. Ya know.. BlahBlahBlahBlah Sit BlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlah Stay BlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlah OK...... 

Reminds me of some of the courses I took in College...


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Every dog I've had has understood that "no" means the behavior it's doing is unwanted, and it should offer me a different behavior.

It's up to me to only use it in a situation or context it can comprehend what behavior I don't want. It's also up to me to then reward the correct behavior.

It's not a concept that is beyond a dogs capacity.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

TxRider said:


> Every dog I've had has understood that "no" means the behavior it's doing is unwanted, and it should offer me a different behavior.


How does he know it's unwanted? And why should he offer a different behavior?

Do any of these answers demonstrate that the dog understands "no"?


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

Newborns do not cry in an attempt to manipulate, nor do I think it is possible to spoil a newborn infant (an older child, sure). I don't think a newborn crying can be compared in any way to a toddler screaming for some candy, JMO. A new born cries to communicate a need. Responding establishes trust and a healthy start in life.

How do YOU know what no means? I think dogs learn it means "stop that" because of our body langauge or response at the time we say the word. Just like a person would learn it.

If I have a puppy, and he grabs my shoe string as I am walking through the house, I might say, "No" and then toss him a toy and say, "Good pup! Yay!" when he goes for his toy (just a made up example, but that's something I might do without even thinking). If he goes for my shoe again, I might even up my tone and say, "NO" and look him in the eyes squarely. Perhaps I will spray some Bitter Yuck on my shoe strings to go along with my "No" next time. 

I am not saying "NO" has nothing behind it, or never did. You and I wouldn't have grasped "no" as children had it never had any meaning behind it. Just as a child learns the word "dog" because it's said every time he is shown a picture of a dog or sees a dog passing by in the street.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I just don't see why I would need to introduce aversion into my training.


You insist that my use of the word "no" is aversive, even though I have explained that I don't use it as a punishment (to decrease the likelihood of a particular behavior _in the future_), but as an interrupter (to stop a behavior in the moment), much as you would use "leave it". So, I don't see that there's anywhere to go from here.  

Thanks for your insight. 



Marsh Muppet said:


> Isn't it possible that "no" merely interrupts behavior? Then, praise/reward reinforces the aforementioned interruption.


Not only possible, that's _exactly _what I'm saying. When I said "no" about the onion, Jaia looked up at me. I said "Good boy"! and as I picked up the onion, I gave him another piece of carrot. 

In this instance, it was used in _exactly _the same way that "leave it" is used. I'm not sure why the arrangement of letters makes the difference between an interrupter and an aversive but I just don't buy it. It's not the letters that matter, it's the way they're used. The idea that a dog can understand "leave it" and "off" cues, in a general sense, but can't possibly understand "no" *used in exactly the same context* is a mystery to me. 

"No" *is* more general and can be applied in many situations, but from my experience, my dogs understand it.


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

I guess in my use of it, the word no may have had a mild aversive at some point (see my previous post to this one). But, so what, I guess. I am personally okay with that. I cannot recall the last time I had to do more than a quiet "no" as in "nope, not that behavior, honey" type of thing to my dog. It basically stops him in his tracks. We have a very positive, communicative, beautiful relationship. I'm happy


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

FourIsCompany said:


> You insist that my use of the word "no" is aversive, even though I have explained that I don't use it as a punishment (to decrease the likelihood of a particular behavior _in the future_), but as an interrupter (to stop a behavior in the moment), much as you would use "leave it". So, I don't see that there's anywhere to go from here.


I insist because you asked for a counter argument to your own. Ok, can dogs be interrupted? Sure. Picking the onion up would have interrupted their behavior too. But that's not the question you asked, nor do I believe "no" on it's own is an interrupter. You asked whether the dog understood "no" = do not practice your innate behavior...that sounds a lot like a consequence. You implied dogs could choose between right from wrong (a morality). 

You say it would be driven by the context, but you haven't explained why eating food off the ground is not a good choice for a dog. Why he would need to choose between an innate behavior (eating a free resource) and heeding your "no". Until you do that, I'm likely to continue insisting that dogs don't understand the concepts behind our English or share our morality. (Again, me giving you more of what you wanted.) 

The only way I know how a dog would choose between a less preferred behavior over an "innate" behavior is if he's motivated to do so. I've asked, but have not heard your answer to this question...what's motivating the dog to choose? Did you Premack "freeze" with eating onions off the ground? Likely no, so the simpliest answer *drum roll* is...a threat, fear...aversion (the law of parsimony). Either conditioned in a positive punishment contingency or in a negative reinforcement contingency. The aversion is decided by the dog. Not by you, and not by your perception of "no", now, or by your dog's behavior today. 

What your dog likely knows about "no" is that it means aversion increases if my behavior does not change. I don't argue dogs can be conditioned to withhold innate behavior from the threat of aversion. But does your dog know "no" or aversion? I suggest the later, and I question why you'd need to overlook this fact to justify your use of "no". No one is saying aversion = inhumane. All I'm saying (which is a statement of fact) is if aversion is used as a consequence for behavior, it is effective when the target behavior (the innate behavior, the wrong behavior) decreases in the future, or the target behavior (some other behavior, the right behavior) increases in the future. 

If you have to say "no" today, tomorrow, and the next, as an "interrupter" or not, your dog has no concept of "no", "no" would prove ineffective. It's just a word, and dog's don't use words. <Please, no talking Boxer videos!>

"Leave it" is NOT an interrupter, it is conditioned to a specific behavior. Leave it = mouth does not touch object. I don't use "leave it" for jumping on a guest. I use another informative cue, "sit". I don't use "leave it" for alarm barking. I use another informative cue, "shush". All of these words have been conditioned...I did so without aversion, but that's not the point. I have no idea whether my dog "knows" these words, but I do know they know the pattern that leads them to reinforcement. I'm okay with that, and since you asked the question, and I'm convinced of the laws of learning theory, you'd need to convince me of your hypothesis in order for me to change my argument. 

If you don't know where to go from here, that's okay. We all should wonder about our beasties...it's fun! In the end though, whether we argee or agree to disagee, we're both still celebrating them.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I've asked, but have not heard your answer to this question...what's motivating the dog to choose?


Maybe you've not heard my answer, but it's not because I haven't given it:



FourIsCompany said:


> When I said "no" about the onion, Jaia looked up at me. I said "Good boy"! and as I picked up the onion, I gave him another piece of carrot.





> Likely no, so the simpliest answer *drum roll* is...a threat, fear...aversion (the law of parsimony).


The simplest answer, perhaps. But not the one I've already given, which was ignored. Your insistence on not hearing what I've said is causing huge gaps in any possible discussion we might have about this. 



> I question why you'd need to overlook this fact to justify your use of "no".


I'm not trying to justify anything. I started a thread to ask a question and hopefully have an educational discussion. In some ways, it was very educational, but unfortunately, not in the way I had hoped. 

I use positive punishment and I know what it is. I have no desire or need to justify it.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

FourIsCompany said:


> When I said "no" about the onion, Jaia looked up at me. I said "Good boy"! and as I picked up the onion, I gave him another piece of carrot.


Antecedent = "Good Boy" + picking up onion.
Behavior = whatever the dog is doing at that moment.
Consequence = Carrot.

You're reinforcing whatever your dog is doing at that moment. 

Where in this does "no" have any meaning?

I would describe the ABC's of your "no" as follows.

A=Onion falls on ground.
B=Dog looks at onion, or if you will, dog "thinks" of eating onion.
C="No."

You won't answer it, but, why does the dog choose not to eat the onion? If you're suggesting by reinforcing down, the dog knows "no" means don't eat the onion, how? 



> The simplest answer, perhaps. But not the one I've already given, which was ignored. Your insistence on not hearing what I've said is causing huge gaps in any possible discussion we might have about this.


I ignored it because it does not answer my question. All you've described is how you reinforced a behavior. You have not explained why the dog would choose to heed your "no". And yes, this is problematic if you're trying for the discussion you seek. Where's the magic in your "no"? 



> I use positive punishment and I know what it is. I have no desire or need to justify it.


Then you have no desire or need to effectively (humanely) train your dog. Shame on you.  I don't believe you or this for a second btw.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

So, 4iscompany, are you saying your dog responds to NO because he is expecting something good from you (and which has been historically a primary reinforcer)?

When you say, "NO" the dog is associating that with a history of something better being offered than what he is, or is considering, doing/taking?


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> So, 4iscompany, are you saying your dog responds to NO because he is expecting something good from you (and which has been historically a primary reinforcer)?


I feel a little like I'm entering a trap. 

I can't read his mind, but that's the premise I'm operating under, with one caveat. I can't say for sure they're expecting something *GOOD *from me, because they don't always get a reward, but I believe they're expecting *SOMETHING *from me, whether it be guidance, a reward or further instruction. 

I trained all of them using the word "no" to redirect their attention (therefore interrupting what they were doing) to me for further information. Something else always follows the word no. Whether it's action, reward or information. 



> When you say, "NO" the dog is associating that with a history of something better being offered than what he is, or is considering, doing/taking?


I can't say for sure they're looking for something better, but I do believe they think *something *is going to be offered. And I guess eventually, yes, there's a reward. Because if they redirect and look to me, Hey, I'm happy! And if I then give them instruction and they follow it, then they get a reward.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

No trap. 

Since IMO it is impossible for a dog to understand no in a context which humans understand it, I am wondering what you do to initiate a response to this cue. 

Here is the thing. Dogs don't get English. CP has said this.. (I BTW, TRULY enjoy his debates.. and he enjoys debating so this is a fun thread). 

If you walk up to a puppy and say the word NO, the puppy will either ignore you or wonder what that noise is and look at you. Most of the time, NO is coupled with a positive punishment immediately after the word is said. Smart dogs figure out pretty fast that NO means 'Uh Oh.....' so they STOP doing something and offer submission or something else because they want to avoid the 'Uh Oh' that has happened b4. 

They don't relate the behavior to 'Uh Oh...' They relate the word cue to 'Uh Oh..' because something unpleasant follows the word.

OTOH if you say NO and offer food or play or something else they like.. or follow NO with another Cue, they will still respond to the word because they related the word with something good. 

In my opinion, one of the most difficult things to do with a dog is get the dog to relate the negative consequences of Positive Punishment with a behavior. That (along with other reasons.. such as a better way) is why I avoid positive punishment as a training tool. _Positive punishment represses the dog, not the behavior._

In that same vein, the dog also does not associate NO with a behavior he is exhibiting. It is more likely he is associating NO with something that has occurred in the past after that word was said, be it a correction or play or food.

PS: I have criss-crossed New Mexico more than I have NY State. I really love it there.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> Here is the thing. Dogs don't get English.


Only to the extent that we teach them what certain words (or sounds) mean. They understand "sit" and that's English. They understand, "Do you want to go outside" and that's English. I've been training dogs for 7 years I think I know that dogs aren't ever going to be able to understand conversational English. I'm making no claims that they do. 



> (I BTW, TRULY enjoy his debates...


I would too, if he remained civil and didn't get personal. I LOVE a good debate, as long as the debaters stay on the topic and don't go after each other with insults. 

I'm over it. I have no desire to continue a "debate" like that. 



> If you walk up to a puppy and say the word NO, the puppy will either ignore you or wonder what that noise is and look at you.


I absolutely agree. But I'm not walking up to a puppy and saying "no". If you walked up to a puppy and said, "Sit", they'd look at you the same way. An association has to be made with the word. 



> Most of the time, NO is coupled with a positive punishment immediately after the word is said.


Not in this house. I didn't teach them that no means a punishment is to follow. I taught them that no means "Stop" and focus on me because there's more information to come. 



> OTOH if you say NO and offer food or play or something else they like.. or follow NO with another Cue, they will still respond to the word because they related the word with something good.


That's what's happening here. What does "No" mean to them, then? 



> In my opinion, one of the most difficult things to do with a dog is get the dog to relate the negative consequences of Positive Punishment with a behavior.


I have had a million similar discussions with people on other boards  and I certainly didn't start this thread to debate the pros and cons of positive punishment. I have no interest in convincing people that the use of +P is a good thing or that they should do it or that "+R only" is a bad thing. So, while I appreciate your willingness to tell me more about it, I already know. I have been reading for years. 



> In that same vein, the dog also does not associate NO with a behavior he is exhibiting. It is more likely he is associating NO with something that has occurred in the past after that word was said, be it a correction or play or food.


Isn't that the same way they understand anything? By associating it with something that has occurred in the past? "Do you want to go outside" is associated with me grabbing a couple of frisbees and letting them out into the big yard to play. They can't parse the sentence, but all evidence indicates that they know what it means.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

FourIsCompany said:


> You insist that my use of the word "no" is aversive, even though I have explained that I don't use it as a punishment (to decrease the likelihood of a particular behavior _in the future_), but as an interrupter (to stop a behavior in the moment), much as you would use "leave it". So, I don't see that there's anywhere to go from here.
> 
> Thanks for your insight.
> 
> ...


I use No as an interruptor and yes there will be an aversive if the interruption is not attained. Interesting to me with personal dogs, I also use the word Fooeey and get the same results because my body language and tone probably ar the same with both words. I don't have the luxury of enhancing/enlarging the vocabulary of short term dogs. Truth be told I don't want to, as everything must also must be kept simple for the dog's owners. Example, I would train dogs to do a Standard left about and a German left about, something used in Schutzhund. I really liked it but with the German left about as you are making a left 180 the dog is making a right 180 and you do some hand-lead swapping. I had no trouble teaching the turn to the dogs but the owners would end up confused with the lead swap and I finally just quit it completely and just trained the standard left turn. To me the No command covers a bunch of stuff whether it's Leave It, or Off, or Stop Eating The Pillow etc etc etc. and it's much easier explaining that to the people I train dogs for.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

FourIsCompany said:


> I would too, if he remained civil and didn't get personal. I LOVE a good debate, as long as the debaters stay on the topic and don't go after each other with insults.


Excuse me? Insults? Personal? I would implore you to re-read my " personal insults". There are none. Disagreement does not = insults.


----------



## BearCubby (Apr 24, 2009)

Just my opinion, but I think you have answered your own question, FIC, when you wrote this....


> I trained all of them using the word "no" to redirect their attention (therefore interrupting what they were doing) to me for further information. Something else always follows the word no. Whether it's action, reward or information


You seem to have trained your dogs to respond to "No" as a focus type command. When you say no, you expect your dogs to look at you. You then proceed to either reinforce the command by giving them a treat (like the piece of carrot in the onion instance), or you give them further instruction/another command (as reinforcement is not needed every single time once the dog knows the command). That is what I believe No means to your dogs.


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

FourIsCompany said:


> I don't use it to permanently change his behavior. I use it as an interrupter. I understand being against a person yelling, "Bruno, No! No! No! Stop it"! at every behavior, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about using it to give the dog information.
> 
> "No" is not a command like "sit". It's information that I'm relaying to the dog, whether it means "that's not it, try again" or "don't eat that pill I just dropped on the floor" or "stop biting your sister's neck". Those aren't specific commands like "sit" and "wait", but it's still information I'm passing to the dog to let him know what is acceptable or "right"


I wasn't implying that _you _use it to change a dog's permenant behavior. I was telling you why I believe people say, "Dogs don't understand 'no.'" This saying exists because there ARE so many people out there running after their dog and saying, "No!" without teaching it to do anything else.

In your house, "no" is a command. You have told us several times now that you have trained them to respond to it in a certain way. You have taught your dogs that when you say "no" you want them to stop whatever they are doing. That is a command, just like sit.

I guess I don't know what your question is. Dogs understand "no" if we train them to understand "no." Otherwise, they don't know what it means because they don't speak English.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Excuse me? Insults? Personal?





Curbside Prophet said:


> Then you have no desire or need to effectively (humanely) train your dog. Shame on you.  I don't believe you or this for a second btw.


I call that personal (it's about ME, not dog training), and insulting, not to mention chock full of unfounded (and incorrect) assumptions. And it has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. 



BearCubby said:


> You seem to have trained your dogs to respond to "No" as a focus type command.


I think you and FilleBelle are right and have gotten down to the heart of the matter. At least for me.  So thank you very much!! I did a lot of reading before I got my first puppies and I was determined not to have expectations of my dogs without teaching them first. It's no wonder I have always been confused when people said that dogs didn't understand "No" - if most people train the dog that no means "I'm going to punish you"... What I'm really saying with No is "Stop and look at me or listen to me". But, come to think of it, if I was going about my daily business and my husband said "no", I'd stop what I was doing and look at him. LOL


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

FourIsCompany said:


> I call that personal (it's about ME, not dog training), and insulting, not to mention chock full of unfounded (and incorrect) assumptions. And it has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.


Well it was about dog training...ineffective dog training. However, I'm saddened by the fact you completely overlooked the last sentence where I said I didn't believe any of the previous sentence to be true. 

Darn you English!

Even more reason to wonder what our dogs know about it.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Well it was about dog training...ineffective dog training.


I don't know how to convince you that my dogs have been effectively and humanely trained and that we have an incredible relationship. They adore me, are *not* afraid of me, shut down or suffering from learned helplessness, in case you're thinking of going there. 



> However, I'm saddened by the fact you completely overlooked the last sentence where I said I didn't believe any of the previous sentence to be true.


You said you don't believe *ME*. 

To tell you the truth, I don't know what you believe or don't believe. And at this point... I gotta say, it's not a top concern. 

That paragraph is so confusing, I have no idea what you were really trying to say. But if my dogs aren't effectively trained, what's this about? 










Or this? 










This? (Those are chicken feet on the table)


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

FourIsCompany said:


> I don't know how to convince you that my dogs have been effectively and humanely trained and that we have an incredible relationship.


You don't have to, it's NOT personal. 

I can only judge your words, and you specifically said that you "have no desire or need to justify" positive punishment. Our humanity is defined by how we justify the punishments we use. Otherwise, hitting your dog over the head with a baseball bat works at stopping a dog from eating an onion, but is it just? Is it humane? You do have desire and you do have a need to justify your punishments (that's why I don't believe you), and it's defined in your humanity. That was my point, I hope it's now clear. 



> They adore me, are *not* afraid of me, shut down or suffering from learned helplessness, in case you're thinking of going there.


Umm, why would I? You've resolved that "no" = look at me. I've been saying all along "no" would need to be specific to a behavior. That's rather specific. Good job!

I have a dear friend who is...for the lack of a better word, spiritual. I love my friend dearly but sometimes she drives me insane. One day while I was over, she commented that her dog was moody. I asked her how she would come to this conclusion. She said her dog was being stand-offish and that she sensed a poor aura in her.  I asked again, in a way that wouldn't offend her. She went on to explain how the dog was panting more, pacing more, and stretching more. Specific behaviors. Would you infer that these behaviors are those of a stand-offish, moody dog? Should we infer a dog understand "no" as _don't do that_, or _try something else_, or freeze if "no" = look at me? 

I insisted that she take her dog to the vet. The dog came home a few days later from surgery for internal blockage. Moral of the story...humans are kooky, leave it to the dogs.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Quite honestly FIC, I see no insult in CP's comments. He is a master debater and as such, it is pure wisdom to read all his replies real thorough (I have been reading CP for awhile now). The other thing to do when dealing with a master debator is to take your emotion out of the thing because other than dry humor (and CP's humor reminds me a bit of Bob Newhart) CP is not debating out of emotion (master debators do not argue based on emotion, tho they can have impassioned debates)

Other than that, I too agree that you have answered your own question. You train "no" as an interrupt command... I use something else (wait). You could use any word.. fiddlesticks or the dog's name and have the same effect (and advantage). 

FWIW I see a lot of people with dogs who expect the dog to associate NO with a behavior and to understand that NO means "stop that behavior.. that is a BAD behavior." 

You are using No with understanding. The word is asking the dog to refocus on you.. more is coming (food, another cue etc.). You are not using NO as a relational work pertaining to ceasing a behavior and remembering in the future that the behavior is "bad." 

I use "wait" like you use no. Wait is just that.. Hold ON... stop all activity.. do not move your feet (if the dog is standing).. MORE IS COMING. 

I train long distance recalls putting a dog in a "wait." Fact is, in a WAIT my dog can hardly contain herself waiting for the "next" thing. Stay she looks at me sadly and sighs.. LOL Nothing more is coming unitl I get back to her. 

Your dogs are lovely BTW. They look badly abused... forced into waiting for you to get that camera out of sight so they can DO something. POOR DOGGIES. LOL


----------



## Ixala (Aug 24, 2007)

I’m interested in the Four’s original question: 



FourIsCompany said:


> ... I'd like to know _why _people think that dogs can't understand an abstract or non-specific command. What's evidence is this belief based on?


Sure there are strong opinions about how people *should* communicate with their pets, but how does that negate the question about dogs' intellectual capacities? 

Humans also learn through operant condition, but we have capacity beyond that, too. Why do we think dogs don’t? Dogs understand ”outside“, ”dinner“, ”walk“, ”meatloaf“, ”no“ and many more words that aren’t normally reinforced in the way ”sit“ and ”down“ are. We think dogs have the capacity for aberrant psychological conditions, for motivation (to manipulate us for rewards, for example), but not for inference? I agree there are numerous examples of people ignorantly projecting on to dogs: ”Rover is sorry for ruining the rug“, "Spot should have know better“, etc. But why respond to that with the extreme opinion that dogs don’t have any higher level thinking than can be produced by rote conditioning?

When my dog licks me after I get out of the shower, I can reduce her to her biology or her reinforcement. When my husband kisses me, I could also reduce him to his biology and reinforcement; but that would give us a pretty flat relationship. Finding intelligence in my dog is not incompatible with responsibly and consistently teaching my dog the rules and lexicon of human society. She’s a foreigner in a foreign land, and I’ve pledged to guide her here.

My dog owns things and chooses places to put them (I didn’t teach that), she uses tools (I didn’t teach that), she applies lessons that were learned in utterly foreign contexts ... I see evidence that her mind is producing her world ... that she has an adaptive and creative relationship with what I teach her, her own innate knowledge, and the world around her.

From what I’ve witnessed in my dog, if she were stranded on a desert island, she could produce all kinds of challenges to alleviate her loneliness. That’s more than I can say for most people!


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Ixala said:


> Sure there are strong opinions about how people *should* communicate with their pets, but how does that negate the question about dogs' intellectual capacities?


Negate? Who?



> Humans also learn through operant condition, but we have capacity beyond that, too. Why do we think dogs don’t?


Who's we? I don't know anyone who would question a dog's intelligence goes beyond OC. At least not today. It is appropriate however to question whether someone's amateur observation is proof of learning through observation, insight, mediation of language to thought, abstract thinking, a spawn of internalized values, compassion, conscience, morality, feelings of self worth - all things that can withstand scrutiny for humans but not in dogs. This is not to say dogs are incapable of these things, just that they may exist outside the limits of our intelligence/understanding. Would it be fair if we limited the dog's existence to our inference? 



> Dogs understand ”outside“, ”dinner“, ”walk“, ”meatloaf“, ”no“ and many more words that aren’t normally reinforced in the way ”sit“ and ”down“ are. We think dogs have the capacity for aberrant psychological conditions, for motivation (to manipulate us for rewards, for example), but not for inference?


Never for inference on it's own. If an inference proves true today, tomorrow, and the next, the inference becomes a hypothesis. If someone across the globe can also prove the hypothesis to be true, it survive a peer review, and become generally accepted as true, it becomes a theory. Gravity is a theory. Does gravity exist? The theory does, however, there is a significant amount of evidence to suggest the theory is true. The same can't be said of an inference. 



> I agree there are numerous examples of people ignorantly projecting on to dogs: ”Rover is sorry for ruining the rug“, "Spot should have know better“, etc. But why respond to that with the extreme opinion that dogs don’t have any higher level thinking than can be produced by rote conditioning?


Who's saying these things? I don't believe an exercise in the law of parsimony is followed by a dead end. Only an end that is necessary to move on to what's next. 



> When my dog licks me after I get out of the shower, I can reduce her to her biology or her reinforcement. When my husband kisses me, I could also reduce him to his biology and reinforcement; but that would give us a pretty flat relationship.


Why a flat relationship? Wonderment doesn't need to disappear for a simple explantion now, does it? 



> Finding intelligence in my dog is not incompatible with responsibly and consistently teaching my dog the rules and lexicon of human society.


Actually, that's not entirely true. More to this point...



> She’s a foreigner in a foreign land, and I’ve pledged to guide her here.


You've pledged to guide her and in doing so you've set her up for all kinds of punishment by overestimating your dog's ability to think as you infer. For when your dog fails to think as you infer, do you not question what's 'wrong' with your dog? Do you not punish failure? How does this line of thinking benefit her learning in any way? 



> My dog owns things and chooses places to put them (I didn’t teach that), she uses tools (I didn’t teach that), she applies lessons that were learned in utterly foreign contexts ... I see evidence that her mind is producing her world ... that she has an adaptive and creative relationship with what I teach her, her own innate knowledge, and the world around her.
> 
> From what I’ve witnessed in my dog, if she were stranded on a desert island, she could produce all kinds of challenges to alleviate her loneliness. That’s more than I can say for most people!


That's all well and good, it makes for entertaining books, which I too enjoy reading, however, what our dogs need now is for us to be equipped with understanding that holds up under scrutiny. Sure, that doesn't give us dog lovers the warm fuzzies, but in no way does this demoralize or demean a dog's abilities. In fact I think it's ironic how we overlook the fact that many dogs were abused and tortured for the laws of our understanding, only for them to be ignored for inferences.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Ixala said:


> I’m interested in the Four’s original question:


Yes, so am I.  But I have yet to read the answer. 

There's a school of thought that says dogs don't understand the concept of "No", meaning "Stop what you're doing", and I'd like to know what that's based on. I guess I'll continue to wonder, and disagree with it. Because even those who make this assertion continue to... well... change the subject, turning the discussion into one about punishment and the science of learning theory, which is all very interesting, but does absolutely nothing to answer my original question. 

I can only assume that there isn't really any evidence that dogs can't understand an indiscriminate, non-specific command in a similar way that humans understand it... Or else the evidence would be clearly and succinctly presented... I would think.


----------



## Ixala (Aug 24, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I don't know anyone who would question a dog's intelligence goes beyond OC. At least not today. It is appropriate however to question whether someone's amateur observation is proof of learning through observation, insight, mediation of language to thought, abstract thinking, a spawn of internalized values, compassion, conscience, morality, feelings of self worth - all things that can withstand scrutiny for humans but not in dogs. This is not to say dogs are incapable of these things, just that they may exist outside the limits of our intelligence/understanding.


I, for one, would be very interested in hearing your observations and insights about the intelligence of your dogs that goes beyond OC. You clearly have rigorous standards regarding observation and analysis, so hearing how you find clues of advanced intelligence in your dogs, and what you make of them would be enlightening.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Ixala said:


> You clearly have rigorous standards regarding observation and analysis,...


I'm rigorous to the concrete laws of learning theory. I'm more interested in its application, which is forever evolving, than in abandoning it for my amusement. 



> ...so hearing how you find clues of advanced intelligence in your dogs, and what you make of them would be enlightening.


I don't profess to be a scientist, nor do I conduct these kind of studies on my dog. I don't need to for our tasks or existence. But if you're wondering how I question my dog's intelligence, read my sig. I'm the subject of *her* study. I'll leave the grasping for straws to those who are far more rigorous than you or I. 

If reason should be found that benefits her relationship with me, it will be considered. Until then I find no benefit in wondering about the unknown to conclude on it over the widest explanation.

This may not be good enough for the OP, but the OP asked for a reason from the contrarians. To the contrarians, a simple answer *is* enough reason, especially in the light of the complication our inferences can introduce. I still believe this is what the OP asked for in pondering the why's, and not for us to discuss the inticacies of why the OP employs the logic that they do. 

I've always said this about our inferences...if it benefits the dog, infer, infer, infer. If it does not benefit the dog, scrap it. This is highly subjective and relative. So if I should disagree, and explain the logic I'm using, I'd hope that would be enlightening too.


----------



## Ixala (Aug 24, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> But if you're wondering how I question my dog's intelligence, read my sig. I'm the subject of *her* study.


At the end of the day, like you, like Four, I am awed by my dog's intelligence. It's sweet that your dog finds you so fascinating.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Thomas Edison's dog was pretty smart. It turns out, that was his undoing.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

This thread is like a piece of liver the longer you chew it the bigger it gets.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

But does it taste as good? I think so.  

I have learned a lot in this thread.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

when I write about it an DF I describe "leave it" and "down" and other signals as words...because that's the best way to explain using written word...words 

but

I don't actually talk to my dog. all my signals to her are just that, signals. whistles, hand signals, snaps and similar non verbals.

but

I don't have anything that means "stop what you are doing". if I want her to stop what she is doing I simply go ahead and ask her to do something else..like...

she is messing with the cat? and I want her to follow me? I signal to please follow me. and she does. which thereby she then stops messing with the cat so can follow me.

I guess the closet thing I have to stop is to tell her to calm down . which is what I would call "leave it" when talking on DF...but it really is more like calm down and wait a second. 

I wonder how that fits into the whole "dogs don't understand "no" concept????


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

FourIsCompany said:


> But I have yet to read the answer. .


It has been answered. By you. 

You want your dog to "stop what he's doing" and defer to you when you say "no." You have trained that and they do it. Question Answered. 

I use the word "wait" in the same way you use no.



FourIsCompany said:


> There's a school of thought that says dogs don't understand the concept of "No", meaning "Stop what you're doing", and I'd like to know what that's based on. .


Actually, since that is the response you trained for the word "no" then that is the response you get. No one disagrees with that. I certainly don't. 



FourIsCompany said:


> I guess I'll continue to wonder, and disagree with it. Because even those who make this assertion continue to... well... change the subject, turning the discussion into one about punishment and the science of learning theory, which is all very interesting, but does absolutely nothing to answer my original question.
> 
> I can only assume that there isn't really any evidence that dogs can't understand an indiscriminate, non-specific command in a similar way that humans understand it... Or else the evidence would be clearly and succinctly presented... I would think.


It was. By you. YOu have come around to disagreeing with what you have trained. 

You trained your dogs to stop and look at you or defer to you with the word no. They do that. That is your balck and white answer to the question as you understand the meaning of No in dogdom. 

The PROBLEM is that in HUMAN context "no" is multilayered and is associated with a behavior and humans make that multilayered connection. When you say NO to a child who is writing on the wall, the child will typically stop because the child has been taught (typically with positive punishment.. but NOT ALWAYS) that No is associated with a behavior. It is here that the question no longer is black and white. 

In that context the answere is not black and white either. In that context, dogs do not understand the word no. 

The issue is not what you have trained your dogs to do in response to a word (and it could be ANY word). The issue is anthropomorphising the human interpretation of No on a dog. 

Your dogs understand NO = Stop and defer. You have answered your question with your own responses.



FourIsCompany said:


> But does it taste as good? I think so.
> 
> I have learned a lot in this thread.


I like liver and I absolutely LOVE reading what CP writes in a debate. Applying engineering thinking to a debate on learning theory is challenging to anyone entering the halls of that debate. 

(PS: CP always wins.  )


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> The PROBLEM is that in HUMAN context "no" is multilayered and is associated with a behavior and humans make that multilayered connection.


What evidence is there that dogs do not? That is my question. That is the question I am saying I don't have the answer to.  

Forgetting for a moment how *I* trained my dogs (which was never meant to be the subject of the thread), this is the question from the OP: 

I've heard that they don't understand it because it's an abstract concept and that it's non-specific, but *I'd like to know why people think that dogs can't understand an abstract or non-specific command. What's evidence is this belief based on?* 

I have read your post several times and I'm getting what you are saying. I appreciate your willingness to explain your position.  You say that typically, the child is taught that if they ignore "no" then there will be punishment. What is the _a_typical scenario? How does a child who is _not _taught with punishment manage to understand what no means? 



> The issue is anthropomorphising the human interpretation of No on a dog.


While dogs are not like little humans, neither do I think they're just a machine that responds to stimulus. 

Do they love? Do they think? Have memory? Don't they gather information from their environment and use it to solve problems? Don't they communicate with each other and with us? We don't teach them these things. 

*How* do we know that they don't know what "no" means in the same (or similar) way we do, even if punishment was never involved? What's the evidence? That's what I'm asking. How has this been proven?



> (PS: CP always wins.  )


Yeah, I got that.


----------



## lostcoyote (Oct 20, 2007)

i like the picture of the chicken on the table.

yeah, the "shame on you" comment by c.p. does sound like an insult, or rather, a subconscious attempt to induce guilt, but heh, everyone's entitled to their opinion & expression.


good discussion, tho my eyes have gotten tired out by the third page here with all the "tit for tat" hinging on every word spoken.

i do think the word, no is really just an interruptor. given enough "no's" when associated with one particular behavior, a dog may (or may not) begin to learn to not do that behavior (given enough repetition)....and the words "hey", "tssst", or "leave it" can all be substitured in where the NO word is used.

has anyone discussed the kind of energy is being inflected when one uses the word, no?
do you use a high pitch squeal? a low and firm tone? and your body language as well.... those are all being picked up by your dog, for sure.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

I think((at least for myself)

the point is that it HASN'T been proven.

so we can only go off of what we can say for certain.

we can say for certain that dogs react to conditioning and stimulus. we don't know if there is anything beyond that. so we should go off of what we do know.


----------



## jesirose (Mar 27, 2008)

FourIsCompany said:


> a machine that responds to stimulus.


We're not?  I'm hungry. Ooo chips. Nom.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> The PROBLEM is that in HUMAN context "no" is multilayered and is associated with a behavior and humans make that multilayered connection. When you say NO to a child who is writing on the wall, the child will typically stop because the child has been taught (typically with positive punishment.. but NOT ALWAYS) that No is associated with a behavior. It is here that the question no longer is black and white.
> 
> In that context the answere is not black and white either. In that context, dogs do not understand the word no.
> 
> ...


In other words - the simple "dogs don't understand no" answer is wrong (or at best incomplete). Dogs DO understand No if you taught it a meaning like any other word.

Why everything is relative to human context when training dogs - I haven't understood that one yet. 

How I (or other humans) see something is meaningless if I'm communicating with Wally 



FourIsCompany said:


> *How* do we know that they don't know what "no" means in the same (or similar) way we do, even if punishment was never involved? What's the evidence? That's what I'm asking. How has this been proven?


Speaking by seeing what Wally does - I think two things

1) He might not have "understood" (since things have to be relative to humans) the word, but he figured out I wasn't happy with his most recent behavior.

2) "No" can be a no-reward marker, i.e. that's not gonna get you a reward so try something else.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Why everything is relative to human context when training dogs - I haven't understood that one yet.


Well if cows were training dogs I'm sure everything would be relative to cow context


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

jesirose said:


> We're not?  I'm hungry. Ooo chips. Nom.


Yeah, not to mention alarm clocks.

Oh, and can I have some chips too?


----------



## Ixala (Aug 24, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> (PS: CP always wins.  )


I don't agree that anyone is a winner in this thread. CP addressed components of the OP's question, then declared that the question regarding canine intelligence, as posed by the OP, doesn't interest her.

If you show up to a baseball game, then proceed to play football, saying baseball is boring to you, do you win when you run, with your football tightly clenched, unencumbered, all the way to the end of the field, by yourself?


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

CP is a guy...... 

I have never seen evidence of a dog understanding the esoterics behind any language. 

I have seen dogs respond to training. Dogs are trained to respond to No as the trainer has taught them to. 

Beyond that there is no proof. There is proof they do respond to training. 

No is only meaningful to a dog in the context we have trained the dog to respond in. Nothing more, nothing less. 

Beyond that we are getting into what the dog is thinking or feeling. Considering most dogs proclivity for rolling in rotted carcasses and eating same.. only to regurgitate same in the house on the carpet ( and it is ALWAYS on the carpet.. NEVER the Linoleum!), I am pretty sure I don't WANT to know what my dog is thinking...  (At least some of the time).

What a dog feels, whether or not he feels love etc. is another thread.. (no, I am not going there). 

Believing a dog can make a conjecture regarding a language word (in this case the subject is the word NO) BEYOND what we have trained is also expecting a dog can understand language. Dogs do not speak human languages and do not understand the several meanings behind a word (let alone a sentence). 

Dogs know how to relate a language word to what we have trained. Period. 

Unless it is a Disney Dog in Homeward Bound... 

...or Babe the Pig..... 

Dogs do not speak or understand spoken language. They understand llanguage words as what we have trained them to understand.


----------



## Ixala (Aug 24, 2007)

Touchdown! .... now what inning is it? (and where's that darn hot dog vendor!)


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Ixala said:


> I don't agree that anyone is a winner in this thread.


No, I always win because *I* find the discussion reinforcing, fun, interesting. That's how *I* always win. The thing about this game though is we all can be given a participation ribbon, but it's up to you whether the prize is worth your effort. For me it is. 



> CP addressed components of the OP's question, then declared that the question regarding canine intelligence, as posed by the OP, doesn't interest her.


I said nothing of this sort. I said I was *more* interested in the application of learning theory, not, *not* interested in our inferences. I do wonder (I am human afterall)...I just don't conclude on my inferences for other reasonable explanations. Why do I need to?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Well if cows were training dogs I'm sure everything would be relative to cow context


Ah, but then would the cows be making the same mistake? Would they be bovomorophising the dog's reactions to a bovine context? 

Maybe the cows are smarter - they'll know that's it's about the dog's context. 

Nah...they are just cows. 



Elana55 said:


> Dogs do not speak or understand spoken language. They understand llanguage words as what we have trained them to understand.


Hmm...

Couldn't a bark be considered a spoken language as canines have it? 

Maybe in "human terms" it's not speech - but does a dog see it that way? If the barks have meanings that a dog can understand, then wouldn't it qualify as speech in the world of canines?

After all, speech is simply sounds that convey meaning. A word is just a sound (or collection of sounds) that has an accepted and recognized meaning. A bark could be the same thing shifted to the canine perspective.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

KBLover said:


> Nah...they are just cows.


When I was younger I spent a week on a dairy farm with my cousins. It was all very interesting, and I grew to adore the cows. One morning I woke up early and walked out to the pasture to just watch the cows. All of them were hanging out on the other side of the field doing what cows do best, lounging in the dirt. 

As I was watching them I noticed them gathering...and they were gathering towards me. Before I knew it all the cows in the pasture were lined up against the fence I was standing against. _Wow_ I thought, I'm like Dr. Dolittle (my inference). They made me feel so important.

Years later I came to realize those cows weren't congregating for me. They were congregating because people = food, and they thought I was out to bring them food. Imagine how disappointed those cows must have been when all they got was a lick of salt off my skin (it was hot, and I was perspiring). 

They may be just cows, but they are not nearly as ridiculous as us humans.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Wow, that's a cool story 

Pretty cool how they lined up like that. They may have just done it for the food, but they didn't like mob around you (like dogs might have  )

Do you remember what a cow's tongue feels like? I've never been licked by a cow before.

Also amazing how animals will almost train themselves when it comes to food  I bet cows would make cool pets.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Oh boy.. I dairy farmed highly successfully for 20 years. I had the top producing herd in the County (for its size) for several years.. and was in the top 3% in the State. 

Never used hormones etc. but I had really well cared for cows.. they were shiny. They also spent summers out on about 160 acres of rotational pasture. A few knew their names. They got a ton of attention and more than tons of good feed.

Cows would gather around me too, but NOT because I fed them (never on foot outside.. ONLY in the barn and they do not generalize a food provider on foot outside as a food provider). They just wanted to see what I was. They would gather around a complete stranger even more quickly. Something new. 

One time the entire herd gathered around something in the field.. and they started bawling and stomping and I wondered what they had. I went out there and they were serenading a HUGE Momma Snapping turtle who was laying her eggs. It was very amusing to see. 

So, to that end, it is highly likely CP that the cows gathered around you as a curiosity.. as something different.. since you were a "new" human (not a provider of food.. trust me.. they KNOW who brings food and who does not and they do not generalize that ANY human will bring food.. their generalization skills are WAY less than a dog's and a dog doesn't do it well). The licking actually indicates that.. you were a curiosity. Food providers rarely get licked.. they get moo'd at.. especially if they don't come across with the goods quickly enough. 

Or, maybe they were Rare Meat Eating Cows and were seeing if you tasted like Chicken.... 

OR.. and since we do not know what they were REALLY thinking.. they were over there giving you Worship. 

Oh and BTW.. Not a One ever understood the word NO.

Cows have very rough tongues with barbs that face backward down the throat. They have no upper front teeth. Their cheeks are also lined with backward (donw the throat) facint very soft small "fingers." Once something is in a cows mouth it is nearly impossible for her to spit it out. This is why cows can pick up bits of metal and swallow them and end up with Hardware disease (and why you feed every cow a magnet when they are brought in to be bred the first time). Hardware disease is when swallowed metal pierces the rumen wall and travels forward into the pericardium and kills the cow. Happened to one cow of mine in 20 years the object was a fence staple.

Ruminants have a digestive sysemt consisting of two compatments, each with 2 chambers. The Front compartment has as the first chamber the Rumen and behind it is the reticulum. The Second compatment contains the Abomasum and the Omasum. The Omasum is the cows oly true stomach. Deer, goats, sheep etc. are also ruminents. Horses are not.

The ruminnat is designed to go out and eat a pile of food very fast and they go lay down and re-masticate the food. this is known ans chewing cud. They actually regurgitate the food that is in the rumen and chew up it finer and then swallow it again and it goes into the reticulum and on thru the rest of digestion. The evolutionary reasoning for this is the ruminant could eat at dusk and dawn and they go into hiding while the preditors were active. 

Cows don't make good pets. Been there and done that. Calves are separated from the mother cow at birth on a dairy farm.. and fed the Mother's milk by bottle or pail (I used a pail and trained them to drink out of it). After 4 days the milk is then fit for human consumption and shipped to market. Cow has to have a calf every year to keep miling. She is dry (resting and not milking) for no less than 55 days before her calf is due. 

Cows are lousy pets. They are interesting and feeding them for production and keeping them healthy and comfortable.. content.. is a real challenge. 

And they really don't understand NO. Trust me.. as a farmer who has stood on top of a hill SCREAMING NOOOOOOOOOO!!!! while the cows high tailed it down the hill right through a NEW 4 strand Barb Wire fence because they were full of Hi Jinx... they absolutely have NO idea what NOOOOOOO means. If anything I think it means, "Go ahead and have fun.. Heck.. its only a fence and cows with cut teats are a JOY to milk....."


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> So, to that end, it is highly likely CP that the cows gathered around you as a curiosity.. as something different


Yes, I too am curious about CP, More-so about Elsa as she has CP wrapped around her paw/finger Oh you know what I mean.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Elana55 said:


> So, to that end, it is highly likely CP that the cows gathered around you as a curiosity.. as something different.. since you were a "new" human (not a provider of food.. trust me.. they KNOW who brings food and who does not and they do not generalize that ANY human will bring food.. their generalization skills are WAY less than a dog's and a dog doesn't do it well). The licking actually indicates that.. you were a curiosity. Food providers rarely get licked.. they get moo'd at.. especially if they don't come across with the goods quickly enough.


Yes, curiosity on whether I had food or not. As I piece meal their feeding ritual and my approach that day, it became rather clear to me that I was not the focus of their curiosity...I was a part of their ritual. The licking had more to do with my proximity as I stroked them on the head and under their chins. At that point they probably were curious. Curious of what I tasted like.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

I've been thinking of the subject of this thread on and off throughout the day and I have come to the conclusion that, as regards dogs' knowledge, there are *(A)* people who believe only in possibilities that have been proven by scientific experimentation... and then there are *(B)* people who believe in possibilities beyond what has been proven by scientific experimentation. 

I got curious about something this morning. I wonder how many of group (A) are religious in any way... I wonder how many believe in God. So, I'd like to ask:

How many of you who consider yourself to be in group (A) have a belief in God or a higher power or a spirituality that's not scientifically proven? 

How many of you who consider yourself to be in group (B) have a belief in God or a higher power or a spirituality that's not scientifically proven? 

Of course, this is a very personal question and please only answer if you want to, but I thought it would be an interesting comparison. I'm very curious.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

KBLover said:


> Do you remember what a cow's tongue feels like?


Not very well but if I characterized it as slimy I'm sure I wouldn't be far off. Their tongues are huge and I'm wigging out at the thought that _I've eaten that part of you cow! _



FourIsCompany said:


> I've been thinking of the subject of this thread on and off throughout the day and I have come to the conclusion that, as regards dogs' knowledge, there are *(A)* people who believe only in possibilities that have been proven by scientific experimentation... and then there are *(B)* people who believe in possibilities beyond what has been proven by scientific experimentation.
> 
> I got curious about something this morning. I wonder how many of group (A) are religious in any way... I wonder how many believe in God. So, I'd like to ask:
> 
> ...


This is a very interesting question, however, I have to caution others about a rule in our forum.
http://www.dogforums.com/7-off-topic/6999-important-notice-religious-debates.html

That said, I tend more towards being an atheist and B. That was not given as an option.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

I call myself an agnostic, but I sorta hate the connotation of a fence-straddling equivocator who's trying to avoid getting any possible supreme being(s) PO'd. While I am not moved by faith (got nuthin' against it), neither can I fully get behind the idea that the universe sprang from nothing. What we know is pathetically insignificant compared to what there is to know. If I one day have to answer for my lack of faith, I'll argue that all the major belief systems have done a poor job of making the case. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I do believe (or tend to believe) that dogs are capable in ways we can't even conceive. To say that they don't understand abstract language is not to underestimate them at all. Think of it in human terms: some people can see things in mathematical patterns that others can't begin to wrap their heads around. Some of those same people are extremely naive and get snookered into supporting destructive political philosophies. OTOH, some people can excel in artistic endeavors, but can't balance a checkbook. For either to assume the other is stupid is a very unattractive kind of conceit.

So dogs don't think in word pictures, but even if humans were given the dog's sense of smell, we would probably be unable to process the olfactory information in any meaningful way. Our brains are not made to filter information of that type. Dogs are amazing critters without us trying to burden them with human characteristics.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

It surprises me that you (CP) consider yourself in group B.  And in fact, I'm confused by what appears to me to be your strictly scientific approach to dogs in your posts as compared with the picture in your signature. 

But I, too, am in group B and am an atheist. However, I do have spiritual beliefs (not scientifically proven) that do not involve a higher power. 

Thank you for the reminder about religious discussions. 

As regards farm animals, I was practically (and very nearly literally) born in a cornfield. I was raised on a 70 acre farm in Ohio with cows (as we called them), horses, pigs, sheep and lots of chickens. I had a pet pig. LOL


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

having a strictly scientific approach doesn't exclude believing that dogs may have higher functions. 

it just means separation of belief and practice.


that said, I am an atheist inclined towards daoist philosophical beliefs.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Thank You MM


> I call myself an agnostic, but I sorta hate the connotation of a fence-straddling equivocator who's trying to avoid getting any possible supreme being(s) PO'd. While I am not moved by faith (got nuthin' against it), neither can I fully get behind the idea that the universe sprang from nothing. What we know is pathetically insignificant compared to what there is to know. If I one day have to answer for my lack of faith, I'll argue that all the major belief systems have done a poor job of making the case. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


Ditto for me and I did not have to do a bunch of typing.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Yes, curiosity on whether I had food or not. As I piece meal their feeding ritual and my approach that day, it became rather clear to me that I was not the focus of their curiosity...I was a part of their ritual. The licking had more to do with my proximity as I stroked them on the head and under their chins. At that point they probably were curious. Curious of what I tasted like.


I do not know what those particular cows were used to (how they were fed). My cattle were fed from a wagon in the field and by a human on foot in the barn. When I was on foot in the field they would mosey over. These were BTW very very well fed cows.. (24K pounds per cow per year rolling DHI). This means they were never particularly hungry. They could not be and produce that much milk. They also refused food offered to them by hand when I was on foot in the field. 

That being said, MOST dairy cows were not fed as well as mine were (if they were they would all have rolling herd avg. of 24K pounds or more). 

If the cows who lined up for you were not fed so well AND were used to someone showing up on foot with feed, then you are correct. 

I do forget that not everyone feeds their dairy cows the way I did. 

My cows would have mosied over if the leaders did. And they would often mosey over. BTW the herd leaders were cows that ate first and ate the most and (usually) made the most milk. 

Because cows have no hands, and their tongues oare often used to test things out (like we use our hands and a dog uses its nose), they will lick anything. This is how the explore their world in addition to sight, sound and smell. They lick things that have nothing to do with food. It is just a way feel what the thing is that they are checking out. Cows will (literally) lick anything (even CP ). It can be their undoing (the likcing anything, not CP). 



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> having a strictly scientific approach doesn't exclude believing that dogs may have higher functions.
> 
> it just means separation of belief and practice.


Zim just said it all for me. I have A (practice) and Believe there is a good bit of B. We have not figured out yet how to reliably test for the B stuff. Yet. 

I do believe there is a God and I do attend services on Sundays as often as I can. I also question some of this (stuff at services), and my heart walks its own path. That is all I will say on that.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> How does he know it's unwanted? And why should he offer a different behavior?
> 
> Do any of these answers demonstrate that the dog understands "no"?


Ok, lets try it this way.

You train a dog with a clicker, the clicker is loaded to mean a reward is coming.

You use the clicker to mark behavior you want repeated. The dog will understand this in time and work with it. You mark all sorts of behavior with a clicker as wanted behavior, behavior you want her to repeat, not just one specific behavior.

For me "no" is a marker for a behavior as well. It marks behavior I don't want marked right as she is doing it just like a clicker marks a behavior I do want. I'm asking her to stop doing what she's doing, and not do it again and condition it just like you would a click for behavior you do want.

Negative reinforcement may follow if she ignores it, or maybe just a lack of positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement always follows if she does as asked. It's her choice. I'm just marking the behavior so she understands what behavior is the subject at hand and letting her decide.

She could be conditioned for no to mean that I want her to stand on her back legs and dance, but I try to teach no as a pretty close equivalent, if not the same thing, as no would mean to me.

They understand no to mean whatever you condition them to understand that it means, similar to a very small child IMO.



FourIsCompany said:


> I've been thinking of the subject of this thread on and off throughout the day and I have come to the conclusion that, as regards dogs' knowledge, there are *(A)* people who believe only in possibilities that have been proven by scientific experimentation... and then there are *(B)* people who believe in possibilities beyond what has been proven by scientific experimentation.
> 
> I got curious about something this morning. I wonder how many of group (A) are religious in any way... I wonder how many believe in God. So, I'd like to ask:
> 
> ...


Definitely group (B), but I'm not religious at all. 

Science is far from having explained or even acknowledged everything, if that is even possible. I see science even at our stage of civilization having an understanding of maybe a 2yr old if that, and that's just concerning the subject matter science already knows exists, but don't understand fully yet.

I would see a religious fundamentalist, and a person who only believes what science has proven and no more, as flip sides of the same coin I guess.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

We have far more theories than we have proofs. 

Proofs make theories believable.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> We have far more theories than we have proofs.
> 
> Proofs make theories believable.


Dunno if you'll get proofs from a discussion on the internet.

What I do know is I get the results from it that I want and she seems to understand it as well as I probably did as a child.

Seems to work just like a clicker to me, but it reinforces that the behavior she was doing at the time is something I don't want her to do rather than one I do want her to do.

And like clicker training, if I tell her no on several occasions for the same behavior, she'll generalize it and not do that behavior any more. Sometimes you can even see the thought "click" as she will start to do something, then stop at just about the time I would have said no, or am about to say no. Eventually the behavior then goes away completely by her own choice.

I don't see humans as being conditioned to a "no" much differently. Sure later on in life we start to understand "why" we shouldn't do something and it gets complex. At first it's just simple conditioning though.

We understand why our parents said no later on but at first it seems to be simply "because I'm the parent and I told you no" as when we were little kids. We're genetically programmed for that type of learning as many mammals are as far as I can see.

We weren't always capable of understanding why but we were capable of generalizing not to do something if mommy said no every time we started doing it. I don't see a dog as much different.


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

I believe that dogs can know things that we haven't proven.

I'm an atheist... and have been all of my life. I also didn't believe in the tooth fairy or Santa beyond the age of 3 or 4 either. 

Skeptic I am


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

TxRider said:


> You use the clicker to mark behavior you want repeated. The dog will understand this in time and work with it. You mark all sorts of behavior with a clicker as wanted behavior, behavior you want her to repeat, not just one specific behavior.


You're confusing the antecedent with the consequence. The Antecedent (cue) prompts a specific behavior, not the consequence. The consequence is used to strengthen or diminish behavior (any behavior) in the future. What behavior are you strengthening with "no", and why would the dog find "no" appetitive? 



> For me "no" is a marker for a behavior as well. It marks behavior I don't want marked right as she is doing it just like a clicker marks a behavior I do want. *I'm asking her to stop doing what she's doing, and not do it again* and condition it just like you would a click for behavior you do want.


In bold: Yes, you're using it to punish behavior. You're using aversion (some threat, what I contend the dog really knows) to diminish the previous behavior. You are not using "no" to strengthen some other behavior. You do not get behavior from punishment, only less of it (if effective). 



> Negative reinforcement may follow if she ignores it, or maybe just a lack of positive reinforcement. *Positive reinforcement always follows if she does as asked*. It's her choice. I'm just marking the behavior so she understands what behavior is the subject at hand and letting her decide.


In bold: Then how do you know the dog knows "no" versus the behavior you're reinforcing? 



> She could be conditioned for no to mean that I want her to stand on her back legs and dance...


She could, but "no" would have to come before the behavior and some other consequence would need to follow a failed response or a successful response. You can not say "no" for the dog to dance, and when the dog fails say "no" again. She can't learn from this, nor would she know what "no" means. 



> They understand no to mean whatever you condition them to understand that it means, similar to a very small child IMO.


I've asked, no one has answered, what does "no" mean if it used as follows:
Dog chewing on shoe - "no"
Dog barking at mail carrier - "no"
Dog peeing on carpet - "no"
How can the dog learn "no" means cease chewing, cease barking, cease peeing? These are three different behaviors, you'd need three different antecedents for each of these behaviors. Again, you don't get behavior from punishment and no one is arguing that our dogs know aversion. 



TxRider said:


> Seems to work just like a clicker to me, but it *reinforces that the behavior she was doing at the time is something I don't want* her to do rather than one I do want her to do.


In bold: In order for "no" to be a reinforcer you'd need to continue saying "no" until the dog did a target behavior (a specific behavior conditioned to the antecedent).



> And like clicker training, if I tell her no on several occasions for the same behavior, she'll generalize it and not do that behavior any more. Sometimes you can even see the thought "click" as *she will start to do something, then stop at just about the time I would have said no*, or am about to say no.


A click is a secondary reinforcer, a bridge to a primary reinforcer. If you're using "no" like a click, what primary reinforcer are you following it with? 

In bold: Your body language (you may not even notice it) can be aversive (threatening) too. She likely knows this better than verbal consequences. I wouldn't confuse this with the dog knowing the behavior she was just about to do is wrong...she thought, before your threat that it *was* a good idea.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> You're confusing the antecedent with the consequence. The Antecedent (cue) prompts a specific behavior, not the consequence.


Correct, in this case the no is an antecedent, the behavior is to cease whatever behavior was marked, as in clicker training.



> The consequence is used to strengthen or diminish behavior (any behavior) in the future. What behavior are you strengthening with "no", and why would the dog find "no" appetitive?


The consequence is a positive reinforcement if she stops doing the behavior marked with the "no". And no is only used in that context. Or possibly a negative reinforcement if she doesn't stop that behavior.



> In bold: Yes, you're using it to punish behavior. You're using aversion (some threat, what I contend the dog really knows) to diminish the previous behavior. You are not using "no" to strengthen some other behavior. You do not get behavior from punishment, only less of it (if effective).


Ceasing the behavior is in itself a behavior and one that I am reinforcing.



> In bold: Then how do you know the dog knows "no" versus the behavior you're reinforcing?


Because ceasing the marked behavior is a behavior itself. It requires a decision by the dog as much a sit or down.



> She could, but "no" would have to come before the behavior and some other consequence would need to follow a failed response or a successful response. You can not say "no" for the dog to dance, and when the dog fails say "no" again. She can't learn from this, nor would she know what "no" means.


Yes that's a given, but it's also just a tangent to the discussion.



> I've asked, no one has answered, what does "no" mean if it used as follows:
> Dog chewing on shoe - "no"
> Dog barking at mail carrier - "no"
> Dog peeing on carpet - "no"
> How can the dog learn "no" means cease chewing, cease barking, cease peeing? These are three different behaviors, you'd need three different antecedents for each of these behaviors. Again, you don't get behavior from punishment and no one is arguing that our dogs know aversion.


It means the same in all cases. A dog is doing one thing at a time. A no means stop doing what you are doing right now that I marked with a "no".

If that is done consistently the dog may learn not do do that behavior over time. Mine have. Or the behavior might just be extincting itself.. Either way you get the same results.



> In bold: In order for "no" to be a reinforcer you'd need to continue saying "no" until the dog did a target behavior (a specific behavior conditioned to the antecedent).


The target behavior is simply to stop doing the current behavior. That requires the dog to decide and act, which is itself a specific behavior you can reinforce. A behavior specific to the antecedent.



> A click is a secondary reinforcer, a bridge to a primary reinforcer. If you're using "no" like a click, what primary reinforcer are you following it with?


 a Treat, a "good girl", same as reinforcing any other behavior.

I say no, she immediately stops what she was doing(chewing a shoe lets say), she gets a reward. That's a marker, an offered behavior, and a reinforcement for that specific behavior.

If you use no as only a word with a negative consequence, ie: stop what your doing or get hit, it will also work, but then you can't effectively use no in say, a training session.

If the dog knows that no is simply stop what your doing right now, and it's not a threat, then you can use no in training to guide a dog's experimentation when shaping behavior.



> In bold: Your body language (you may not even notice it) can be aversive (threatening) too. She likely knows this better than verbal consequences. I wouldn't confuse this with the dog knowing the behavior she was just about to do is wrong...she thought, before your threat that it *was* a good idea.


Body language does matter, and I'm sure she picks up on it more than I know, but I know my last dog I could have done it through a web cam and a speaker just as easily. I know my body language can be aversive, it sometimes is intentionally so. That's about as negative a consequence as I usually ever give and I am very aware of it. 

It's something I learned over the years with humans as well, being a pretty big guy at 6'4 it took me forever to figure out I intimidated a lot of people when it was the furthest thing from my intent.

Tone of voice matters as well, but it too is conditioned. How they internally interpret different tone of voice for the same word I can't be sure, but they do interpret different tone of voice differently.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

TxRider said:


> Correct, in this case the no is an antecedent, the behavior is to cease whatever behavior was marked, as in clicker training.


 Shoe (antecedent), dog chewing on shoe (behavior), you say “no” (consequence and new antecedent [your implication]), dog ceases chewing (behavior), click, food (consequence).

Dog has a full bladder (antecedent), dog pees (behavior), you say “no” (consequence and new antecedent [your implication]), dog ceases peeing (behavior), click, food (consequence).

Dog sees mail carrier (antecedent), dog barks (behavior), you say “no” (consequence and new antecedent [your implication]), dog ceases barking (behavior), click, food (consequence)

If “no” is an antecedent for all these ceasing behaviors, why do you only choose “sit” for butt on ground? Why don’t you use “sit” for ceasing chewing, ceasing peeing, and ceasing barking? Sit is not chewing, peeing, or barking, right? 

I say dogs cease all these things when told “no” because the dog needs to determine the threat. If the threat is big enough she’ll fight, flee, or freeze completely. If it’s just a small threat she might even keep doing what she’s doing. None of these responses should be confused with a dog’s understanding of “no”. 


> The consequence is a positive reinforcement if she stops doing the behavior marked with the "no". And no is only used in that context. Or possibly a negative reinforcement if she doesn't stop that behavior.


 We have to clear up some things. A “mark” comes *after* a target behavior. A “cue” comes *before* a target behavior. So in the above you’re saying a reinforcer follows a behavior cued with “no”. Which behavior? In my example above, how can you cue three different behaviors and get only the one you wanted? 


> Ceasing the behavior is in itself a behavior and one that I am reinforcing.


 With “no”? But your “no” came *before* the behavior (ceasing behavior). How can that be a consequence for behavior? 


> Because ceasing the marked behavior is a behavior itself. It requires a decision by the dog as much a sit or down.


 I only know of one behavior for sit (butt to ground) and down (whole body to ground). You’re saying “no” is *many* different behaviors, which begs the question, why not “sit” instead of “no”, for barking? Surely dogs don’t bark while sitting, do they? If they can, why isn’t “sit” enough? Clearly if I cued “sit” while the dog is barking, he should know that means no barking too, right?


> Yes that's a given, but it's also just a tangent to the discussion.


 I guess calling “no” a consequence and an antecedent is a tangent because that’s exactly how I used it in my example…but it’s not my implication that the dog would know the difference. I’m the one asking the question, how? 


> It means the same in all cases. A dog is doing one thing at a time.


 No, he’s not doing one thing at a time. She’s also breathing, blinking her eyes, adjusting her tail position, looking at a specific target, listening to sounds, many, many, many different things. So how can “no” mean do this “one thing” if that “one thing” changes for each instance of “no”? 



> If that is done consistently the dog may learn not do do that behavior over time. Mine have. Or the behavior might just be extincting itself.. Either way you get the same results.


 We’re not talking about results. We’re talking about how dogs learn. You’re implying that our dogs can learn “sit” means many different behaviors based on what he’s doing at that time. You’re implying that my dog should know “sit” means stand if she’s already sitting. I don’t believe they can. I don’t believe a human would either. 



> I say no, she immediately stops what she was doing, she gets a reward. That's a marker, an offered behavior, and a reinforcement for that specific behavior.


 No, your “no” is a cue. A marker comes *after* the target behavior. 



> If you use no as only a word with a negative consequence, ie: stop what your doing or get hit, it will also work, but then you can't effectively use no in say, a training session.


 I’m still wondering how “no” can be a positive consequence. Please explain. 



> If the dog knows that no is simply stop what your doing right now, and it's not a threat, then you can use no in training to guide a dog's experimentation when shaping behavior.


 A no-reward-marker may not be threatening, but it is still a punisher. Just as removing a dog from a play session, for playing too roughly, is punishment (negative punishment).


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> We have to clear up some things. A “mark” comes *after* a target behavior. A “cue” comes *before* a target behavior. So in the above you’re saying a reinforcer follows a behavior cued with “no”. Which behavior? In my example above, how can you cue three different behaviors and get only the one you wanted?


We cue different behaviors with the same command all the time. You teach a dog sit in your living room. The dog sits fine in the living room. You take it outside and "sit" has no response. You have to train sit in different places because it is a different command in each place as far as the dog is concerned until the dog generalizes it.



> With “no”? But your “no” came *before* the behavior (ceasing behavior). How can that be a consequence for behavior?


No is an antecedent, ceasing what she is doing is the behavior that follows. If she gives me the behavior of deciding to stop doing it, then the consequence follows as a "good girl" and a pat on the head.



> I only know of one behavior for sit (butt to ground) and down (whole body to ground). You’re saying “no” is *many* different behaviors, which begs the question, why not “sit” instead of “no”, for barking? Surely dogs don’t bark while sitting, do they? If they can, why isn’t “sit” enough? Clearly if I cued “sit” while the dog is barking, he should know that means no barking too, right?


It is no more many different behaviors than sit is, the dog has to learn to generalize it just as it does any command in different situations. Once generalized she seems to get it just fine.

Think of teaching "leave it" you would use for "leave it alone" for a pizza, for a hamburger, or for a cat, or for a squirrel or for the mailman. Can a dog not understand that concept? It's a similar concept.



> I guess calling “no” a consequence and an antecedent is a tangent because that’s exactly how I used it in my example…but it’s not my implication that the dog would know the difference. I’m the one asking the question, how?


I don't call it a consequence. To me it's just another antecedent command, with a conditioned response. The consequence comes after both the cue/marker and the response just like any other command.



> No, he’s not doing one thing at a time. She’s also breathing, blinking her eyes, adjusting her tail position, looking at a specific target, listening to sounds, many, many, many different things. So how can “no” mean do this “one thing” if that “one thing” changes for each instance of “no”?


Last time I checked breathing, blinking etc. aren't something I have to think about consciously to do, adjusting the tail etc. aren't either those are involuntary actions. The dog has a target and a behavior.. Chewing a shoe the target is the shoe that the dog has consciously decided to target and chew. It's what the dog is thinking about and doing at the time.

I wouldn't use no for an involuntary action, and I would only use it when they are doing a conscious behavior I know they will relate to. 

I did teach my last dog to blink and close her eyes on command though  Playing dead was just not working with her eyes open.



> We’re not talking about results. We’re talking about how dogs learn. You’re implying that our dogs can learn “sit” means many different behaviors based on what he’s doing at that time. You’re implying that my dog should know “sit” means stand if she’s already sitting. I don’t believe they can. I don’t believe a human would either.


I'm talking about results because the results are all I have to go by to observe whether she is generalizing the concept and obeying the command.

I'm not implying your dog stand when you say sit at all. But it's fairly common knowledge dogs need to generalize a sit command to several locations before sit means sit anywhere they happen to be. So to the dog sit does indeed mean several different behaviors at least until they generalize it as a concept.

No means one thing, stop what your doing. At first the dog may be confused but not once the idea is generalized. 



> No, your “no” is a cue. A marker comes *after* the target behavior.


I've always learned a marker comes during the behavior, after the behavior is usually late timing. I can see where this is confusing because I'm giving a cue/marker to stop a behavior, which is also asking for a different behavior, and not marking that resultant behavior just rewarding it I guess.



> I’m still wondering how “no” can be a positive consequence. Please explain.


In the context I use it it isn't a consequence negative or positive, it's a verbal marker and command I train a response to. Consequence be it positive or negative follows her decision to present the correct behavior in this case stopping the current behavior and doing anything else.



> A no-reward-marker may not be threatening, but it is still a punisher. Just as removing a dog from a play session, for playing too roughly, is punishment (negative punishment).


So if your trying to screw a bolt into a threaded hole but turning it the wrong direction and I say "dude, your not doing it right, try another way" is a punishment?

The confusion seems to me to stem from your not seeing "stopping the behavior your doing right now" as an actual behavior in itself to be conditioned, and not believing a dog can generalize that as a behavior for many different situations.

I would say if you have dog trained to "leave it" its basically the same thing, they generalize that to apply to many objects in many situations. Dogs learn to control their impulses to chew things, to bark, to chase, to eat and many other impulses if "leave it" is conditioned and used well, and they learn to generalize it well. It's the same type of context and it is within their grasp.

Occasionally the dog will attach the no to something other then behavior I intended her to stop, it is possible to happen, but not often once generalized. I also use no for begging, or the dog is trying to get me to do something I don't want to do.

In that case one can never be sure exactly what context the dog takes that in, I assume she looks at it just like anything else, stop doing what your doing but who knows, maybe they can take it to mean "no you can't play ball, or "no I'm not getting up"... But she did stop begging, or stop whining at me, or stop flopping the frisbee in my lap when I looked at her and said "no"... Usually with a huff and a puff or a loud sigh and went off to lay down or eat or something else.

But really whether a dog can understand no depends on your definition of no.

Humans use different definitions and contexts, can I have that? no, Did you quit beating your wife? no, is the sky green? no, are just a few and a dog isn't going to understand that obviously.

To a dog no means whatever you teach them no means. I'm just relating what I teach my dogs that no means. A helpful discussion really as I'm beginning that process with a new dog right now. Helps me get the concept clear in my own mind.

To me it's a much clearer issue than people saying a dog cannot relate a punishment to a deed it did hours earlier, but I have seen dogs who clearly can do just that and have owned one. Unfortunately having a dog that does that is a set of problems all it's own because at least in my case it meant she also wasn't aware that I had no idea what she was doing when I wasn't home and I really didn't want her to realize that. I consider myself quite lucky the tricks I played on her as puppy just at the time when she made her very first attempts to do something wrong when she didn't think I was around paid off so well.

Too late for my new dog, she already knows better.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

TxRider said:


> We cue different behaviors with the same command all the time. You teach a dog sit in your living room. The dog sits fine in the living room. You take it outside and "sit" has no response. You have to train sit in different places because it is a different command in each place as far as the dog is concerned until the dog generalizes it.


Nope, the cue and behavior are the same, always. We need to generalize the behavior so the dog can *find* the particular cue she's been conditioned to. *Not* clump all other environmental cues to also mean sit. Huge difference. 


> No is an antecedent, ceasing what she is doing is the behavior that follows.


And what is prompting your "no"? Could it be the target behavior (chewing, barking, peeing) you're using "no" against? If so, that is a consequence. 



> If she gives me the behavior of deciding to stop doing it, then the consequence follows as a "good girl" and a pat on the head.


Thorndike's law, so what. This doesn't explain how the dog learns "no" is stop a behavior when that behavior is different each time you use it. 



> Think of teaching "leave it" you would use for "leave it alone" for a pizza, for a hamburger, or for a cat, or for a squirrel or for the mailman. Can a dog not understand that concept? It's a similar concept.


"Leave it" is *one* behavior...teeth don't touch object. Again, generalization is meant to teach the dog how to pick out one cue in varying environments in which that one cue exist. Generalization is not clumping all other stimuli to also be the cue. 



> Last time I checked breathing, blinking etc. aren't something I have to think about consciously to do, adjusting the tail etc. aren't either those are involuntary actions.


Yes and no. You most definitely can control these behaviors. One of the practices in Control Unleashed is to reinforce "soft eyes", a voluntary behavior.



> So to the dog sit does indeed mean several different behaviors at least until they generalize it as a concept.


This is getting redundant but...nope, sit means one behavior. Generalization teaches the dog how to pick out that one cue in the environment.



> No means one thing, stop what your doing. At first the dog may be confused but not once the idea is generalized.


Ya, I get it. No barking is one thing this time, no chewing is one thing next time, and no peeing is one thing another time, but no matter how you add it up, that's 3 different behavior for 1 cue. Doesn't work that way. 



> I've always learned a marker comes during the behavior, after the behavior is usually late timing.


Semantics. The marker follows the behavior's...start. I didn't say the marker follows the completion of a behavior. 



> So if your trying to screw a bolt into a threaded hole but turning it the wrong direction and I say "dude, your turning it the wrong way" or "dude turn it the other way" that's a punishment to you?


Absolutely, and a preferred punishment because it provides instruction. Humans don't like being wrong, and if we're told we're wrong, we'd find that aversive; if we want to avoid the aversion in the future, we'd seek the right behavior. Since you're so brilliant, you gave us instruction that leads us to that behavior. Good job!

We can do the same with our dogs. If the dog is barking I might teach "shush" by putting barking on cue and reinforcing silence. If the dog is chewing I might teach "drop" by trading less valuable objects for more valuable ones. If the dog is peeing on the carpet I might teach "outside" so the dog will move to the potty area. All of these, one cue, one behavior. 



> The confusion seems to me to stem from your not seeing "stopping the main behavior your doing right now" as an actual behavior in itself, and not believing a dog can generalize that as a behavior for different situations.


I know exactly how "no" can be effective...if it is aversive. I've never seen anyone, not even dog trainers much more knowledgeable than you or I, explain how one cue can be many different behaviors. Not a one. Have you? 



> I would say if you have dog trained to "leave it" its basically the same thing, they generalize that to apply to many objects in many situations.


Nope, one behavior, one cue, in many different environments. Not 3 different behaviors, one cue, in many different environments.

Until you view no bark, no chew, and no pee as 3 distinct and different behaviors, we're not likely to get much further than the redundancy I went through here.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

*busts out the popcorn and beers* 

continue...


----------



## pamperedpups (Dec 7, 2006)

NO!


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

"No" the way most people train it is really the same as saying "look at me." Of course, what this does is stop one behavior and replace it with look at me. No redirects to a different behavior.

"No" is not related by the dog to the behavior the dog is doing. "No" means "look at me" and that is the action that stops the behavior. This is in a positive world.

In most cases, "No" is followed by some punitive aversive. Again, the dog hears the word and ceases what he is doing, redirects to the person saying "NO" and may act submissive, get up and leave, pee on the floor (submissively) or wait and watch to see what punishment the sayer of "No" is about to resort to. When the dog ceases the undesirable behavior and redirects attention to the person saying NO he may get a pat on the head, a dog biscuit or nothing. 

If it is a pat on the head or a biscuit, he will probably forget the undesirable behavior and look for more petting or more biscuits or go do something else. It "appears" he has learned what no means (he has not).

If it is Nothing following No and Nothing often enough, he may go back to the undesirable behavior. He will likely then hear NO again and an aversive will be applied.. and again, the dog will forget the undesirable behavior and act submissive, brace himself for the aversive, or redirect his focus as a result of the aversive. Again. the dog appears to have understood NO when all he has really understood is NO means "watch out.. something unpleasant is about to happen" so no causes the dog to redirect his behavior and attention to whoever said NO. 

Either way, "NO" is not related to a behavior and its cessation, but related to an alternative behavior which "NO" cues. 

Pass the Popcorn and the Beer Zim and Pampered, please ask the cat to move over on the couch....


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Nope, the cue and behavior are the same, always. We need to generalize the behavior so the dog can *find* the particular cue she's been conditioned to. *Not* clump all other environmental cues to also mean sit. Huge difference.
> 
> And what is prompting your "no"? Could it be the target behavior (chewing, barking, peeing) you're using "no" against? If so, that is a consequence.


Of course, and if the dog starts picking up a piece of cat poop, a "leave it" is also a consequence, if it goes into prey drive on a cat and obviously wants to chase, "leave it" is a consequence. It's also a command to stop the current behavior and leave the target alone whatever the target of the dog is at that moment. 




> Thorndike's law, so what. This doesn't explain how the dog learns "no" is stop a behavior when that behavior is different each time you use it.


But they do learn it. There is no question there. I say no, dog stops doing it.




> "Leave it" is *one* behavior...teeth don't touch object. Again, generalization is meant to teach the dog how to pick out one cue in varying environments in which that one cue exist. Generalization is not clumping all other stimuli to also be the cue.


Not according to your own logic. Leave it means "leave the mailman alone (control your defensive drive)", Drop that cat poop and leave it alone(control your food drive), "don't chase that squirrel"(control your prey drive). 

I can't see dog thinking internally "Ohh he means don't put my teeth on it" To me it is much more likely to mean "don't eat that", "don't chase that", "don't bark at that" to the dog as the dog likely had no intention of putting teeth on the mailman just barking or sniffing and it still works.



> This is getting redundant but...nope, sit means one behavior. Generalization teaches the dog how to pick out that one cue in the environment.
> 
> Ya, I get it. No barking is one thing this time, no chewing is one thing next time, and no peeing is one thing another time, but no matter how you add it up, that's 3 different behavior for 1 cue. Doesn't work that way.


Yes just like barking, chewing, sniffing, eating, chasing are different behaviors, and a "leave it" is generalized by the dog to not react to widely different stimuli, driven by different drive impulses, and all controlled by one cue.

And that's where your stuck, stop what your doing is just one desired behavior. 



> I know exactly how "no" can be effective...if it is aversive. I've never seen anyone, not even dog trainers much more knowledgeable than you or I, explain how one cue can be many different behaviors. Not a one. Have you?


I don't believe a no is asking for many different behaviors. So teaching a dog one cue for several behaviors is not even relevant.

Even as just an aversive, the dog understands no and stops what it was doing. It learns if it stops what it was doing a reward comes, and if doesn't stop what it was doing a punishment comes. In any case the dog clearly stops what it was doing and offers a different behavior in most any situation and almost any behavior and clearly has an understanding of "no".



> Until you view no bark, no chew, and no pee as 3 distinct and different behaviors, we're not likely to get much further than the redundancy I went through here.


They are three distinct behaviors, however stopping what your doing can be generalized as one behavior.

To me you haven't shown your logic well enough to be convincing. You say it's three behaviors, but applying the same logic to a "leave it" that you seem to think a dog can understand as one behavior, your also controlling not only different behaviors but also different impulses for totally different instinctual drives behind them. Chase, eat, defend, etc.

You say that "leave it" is asking for one behavior, but you haven't logically shown the difference. Saying it means "don't put your teeth on it" doesn't cut it, as it's obviously used for many things a dog never intended to put teeth to, but maybe only a sniff, a paw, teeth or just bark at or maybe only stop and stare at. Basically whatever it's targeting for whatever behavior.

In your logic, "leave it" also seems to be a consequence, and a punishment. Your walking your dog, you come across a cat poop pile, you say "leave it" how is that not both a consequence of the dog targeting the poop and sticking it's nose on it, and an aversive and a punisher? 

What happens if your dog doesn't "leave it" when told to and continues eating the poop? Or worse yet, a puddle of highly toxic anti freeze?

What if your not on leash and the dog is about to drink it 20 feet away, and ignores the "leave it"? It even ignored the tasty treat you pull out of your pocket and the toy your carrying and dips it's head to drink the deadly poison. Do you yell, get excited maybe even threaten?


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

TxRider, you have an amazing amount of patience (I don't have it) and you have said exactly what I have been trying to say for the 4 previous pages. Congratulations.  Great job. 

Leave it means "teeth *don't* touch *IT*" whatever *it* is.
No means "*Stop* doing *IT*" whatever *it* is. 

In both cases, one cue, one behavior, in many different environments.

CP, by your argument, if "leave it" means "teeth don't touch", then what DO the teeth do? How can you tell a dog that his teeth aren't supposed to touch something if you don't tell him what his teeth ARE supposed to do? 

As I said on page 2: 



FourIsCompany said:


> You insist that my use of the word "no" is aversive, even though I have explained that I don't use it as a punishment (to decrease the likelihood of a particular behavior _in the future_), but *as an interrupter (to stop a behavior in the moment), much as you would use "leave it".*


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

just a little sidenote

ANYTHING that ceases a behavior is aversive. from leave it to no and beyond. 

the only way to not use a DIRECT aversive in instances where you wish to cease a behavior is to skip the stop/leave it/ no and go straight to cuing a different behavior. redirection.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

zim, or anyone, really, what is the definition of "aversive" in dog training? Because I though it was "anything the dog tries to avoid"


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

FourIsCompany said:


> TxRider, you have an amazing amount of patience (I don't have it) and you have said exactly what I have been trying to say for the 4 previous pages. Congratulations.  Great job.


I'm glad you think so, I keep having to remind myself since I haven't had a dog in a few years that it actually took me several years to train my last dog to be such a super companion from a 6wk old puppy, and I can't expect my adult rescue to learn that much in less than several years if ever. I have to remind myself to be patient daily. Actually several times a day.

That and I run an office of programmers and engineers, that will either teach you patience or drive you insane..


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

www.clickertraining.com/node/1395


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

TxRider said:


> That and I run an office of programmers and engineers, that will either teach you patience or drive you insane..


Having 3 brothers who are engineers, being an engineering technician myself and being married to an engineer, I can sympathize! LOL As with most things in life, I strive to maintain a balance between the right and left sides of my brain. 

Thanks *zim*, for the link.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

TxRider said:


> Of course, and if the dog starts picking up a piece of cat poop, a "leave it" is also a consequence, if it goes into prey drive on a cat and obviously wants to chase, "leave it" is a consequence. It's also a command to stop the current behavior and leave the target alone whatever the target of the dog is at that moment.


 If the cue has no value over the reinforcer the dog chooses, we’re not in an OC scenario. How the dog learns won’t matter until I can control both the antecedent and consequence. 


> But they do learn it. There is no question there. I say no, dog stops doing it.


 I don’t question the effect punishment can have. 


> I can't see dog thinking internally "Ohh he means don't put my teeth on it"…


 That’s absolutely correct. Good job! All you can see is behavior. We don’t care what the dog is thinking as long as the one behavior we want follows the one cue we name it. Nor should we condition cues such that the dog has to guess our thinking. 


> I don't believe a no is asking for many different behaviors.


 So you agree, one cue, one behavior. If the dog is peeing, barking, chewing, what is that one behavior? You’re saying it’s stop peeing, stop chewing, stop barking…it’s not. You’re using “no” as a consequence. The dog gives you *a* behavior because “no” is aversive. You’ve stated a number of times that this behavior is “stop doing [the previous behavior] what you’re doing”. That’s not *a* behavior as you’ve described it, that’s many different behaviors depending on the context. The dog just happens to look-at-you in response to the aversion (*a* behavior), and you’re seeing this as the dog ceasing your target behavior. But, since your “no” follows the target behavior, it can only be a consequence.

Antecedent = food on ground: Behavior = go for food: Consequence = “no”.

There after “no”, we still have this…

Antecedent = food on ground: Behavior = look at you, freeze, whatever: Consequence = “good girl”. 

Your dog learns not to go for food on the ground when "no" is aversive and the antecedent of food on the ground is followed by reinforcement for another behavior. Elementary learning theory. 



> To me you haven't shown your logic well enough to be convincing.


 Convincing? What convincing do I need to do for the *laws* of learning theory? Had I known I’d need to convince you of these laws, I’d likely just recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Dogs-Learn-Howell-reference-books/dp/0876053711


> You say it's three behaviors, but applying the same logic to a "leave it" that you seem to think a dog can understand as one behavior, your also controlling not only different behaviors but also different impulses for totally different instinctual drives behind them. Chase, eat, defend, etc.


 This isn’t my logic. This is an assumption you’ve made in comprehending my logic. I would not use “leave it” if my dog is barking at the mail carrier. If you read what I wrote earlier, I said I would cue “shush” – a behavior she has a long learning history for. I also wouldn’t use “leave it” if my dog is chasing a cat either. This is likely a dangerous situation and I need to do whatever it is I need to do to protect her safety – she’s over threshold, cues won’t be heard. 



> You say that "leave it" is asking for one behavior, but you haven't logically shown the difference.


 Seriously, how much more “logic” do you need than “leave it” is teeth don’t touch object. If the mail carrier passes by and my dog starts barking, I say “leave it”, I should reward her…her teeth are not touching the mail carrier…*but* she’s still barking. Drats!



> Saying it means "don't put your teeth on it" doesn't cut it…


 Let’s clarify this…it doesn’t cut it for *you*. There are others in this thread who’ve repeated exactly what I’ve been saying, yet, it’s us who are not cutting it? Even the OP resolved one cue, one behavior. What’s taking you so long to name that behavior? 



> …as it's obviously used for many things a dog never intended to put teeth to, but maybe only a sniff, a paw, teeth or just bark at or maybe only stop and stare at. Basically whatever it's targeting for whatever behavior.


 Now you’re talking about my learning history. I don’t know that my dog is going to eat the onion that fell on the floor, but I have a pretty good idea what a dog would do with food. I don’t need to guess in this instance, I’m likely right *most* of the time, and if the behavior that I cue is known, I should get that behavior regardless of what she is thinking. If that behavior is compatible with what *I* want, what does it matter what her intentions are? 



> In your logic, "leave it" also seems to be a consequence, and a punishment. Your walking your dog, you come across a cat poop pile, you say "leave it" how is that not both a consequence of the dog targeting the poop and sticking it's nose on it, and an aversive and a punisher?


 I don’t have any issues with humane and effective instructive punishment. Nevertheless, I would hope I’ve given my dog a history that my cue predicts reinforcement, reinforcement better than poo. If not, I have more training to do.



> What happens if your dog doesn't "leave it" when told to and continues eating the poop? Or worse yet, a puddle of highly toxic anti freeze?


 Death. Or something *I do* just short of that, proportional to her danger. Again, this isn’t a training scenario. This is a life and safety scenario. I’ll do whatever I need to do to protect her, including worrying about the fallout later.



FourIsCompany said:


> CP, by your argument, if "leave it" means "teeth don't touch", then what DO the teeth do?


Teeth tear and shred objects. 



> How can you tell a dog that his teeth aren't supposed to touch something if you don't tell him what his teeth ARE supposed to do?


Oh, but you can teach the dog "take it". 

Dunbar uses "off" for my "leave it". I have a different behavior for "off" but...
http://www.dogstardaily.com/videos/don039t-touch


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

FourIsCompany said:


> I've been thinking of the subject of this thread on and off throughout the day and I have come to the conclusion that, as regards dogs' knowledge, there are *(A)* people who believe only in possibilities that have been proven by scientific experimentation... and then there are *(B)* people who believe in possibilities beyond what has been proven by scientific experimentation.
> 
> I got curious about something this morning. I wonder how many of group (A) are religious in any way... I wonder how many believe in God. So, I'd like to ask:
> 
> ...


I absolutely believe in God. I probably will never grasp the concept that the creature that is the dog came from some amoeba or was just a "happy accident" of evolution. 

That said, I also believe in science. I believe in science in explaining how our world (and its inhabitants) function, live, and learn. I believe in physics and I do believe in behaviorism and learning theory. 

I don't believe that's all a dog is, though. I believe they can pick up things and teach themselves things and understand concepts beyond just the standard ABC method. Shaping itself seems to toss away the ABC method because there's no cues - just the dog's creativity.



Elana55 said:


> Again. the dog appears to have understood NO when all he has really understood is NO means "watch out.. something unpleasant is about to happen" so no causes the dog to redirect his behavior and attention to whoever said NO.


Am I missing something?

How is that not the dog understanding what NO means?

He's made a connection that NO -> I'm about to get crushed! That's understanding just like Wally understands click -> I'm about to get a reward!


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

KBLover said:


> He's made a connection that NO -> I'm about to get crushed!


*But* is that what your "NO" meant? A warning (you're about to be crushed)? Or, did you say "NO" to reduce his behavior (positive punishment), because reducing his behavior prevents him from being crushed?


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Here's more what I was trying to say from an author and trainer..

http://www.veterinarypartner.com/Content.plx?P=A&C=2&A=2383&S=0



> Never Say Never
> 
> Many dog trainers tell their students not to ever say the word “no” to their dogs. This practice has merit. Humans assume dogs understand the word in ways they simply don’t. And yet the dog responds, which to the human seems to confirm that (mistaken) belief.
> 
> ...


I have known dogs that have understood no in each those contexts. As well as seeming to understand that tone of voice means different context.

As for the original question, I think we've concluded that dogs can understand no, but only in the context the owner teaches and never in the complex contexts a human can.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

TxRider said:


> Here's more what I was trying to say from an author and trainer..
> 
> http://www.veterinarypartner.com/Content.plx?P=A&C=2&A=2383&S=0


I didn't read anything in there that would contradict what I've said about "no" being a punisher. 



> I think we've concluded that dogs can understand no, but only in the context the owner teaches and never in the complex contexts a human can.


I've concluded that "no" is a punisher, and dogs understand the aversion of "no". What we reinforce after that is *a* behavior, and dogs repeat what's reinforced. The author even instruction (reinforced cues) were preferred over "no".

*shrug*


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I didn't read anything in there that would contradict what I've said about "no" being a punisher.
> 
> 
> I've concluded that "no" is a punisher, and dogs understand the aversion of "no". What we reinforce after that is *a* behavior, and dogs repeat what's reinforced. The author even instruction (reinforced cues) were preferred over "no".
> ...


And my view is more along the lines of Karen Pryor's view, the author of "Don't shoot the dog" among others.

"All punishers are aversives but not all aversives are punishers." 

It's up to the trainer to make the distinction in what you teach and how you apply it.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

TxRider said:


> And my view is more along the lines of Karen Pryor's view, the author of "Don't shoot the dog" among others.
> 
> "All punishers are aversives but not all aversives are punishers."


All Karen is saying is that not all aversion *is* punishing. In other words, if the punisher you chose does not diminish behavior in the future, your punisher is not punishing - it is just aversive. This is the definition of ineffective punishment.

But since you didn't include the context of this statement, she could also be saying that some aversion is reinforcing; as in a negative reinforcement contingency; where the removal of the aversion reinforces *a* target behavior.

In both cases she's still talking about consequences. Not "no" as a cue like you suggest. 



> It's up to the trainer to make the distinction in what you teach and how you apply it.


Of course, but the dog will decide what is punishing and what is reinforcing. And they've decided our normal use of "no" is not reinforcing.


----------



## Lil Red Express (Jan 18, 2009)

I can't believe this discussion is still going on


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Lil Red Express said:


> I can't believe this discussion is still going on


LOL Yeah, me, too. 

*According to the technical definition*, the way most people use "no" is definitely a "punishment". It is _something added to the environment that decreases the likelihood that a behavior will be repeated_. By that definition, saying no is definitely punishment. The problem is that the word punishment has such a negative connotation; one that, IMO, it doesn't deserve. Saying no or a mild leash correction are just bits of information that we give the dog to let him know what unacceptable and acceptable behaviors are.

I think it's a shame that there's no distinction (technically) between saying "no" or a mild leash correction and beating a dog with a stick. It's all _technically _positive punishment. But, sadly, too many times, people who use the former, get branded as supporting the latter. It's like saying that a white lie is the same as committing murder, because they're both "sins". 

Not everyone is aware of the scientific, technical, dog training jargon. There are lots of dog owners who have no idea who Skinner is and frankly couldn't care less. Many people are just regular dog owners who love their dogs.

There's a quantitative (and qualitative, believe it or not) difference between telling a dog "no" or a mild leash correction and a violent kicking of the dog, both in the way the owner administers it (energy, purpose and intent) and the way the dog perceives it (response).

So, no is usually punishment IF we're using the technical definition, but among the regular people, and in most cases, it's just information that the dog understands to mean "Stop".


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

FourIsCompany said:


> ...it's just information that the dog understands to mean "Stop".


Stop...or else. That's the information the dog understands. Otherwise why stop? The onion on the floor is just as tasty whether you say "no" or not.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> *But* is that what your "NO" meant? A warning (you're about to be crushed)? Or, did you say "NO" to reduce his behavior (positive punishment), because reducing his behavior prevents him from being crushed?


If a dog hears no from his handler and then goes into a shaking/fearful fit - he understands what that sound means (likely your first option, he's about to get crushed). If option 1 is applied often enough, I believe a dog can then think via option 2. It works for the positive, I would assume it works for the negative. It would be like the P+ version of clicker training. Connect "no" to a punishment - then no becomes a proxy for that punishment being delivered just like a click is a proxy for a on-coming reward.

Concerning understanding, I view understanding as being independent. I.e. the Dog can understand something one way (option 1 in your example), and the Human can understand something one way (S/he thinks s/he's teaching option 2). Whether they match is a different issue, imo, and doesn't mean the dog "doesn't understand" XYZ. The dog just understood it differently than the handler thought the dog "should have" understood it.



FourIsCompany said:


> I think it's a shame that there's no distinction (technically) between saying "no" or a mild leash correction and beating a dog with a stick. It's all _technically _positive punishment. But, sadly, too many times, people who use the former, get branded as supporting the latter. It's like saying that a white lie is the same as committing murder, because they're both "sins".


There's nothing wrong with that. They are both P+ as you said. 

How people choose to generalize/connotation/judge something (and the people that perform that something) doesn't change what that something is, imo. And I wonder about that. Do those same people think grounding a child is the same as whipping him until he can't cry anymore? Do they think stealing $5 is the same as being Bernie Madoff? If so - there's other issues at work other than the definition of positive punishment (or "sins" for that matter), imo.

Even in the dog world (i.e. canine/canine interaction) there's varying degrees of "corrections" and "warnings" but neither indicate it's play time, no matter how mild. Dogs just don't think "OMG you growled at him, you might as well have bit him on the leg!" Humans (as the superior intelligent creature) shouldn't either, but some do.

So no, there's nothing wrong with calling them all positive punishments, because that's *exactly* what they are. That sounds more like a problem where people can't make a distinction between similar things and just lump them all together. 

There's hard punishments and mild ones just like there's high-value reward and ho-hum ones, but they are all rewards. I would think we humans are smart enough creatures do not have to have everything in a category of things to be pre-ranked and sorted and we can make the distinction between saying "no" or ending a game (both punishments) and picking up the dog and throwing him against a wall.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

KBLover said:


> It works for the positive, I would assume it works for the negative. It would be like the P+ version of clicker training. Connect "no" to a punishment - then no becomes a proxy for that punishment being delivered just like a click is a proxy for a on-coming reward.


*But*, the two behaviors are completely opposite, so too their effect on behavior. So yes, it works for both (that's not a question), but they do not work to the same effect - they are not the same. 



> Whether they match is a different issue, imo, and doesn't mean the dog "doesn't understand" XYZ. The dog just understood it differently than the handler thought the dog "should have" understood it.


Well the original question was whether our dogs understood *our* "no". If their understanding is different, they don't understand our "no". The handler is just being anthropomorphic.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

yeah...its technically a punisher..

for me...and this isn't for everybody of course...its about the response of the dog...

the response of the dog is usually the same in *tone* as when a harsher method is used, just less in proportion to the severity of the *correction*( for lack of a better term)

to anthropomorphize for a secondp)

the dog understands that it has done something wrong.

and that's not what I want to see in a dog. I want the dog to automatically choose desirable behavior over other behaviors. I want to leave no room for errors. I want my dogs to live out their lives feeling like they are free to do what they wish(which they are to a very large extent)

so its not that I see *no* as being exactly the same as *beat the living snot out of you you effing POS*

its that the response ANY kind of direct aversive produces is less than desirable to me. and I will avoid it as much as possible.

I think some who do use non abusive punishers feel like people who have my kind of point of view are *punishing* them for using those methods. I, at least, am not trying to. I just have the opinion that said style of methods is more often than not, not really nessecary. just imho.


----------



## lostcoyote (Oct 20, 2007)

Lil Red Express said:


> I can't believe this discussion is still going on


...and the best part is that dog's don't need all this scientific analysis to blend in with (us) humans - LOL


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Stop...or else. [...] Otherwise why stop? The onion on the floor is just as tasty whether you say "no" or not.


Sit... or else. Otherwise why sit? Jumping is just as rewarding whether you say "sit" or not.

**But if he sits, there is a higher reward. And if the dog stops (when I say no), there is also a higher reward.** 



KBLover said:


> There's nothing wrong with that. They are both P+ as you said.


Yes, they are, but many people I've talked to don't make the distinction that you do in dog training. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with using the correct technical term. I'm just saying that laypeople may not always understand or say that they use "punishment", because they're thinking of the dictionary definition:



> suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure 3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment





> Do those same people think grounding a child is the same as whipping him until he can't cry anymore?


Those same dog people? I doubt it. But there are probably overzealous child rights extremists who do. The PETA group of the child advocate set. And sometimes, the people with the self-ascribed moniker of "positive trainer" come across that way to me. 

There are dog people who refuse to say that they use any punishment, specifically because it's all punishment and they have some sort of aversion to it. They see a "no" as the same as hitting a dog. I don't understand it myself. 



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> the dog understands that it has done something wrong.
> 
> and that's not what I want to see in a dog.


Maybe that's the difference, then. I want my dog to know when he's done something wrong, JUST AS I want him to know when he's done something right. I believe that if I only tell him when he's done something right and never let him know when he's done something wrong, I'm only giving him half the information I have, and to be honest, I don't think that's fair to him. For me to guide him in a comprehensive way (since he's living in my world, it's my duty) I believe that giving him all the information I can about behavior, right or wrong, is the most fair thing I can do.



> I want the dog to automatically choose desirable behavior over other behaviors.


Well, I'd like that, too, but he *is* a dog. Living in my world (in a house) there are going to be times that he chooses undesirable behaviors, regardless what I want. 



> I want my dogs to live out their lives feeling like they are free to do what they wish(which they are to a very large extent)


I do not.  My dogs are not free to do what they wish and I don't support letting them think or feel that. I want them to know what's real. And that is that there are some things they do that are just fine and dandy and there are some things they do that are not ok. 



> I think some who do use non abusive punishers feel like people who have my kind of point of view are *punishing* them for using those methods.


I'm not suggesting anyone here thinks that, but I think you're right. And that's because we *have *been "punished" for having another point of view by people who appear to have a very similar point of view as you do.  I have been told that I'm an abuser, that I don't deserve to have dogs, that my dogs are 'shut down' and experiencing 'learned helplessness' and are to be pitied. And my favorite: that my rearing of them has nothing to do with how well-behaved my dogs are... I'm just lucky. And this comes from people who religiously profess to be "Purely Positive" trainers. 


The Myth of "Purely Positive" Dog Training

Again, *I'm not suggesting anyone here is saying this*, but perhaps you'll understand why some like me are a bit wary of the subject of punishment.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

I understand that you want your dog to know when he's done wrong.

I want my dog to not do undesirable behaviors in the first place. 

which I believe is very possible. because I've seen it happen.

and yes I want my dog to feel free to do as they please...I just raise them so what they want to do is desirable behavior.

and the way I do that is by redirection. if they start in on undesirable behavior, I immediately present something more fun, more exciting, and more rewarding than the undesirable behavior. and to the dog, the choice is usually obvious to the dog, they are going to choose the less boring, more rewarding alternative.

of course the by product of this is a dog who is a complete spazztastic goofball for the most part...but that's what I want. 

I've seen that by the way...

and my personal definition of a "pure positive trainer" is this 

one who strives to avoid using aversive methods.

doesn't mean I WON'T use them IF I feel they are called for..just means that in most cases I don't feel they are called for...

and with the way I train there is any interesting by product...

if a situation arises where a dog has never has direct aversives used on them has to have an aversive used...the VERY MILDEST aversive usually produces DRASTIC reactions...and then I never see that undesirable behavior again.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

FourIsCompany said:


> **But if he sits, there is a higher reward. And if the dog stops (when I say no), there is also a higher reward.**


If he sits there is a higher reward, yes...cessation of the aversion (negative reinforcement). And if you say no, the dog stops jumping, there is a higher reward? I've seen this. I've seen dogs choose to run around in circles like a manic. I've seen dogs bark up a fit. I agree, this is a higher reward for many dogs...until extinction sets in. Then, the "holy grail" of dog training, the dog may choose another behavior that *is* reinforcing. My turn to "if" now... If the dog has been conditioned to "sit", the dog may choose sit more often in the future (effective reinforcement of "sit"). Strangely enough, if you punish jumping with "sit", the dog may learn to sit when greeting guests, as opposed to some other behavior you've reinforced with a different cue (i.e., down, crate, outside, bow, heel).


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

FourIsCompany



> I'm not suggesting anyone here thinks that, but I think you're right. And that's because we have been "punished" for having another point of view by people who appear to have a very similar point of view as you do. I have been told that I'm an abuser, that I don't deserve to have dogs, that my dogs are 'shut down' and experiencing 'learned helplessness' and are to be pitied. And my favorite: that my rearing of them has nothing to do with how well-behaved my dogs are... I'm just lucky. And this comes from people who religiously profess to be "Purely Positive" trainers.


Just keep on doin what's you're doin. There is absolutely nothing in this world that you can do that somebody won't jump in and tell that you are doing it wrong and they have a better way to do it. They all have some success with their personal training methods with the dogs they have trained etc. I believe after reading your replies you have had similar successes, if it ain't broke don't fix it. 

I do believe now this thread is heading for a more replies break the record thread.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

just wanted to add

I've had pro aversive trainers tell me my methods are weak, tedious, take too long and are pathetic. and that a dog who doesn't know when he's done something wrong is a badly behaved dog.....without ever actually seeing my dog...

the pendulum swings both ways.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> just wanted to add
> 
> I've had pro aversive trainers tell me my methods are weak, tedious, take too long and are pathetic. and that a dog who doesn't know when he's done something wrong is a badly behaved dog.....without ever actually seeing my dog...
> 
> the pendulum swings both ways.


I've said this before, I tell people asking advice on their dogs unseen by me is that we have 2 fools talking, one fool talking about a dog he hasn't seen and the other fool listening to the 1st fool.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> All Karen is saying is that not all aversion *is* punishing. In other words, if the punisher you chose does not diminish behavior in the future, your punisher is not punishing - it is just aversive. This is the definition of ineffective punishment.


It's also the definition of a non punisher aversive. It is an ineffective punishment because it isn't actually punishment and was never meant as one.



> But since you didn't include the context of this statement, she could also be saying that some aversion is reinforcing; as in a negative reinforcement contingency; where the removal of the aversion reinforces *a* target behavior.


It was in the context of teaching "leave it".



> punishment, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Was it a punisher? It depends. There are two tests. The behaviorist's test is, "Did the behavior subsequently become less frequent or go away?" You may not know the answer without numerous repetitions and, as with many punishers, you may not get the outcome you predicted. After a few experiences, instead of giving up lunging, the dog might lunge even faster, to try to beat your foot to the food.
> 
> The ethologist's test, to see if stepping on the food is an aversive or a punisher in the eyes of the dog, is the behavior of the dog. "Did the dog cringe or draw back or, if the dog just hesitated, was the facial expression one of anxiety?" If so, then you know the dog experienced a punisher.


http://www.clickertraining.com/node/1612

This thread has me thinking about what context to teach my new dog to understand "no". It's been a helpful exercise.

If I were the only human she had to deal with I would probably not use it much, and would tend to mainly use it as in the last context in the link I posted earlier, basically as more a of a guide to behavior. No threat involved.

I'm rethinking that now, and I believe I'll be better off teaching her that it is a threat, a threat of punishment.

I've come to this POV mainly as I will be taking her everywhere I go that I can take her along, including family and friends homes. Family and friends will be keeping her if I have to travel for business etc. and they will undoubtedly use "no" first and foremost as a correction and threat of punishment. Better that she understands "no" in that context I think as it will likely be expected of her.

I did run into a bit of that problem with my last dog, not only with "no" but with several other commands I used differently then the norm.

Here's another interesting article on "no"..

http://www.clickandtreat.com/ff11.htm


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

TxRider said:


> It's also the definition of a *non punisher aversive*. It is an ineffective punishment because it isn't actually punishment and was never meant as one.


 I think you mean to say *non-reward-marker*. Which is a cue, however, it is a cue for extinguishment. You saying _I’m not going to reinforce that, try again_. The dog has no idea why he isn’t being reinforced, but he tries another behavior. If that other behavior is reinforced enough the old behavior weakens (extinguishes) and the new behavior strengthens (reinforcement). 



> punishment, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Was it a punisher? It depends. There are two tests. The behaviorist's test is, "Did the behavior subsequently become less frequent or go away?" You may not know the answer without numerous repetitions and, as with many punishers, you may not get the outcome you predicted. After a few experiences, instead of giving up lunging, the dog might lunge even faster, to try to beat your foot to the food.
> 
> The ethologist's test, to see if stepping on the food is an aversive or a punisher in the eyes of the dog, is the behavior of the dog. "Did the dog cringe or draw back or, if the dog just hesitated, was the facial expression one of anxiety?" If so, then you know the dog experienced a punisher.


 I’m not sure what you’re trying to suggest here other than behaviorists will test what they observe (preferred for novice dog trainers IMO), where as an ethologist assumes punishment on their interpretation of the dog’s behavior. None of us are ethologists and if you’re suggesting we novices are more knowledgeable in interpreting dog behavior than quantifying it, I find that hard to believe. There are well known and advertised “professional” shock collar trainers that see yawning as just a behavior for tiredness. 



> Family and friends will be keeping her if I have to travel for business etc. and they will undoubtedly use "no" first and foremost as a correction and threat of punishment. Better that she understands "no" in that context I think as it will likely be expected of her.


 It would be prudent to assign responsibility to one family member and instruct them how you want the dog handled. 



> Here's another interesting article on "no"..
> 
> http://www.clickandtreat.com/ff11.htm


 Sorry, I stopped reading (not true, I skimmed it) when the article attributed clicker training of dogs to Karen Pryor. That’s not true. Keller Breland, her mentor, was the first to clicker train dogs. Nevertheless, my preference is instructive reprimands over "no" (forward thinking, not backwards thinking).


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> It would be prudent to assign responsibility to one family member and instruct them how you want the dog handled.


I don't think that's a realistic possibility. Even if I paid for boarding somewhere.

I don't think I need to use any actual punishment either though.



> Sorry, I stopped reading (not true, I skimmed it) when the article attributed clicker training of dogs to Karen Pryor. That’s not true. Keller Breland, her mentor, was the first to clicker train dogs. Nevertheless, my preference is instructive reprimands over "no" (forward thinking, not backwards thinking).


Regardless, the author is far from an amateur... And the article is interesting.

http://www.clickandtreat.com/biopage/biopage.htm


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

TxRider said:


> Regardless, the author is far from an amateur... And the article is interesting.
> 
> http://www.clickandtreat.com/biopage/biopage.htm


I know who Gary Wilkes is...I've met him at a symposium on punishment. He's a very passionate and cordial dude. I didn't mean to suggest he was without credibility. I'd trust him with my dog any day. But that doesn't make his credit to Karen Pryor accurate, nor does it mean I should employ his logic.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

I don't mean to be argumentative here, but Wilkes did NOT attribute clicker training to Karen Pryor. He said Pryor and himself gave the *first seminar *on clicker training in 1987. And that IS true and that is when clicker training became popular. That is when they introduced clicker training for dogs to the public. 

It's a good article. But that doesn't mean I think anyone should employ his logic any more than I should employ someone else's logic.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

FourIsCompany said:


> I don't mean to be argumentative here, but Wilkes did NOT attribute clicker training to Karen Pryor. He said Pryor and himself gave the first seminar on clicker training in 1987. And that IS true and that is when clicker training became popular. That is when they introduced clicker training for dogs to the public.


Reread.


> Clicker Training for dogs started in *1987* - **five years before** Karen Pryor and I gave the first clicker training seminar, in Northern California. Between '*87* and '92 **I** clicker-trained over 1,000 clients and their dogs.


If Gary isn't intimating that Karen started clicker training in 1987, and instead attributing it to himself, his error is even more glaring. Keller Breland and his wife were teaching clicker training to dog trainers in the 40's.

I don't know who Gary's mentor was, but I do know who Karen's mentor was.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

The first *seminar *was in the early '90s yes, not 1987, as I said, but I didn't read that he said *or* intimated that Karen Pryor started clicker training for dogs. He knew then who started it and he knows it now. 

Here's an article by Gary Wilkes on his Click and Treat site:



> The first people to take operant conditioning out of the laboratory were Keller and Marian Breland, two students of B.F. Skinner, way back in the 1940's -- with dogs.


He's certainly not attributing clicker training dogs to himself, he started giving *classes to the public* in 1987.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

FourIsCompany said:


> I didn't read that he said *or* intimated that Karen Pryor started clicker training for dogs.


I did read that in the first article and I still do read that...it definitely needs clarification in this article. I don't care what Gary says on other articles, it doesn't add any value to this one. Nevertheless, clicker training did not start in 1987, and the article clearly says clicker training did...not true. 

The only thing that I can think explains this nonsense is that "Clicker Training" is not the method, but rather "Clicker Training" is something copy written; but that's certainly NOT clear at all.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

FourIsCompany said:


> Maybe that's the difference, then. I want my dog to know when he's done something wrong, JUST AS I want him to know when he's done something right. I believe that if I only tell him when he's done something right and never let him know when he's done something wrong, I'm only giving him half the information I have, and to be honest, I don't think that's fair to him. For me to guide him in a comprehensive way (since he's living in my world, it's my duty) I believe that giving him all the information I can about behavior, right or wrong, is the most fair thing I can do.


That would be a difference.

With Wally, showing him the right thing is often enough. He'll repeat what got him a reward (and repeat it for 1000 times if you let him and have that many rewards  I tried to warn my mother when I told her Wally can shake now, she started it, rewarded it, and then Wally did like 30 times _after the rewards stopped_ no joke LOL. She had to get up to make him stop, at which point he went into scavenger mode, heh), so using that tendency to show him what I'd like him to do really eliminates the need for me to tell him what he's doing is wrong 95% of the time. 

The 5% I usually just re-direct him towards an action that gets him a reward or if he's doing it at/to me - P- (removal of what he wants) gets it through to him.




FourIsCompany said:


> Well, I'd like that, too, but he *is* a dog. Living in my world (in a house) there are going to be times that he chooses undesirable behaviors, regardless what I want.


Yeah, sometimes they'll make mistakes - and dealing with those is usually re-direction (some might call that a form of aversive).

That said, I do think that if a dog is shown the right thing to do for a context often enough (which depends on the dog) then that right thing to do becomes conditioned to the context and no thought is required. 

Like with Wally and doors. Who knows how many times I had him sit at the door and wait to be called in/out. And how many times after that he's done it for a reward. Now it's see door, sit. I wonder if he even wants to go out, or if it's just him sitting at the door because the door is there. 




FourIsCompany said:


> I want them to know what's real. And that is that there are some things they do that are just fine and dandy and there are some things they do that are not ok.


Of course - I'm sure there are things in zim's world her dogs aren't supposed to do and there's lines Wally isn't supposed to cross. I don't think anyone is saying a dog should be able to do anything under the sun and get a treat.

I think what zim is saying (and, based on Wally, I'm closer to her view), that rewarding the dog for "staying the lines" will decrease the likelihood of the dog going out of the lines because the rewards are in the lines. Of course, all dogs are different. 




FourIsCompany said:


> I'm not suggesting anyone here thinks that, but I think you're right. And that's because we *have *been "punished" for having another point of view by people who appear to have a very similar point of view as you do.  I have been told that I'm an abuser, that I don't deserve to have dogs, that my dogs are 'shut down' and experiencing 'learned helplessness' and are to be pitied. And my favorite: that my rearing of them has nothing to do with how well-behaved my dogs are... I'm just lucky. And this comes from people who religiously profess to be "Purely Positive" trainers.


There's no luck in dog training. Only unexpected turns of events and how the trainer responds is not luck, so the result of what the dog was showed is not luck. People who attribute things to luck don't understand how they worked, imo. They don't get how your methods "could ever work" so you "got lucky". 

I would agree that there's no such thing as a purely positive approach. More correct would be for "purely positive" people to say they don't use P+/R- methods. They are on the R+/P- side.

Personally, I'll do what works for the situation at hand. 95% of the time, it's R+/P-, but I never say I'll never use a method, unless it brings harm to Wally (either by the method or my inability to execute the method).


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Another great post, KBLover. 



KBLover said:


> ... so using that tendency to show him what I'd like him to do really eliminates the need for me to tell him what he's doing is wrong 95% of the time.


It's really the same with my dogs, *generally*. Three of them are *very good* about doing "the right thing" and one of those rarely makes any kind of "mistake", but I've got one hard-headed, smart, willful and challenging boy on my hands. LOL And he's not praise motivated like the others. His motto is "give me food, or I'm not interested" and I refuse to be blackmailed. I guess I'm a bit stubborn, myself. 



> That said, I do think that if a dog is shown the right thing to do for a context often enough (which depends on the dog) then that right thing to do becomes conditioned to the context and no thought is required.


Agreed. And for 3 of mine, that is absolutely the norm. It becomes routine. A habit. And praise keeps it going. But Jaia is always thinking outside the box, it seems, wondering "what would happen if..."? I can almost see the wheels turning. We can have a behavior down pat and after some time, he will stop doing it or do something completely different. I guess he likes to change it up now and then, I don't know... 

And to be fair, I've been talking about my experience with Jaia in this thread. All my dogs are slightly different as to how many and what kind of corrections I use with them. 



> They don't get how your methods "could ever work" so you "got lucky".


Wow, I just got that when I read it, and I'm sure you're absolutely right. Thanks for that insight. 



> Personally, I'll do what works for the situation at hand. 95% of the time, it's R+/P-


This is actually true for me, too. The vast majority of the time, I use +R /-P, but I DO use +P, too, on occasion, so I don't preach against it. I'm not "pro-aversive" as someone said.  That's like saying someone is "pro-abortion", an emotional label, that doesn't represent reality. I'm actually *all for* using the least aversive means.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> I think what zim is saying (and, based on Wally, I'm closer to her view), that rewarding the dog for "staying the lines" will decrease the likelihood of the dog going out of the lines because the rewards are in the lines. Of course, all dogs are different.


The only problem I see in that logic is a dog who's behavior when stepping outside the lines is extremely self rewarding and self reinforcing. 

Like my new adult rescue, and her #1 self rewarding behavior of chasing little furry things. I have nothing that can compare to that for her yet. Certainly no food or praise or toy competes. At least not yet.

I can reward her for anything right she does, but no reward will stop the prey drive locking in, and she literally won't even take the tastiest of treats when she's in that mode. I don't know if anything short of a baseball bat would interrupt that focus and drive.

Point being if a behavior is outside the lines and is very self rewarding/reinforcing then by definition all the rewards are not inside the lines.

Actually there is one thing she values as much as a squirrel or cat, my cordless weed eater for some strange reason. I'm wondering how I might use that to my advantage.



> There's no luck in dog training. Only unexpected turns of events and how the trainer responds is not luck, so the result of what the dog was showed is not luck. People who attribute things to luck don't understand how they worked, imo. They don't get how your methods "could ever work" so you "got lucky".


I've certainly gotten lucky in my opinion, trying things that worked better than I ever expected, or as you say unexpected turns of events that I have taken advantage of made me at least feel very lucky.

But most people just say I'm lucky I got a "smart dog" and have no clue whatsoever why she is really so well trained and behaved. To me training is always happening, and it's lifelong thing, a regular part of everyday life for life. And not just for the dog, but training and learning for life for me too.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

TxRider said:


> Like my new adult rescue, and her #1 self rewarding behavior of chasing little furry things. I have nothing that can compare to that for her yet. Certainly no food or praise or toy competes. At least not yet.
> 
> I can reward her for anything right she does, but no reward will stop the prey drive locking in, and she literally won't even take the tastiest of treats when she's in that mode. I don't know if anything short of a baseball bat would interrupt that focus and drive.


Maybe this will help.
http://www.dog-secrets.co.uk/behaviour-training/how-do-i-stop-my-dog-chasing.html


----------



## ValtheAussie (Apr 19, 2009)

no sofa!!!!


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Maybe this will help.
> http://www.dog-secrets.co.uk/behaviour-training/how-do-i-stop-my-dog-chasing.html


Yeah I've read that more than once, I have it book marked. As well as a few other sites.

I've been trying to build value for some toys, but if it's going to happen it's going to take a long time to do, I've been able to get a little improvement and won't give up though. I haven't tried a flirt pole yet, though several trainers recommend it.

It says don't allow any access to chasing but I can't walk her anywhere around here where she won't see a loose cat and usually at least 3-4 squirrels per mile, not to mention the ones that frequent the back yard. No chasing because she's on a leash, but she still flips that switch on several times a day.

She has become less reactive to them on the leash though, she doesn't pull much, and reversing course when she does has helped curb that quickly. But if she was off leash it would be a totally different story.

I'm wondering if taking her to the sheep farm an hour north of here on weekends and training her in herding stock, and then move down to ducks might help give her an outlet, and get some training to learn self control over her prey drive and ability to listen and think while she's focused in it. She seems to have a very high herding drive as well, putting it to work and giving her a job to use it for might be a good thing maybe.

I'll have to get her basic obedience built up a bit more before I can even go have her tested at a herding ranch.

This is not an issue I've ever had to deal with in one of my dogs before to this degree, so I'm a bit unsure of what approach to take.

I'd settle for a working herding dog, or a throw the ball/frisbee/stick in my lap and demand to fetch dog, that prey drive needs to go somewhere constructive though.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> Like my new adult rescue, and her #1 self rewarding behavior of chasing little furry things. I have nothing that can compare to that for her yet. Certainly no food or praise or toy competes. At least not yet.
> 
> I can reward her for anything right she does, but no reward will stop the prey drive locking in, and she literally won't even take the tastiest of treats when she's in that mode. I don't know if anything short of a baseball bat would interrupt that focus and drive.


How about putting a bit of a cue on it - or add in a behavior in the chain that let's you either say "go for it" or say "not now, let it go"?

Granted, I haven't experienced a really strong prey drive dog. Wally, though, will chase critters - at least he used to. I put in a "wait" in the chain so when he gets that "oh I SO want to get that bird/squirrel/cat" feeling, he freezes. From there, I can call him back and we keep going - diverting the prey drive into me (chase often accompanied by somewhat intense growling/barking - food reward) or let him go after the target creature. 

I think of it as re-drawing the line so he's inside it again. Chasing isn't "illegal" but he just has to do something first. That something interrupts the 'chase at will' to "I'm ready if you want me to!"


----------

