# A signal/word for "nope that's wrong"?



## Pomom (Apr 9, 2014)

I wondered what the consensus is for using a word when the wrong behaviour is offered. Until now I have been giving no response to downs getting mixed up with sits and the like, but tonight when Sybbie and I were practicing stay (just starting to do distance and very short duration) if she moved before I returned to her I'd say "oops." I don't know but I think it helped. Seemed to tell her to try again whereas when I just reset silently she seems more frustrated and like "where's my click?" What is your thinking on this?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Yup, some people call this "no reward marker" or NRM. Some people use them, some people don't. 

I personally find them useful the vast majority of the time, but it depends on the dog. For a very very soft dog, they might be aversive enough to shut the dog down but most dogs don't fit into that category. I feel like in general it's a good way to give the dog information gently. I usually say "nope!" myself.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

I say "nope" in a low, but happy, voice. Titan's pretty soft, but it doesn't bother him or shut him down.


----------



## BKaymuttleycrew (Feb 2, 2015)

In certain circumstances I do use & find a NRM to be useful - particularly in the situation that you described, when the dog breaks position while I'm working on building duration of a behavior. I use "oops" because I find it almost impossible to say in a 'firm' tone of voice, so it becomes a 'cheerful reminder' rather than a 'correction'.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Depends on the dog and depends on what I'm training. I'll usually interrupt the behavior with a cheerful "oops! good try!! let's try again!" If it's something new or something confusing, then I generally don't use NRMs because it can make Watson more frustrated. For duration behaviors that they know, like heeling or stays or whatever, I do clearly mark the error with an "oops!" and then start over.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

elrohwen said:


> Depends on the dog and depends on what I'm training. I'll usually interrupt the behavior with a cheerful "oops! good try!! let's try again!" If it's something new or something confusing, then I generally don't use NRMs because it can make Watson more frustrated. For duration behaviors that they know, like heeling or stays or whatever, I do clearly mark the error with an "oops!" and then start over.


Yes, I do something similar. For new concepts I wont use one, but for things she already knows I will typically use "whoops"


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

I really like this article. I tend more towards the "cheerful interrupter" than a true NRM:
http://denisefenzi.com/2014/05/05/behavior-chains-part-11/


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

I use an "uh uh" and sometimes a "no ma'am". The "uh uh" is said in a sort of lilting voice like you're talking to a kid. It usually stops her in her tracks, whatever she's doing.


----------



## jade5280 (Feb 20, 2013)

I use "nope". Not harsh, just in my regular tone of voice. It does work. Sometimes I will ask Pan to do something and he will offer a random behavior and I can say "nope" and he will try to correct himself.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

I use "ah ah" if he breaks sit, down, wait, or stay, and then we go back and do the exercise again. He already knows these commands, and I never use it when he is learning a new one. I use "no" if he is chewing on something inappropriate and then offer him a chew toy, or, you know, when he is trying to lick dirty KNIVES in the dishwasher.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

Maybe "ah ah" is a better way to spell what I say. LOL


----------



## sydneynicole (Apr 2, 2015)

I use 'fix it' but usually end up saying 'fix it fix it!' because Oliver is soft and it sounds less harsh. I use a cheery voice that isn't a punishment, just a way of saying that that wasn't what I asked for. I don't use it until the dog knows the commands. Oliver has a habit of laying down after I put him in a sit because he anticipates what I want next, for example, and that's when I use fix it before putting him back into a sit. Because he does anticipate and try to guess what I want a lot, I feel the NRM lets him know that he guessed wrong, in a way, and to a point I think it's teaching him that when he does stuff on his own he doesn't get a reward (or punished).


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I used to use no-reward markers quite a bit, but I had to cut them out to have success with Kylie in agility - even a 'nope, try again!' as cheerful was the day is long was flattening her out and stressing her out, which is the opposite of useful when you need a fast performance from a happy, confident dog. I still do a little bit of it, because habit, but it's almost entirely out of my training with her at this point. I just give a single treat or low value treat, reset and try again - or, really, more often, ask for something I'm 200% they will do, reward for THAT and then try again. 

And truthfully, while my other dogs don't care/aren't as soft, I have gradually seen them fall/fade out of my general use, too. Less than with Kylie ,but still much, much less than I used to use them. I used to think they helped a ton, but I don't anymore. I think they mostly just kill confidence and simply trying again and making it easier (if necessary) seems to be just as effective. Dog still knows they didn't get the treat, but they're not being cautious in fear of the 'buzzer'. 

Dog lays down when I ask for a sit, I just start over and reward the sit. Use reverse luring for duration, and that makes it pretty clear, etc. Dog misses a discrimination I turn and run back to where we're going to be trying again from, while being happy and get that behavior to reward from and give it another try. Dog just not getting it/new behavior, I break it down and make it easier. Known behavior - well, again, reset and retry. They're not as useful as I thought they were. 

They are however DANGED hard to get out of general vocabulary. Basically what I do now is what I always did when I said 'nope', but without the word/marker. I mean, let's be real, you're not really teaching the dog anything except that thing isn't what you want right now, but it's still not teaching the dog what's right. But getting the word to stop from popping out of my mouth when something goes awry is, I suspect, going to be a while coming. It's just how humans talk.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

CptJack said:


> I used to use no-reward markers quite a bit, but I had to cut them out to have success with Kylie in agility - even a 'nope, try again!' as cheerful was the day is long was flattening her out and stressing her out, which is the opposite of useful when you need a fast performance from a happy, confident dog. I still do a little bit of it, because habit, but it's almost entirely out of my training with her at this point. I just give a single treat or low value treat, reset and try again - or, *really, more often, ask for something I'm 200% they will do, reward for THAT and then try again*.


I'm not a fan of them, either. A lot of trainers are against using NRM, even those who used to promote them. I like the bolded. It sets the dog up for success, reminds them you have treats and they can earn them, and puts you back on a mutually successful route.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

I think it's Sylvia Trkman who said that she gives her dogs treats for everything, whether they're right or wrong. The interviewer asked how they know when they're right and she basically said that it's obvious, she throws a party when they're right and they just figure it out. Denise Fenzi does a lot of the same - quiet praise and a boring cookie for trying and getting it wrong, and great cookies and great praise for getting it right. As long as they're happy and in the game, and your training is good, they'll get it.


----------



## Hermes1 (Jan 3, 2014)

We use "eh".


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

elrohwen said:


> I think it's Sylvia Trkman who said that she gives her dogs treats for everything, whether they're right or wrong. The interviewer asked how they know when they're right and she basically said that it's obvious, she throws a party when they're right. Denise Fenzi does a lot of the same - quiet praise and a boring cookie for trying and getting it wrong, and great cookies and great praise for getting it right. As long as they're happy and in the game, and your training is good, they'll get it.


Does Fenzi have any articles about this that you have links to? I'm really curious about learning more about phasing out my happy "nope" and whether it would be a good move for Titan and I.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Hiraeth said:


> Does Fenzi have any articles about this that you have links to? I'm really curious about learning more about phasing out my happy "nope" and whether it would be a good move for Titan and I.


Here you go:
http://denisefenzi.com/2015/06/15/cheerful-interrupter-or-engagement/
http://denisefenzi.com/2014/10/13/cheerful-interrupter-in-heeling/
http://denisefenzi.com/2014/05/05/behavior-chains-part-11/

And this one, sort of on the same topic:
http://denisefenzi.com/2015/03/21/rewarding-errors/


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

elrohwen said:


> Here you go:
> http://denisefenzi.com/2015/06/15/cheerful-interrupter-or-engagement/
> http://denisefenzi.com/2014/10/13/cheerful-interrupter-in-heeling/
> http://denisefenzi.com/2014/05/05/behavior-chains-part-11/
> ...


Thank you so much!


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

It's fairly new to me, to be honest - it started with agility and slowly sort of spread - but it's also not as *weird* as I thought it would be. I'm pretty sure there have been threads here where I shrugged and said 'but you HAVE to let the dog know that they didn't do it right!' except you really don't. You have to let the dog know they *did* get it right, sure, and you have to make sure the dog does eventually get it right, but in most situations the dog knowing it was wrong/guessed wrong/tried the wrong thing doesn't move you any closer to getting it right. 

I'm actually pretty surprised by how little difference it's made in how I train overall. The process is still almost EXACTLY THE SAME, but without the marker telling the dog 'no treat for you!'. Reset, alternative command, newer, easier attempt, whatever. The dog definitely knows if it gets a single treat and a good girl versus a jackpot and effusive, really legitimately happy, praise because YOU GOT IT. Or even a 'Yay' for doing a known thing and a treat and then the over the moon stuff because they got something new and hard.

I've definitely seen Kylie's confidence go up, Molly stay more engaged and lower stress (though she stresses high, and I do still have to sometimes physically interrupt her from doing loops). Bug's never really had a signal for that, but she's happier with more food and play involved. Jack doesn't care because Jack doesn't train and Thud isnt' any easier or harder, but it's been good for the girls the little while I've been doing it.

What is hard, however, really is language. I mean something goes 'wrong' and you still want to say *something* (Oops, uh-uh, try again, nope, whatever), whether what's going wrong is dog training or not. That's going to be the death of me.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Amaryllis said:


> I'm not a fan of them, either. A lot of trainers are against using NRM, even those who used to promote them. I like the bolded. It sets the dog up for success, reminds them you have treats and they can earn them, and puts you back on a mutually successful route.


Yeah, this is my default with Kylie in particular. 

Pop out of the weaves? SPIN! SPIN! YAY! GO WEAVE!

Given our stressy weaves history (and there is a lot of it), it's made a visible difference in her confidence with the things. And we're able to work on them longer.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> What is hard, however, really is language. I mean something goes 'wrong' and you still want to say *something* (Oops, uh-uh, try again, nope, whatever), whether what's going wrong is dog training or not. That's going to be the death of me.


You're mostly agility so this might not matter as much for your training, but I like how Denise points out that silence shouldn't mean "wrong" either. That's something I struggled with when I first started shaping, because if you don't use an NRM, you're supposed to stay silent. But then there are plenty of behaviors where you're going to be silent (basically most of the time you're in the obedience ring) and the dog can't be thinking "What am I doing wrong?!" When I first read that it was like a lightbulb, because the more quiet I was the more my dog stressed, and at some point you have to stop talking to them all the time if you want to do obedience (which I'm not sure I want to do anyway, but I want to keep that option open). So I like that her method does let you say something instead of being completely quiet. And silence means "good job keep going"


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> You're mostly agility so this might not matter as much for your training, but I like how Denise points out that silence shouldn't mean "wrong" either. That's something I struggled with when I first started shaping, because if you don't use an NRM, you're supposed to stay silent. But then there are plenty of behaviors where you're going to be silent (basically most of the time you're in the obedience ring) and the dog can't be thinking "What am I doing wrong?!" When I first read that it was like a lightbulb, because the more quiet I was the more my dog stressed, and at some point you have to stop talking to them all the time if you want to do obedience (which I'm not sure I want to do anyway, but I want to keep that option open). So I like that her method does let you say something instead of being completely quiet.


I don't *think* any of my dogs consider silence punishing, though I know if I abruptly disengage from Kylie she loses her little mind and/or gets sad. It's mostly like - in the unedited version of my last agility run, I flubbed on the course. What came out of my mouth? "Oops!" It had nothing to do with any mistake on the dog's end and fortunately it was with enough speed and energy that it wasn't a big deal to carry on, but getting the verbal 'well crap' phrases OUT when I'm working with her is going to be a thing. Because I've used about half of them as a NRM with her on some level or another. :/


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> I don't *think* any of my dogs consider silence punishing, though I know if I abruptly disengage from Kylie she loses her little mind and/or gets sad. It's mostly like - in the unedited version of my last agility run, I flubbed on the course. What came out of my mouth? "Oops!" It had nothing to do with any mistake on the dog's end and fortunately it was with enough speed and energy that it wasn't a big deal, but getting the verbal 'well crap' phrases OUT when I'm working with her is going to be a thing. Because I've used about half of them as a NRM with her on some level or another. :/


At class last week my friend was running her English shepherd who is very handler focused and very soft. The handler screwed up and said something ("oops" or whatever) and you could see her dog melt right in front of her. 

We have to train ourselves to say "good dog!" every time we almost run into a jump standard or forget where we're going. lol


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> At class last week my friend was running her English shepherd who is very handler focused and very soft. The handler screwed up and said something ("oops" or whatever) and you could see her dog melt right in front of her.
> 
> We have to train ourselves to say "good dog!" every time we almost run into a jump standard or forget where we're going. lol


Yeah, exactly. I am 99% sure if we had been on less than a full course, I had broken stride or there'd been any gap at all before I told her to go do something she liked (the next obstacle was her favorite) she would have gone from tired and kind of slow to melted puddle of sad. I am currently working reallyreallyhard to replace all of that with "Yay". We'll see how well that works and how long it takes. 

I mean, eventually I predict I'll knock something off the counter and say yay and look like a loon, but I'm cool with that.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

CptJack said:


> What is hard, however, really is language. I mean something goes 'wrong' and you still want to say *something* (Oops, uh-uh, try again, nope, whatever), whether what's going wrong is dog training or not. That's going to be the death of me.


So much this. I've decided to phase my "nope" out after reading some of the resources and it proved a bit difficult tonight because it slipped out a few times.

I'm working with Titan on outdoor stays at a distance while I slowly move out of his line of sight (near a busy road with children screaming and running around). The first time he broke to come towards me, my "nope" came out immediately even though I was thinking the whole time "don't say nope even if he moves".  But I still called him to me after the break, gave him a reward for coming to keep him engaged, reset, and tried again, this time taking two less steps, and therefore (I hoped) setting him up to not break the stay. He still broke it and came towards me, but I told him "good boy" calmly and gave him a low value treat. So I kept reducing distance and taking fewer steps while rewarding even when he broke the stay.

I definitely, after about twenty minutes of work on this, saw the benefit of low value rewards for failed attempts at things, but also slipped a few times and said "nope". However, he stayed more engaged with me and the exercise, whereas he usually would have mostly disengaged after about five to six attempts where he got a "nope". 

So holy crap. I feel like this is a breakthrough. And I feel bad that I was using "nope" now, instead of modifying my training to set him up for minimal but frequent successes.


----------



## sydneynicole (Apr 2, 2015)

I read those articles elrohwen posted as well and I think I'm going to work on stopping the NRM. We use them in class but my trainer is very open minded and I'm sure wouldn't mind if I explained that I didn't want to use one. Especially since Oli is a soft dog. He hasn't seemed to have an issue with 'fix it', but even if the NRM isn't necessarily detrimental to his training, if it isn't as beneficial as other methods, then I will try doing without.


----------



## Flaming (Feb 2, 2013)

So far all my dogs have needed a "nope" 
It basically is just to tell them to try something else instead of repeat the same thing over and over before dissolving into a frustrated barking fit. 

Now I know a few dogs from relatives that are buckets softer than any dog I've ever owned who would do horribly with nope markers. 

I still stand by my stance that it depends on the dog, though with Vitae I'm thinking about just phasing it out cause she doesn't care even if I say nope...she just gets in a repeat pattern and I have to end the session... (I swear this dog has something up in her head)

edit: Vitae isn't soft...she's um...special and hyper ALL THE TIME! 

and I just don't think I'd be comfortable owning soft dogs


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Molly repeats the same wrong behavior too - she always has. The no reward marker there is useless, as you said. She has to be physically interrupted and reset.

And frankly, I don't think NRMs are harmful but the alternative is not just letting the dog carry on with the wrong behavior, anyway. You can 'tell them' to try something else a million ways that don't require a marker word and avoids the issue neatly for dogs who don't, or might not, do well with them. Literally nothing else about the behavior or training method changes. You reset. You ask for another behavior. You go 'good doggie' and give a low value reward and try again. Literally EVERYTHING you do after the NRM. 

The NRM doesn't like... show the dog what to do, it just says 'don't do that thing', and you still have to move on. All removing the NRM does is remove that specific step. If it works for you and your dog, I'm not arguing.

I'm just saying - literally just - that removing the NRM doesn't really change training methodology at all.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Generally if the dog is on the verge of frustrated barking, I've found it far more effective to change my training than to use NRMs.


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

I say a quick and light "Ah-". Both my dogs are relatively soft, Rara being extremely soft, so anything that sounds remotely unhappy or starts with a "No-" sound turns them off working with me.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> And frankly, I don't think NRMs are harmful but the alternative is not just letting the dog carry on with the wrong behavior, anyway. You can 'tell them' to try something else a million ways that don't require a marker word and avoids the issue neatly for dogs who don't, or might not, do well with them. Literally nothing else about the behavior or training method changes. You reset. You ask for another behavior. You go 'good doggie' and give a low value reward and try again. Literally EVERYTHING you do after the NRM.


This basically. Good training is the same whether you use an NRM or not. You can't let the dog continue to repeat the wrong thing, and you can't let the dog get so frustrated that he's barking at you. If he's frustrated, you're not being clear.

I think sometimes with NRMs, it's easy to just say "nope" and leave it up to the dog to try something else, instead of being a better training and fixing what you're doing wrong that's causing the dog not to get it.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Yea... I don't use one when actually working on something (teaching a new behaviour or working on proofing something). I use it in casual situations when, for example, I have a special treat she wants, I ask for a sit but she was too excited to listen and does a down instead. "Whoops!" and then I reset her and we try again.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> This basically. Good training is the same whether you use an NRM or not. You can't let the dog continue to repeat the wrong thing, and you can't let the dog get so frustrated that he's barking at you. If he's frustrated, you're not being clear.
> 
> I think sometimes with NRMs, it's easy to just say "nope" and leave it up to the dog to try something else, instead of being a better training and fixing what you're doing wrong that's causing the dog not to get it.


At this point I really see frustration barking as a signal that something about my training need to change, STAT. Excited barking while doing behaviors, fine, that's awesome, but standing there staring at me and barking? I am doing something wrong, and the dog does not get it. I'm asking for something the dog doesn't really know or is too hard for that stage, my cues/signals are muddled, my timing is bad, whatever, but SOMETHING is going wrong enough to make my dog say "HEY! HEY! WHAT DO YOU WANT?! OMG, Woman!"

I honestly see the discussion re: NRMs with thinking it means you let the dog carry on a bit like people who think positive training means you let the dog destroy your house - since you're not correcting them for doing things you don't want to see. That's really not how it works, in either case. Except there's more actual change in method between reward vs corrections. NRMs vs not changes basically nothing, other than what comes out of your mouth.

Though, yeah, I admit sometimes the 'nope' is probably used as a crutch to get the dog to guess again. Good way to shut down a willingness to try in a soft dog, but still useless in a more robust one for getting the dog to actually do the RIGHT thing. Probably why Molly's engagement is better without them, actually. She's doing a lot less random guessing and flailing around until she accidentally gets a cookie and 'yes'


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

elrohwen said:


> This basically. Good training is the same whether you use an NRM or not. You can't let the dog continue to repeat the wrong thing, and you can't let the dog get so frustrated that he's barking at you. If he's frustrated, you're not being clear.
> 
> *I think sometimes with NRMs, it's easy to just say "nope" and leave it up to the dog to try something else, instead of being a better training and fixing what you're doing wrong that's causing the dog not to get it.*


Bold - This pretty much perfectly sums up what I was doing with NRMs. I was putting the onus on Titan to figure out what he was doing wrong (in a low pressure way) versus taking responsibility for altering the exercise and setting him up for success.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Also, I mean. Dogs do screw up things they already know and know well, sometimes. Usually, though, that's an attention problem? So people (including me until recently) give the NRM as a means of making the dog stop what they're doing and focus, while gently touching the dog, saying a name, using a watch me command, waving a hand, whatever, and then just plain giving the command again once you've got the dog is equally as effective. It's like the "Nope" is sometimes the short-cut for that. 

And I say that largely because I did that. More than I'd like to admit.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> Also, I mean. Dogs do screw up things they already know and know well, sometimes. Usually, though, that's an attention problem? So people (including me until recently) give the NRM as a means of making the dog stop what they're doing and focus, while gently touching the dog, saying a name, using a watch me command, waving a hand, whatever, and then just plain giving the command again once you've got the dog is equally as effective. It's like the "Nope" is sometimes the short-cut for that.
> 
> And I say that largely because I did that. More than I'd like to admit.


Denise's article about cheerful interrupter vs engagement is a good one about this exact thing. Sometimes we use the NRM or cheerful interrupter as a crutch to create engagement when the dog is distracted. But really it's begging and isn't going to work long term.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

CptJack said:


> Also, I mean. Dogs do screw up things they already know and know well, sometimes. Usually, though, that's an attention problem? So people (including me until recently) give the NRM as a means of making the dog stop what they're doing and focus, while gently touching the dog, saying a name, using a watch me command, waving a hand, whatever, and then just plain giving the command again once you've got the dog is equally as effective. It's like the "Nope" is sometimes the short-cut for that.
> 
> And I say that largely because I did that. More than I'd like to admit.


Same here. I'm thinking back on the four months of training I have put into Titan and kind of shaking my head. 

I think I also probably expect a bit much out of an 8 month old puppy (who is not a genius). I obviously never "noped" him on a new exercise, but when he would get distracted (as puppies do), I'd use it as a way to say "you know how to do this, you're just not paying attention", which would in turn reduce his engagement with me. Instead of just interrupting by asking for a focus and giving a treat.

It's kind of baffling, really. Why did I think that, when I don't use any sort of negatives in any of my other interactions with him, a NRM was helping keep his attention or to somehow keep him excited about training?


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

Yeahhh..... the NRM (learned a new term here) works so well for us. I guess I sorta kinda understand why one wouldn't want to use that method with certain dogs, but as my own training goes, I don't see any reason to change what is working already. I haven't seen any negative affects from using that type of correction.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Hiraeth said:


> Same here. I'm thinking back on the four months of training I have put into Titan and kind of shaking my head.
> 
> I think I also probably expect a bit much out of an 8 month old puppy (who is not a genius). I obviously never "noped" him on a new exercise, but when he would get distracted (as puppies do), I'd use it as a way to say "you know how to do this, you're just not paying attention", which would in turn reduce his engagement with me. Instead of just interrupting by asking for a focus and giving a treat.
> 
> It's kind of baffling, really. Why did I think that, when I don't use any sort of negatives in any of my other interactions with him, a NRM was helping keep his attention or to somehow keep him excited about training?


Yeah. I mean a year ago I was absolutely sure it was fine, with all but my softest dog and that I'd seen no negative fallout and it just *made sense* to me. The weird thing is, it no longer does - at all - and I can certainly see HUGE positive changes in my dogs. Including the dogs I said it had no negative impact on, you know? 

And I'm not someone who changes my mind frequently or easily, but once I got this it just made sense.

Teacher: What's 2+2? 
Student: 3?
Teacher: Nope.
Student: 5?
Teacher: Nope

Not useful. 

And turning it to 
Teacher: What's 2+2?
Student: 3?
Teacher: Nope. What's 2+1 (Holding up fingers) 
Student: 3?
Teacher: And 1 more? 
Student: 4.

Remove the nope, you have the same exchange, the correct answer in the same amount of time. The nope becomes irrelevant, doesn't it? Except as a 'punisher' for the student. 

It's just weird how LITTLE sense NRM make to me now, where it once made perfect sense. I can't see ANY benefit, truthfully, to using them - absolutely none. I don't think they're BAD overall, and certainly not something I'll get up in arms about. I just... see absolutely no benefit to using them, and definite benefit to not (ie: better engagement, more confidence, even in dogs who are anything but soft), and it's not even one little bit harder to do except in changing verbal habits. Doesn't make training take longer, doesn't require more effort or skill, NOTHING.

Just. What the heck. Total lightbulb moment for me, not just about them but what it is and is not important to communicate with the dog and how to communicate those things.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack, you need to read Denise's articles if you haven't already. She uses basically the same math analogy about teaching her kids multiplication. lol


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> CptJack, you need to read Denise's articles if you haven't already. She uses basically the same math analogy about teaching her kids multiplication. lol


LOL, I have not and clearly I really should since apparently I live in her head. You posted them yesterday while I was mobile and wasn't going to try to read on a phone. BRB, reading.


----------



## Flaming (Feb 2, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Also, I mean. Dogs do screw up things they already know and know well, sometimes. Usually, though, that's an attention problem? So people (including me until recently) give the NRM as a means of making the dog stop what they're doing and focus, while gently touching the dog, saying a name, using a watch me command, waving a hand, whatever, and then just plain giving the command again once you've got the dog is equally as effective. It's like the "Nope" is sometimes the short-cut for that.
> 
> And I say that largely because I did that. More than I'd like to admit.





CptJack said:


> Yeah. I mean a year ago I was absolutely sure it was fine, with all but my softest dog and that I'd seen no negative fallout and it just *made sense* to me. The weird thing is, it no longer does - at all - and I can certainly see HUGE positive changes in my dogs. Including the dogs I said it had no negative impact on, you know?
> 
> And I'm not someone who changes my mind frequently or easily, but once I got this it just made sense.
> 
> ...


Yeah I didn't start by training with "NRMs" I picked them up because of the set of dogs I was coming into contact with acted happier and more willing to work when they had more feedback from me. I had the exact opposite experience. I do love your examples though and have seen some dogs act the way you explain. 

My nopes are 99% of the time about getting focus. I don't train new things with nope but things that are already known and Manna or Vitae just decide that they want to do this other thing more. 

I'll take "sit" for example. 
I ask for sit probably 1million times a day. Sometimes Vitae would just rather play dead or spin in circles because she too hyped up. 

I've been lucky enough that "nope" the verbal in all my previous dogs has worked as a verbal reset. But with Vitae I literally have to physically move her to get her off an obsessive tangent (and she does obsess, I truly think she has a minor version of OCD or something similar because this shows up in other aspects outside of training as well). I could vision block her, I could dance like a crazy monkey she just won't stop what shes set to doing, she'll even refuse treats. 

With Manna lately she just stares at something more interesting and ignores me or starts woofing under her breath, a quick "nope" and she gets 100% focused on me again. I have not seen a lessen desire to offer new behaviors or work from this, but I say "nope" as a happy interrupter rather than a punisher. and honestly nothing is more boring than a stay, most other commands she doesn't need "nope"

With both previous dogs Cassy and Candy, the nope worked like with Manna but they would offer more hyper bouncy behaviors instead of the distracted behavior...Like Cassy summersaulting off a wall, which after the first time she done it I turned into a neat trick on a cue, she loved being able to do it, and it was a very fancy outlet for her to preform this. 

When training a new thing, I don't use nopes until the proofing stage in various locations and only if it's mostly going well. I only say "nope" to regain focus or reset troubling repetitive behaviors, and I do try to come up with outlets for some of these behaviors as having them on cue and showing them off reduces them happening during training. 

Could I remove nope markers, yes but I'm reluctant to do so with harder more independent thinking dogs, I don't use "NRMs" for any soft dogs in my family and I do most of the training for my mother and sisters dogs as well. They prefer softer dogs. 

Both types of dogs can be easy to train but like humans, you can't treat them all the same, they learn in slightly different ways.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

CptJack said:


> LOL, I have not and clearly I really should since apparently I live in her head. You posted them yesterday while I was mobile and wasn't going to try to read on a phone. BRB, reading.


LOVE the analogy, CptJack. Wait... Are you actually Denise Fenzi in disguise?! That would actually explain your infinite wisdom.


Interesting thread. I use NRMs but on rare occasions. I completely agree that if a dog is not doing something 'right,' you need to change your methodology rather than just telling the dog he's wrong and expecting him to figure it out the next time. I definitely do not use it when teaching new behaviors. Thinking on it, I believe the only time I use a NRM is when my dog is doing a known behavior but sloppily. So if he moves two inches forward then goes into a Down, "nope" then reset. I agree thought, CptJack, with what you posted. I could simply reset with no NRM and my dog will know what the correct behavior is when he gets the reward marker. I *suppose* it may be useful for marking the end of a repetition without repeating a cue. For example:

-"Down"
-my dog walks forward two feet then lies down
"Nope". I use hand motions to get my dog to stand up again. "Down"
-my dog folds down 
"Good!" and reward
-my dog learns that "down" means lie down without moving forward with one sloppy repetition and one correct one.


-"Down"
-my dog walks forward two feet then lies down
-I use hand motions to get my dog to stand up again "Down"
-my dog folds down
-"Good" and reward
-my dog *might* learn that "down" means come forward, lie down, stand, then lie down again. Or that I need to cue twice for the right behavior... OR does a dog know the first repetition was incorrect because he was asked to stand up and given the cue again? I think it depends on the dog and the rest of my training program.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I think the math analogy would be the different between:

Scenario A:
What is 2+2?
-5?
Nope. What is 2+1?
-3?
And one more?
-4?
Correct! So what is 2+2?
-4!

Scenario B:
What is 2+2?
-5?
What is 2+1?
_-Wait, does 2+2=5?_
What is 2+1?
-3?
And one more?
-4?
Correct! 
-Oh, so 2+2=4!


----------



## Pomom (Apr 9, 2014)

elrohwen said:


> This basically. Good training is the same whether you use an NRM or not. You can't let the dog continue to repeat the wrong thing, and you can't let the dog get so frustrated that he's barking at you. If he's frustrated, you're not being clear.
> 
> I think sometimes with NRMs, it's easy to just say "nope" and leave it up to the dog to try something else, instead of being a better training and fixing what you're doing wrong that's causing the dog not to get it.


 Aha! This is so true! But when someone said silence shouldn't mean "you got it wrong" that's where I am stuck. Low value treats usually get spit out or rejected by Sybbie. Does this even matter? Should I give them to her anyway or is this akin to punishment? "Hey you got it wrong, I'm going to give you something gross to eat" ! I also like CptJack's try something you'll get right 200% of the time. This sounds good too. Sybbie is a little soft but not terribly. I definitely can't yell (at the computer, usually lol) and she dissolves into barking and spinning if I'm not able to help her find the right behaviour after 5 or 6 tries, but she bounces back if I can. If I'm feeling like barking and spinning then I ask for something sure and end it, 
trying to sound happy. Though she knows I'm faking the happy I think.

I don't know about the nrm now. I thought I was seeing less frustration with it than without but maybe that's because silence has grown harsh.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Know thy dog is my saying. I don't think NRM or even corrections are universally 'wrong' or 'right'. If I have good engagement from Hank then they often seem to clarify things for him and get him working harder. If he's not engaged at the moment then it can add to his stress level. 

I always reward for effort and for engagement. That's way more important than being right.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

I use a variety of "NRM" "Corrections" with Shep, depending on circumstance:

1. When Shep was young, and I was teaching him to distinguish between Sit/Down; Left/Right; One/Two/Three , he would guess, and I'd say nope or Uh uh, and he'd offer the other ... and get his reward. He even learned to respond when I shook my head  .... I found this to be more effective for him [He is NOT a soft dog], then simply no reward .... This was during early training.

2. If he did something - misbehavior, and I panicked and yelled "No" ... he'd ignore me, b/c there was no reason not to (no punishment). But, if I was cool-headed and said Sit, or [emergency] Down!, then he'd obey, and get rewarded, even if just praise.

3. Now that he's losing vision and hearing, sometimes he hobbles over to a tree rather than follow me. I shout a harsh sounding "unh!" which seems to work as the equivalent of come! However, he no longer responds to his name or to Come!, if he's not looking at me. 

4. He walked off the sidewalk into someone's yard, and he wouldn't return. I finally bellowed, "No!" He startled (not scared), stopped, looked around, saw me, and came back.

5. If I anticipate him walking off, I'll step in front of him, and he'll return. I have to be careful not to touch him ... when he was young and strong, I would body block him to re-direct him, which he thought was a fun game [ 70lb Lab ]. Now, if I touch him, he'll try to react in the same way, but he can no longer turn, so he'll fall.

6. Of course, I can no longer whisper in his ear to get his attention...but that was another redirection I used when he obsessed on squirrels or smells...


----------



## mrsserena (Nov 9, 2015)

Depends on the dog! I've had dogs that would quit if you even think they're doing it wrong, and dogs that will just keep trying anything and everything to get a treat, so I had to be able to tell them that wasn't what I was looking for. Usually I just say uh-uh, gently. 

Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk


----------



## looktheresalump (Dec 16, 2015)

My dog is a St.Bernard/Setter mix. However, I'm beginning to think he has very little setter in him. I use a firm yet not loud "No Sir." Sometimes I use a gentle, "I don't think so." When he's chewing on something we don't want him to have and replace the item with his toy. A firm "No." Works too, but I don't yell. Tone differences work. He's been pretty easy to train but I think that has to do with the breed as well. Okay, leash training has been a little complicated but it's never been a downright chaotic time... I really do think it depends on the pup's personality. My friend has a pack, yeah pack, of Chihuahuas. She has to be very gentle with corrections with two of them because they come from abusive situations. However, when one starts to howl they all go for it. The only way to stop it is to produce something louder than them, like clapping your hands. They're all about the same age, four years. And yeah, she has potty issues with all of them... However, chihuahuas are known for their difficult potty issues and she handles it well.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

looktheresalump said:


> My dog is a St.Bernard/Setter mix. However, I'm beginning to think he has very little setter in him. I use a firm yet not loud "No Sir." Sometimes I use a gentle, "I don't think so." When he's chewing on something we don't want him to have and replace the item with his toy. A firm "No." Works too, but I don't yell. Tone differences work. He's been pretty easy to train but I think that has to do with the breed as well. Okay, leash training has been a little complicated but it's never been a downright chaotic time... I really do think it depends on the pup's personality. My friend has a pack, yeah pack, of Chihuahuas. She has to be very gentle with corrections with two of them because they come from abusive situations. However, when one starts to howl they all go for it. The only way to stop it is to produce something louder than them, like clapping your hands. They're all about the same age, four years. And yeah, she has potty issues with all of them... However, chihuahuas are known for their difficult potty issues and she handles it well.


That's not the same thing as an NRM though, which is what most of us are talking about. 

An NRM is used in training to mean "that is not going to earn you reinforcement, try something else".

Just telling a dog "no" in daily life when they're getting into stuff is a correction.


----------



## Flaming (Feb 2, 2013)

Canyx said:


> LOVE the analogy, CptJack. Wait... Are you actually Denise Fenzi in disguise?! That would actually explain your infinite wisdom.
> 
> 
> Interesting thread. I use NRMs but on rare occasions. I completely agree that if a dog is not doing something 'right,' you need to change your methodology rather than just telling the dog he's wrong and expecting him to figure it out the next time. I definitely do not use it when teaching new behaviors. Thinking on it, I believe the only time I use a NRM is when my dog is doing a known behavior but sloppily. So if he moves two inches forward then goes into a Down, "nope" then reset. I agree thought, CptJack, with what you posted. I could simply reset with no NRM and my dog will know what the correct behavior is when he gets the reward marker. I *suppose* it may be useful for marking the end of a repetition without repeating a cue. For example:
> ...


 This was very much the case with one of my previous dogs Candy and slightly now with Manna. Candy had no less than 3 ways to sit and 4 ways to down...that's why I started using NRM's 



Laurelin said:


> *Know thy dog is my saying. I don't think NRM or even corrections are universally 'wrong' or 'right'. If I have good engagement from Hank then they often seem to clarify things for him and get him working harder. If he's not engaged at the moment then it can add to his stress level. *
> 
> I always reward for effort and for engagement. That's way more important than being right.


This bolded with all my dogs except Vitae...for reasons


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I dont have a "wrong" word for like training a new behavior, I just teach reward marker words (mine I use is "yes!" ) and wait until the behavior is achieved and mark it with a "yes!" followed by a treat, in say, agility if he is going to take the wrong obstacle or something, I will yell "HEY!" but that is just to get his attention, I use it on walks, too, when I need to get his attention, say if I am going a different direction, or something like that. 

I would say, the closest I have is a interupt word which is "AHT!" for me, which he knows means "stop whatever you are doing and come back"


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Reviving this thread because I thought this article was interesting and relevant. It's not about NRMs exactly, but it is about whether or not dogs should be allowed to make errors in training at all (if they're not allowed to make errors, NRM vs no NRM isn't even relevant). This is generally how I try to train if I can.
http://thecognitivecanine.com/2016/03/29/learning-from-no-mistakes/


----------



## Pomom (Apr 9, 2014)

Very interesting. We are working on go to mat. Will have to think on how to apply this.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

So, little update here from me, too.

Well, a sort of update.

I am a bit into trying to get NRMs out of my vocabulary with mostly success. At the agility trial this past weekend I had Kylie in a stay in my chair while I was standing up talking to someone. A dog and person walked by and Kylie barked and jumped out of the chair. Kylie NEVER does that kind of thing and I was both badly startled (and kind of scared there was an issue) so I YELLED at her. I mean I whipped around and *roared* "NO!" at her.

Let me be clear: I'm not saying yelling at her was good (not, and I wish I hadn't done it)- but, had I done that to her six months ago? She'd be a puppy puddle. I'd have lost her for at least the rest of the day.

She did nothing. She jumped back into the chair and went back to not caring. The person I was talking to even commented on it! No droopy ears, no sad, no lost confidence, NOTHING. Carried on with her day and her business just fine. 

I'm not saying I'll yell at her more now, but... I kind of think maybe not having her confidence chipped away every time we train is maybe, actually, actively, BUILDING it - or her resilience, anyway - A LOT.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

elrohwen said:


> Reviving this thread because I thought this article was interesting and relevant. It's not about NRMs exactly, but it is about whether or not dogs should be allowed to make errors in training at all (if they're not allowed to make errors, NRM vs no NRM isn't even relevant). This is generally how I try to train if I can.
> http://thecognitivecanine.com/2016/03/29/learning-from-no-mistakes/


I love almost everything you post/share with us! 
I like the article a lot. I still think it depends heavily on each dog though. Say you have a zany field bred lab in front of your food holding hand instead of a calculating BC. That lab IS going to jump for the food at some point. Maybe if you started with the lab in a gated hallway you could gradually get closer and continue reinforcing for not jumping and instead waiting. Like, I see the steps that one could take to make it errorless.... I just think for the super confident, jump-into-life type dogs, trial and error is inevitable and does not affect the end result in the slightest. I think 'errorless training' is a wonderful concept to think about and I think it could be invaluable for shy or lower confidence dogs. But I think it is a bit too much coddling for confident dogs.

Even applying this idea to human learning. I think about all the puzzle games that have the user be mostly wrong until they are finally right. There are people who are frustrated by those types of games in general and those who relish the challenge. In dogs, too, I think there are some who THRIVE off trial and error. Think about the concept of food toys in general... they roll it, chew it, bop it... They are entirely 'wrong' until the right move rewards them with a few pieces of kibble. And even then, you have dogs who don't even try at food toys and dogs who will spend hours on very challenging ones.

And then thinking about the science, there are studies that prove the highest levels of dopamine are released during anticipation and not reward. What this means for training is it's not always about 'getting it right' for a dog but the training process. I still think each dog's confidence is the most important deciding factor here. But there are dogs out there who get more and more riled up even when they are not always getting it right. The whole concept of free shaping speaks to this balance. In shaping, my dog is free to do whatever he wants but he is entirely wrong until I mark a single correct behavior. If I wait to long he will get frustrated and end the game. If I click very often it means he is on the right track. But there is so much in between during which he is trying to figure it out and he does go off track. Yet he is totally jazzed and his tail is going a mile a minute as he tries to figure it out. 

My last thought is that errorless training may create a low frustration tolerant dog in a world that is certainly not error free. If I am teaching spins and I want them to be tighter and faster, inevitably I want to weed out only the best spins from the rest. Inevitably all the slower and sloppier spins will be 'wrong' and only the best ones will be right. A dog that has learned error free all his life may not offer as much while a dog that is accustomed to trial and error knows to keep trying. 

I think there is a TON of gray area and I actually really love the article posted. I think it isn't so much a 'do method A or method B' but I see it more as when and how to apply each method as needed. The idea of error free training is setting a dog up to succeed (at least that was my take away message) and I absolutely agree with that. The fallout to trial and error training is a trainer may set criteria too high too soon and risk their dog losing interest right from the beginning.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Canyx said:


> I like the article a lot. I still think it depends heavily on each dog though.


I don't think I agree. Of course I agree that errorless learning type training works is best for a dog with low confidence or without a lot of innate drive to work. But I don't really think that the opposite is true - that high drive crazy dogs need lots of trial and error. I think allowing the dog too much freedom to make mistakes and waiting until they finally hit on the right thing can create a lot of frantic behavior. Stressing up is still stressing, you know? 

I don't think "errorless learning" means that no error ever happens. That would imply that the trainer is perfect and nobody is perfect. Everybody raises criteria too fast sometimes, or doesn't react appropriately. But I think the ideal is that you should tailor your training so the dog makes as few mistakes as possible. To me that's like saying be a splitter not a lumper. If you're lumping, you're expecting the dog to come to the final answer on his own, and he's going to have to try a lot of things to get there. High drive dogs will work through that, but I don't see a good argument why they should. Vs being a splitter, and breaking things down into such small elements that the dog can almost always be correct, and then criteria is raised gradually, but without making the dog guess at each stage.

For me, the best example of the two sides of the spectrum is proofing. Proofing used to be taught by introducing a distraction or wrong choice, and *hoping* the dog makes the wrong choice so they can be corrected. Could be an NRM, could be putting the dog back in position, could be a leash pop, whatever. Lately, most people proof by introducing distractions that are at a low enough level that the dog can be successful, and then they gradually increase the difficulty of the exercise as the dog gets it. If the dog makes a mistake, that's not considered a good thing, but rather a sign that the handler moved too quickly. Personally, I don't really see the point in hoping my dog makes mistakes so I can catch him and tell him that he's wrong, but there are still a lot of people who train that way because a lot of compulsion based training works that way (even if the person has crossed over to positive training)

I guess, in summary, I think that many dogs learn in spite of trial and error training, not necessarily better because of that training. And I don't think that errorless learning means that the dog never ever makes a single mistake ever. I just think it means that you are training with the intent of the dog being successful most of the time, instead of letting him make mistake after mistake.

And I'll end with another really good article: http://denisefenzi.com/2016/02/29/is-avoiding-correctionwithholding-half-of-the-information/
ETA: And this one: http://denisefenzi.com/2016/02/01/do-we-teach-resilience/


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> I think allowing the dog too much freedom to make mistakes and waiting until they finally hit on the right thing can create a lot of frantic behavior. Stressing up is still stressing, you know?


This.

I mentioned earlier that Molly's focus is better without NRMs in the mix, and this is precisely the sort of thing I was talking about. She gets something wrong, her response is to try the same thing over and over and over to try to get the reward - or to start frantically offering other behaviors and getting higher and higher and less and less able to learn. I blamed this on 'too high value reward' - Ie: working for a ball or disc - but the truth is? Nope, it's letting her make mistakes to start with, she gets stressed, and her brain falls out. 

IF she makes a mistake, I have to work pretty hard to reset her because she'll loop and keep stressing higher, and higher, and higher, and getting further and further off track, but that *doesn't* mean there's any learning value in having made the mistake. In fact there's negative learning because she's going over the top into frantic, obsessive, behavior and isn't thinking about anything at all- except getting her ball/disc. Her brain falling out her ear does not make her any more capable of learning in the state she ends up in than Kylie shutting down.

It's just as useful for her over the top butt (ie: running into trees, breaking her teeth off, running with torn out nails, whatever, to get the ball) as it is Kylie whose only drive is basically 'created' drive (even food she'll walk away from before continuing to do something she considers unpleasant).

Being wrong doesn't teach the dog what to do what's right. Process of elimination is not helpful for them. Humans can sort of work out and say 'a or b, must be c' but we're not offering dogs only 3 choices - as far as they are concerned there are INFINITE possibilities for right - and they're not people.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Process of elimination is not helpful for them. Humans can sort of work out and say 'a or b, must be c' but we're not offering dogs only 3 choices - as far as they are concerned there are INFINITE possibilities for right - and they're not people.


I don't necessarily agree with this. There have been cases of dog being presented with known and an unknown object, asked an unknown cue, and knowing to choose the unknown object.

So;
Ball
Bear
Stick

If stick isn't a known object, and they know "ball" and "bear" the dog knows "stick" shouldn't be those, and chooses the most likely correct option (at least in their opinion most likely correct).


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

ireth0 said:


> I don't necessarily agree with this. There have been cases of dog being presented with known and an unknown object, asked an unknown cue, and knowing to choose the unknown object.
> 
> So;
> Ball
> ...


That's a very specific scenario where the dog really is presented with 3 choices.

Most of training is not really comparable though. It's more like "here's an object, do something with it" and the dog has to figure out what that thing is. There are infinite possibilities.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

elrohwen said:


> That's a very specific scenario where the dog really is presented with 3 choices.
> 
> Most of training is not really comparable though. It's more like "here's an object, do something with it" and the dog has to figure out what that thing is. There are infinite possibilities.


That was just a simplistic example for the purpose of explaining what I was talking about. I was just disagreeing with the idea that process of elimination isn't something dogs can/do use for problem solving.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> I don't necessarily agree with this. There have been cases of dog being presented with known and an unknown object, asked an unknown cue, and knowing to choose the unknown object.
> 
> So;
> Ball
> ...


Yes, but that's with a limited number of objects presented to a dog, not options for actions which are near endless. If I stand around and hold a ball and want the dog to get the ball and the dog wants the ball but I tell it, I don't know, Dance - and it's not a known command, I'm going to get a big old stream of stuff and telling the dog it's wrong for sit, down, paw, bark, spin, twirl, is not going to get it closer to standing on its hind legs and spinning in a circle. 

Telling the dog it's wrong for that doesn't *Teach* the dog anything, or lead to the right behavior. 

It's like... you're in a center of a meadow with 200 paths open to you. You can go down every last one of them and maybe accidentally hit the right one, or you can have someone set up a blinking red light to the right one. Even if you eventually get the right one, is it really a useful learning experience to go down a bunch of dead end paths that lead nowhere?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> That was just a simplistic example for the purpose of explaining what I was talking about. I was just disagreeing with the idea that process of elimination isn't something dogs can/do use for problem solving.


Problem solving, maybe. In training? No. It's too open, the problem isn't clear, and it's just... generally not applicable to the situation being discussed. It's object identification and frankly doesn't translate to training at all.

Yes, a dog will figure out that if it is being asked to 'get' (word they don't recognize), and the other two are (words they do), they'll grab the other, but you... haven't taught the dog what a stick is. (Even with Chaser, the dog the experiment was on. The dog learned naming the objects separately from this exercise. It was purely down to 'the other one'. Yes, process of elimination, but also separate from training)


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Yep, was just trying to illustrate the point that dogs can and do use process of elimination when learning things.



CptJack said:


> generally not applicable to the situation being discussed.


I was just addressing the specific statement I quoted, not the whole discussion in general.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

elrohwen said:


> I don't think I agree. Of course I agree that errorless learning type training works is best for a dog with low confidence or without a lot of innate drive to work. But I don't really think that the opposite is true - that high drive crazy dogs need lots of trial and error. I think allowing the dog too much freedom to make mistakes and waiting until they finally hit on the right thing can create a lot of frantic behavior. Stressing up is still stressing, you know?
> 
> I don't think "errorless learning" means that no error ever happens. That would imply that the trainer is perfect and nobody is perfect. Everybody raises criteria too fast sometimes, or doesn't react appropriately. But I think the ideal is that you should tailor your training so the dog makes as few mistakes as possible. To me that's like saying be a splitter not a lumper. If you're lumping, you're expecting the dog to come to the final answer on his own, and he's going to have to try a lot of things to get there. High drive dogs will work through that, but I don't see a good argument why they should. Vs being a splitter, and breaking things down into such small elements that the dog can almost always be correct, and then criteria is raised gradually, but without making the dog guess at each stage.
> 
> ...


Thanks for these shares as well! I like Fenzi's avoiding correction article a lot more. I think at the end of the day I really don't train much differently than you or CptJack or iretho does. Yes to splitting. I mean, as a trick trainer and trying to teach totally unnatural and complex behaviors... There is almost no way to do it any other way. Yes to slowly raising criteria. Yes to setting the dog up for success. 

I agree with all the concepts of the errorless learning article too. It just felt a bit 'final' to me. Like, there is such a thing as trial and error learning without corrections and without using NRMs. I think free shaping is the perfect example of that. I think wonderful things can come out of errors too, and I surely have a handful of cued behaviors that I wouldn't have thought to train had my dog not made 'mistakes' that I turned into 'answers' down the line. 

I think I am mostly thinking about shaping, actually. Because errorless learning is just... NOT shaping. The way errorless learning is described is very much methodology. She writes, " Take a trial and error procedure you’ve been using and rewrite it be errorless. " But I think I am comparing apples to oranges here...


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Canyx said:


> Thanks for these shares as well! I like Fenzi's avoiding correction article a lot more. I think at the end of the day I really don't train much differently than you or CptJack or iretho does. Yes to splitting. I mean, as a trick trainer and trying to teach totally unnatural and complex behaviors... There is almost no way to do it any other way. Yes to slowly raising criteria. Yes to setting the dog up for success.
> 
> I agree with all the concepts of the errorless learning article too. It just felt a bit 'final' to me. Like, there is such a thing as trial and error learning without corrections and without using NRMs. I think free shaping is the perfect example of that. I think wonderful things can come out of errors too, and I surely have a handful of cued behaviors that I wouldn't have thought to train had my dog not made 'mistakes' that I turned into 'answers' down the line.
> 
> I think I am mostly thinking about shaping, actually. Because errorless learning is just... NOT shaping. The way errorless learning is described is very much methodology. She writes, " Take a trial and error procedure you’ve been using and rewrite it be errorless. " But I think I am comparing apples to oranges here...


You're absolutely right that shaping is kind of the exception to that. Honestly, I don't really like shaping. Shaping where I lead it a bit, sure, but complete shaping has never really worked out for me. It's hard to split behaviors down so small that the dog doesn't get frustrated. Not that we never do shaping or use it for certain things, but it's not my preferred way to train. But I know for other people that's their primary method of training and they love it.

I know that Denise Fenzi doesn't personally like shaping (or at least the shaping where you sit there quietly with a clicker and let the dog totally figure it out), so perhaps it is counter to the errorless training type of mentality.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I agree that it's not for everybody! But for dogs that get it, boy do they get it. I use a combination of free shaping and shaping+prompting in my tricks class. I thought it would be a pretty advanced topic for a beginner-ish class but the results have blown me away. The 'less trained' and younger dogs really picked it up fast, faster than dogs did in my demo course full of experienced trainers!
What really surprised me was when owners told me their dog's favorite 'trick' is shaping, or that shaping tired out their dog more than anything else. Definitely not what I expected. 

But we definitely do a lot more luring and such for most behaviors. And outside the realm of shaping, I absolutely agree with making the learning process as errorless as possible. I reread the article and whatever itch I got from it went away. Really sound and solid advice. The first time I read it was right when I woke up so my brain was all "errorless learning... uhhhh..... let me think about shaping instead... lahdeedah...."


----------



## Pomom (Apr 9, 2014)

CptJack said:


> So, little update here from me, too.
> 
> Well, a sort of update.
> 
> ...


Ok I'm I little behind on this thread but that's great! I find NRMs are way too plentiful in my training lately and I think they harm MY confidence. I think saying "nope" over and over makes me feel negative. Gotta stop!


----------



## Pomom (Apr 9, 2014)

Elrohwen wrote: And I'll end with another really good article: http://denisefenzi.com/2016/02/29/is...e-information/

I loved this! She looks so happy and so does her dog! I am way too serious!


----------



## Pomom (Apr 9, 2014)

Ok I'm caught up now. You guys blow my mind. You are all smarter and more educated than every professional dog trainer I have ever taken classes with. I see now that the class I'm taking is based on shaping and it's not working that great for Sybbie. We got stuck on go to mat cuz I would click for going on the mat but I think she thinks that's not what I'm clicking for. Perhaps she is not very aware of her feet. Also she has come to think that silence and no cookie IS a NRM and this makes her stay iffy. Usually a sit stay turns into a down cuz of ME and my blundering and the fact that if I ask for a down and she doesn't do it right away, I just wait and then she does it. So, to her, no cookie=I better try down. I'm such a muddled mess!

So, practical question: if I want a duration behaviour and don't plan on rewarding until the release, should I give verbal encouragement during? Or should I reward at DF's +5 during and +9 at the end? How do I undo my poor communication?

This thread is gold!


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

For duration behaviors, try reverse luring. The basic idea is to hold a treat in your hand and when the dog is performing correctly, your hand is open. When the dog messes up, your hand closes over the treat. Make sure to be positive and reset her, and keep it short at first, but it's a good signal for dogs that means "you're right, keep going". I also walk in and reward frequently as the duration gets longer. I try not to talk the give encouragement because if we ever make it to the obedience ring I would have to be completely silent and still during a stay, so I don't want to build in lots of encouragement and have to fade it out later. That's why I like what Denise says about making silence from you a signal to keep going because the dog is right, and when you start chattering and moving around the dog is wrong and you're helping them be right. But silence shouldn't mean try something else.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Pomom said:


> So, practical question: if I want a duration behaviour and don't plan on rewarding until the release, should I give verbal encouragement during? Or should I reward at DF's +5 during and +9 at the end? How do I undo my poor communication?
> 
> This thread is gold!


Alternatively, you could just start with super short stays and gradually make it longer. I am a fan of rewarding in position but if not done correctly the dog can inadvertently learn that reward means the behavior is over. The tricky thing about 'simply' extending your stays is you should not make them incrementally harder each time. You need to always throw some easy stays in there. Let's say you work your way up to 1 minute stays... As you practice you should still throw in some 2 second stays, 20 seconds, 40 seconds, 8 seconds, 30, 12, 10, etc.... Making it spontaneous will keep your dog guessing, which will increase the chances of her waiting for that release cue. If you make it too predictable, your dog will more likely release herself in anticipation of the release cue, if that makes any sense.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

And to reference back to our last discussion... Reverse luring would not be errorless learning because covering the treat would be negative punishment  The gradual extension of the stays would be in line with errorless learning because you set the dog up to succeed from the start by making your expectations small and easy.

I am a huge fan of reverse luring though. Just tying things together!


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Posting for Canyx. This is a followup from the previous errorless learning blog post: http://thecognitivecanine.com/2016/04/07/errorless-error-full-and-the-stuff-in-between/


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

So as an experiment, I've tried this a little. Yeah... I'm gonna keep using "ah ah" with my dog. It just... works. But she's a hard dog, so there's that.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

TGKvr said:


> So as an experiment, I've tried this a little. Yeah... I'm gonna keep using "ah ah" with my dog. It just... works. But she's a hard dog, so there's that.


What what situations?

As much as I don't use NRMs, I tell my dogs to stop doing stuff all the time. Watson knows that "ah ah" means you've reached the boundary and better turn back. But that's honestly a correction, and not the same as an NRM.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

elrohwen said:


> Posting for Canyx. This is a followup from the previous errorless learning blog post: http://thecognitivecanine.com/2016/04/07/errorless-error-full-and-the-stuff-in-between/


THANK YOU. for the posts, updates, and insightful discussion. I think this is all really worthwhile. I am STILL turning over the first article


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Canyx said:


> THANK YOU. for the posts, updates, and insightful discussion. I think this is all really worthwhile. I am STILL turning over the first article


If nothing else, I'm good for blog posts on whatever random subject is under discussion. Haha


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

Pomom said:


> Usually a sit stay turns into a down cuz of ME and my blundering and the fact that if I ask for a down and she doesn't do it right away, I just wait and then she does it. So, to her, no cookie=I better try down. I'm such a muddled mess!


Off-topic - Many times a dog has a 'tell' or Calming Signal when she is going to 'break' during Sit-Stay training. Shep had a full progression: ear flick, breaking eye contact, yawning, bark and get up or lie down  So, when Shep broke eye contact, I'd take one step toward him; OR if he yawned, I repeated "Stay" using voice or gesture cue. Watch for patterns of body language signals...


----------

