# do some breeds *need* more "CM-esque" type techniques?



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Hey all, I have a question, I know so many of you are into the positive approach & so am I... With Josefina (Jo) & really am with Izze as well, but when she does something wrong or unacceptable, I will give her a "touch" so called (not a jab like he does, just any touch to get her attention back on me) with a body block & a firm stare with a "no!" if needed.

My question is, do you trainers think that *some* breeds or personality types *need* more adversives then others?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

If you had asked whether a stronger reinforcer was needed for some breeds over others, I would say sure. To this question I can not, because I'm always more interested in reinforcing the behaviors I want, not those I'm trying to extinguish.


----------



## melundie (Aug 2, 2011)

I know I'm probably going to be lynched for even typing this, but I actually like CM and like he says I think it's important to match a dog's intensity when it's doing something you don't like and if touching them (NOT HITTING!!!!!!) is the way you do it, then more power to you. So long as it works. It's especially important to block the behavior of herding breeds because they get so intense, so fast. Colby, for instance, has started trying to herd cars. Special, right? We're working on distracting her with treats, but if I don't distract in time it's like she can't hear or see anything besides the car. Now, in terms of giving the touch or jab or whatever it's really only effective if you do it while the dog is doing the thing you've deemed as unacceptable...not after he or she has already done it. In Colby's case re: car herding, I've tried to touch her to get her attention back to me and it almost seems to rile her up even more.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I get what your saying about herding things, with Izze its livestock (not horses) but I can't get her to leave them alone hardly Lol, the two goats are behind a gate in a stall, so there is no danger there, I also play "kickball" with a horse jollyball (the one ball she can't tear up lol lol) also we play fetch, which also uses the same instincts as herding. I would try carrying her fave toy on walks & trying to distract her with it.

Curbside>> simply ignoring unacceptable behavior is not an option wih some breeds, like ACDs, they need to know that is acceptable & what is not with no grey area.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dogdragoness said:


> Curbside>> simply ignoring unacceptable behavior is not an option wih some breeds, like ACDs, they need to know that is acceptable & what is not with no grey area.


This is prejudice, and I don't believe you for one moment if it must be with aversion, and...why not do that with reinforcement? I know the answer, and I don't find it an acceptable one.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Im not being predijuce... I love my ACDs, I have spent 10 yrs into the breed & I know them as a breed, im not talking about cranking & yanking, im talking about posturing & body blocking type stuff. Most are real in your face dogs that have no backup.

jus sayin'.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

I would say that some dogs in any breed might need some aversives while some dogs in any breed would be destroyed by them, the fun is in the picking. So it was in the beginning and I suspect it will be the same at the end.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

There are always two ways to approach the behavior...actually 3, punishment, reinforcement, or extinguish it. What I take from your comments is, you believe ACD's need more aversion when punished...for whatever prejudice you may have. Nevertheless, there are still 3 ways to approach the behavior. My preference is to get behavior with reinforcement...it's the only way you CAN get behavior. If I don't want the dog to practice a behavior, I try to control the dog's environment and let the behavior extinguish on its own. This is MY preference. Do I believe ACD's need more punishment? My answer is always going to be NO, I'm prejudice towards my preference, and frankly, both the dogs I've handled and I like it that way, irregardless of breed prejudice. And, I'm not talking about cranking and yanking either.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't think anything is ever NEEDED. I don't think some dogs need aversives and I don't think there's ever only one way to do something. Is it easier sometimes? Sure. Is it maybe the most effective method sometimes? Sure. But never the only way.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

not all dogs respond the same ways to the same things, and I think the absolute stupidest thing any trainer can do is dismiss other methods. every single dog and situation needs to be tailored to that dog and that situation. Rusty does not respond well to most positive reinforment methodes..when using them on his serious issues like marking, barking, running away and viciously attacking other dogs, his issues actually got waayyy worse. thanks to the heavy handed end of CM's methods, Rusty is now a great dog. those same methods on Happy however shuts her down completly..or makes the problem worse, and the postive methods that made Rusty worse, did wonders to make Happy better.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

I like what Curbside says about getting the behaviors you LIKE with reinforcement, and controlling the environment to get the undesired behaviors to extinguish themselves.
So, if your dog is doing something you don't want him to do, how about distracting him by asking him to do a DESIREABLE behavior, something you've taught him. Then, reinforce the DESIRED behavior with a treat, or toy, or pat or what have you. Wouldn't he start realizing that some behaviors bring good things, and some behaviors don't?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Miss Bugs said:


> when using them on his serious issues like marking, barking, running away and viciously attacking other dogs, his issues actually got waayyy worse.


These issues, with maybe the exception of marking, are emotion based issues. Are you saying counter-conditioning didn't work? Because I'd like to know how it was applied to fail. Positive reinforcement is to get a "willing" behavior. You don't use positive reinforcement to get a behavior while the dog is emoting in the wrong direction. It's too late then.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

dogdragoness said:


> My question is, do you trainers think that *some* breeds or personality types *need* more adversives then others?


What dogs need is clear feedback on their behavior. I don't think it has anything to do with "CM techniques" or whatever.

Like body blocking - why is that considered a "CM" technique? Dogs invented that before humans (it's one of their body language signals) named it "body blocking" or used it in training. 

Saying "no" only works if the dog understands what it means (your dogs obviously do, Wally gets "aatttt" sometimes, etc). And even then, it depends on the state of mind of the dog. A "strong willed" dog might 'say' "whatever" or be too involved in what their doing (which is something other than aversives anyway, imo) - a soft dog might be to afraid to "stop" doing whatever (which, again, is another ballpark). 

Think less about "who's technique it is" and figure out how to reach your dog. That's my advice. 

I believe there always has to be a yes and a no signal in any "method" (not that I believe in "methods" or "systems" - it's all behaviorism). If your "yes" is a click and treat and your "no" is stim on an e-collar *shrug* whatever works that doesn't hurt the dog, is done with good timing, and has a consistent meaning.

As far as breeds - I don't believe in breed generalizations. Cotons aren't supposed to be fearful and suspcious...except Wally was. Labs are supposed to be docile, except the one down the street that bites everyone. Dogs, like people, are individuals with individual abilities, personalities, and ways they grasp information the best. Grouping under breed just blurs all that, and that's throwing away a lot of useful information, imo.


----------



## Sendiulino (Jun 20, 2011)

Some dogs respond to some techniques better than others. I'll never understand the mind-set that only one set of things is "best" for every dog. To me that's akin to saying there's only one right way to raise a child (something I don't believe).

Do what works for you and your dog (without harming the animal, obviously). For me it is just that basic.


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

I spent 6 months in Sweden with my Rottie last year (my mom got sick and died while there so it was an extended stay). Anyway, I got involved in a a couple of training clubs and met a lot of new people. One thing I learned was that there they teach the dog to "tattle tale", which I guess is counter-conditioning. I have to say that I saw some absolutely AMAZING results. Dogs that had been aggressive to other dogs when walked on a leash could walk without the leash and came running to "tattle tale" to the handler when they met another dog.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

hast said:


> I spent 6 months in Sweden with my Rottie last year (my mom got sick and died while there so it was an extended stay). Anyway, I got involved in a a couple of training clubs and met a lot of new people. One thing I learned was that there they teach the dog to "tattle tale", which I guess is counter-conditioning. I have to say that I saw some absolutely AMAZING results. Dogs that had been aggressive to other dogs when walked on a leash could walk without the leash and came running to "tattle tale" to the handler when they met another dog.


Yeah, it's also called "Look at That!" exercise. I did it extensively with Priscilla. It took a while, and eventually almost everything in her environment was a cue to look at me. See dog? She checks in with me first. See bird? Checks in first. And so on. It's a very simple game. Every time your dog sees something interesting, click and reward him. Doesn't matter what he sees, unless you're trying to apply it to a specific cue (other dogs for DA dogs).


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

> These issues, with maybe the exception of marking, are emotion based issues. Are you saying counter-conditioning didn't work? Because I'd like to know how it was applied to fail. Positive reinforcement is to get a "willing" behavior. You don't use positive reinforcement to get a behavior while the dog is emoting in the wrong direction. It's too late then.


just so you are aware, I am not a newbie to training, I did not start out learning heavy handed methods, for years postive reinforcments and counter conditioning was the only thing I knew, I was flat out against CM type training, I hated him I hated his methods. I used counter condtioning and postive reinforments with Happy and her aggression..she is formerly dog and human aggressive.(she nows plays at doggy daycare every day and has helped many people get over their fear of dogs) I have been involved in training clubs, my mom was an instructer, and I have done private classes with top positive trainers. so dont try to tell me how I clearly must have done things incorrectly. I am not a hater of the methods, I am have seen them work magic. but they are not perfect and will not work on EVERY dog.

just to add I did not answer the question direcly because I really could not tell you every detail from 4.5 years ago.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Miss Bugs said:


> just so you are aware, I am not a newbie to training, I did not start out learning heavy handed methods, for years postive reinforcments and counter conditioning was the only thing I knew, I was flat out against CM type training, I hated him I hated his methods. I used counter condtioning and postive reinforments with Happy and her aggression..she is formerly dog and human aggressive.(she nows plays at doggy daycare every day and has helped many people get over their fear of dogs) I have been involved in training clubs, my mom was an instructer, and I have done private classes with top positive trainers. so dont try to tell me how I clearly must have done things incorrectly. I am not a hater of the methods, I am have seen them work magic. but they are not perfect and will not work on EVERY dog.


All you did is tell him what you think your experience is, not how you applied your methods. If you want to convince him wrong, all you have to do is explain what your methods and timing were, along with your dog's emotional state and body language at the time were and he would be proven wrong (well, in theory anyway, because we'd still have to take your word for it.)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> My question is, do you trainers think that *some* breeds or personality types *need* more adversives then others?


Not at all. In fact, you could probably train my Aussies with any technique (and I've used several, some better than others) and they're so biddable that they'd do their best to please, no matter how sloppy and unclear I am being. I find that it is with the less naturally biddable dogs that non-aversive training really makes them shine. Because A) done correctly, your expectations are much clearer to the dog B) because there is something in it for the dog besides pleasing you and C) because the human isn't turning it into a battle of wills.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Curbside>> simply ignoring unacceptable behavior is not an option wih some breeds, like ACDs, they need to know that is acceptable & what is not with no grey area.


I don't know anyone who "simply ignores" unacceptable behavior. But, I'd rather concentrate on giving the dog something that I would rather they do instead of what I find unacceptable. So if you tell her "no" how does she know what you'd rather she do instead? What options do you give her that are rewarding?


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Miss Bugs said:


> not all dogs respond the same ways to the same things, and I think the absolute stupidest thing any trainer can do is dismiss other methods. every single dog and situation needs to be tailored to that dog and that situation. Rusty does not respond well to most positive reinforment methodes..when using them on his serious issues like marking, barking, running away and viciously attacking other dogs, his issues actually got waayyy worse. thanks to the heavy handed end of CM's methods, Rusty is now a great dog. those same methods on Happy however shuts her down completly..or makes the problem worse, and the postive methods that made Rusty worse, did wonders to make Happy better.


That's what im saying too, I dont dismiss reinforcement, I use it... But it doesn't work for every dog, just like traditional dont work for every dog. Im not talking about abuse BP stuff, just more traditional techniques.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Miss Bugs said:


> I am not a hater of the methods, I am have seen them work magic. but they are not perfect and will not work on EVERY dog.


What methods? There are the 'laws of learning' and the application of those laws. The laws are perfect (until trumped by a new law). Methods, unfortunately, are subject to human influence. So...the question. What methods? Which human? Which dog? Perhaps the human can be improved to make them less imperfect (hardest). Or, we can remain hypothetical and talk about the application of perfect learning laws (easiest).


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> My question is, do you trainers think that *some* breeds or personality types *need* more adversives then others?


I think the key word here is not some or need, but "BREED". Do all dogs in a breed fall under the same training loop? No. 

So, no, I wouldn't give every ACD the same training and I wouldn't give every Poodle the same training regime. 

But I do believe some dogs need a firmer hand. Lady would look at me and laughed if I make a click noise (with a clicker or a marker word) and threw a treat at her. She spits out treats if she is in "working mode". 

Roonie on the other hand is a soft dog, a firm stance or a firm stare will send him to the floor with his tail between his legs. So I have learned how to say "that's wrong" without going over than threshold that sends him into scared mode. And I have learned that treats are his thing.

Kodi is fairly food motivated but he cares less about listening and more about the food, so I don't use food to treat train because he gets silly and starts offering behaviors even when I ask for one he knows strongly.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Im talking about more DW type methods, I i use, then I show the dog I i want instead of the behavior they were doing before, they still get an adversive but they get also to learn an alternative behavior. Im talking about trainers who are totally opposed to the word "no" or any adversive for that matter.

Not just talking about breeds, but dog personalities also. I also didn't start this these o start a fight or debate or anything, just to hear ppls opinions. hanksor replying guys


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> But I do believe some dogs need a firmer hand. Lady would look at me and laughed if I make a click noise (with a clicker or a marker word) and threw a treat at her. She spits out treats if she is in "working mode".


The mistake made here is that you are presuming treats are the only reward you have available to you in this context. If he is in working mode, what is he wanting to do? Fetch? Herd? Well there's your reward. If you associated that reward with a click, you now have a super-charged reinforcement.



> Kodi is fairly food motivated but he cares less about listening and more about the food, so I don't use food to treat train because he gets silly and starts offering behaviors even when I ask for one he knows strongly.


That's a training issue, not a treat issue.



> Im talking about more DW type methods, I i use, then I show the dog I i want instead of the behavior they were doing before, they still get an adversive but they get also to learn an alternative behavior. Im talking about trainers who are totally opposed to the word "no" or any adversive for that matter.
> 
> Not just talking about breeds, but dog personalities also. I also didn't start this these o start a fight or debate or anything, just to hear ppls opinions. hanksor replying guys


There is no trainer that is totally opposed to the word "no". By showing them the correct behavior, they are telling them "no" on the alternate behavior. Both work. The question is, do you have a strong enough reinforcement, and do you have control on the environment? If it is no to either, that's what you are doing wrong with a intense drive dog.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

KodiBarracuda said:


> Lady would look at me and laughed if I make a click noise (with a clicker or a marker word) and threw a treat at her. She spits out treats if she is in "working mode".


Treat = reinforcer, it does not necessarily mean food. A good game of tug can be a great reinforcer for non-food motivated dogs. And certainly work can be clicked if it's that behavior you're using to reinforce another.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Miss Bugs said:


> not all dogs respond the same ways to the same things, and I think the absolute stupidest thing any trainer can do is dismiss other methods. every single dog and situation needs to be tailored to that dog and that situation. Rusty does not respond well to most positive reinforment methodes..when using them on his serious issues like marking, barking, running away and viciously attacking other dogs, his issues actually got waayyy worse. thanks to the heavy handed end of CM's methods, Rusty is now a great dog. those same methods on Happy however shuts her down completly..or makes the problem worse, and the postive methods that made Rusty worse, did wonders to make Happy better.


I would like to know exactly how you tried using positive reinforcement on these problems that failed.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Im talking about more DW type methods, I i use, then I show the dog I i want instead of the behavior they were doing before, they still get an adversive but they get also to learn an alternative behavior. Im talking about trainers who are totally opposed to the word "no" or any adversive for that matter.
> 
> Who is totally opposed to the word no?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KodiBarracuda said:


> I Lady would look at me and laughed if I make a click noise (with a clicker or a marker word) and threw a treat at her. She spits out treats if she is in "working mode".
> 
> Kodi is fairly food motivated but he cares less about listening and more about the food, so I don't use food to treat train because he gets silly and starts offering behaviors even when I ask for one he knows strongly.


If the dog spits food out, in that situation food is not a sufficient reinforcer for that dog. Find something better. If the dog is in "working mode" then work is probably the best reinforcer. I know when Alice is on stock, food would not trip her trigger (though at any other time she's all about the treat) but releasing her to work does.

Food zen is a wonderful thing. I love it when I have a dog who starts offering behaviors. Means they are in the game. However, if I'm asking for a specific behavior, that's the only thing that will get the treat. That said, I don't show the dog treats before they give me what I am looking for. Frequently I don't even have the food on my person.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

I wouldn't even say "Dog breeds", but personalities, yes it does matter IMO. A simple eyebrow raise makes one of my dogs stop in his tracks, one of my other dogs doesn't even notice it. One of my dogs is handler sensitive, and the other is not. One of my dogs is of a breed that is supposed to be very handler oriented, very aloof, and very biddable, and he is none of the above. Saying "all dogs of this breed need X type of training" is like saying "All people of this race need X type of whatever"...it just doesn't hold true. Body blocking is an easier form of saying "stop" than simply telling your dog to stop in most cases, just like backing up and/or turning and walking away will encourage a dog to come to you more than standing still and yelling "Come!" will. Even with my handler sensitive dog, I've used body blocking before. It seems less confrontational than grabbing by the collar, yanking a leash, or just standing there.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> dogdragoness said:
> 
> 
> > Im talking about more DW type methods, I i use, then I show the dog I i want instead of the behavior they were doing before, they still get an adversive but they get also to learn an alternative behavior. Im talking about trainers who are totally opposed to the word "no" or any adversive for that matter.
> ...


----------



## Candydb (Jul 16, 2011)

Late to the discussion but here goes... Reinforcements can be both positive AND negative. I work with children and believe me I have experienced the fact that beings (whether dog or person) will work to get both... If positive attention is not forthcoming they will work to receive negative. Any attention-- often for the being in question-- is better than NO attention at all. I am not saying that is a good thing. That said, having had both Boxers and now a Schnauzer-- can tell that you my schnauzer works/ is much better behaved when she is aware of a "negative consequence" that will follow her misbehavior/ not following a command (for example an E collar buzz low level 3 for not Recalling) vs getting profuse positive rewards for not misbehaving/ ie following the command. THe Boxers on the other hand would follow through with a mere "raised eyebrow" as a negative incentive... SO I do think it does depend on the dog temprament/ breed....


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> If the dog spits food out, in that situation food is not a sufficient reinforcer for that dog. Find something better. If the dog is in "working mode" then work is probably the best reinforcer. I know when Alice is on stock, food would not trip her trigger (though at any other time she's all about the treat) but releasing her to work does.


I think you are misinterperting my meaning of "working mode" I don't mean working animals, I mean working with me, listening to sit and down and other more complicated commands. And she isn't interested in anything if she is in working mode.



> The mistake made here is that you are presuming treats are the only reward you have available to you in this context. If he is in working mode, what is he wanting to do? Fetch? Herd? Well there's your reward. If you associated that reward with a click, you now have a super-charged reinforcement.


I am not making a mistake here, I understand that treats are not the only reward it was just easier than typing out every possible reward I have and it was just one example. When she is in working mode, she doesn't want to do anything but work (work as in behave, listen to me, respond to my commands, not work animals or any other kind of work you may be thinking of.)

And for everyone else, I 



> Food zen is a wonderful thing. I love it when I have a dog who starts offering behaviors. Means they are in the game. However, if I'm asking for a specific behavior, that's the only thing that will get the treat. That said, I don't show the dog treats before they give me what I am looking for. Frequently I don't even have the food on my person.


I on the other hand HATE it when dogs offer me behaviors, I don't want a bunch of behaviors, I want a "enter command here". I also don't have the treat in sight ever but as soon as Kodi knows I have one anywhere near or on me, he turns into a silly mush ball.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

Candydb said:


> can tell that you my schnauzer works/ is much better behaved when she is aware of a "negative consequence" that will follow her misbehavior/ not following a command (for example an E collar buzz low level 3 for not Recalling) vs getting profuse positive rewards for not misbehaving/ ie following the command. .



I have always wanted to find a way to say this while getting it across clearly, this is Lady to a T (except for the E-collar.) When Lady knows there will be a consequence she works much much better.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

KodiBarracuda said:


> I am not making a mistake here, I understand that treats are not the only reward it was just easier than typing out every possible reward I have and it was just one example. When she is in working mode, she doesn't want to do anything but work (work as in behave, listen to me, respond to my commands, not work animals or any other kind of work you may be thinking of.)


Oh, man. I'd give my eye teeth for my dogs to consider the work itself a reward.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

sassafras said:


> Oh, man. I'd give my eye teeth for my dogs to consider the work itself a reward.


I love that about her to death. I love that I don't have to carry treats around in my pockets or a toy around. If I really want to tell her she is good, I let her go into beg position and give her a high ten. That is rediculously pleasing for her. She loves beg position. I don't understand why she is like that, but I am not complaining.


----------



## iheartmarcus (Jul 27, 2011)

Ahhh, I am really not experienced enough to give a solid testimony on which method is better for what kind of dog. But just in terms of the philosophy behind the two, I do prefer positive reinforcement more even if both methods can produce equally well behaved dogs.

Although something I've been curious about is the use of things like the tree method or time outs. Do those count as aversives?? I've heard people say yes (this is more directed at time outs) because a time out is something they don't want and is a punishment that they'll work to avoid, thus is an aversive. But I've also heard people say no because you are simply removing something the dogs wants (being with the fam, ability to roam freely, your attention, etc.) and making them work for it and giving it to them as reinforcement when they do offer you the behavior you want (for not barking or being calm, I suppose?). So what do you guys think? I'm really rather curious on people's opinions on this.

Another question I have is, even though I prefer positive reinforcement (I really would ideally like to train by true clicker training where you only click for behaviors you want or lack of behaviors you don't want), but I often find myself in situations where the only thing I can think to do is say "ah-ah" followed by something not harmful but probably leans more on the aversive side? For example, I've been trying to train impulse control and stopping Marcus' developing habit of propping himself up on tables (doesn't matter if the table is puppy proof, he'll still prop himself up to check for food, toys, etc.). The method I'm following is Kikopup's video on teaching "leave it" and "stopping counter surfing". He's really good at not going for things during a training session, and will always look back at me instead of whatever food or toy I strategically placed on the floor, table, counter, etc (although I'm kind of suspicious of this now since he will look back and forth between the food and me as if he knows he will get a treat by looking away from the food instead of actually loosing interest in the food). But when he's just chilling around, he still will prop himself up onto all sorts of furniture despite the good behavior during training (during which I use high valued food reinforcers since he is hecka food motivated). When he does this, the only thing I can think of doing is to go "ah-ah, off" and then guide him down (gently though!) by the chest if he doesn't do it by himself. I really would rather not use this since it's no good if I'm not around when he does it, so what are things I should be doing during training (I do clicker training, fyi)?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Candydb said:


> Late to the discussion but here goes... Reinforcements can be both positive AND negative. I work with children and believe me I have experienced the fact that beings (whether dog or person) will work to get both... If positive attention is not forthcoming they will work to receive negative. Any attention-- often for the being in question-- is better than NO attention at all. I am not saying that is a good thing. That said, having had both Boxers and now a Schnauzer-- can tell that you my schnauzer works/ is much better behaved when she is aware of a "negative consequence" that will follow her misbehavior/ not following a command (for example an E collar buzz low level 3 for not Recalling) vs getting profuse positive rewards for not misbehaving/ ie following the command. THe Boxers on the other hand would follow through with a mere "raised eyebrow" as a negative incentive... SO I do think it does depend on the dog temprament/ breed....


I'm thinking that possibly you don't understand the scientific definition of negative reinforcement. If a child is given attention for negative behavior, that's still positive reinforcement, if A) the attention has been added to the situation and B) the child is more likely repeat that sort of behavior to receive attention again. It doesn't matter that we perceive that the consequence SHOULD be negative than it matters that the dog SHOULD want our treats when they are too stressed to eat. Negative in behavioral code only means something taken away, not something we should like or something we are not expected to like. However, zapping a dog until he responds to the recall would in fact be negative reinforcement.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

dogdragoness said:


> That's what im saying too, I dont dismiss reinforcement, I use it... But it doesn't work for every dog, just like traditional dont work for every dog. Im not talking about abuse BP stuff, just more traditional techniques.


How can reinforcement fail?

If the dog likes to work, then work is reinforcing for the dog. As such, the opportunity to do that work is the reinforcer.

So if you have a dog that needs to do X before getting to do his work - then using the chance to work after doing X is the reinforcer.

I think people who feel that reinforcement fails are using too narrow a definition of reinforcer (i.e. food only, or fun only). 

A reinforcer is anything that the dog likes. Work, food, fun, or the ending of something the dog doesn't like.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KodiBarracuda said:


> I am not making a mistake here, I understand that treats are not the only reward it was just easier than typing out every possible reward I have and it was just one example. When she is in working mode, she doesn't want to do anything but work (work as in behave, listen to me, respond to my commands, not work animals or any other kind of work you may be thinking of.)
> 
> And for everyone else, I
> 
> ...


If she doesn't want rewards when she is working with you A) she is too stressed to take food or play or B) her best reinforcer is your approval. Many dogs find owner praise to be highly rewarding if it is a predictor that they aren't in trouble.

As to hating offering behaviors, I know a lot of people consider a well behaved dog to be one who never does anything unless he's told to. I prefer a much more interactive relationship, and the most fun and best understood behaviors I get are ones that are built on what the dog volunteers. But shaping is an advanced skill. Without it, I wouldn't have any freestyle routines, as my dogs suggest much cooler moves than I come up with. That doesn't mean my dogs offer random behaviors when I give a cue. Because I've taught the cue. And I've often taught it with shaping or capturing.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

KodiBarracuda said:


> I on the other hand HATE it when dogs offer me behaviors, I don't want a bunch of behaviors, I want a "enter command here". I also don't have the treat in sight ever but as soon as Kodi knows I have one anywhere near or on me, he turns into a silly mush ball.


I use it, though I teach via shaping since it reached Wally so easily in the long run. 

I felt it "hardened" him because he didn't have to be scared to move for fear of an incoming punishment. It also puts less pressure on him. 

Part of that is offering behaviors - though if I'm aiming for a goal, I want the offerings aimed towards that goal. Most important, though, is that mindset. 

Wally gets like that with anything he finds rewarding. I could grab his black and white baseball he's suddenly got any affection for and he starts getting agitated and wound up. Again, I use that to my advantage too. I WANT him hyped up and super eager, barely able to control himself. I find he learns/remembers better that way.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

I personally don't think you need to use punishment to train any dog. If you were going to use punishment, yes some dogs probably need harsher punishment than others. But I don't see why management wouldn't work for every dog, so that it simply can't do bad behaviour and form bad habits, and then reinforce what you like and teach the dog what you want it to do, rather than what not to do.

I personally don't agree with ignoring bad behaviour, unless it's an attention seeking behaviour. Any behaviour the dog does will be self reinforcing, otherwise the dog wouldn't do it. I would stop the dog by calling it over, or preferably prevent it in the first place by preventing access to whatever I don't want them to touch, and/or leash the dog to me so I can keep an eye on it while training the behaviour I want instead.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

lil_fuzzy said:


> I personally don't agree with ignoring bad behaviour, unless it's an attention seeking behaviour. Any behaviour the dog does will be self reinforcing, otherwise the dog wouldn't do it.


If that were true, every behavior Wally offers during shaping would be rewarding - except when he doesn't get rewarded, he tries something else...to try to get a reward. So if the behavior he offers was self-rewarding, he'd just keep doing it because he's already rewarded just by doing it and we'd never get anywhere. Why would he need to change behavior if he gets his reward from the behavior he just did? My "no" signal during shaping? Ignoring/literally turning away from it...

The behavior is self-rewarding if the dog is rewarded by it. Otherwise, he's doing it in hopes of a reward/or something he wants, like to get let out or for you to start the game/play with him, etc (usually because it has a history of being rewarded in the past or is a result of a mini-extinction burst, like when you "hold out" during shaping).

But I could be wrong.

I also do think you need at least negative punishment. Calling the dog away could be negative punishment (you're withdrawing the dog from something he's enjoying). You may not need positive punishment/negative reinforcement - but you need some "no" signal, imo. Redirection, body blocking, removing the dog (pick him up/lead him away on leash) is all a "no" signal and removing the dog from what he was doing.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

iheartmarcus said:


> Ahhh, I am really not experienced enough to give a solid testimony on which method is better for what kind of dog. But just in terms of the philosophy behind the two, I do prefer positive reinforcement more even if both methods can produce equally well behaved dogs.
> 
> Although something I've been curious about is the use of things like the tree method or time outs. Do those count as aversives?? I've heard people say yes (this is more directed at time outs) because a time out is something they don't want and is a punishment that they'll work to avoid, thus is an aversive. But I've also heard people say no because you are simply removing something the dogs wants (being with the fam, ability to roam freely, your attention, etc.) and making them work for it and giving it to them as reinforcement when they do offer you the behavior you want (for not barking or being calm, I suppose?). So what do you guys think? I'm really rather curious on people's opinions on this.
> 
> Another question I have is, even though I prefer positive reinforcement (I really would ideally like to train by true clicker training where you only click for behaviors you want or lack of behaviors you don't want), but I often find myself in situations where the only thing I can think to do is say "ah-ah" followed by something not harmful but probably leans more on the aversive side? For example, I've been trying to train impulse control and stopping Marcus' developing habit of propping himself up on tables (doesn't matter if the table is puppy proof, he'll still prop himself up to check for food, toys, etc.). The method I'm following is Kikopup's video on teaching "leave it" and "stopping counter surfing". He's really good at not going for things during a training session, and will always look back at me instead of whatever food or toy I strategically placed on the floor, table, counter, etc (although I'm kind of suspicious of this now since he will look back and forth between the food and me as if he knows he will get a treat by looking away from the food instead of actually loosing interest in the food). But when he's just chilling around, he still will prop himself up onto all sorts of furniture despite the good behavior during training (during which I use high valued food reinforcers since he is hecka food motivated). When he does this, the only thing I can think of doing is to go "ah-ah, off" and then guide him down (gently though!) by the chest if he doesn't do it by himself. I really would rather not use this since it's no good if I'm not around when he does it, so what are things I should be doing during training (I do clicker training, fyi)?


Really and truly, I don't know very many clicker trainers who are skilled enough that they don't use at least a bit of negative punishment on occasion. Negative punishment is simply removing the opportunity for reinforcement. For instance, dog wants me to greet him, so he jumps up, I remove myself from the situation until he has stopped jumping (making the jumping likely to occur with less frequency) and then give a positive reinforcement (attention, possibly a cookie) for polite four on the floor or sit, making that behavior likely to occur with greater frequency. The difference between negative punishment and positive punishment/negative reinforcement is that with negative punishment you are simply making it clear to the dog that he won't get the consquence that he wants by the behavior he's performing, and then rewarding a better choice with positive reinforcement. With P+ and R- you are applying an aversive (something unpleasant enough the dog wants to avoid it) and removing the aversive if he does what you want. Sometimes one crosses into other quadrants, but in general, I don't want my dog having to look for ways to avoid unpleasantness in training because I don't want the dog associating me with situations worth avoiding, and I don't want him discovering HOW to avoid what I ask for in a life-or-death situation. And I don't want a dog who is too inhibited to be creative. I love creative dogs.

A lot of people who really don't understand positive reinforcement based training (what I call what I do, because it's not 100% R+) talk about "purely positive". Some people use the phrase to argue that people aren't (purely positive). Well, of course they aren't. And the other misconception is that positive reinforcement is permissive. It's not. It's goal is effective training to get consistent, reliable behaviors that work for our living situation. It's just a more pleasant and understandable way to get the dog to the behavior we want.

For getting more consistency in non-training situations? Make your training situations look less like training situations. Get the treats out of the picture by putting them where you can get to them, but the dog doesn't see them on you. Be subtle about your clicker. Work in short, impromtu sessions. Make life a training opportunity.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

KBLover said:


> If that were true, every behavior Wally offers during shaping would be rewarding - except when he doesn't get rewarded, he tries something else...to try to get a reward. So if the behavior he offers was self-rewarding, he'd just keep doing it because he's already rewarded just by doing it and we'd never get anywhere. Why would he need to change behavior if he gets his reward from the behavior he just did? My "no" signal during shaping? Ignoring/literally turning away from it...
> 
> The behavior is self-rewarding if the dog is rewarded by it. Otherwise, he's doing it in hopes of a reward/or something he wants, like to get let out or for you to start the game/play with him, etc (usually because it has a history of being rewarded in the past or is a result of a mini-extinction burst, like when you "hold out" during shaping).
> 
> ...


I wasn't talking about shaping at all. I was talking about bad behaviour around the house, like chewing things. Chewing is self rewarding, so ignoring it won't work. You need to prevent the dog from chewing in the first place.

And I was talking about positive punishment, as the thread is about CM-methods. Of course you'd need to use negative punishment, you couldn't train a dog without it, it would be impossible.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> Really and truly, I don't know very many clicker trainers who are skilled enough that they don't use at least a bit of negative punishment on occasion.


It wouldn't just be "on occasion". It is impossible to train a dog without negative punishment (except in the very early stages of capturing a behaviour), because if you don't withhold an expected reward, you'd have to reward the dog every time he offers anything and expects a reward for what he offered. The only way to progress is training is to withhold rewards on a regular basis, during shaping you withhold to get the dog to offer more or with more intensity. Once the behaviour is learned, you only reward the best attempts. If you've taught the dog to sit, but the goal is to get the dog to sit straight, you'd only reward the straightest sits. The dog would expect a reward every time he sits, so every time he doesn't sit as straight as you would like, you withhold the reward.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

lil_fuzzy said:


> It wouldn't just be "on occasion". It is impossible to train a dog without negative punishment (except in the very early stages of capturing a behaviour), because if you don't withhold an expected reward, you'd have to reward the dog every time he offers anything and expects a reward for what he offered. The only way to progress is training is to withhold rewards on a regular basis, during shaping you withhold to get the dog to offer more or with more intensity. Once the behaviour is learned, you only reward the best attempts. If you've taught the dog to sit, but the goal is to get the dog to sit straight, you'd only reward the straightest sits. The dog would expect a reward every time he sits, so every time he doesn't sit as straight as you would like, you withhold the reward.


I know this is an oft-discussed subject among trainers. I'm not sure that simply *not* reinforcing always amounts to negative punishment. For instance, in the shaping stage, if I withhold a click, I'm not trying to get the dog to offer less of the behavior - I'm trying to get him to make the behavior bigger. When I am weaning the dog off the click and treat on a behavior that is on cue, I'm not trying to get less of the behavior, I'm just putting it on a different schedule - differential, some variety of variable - and hopefully making the behavior MORE durable, not less. If I am effectively punishing the behavior, I'm decreasing the intensity/frequency/likelihood of that behavior. That wouldn't be my goal, and if I am doing so, I've got some problems with my training technique.


----------



## iheartmarcus (Jul 27, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Really and truly, I don't know very many clicker trainers who are skilled enough that they don't use at least a bit of negative punishment on occasion. Negative punishment is simply removing the opportunity for reinforcement. For instance, dog wants me to greet him, so he jumps up, I remove myself from the situation until he has stopped jumping (making the jumping likely to occur with less frequency) and then give a positive reinforcement (attention, possibly a cookie) for polite four on the floor or sit, making that behavior likely to occur with greater frequency. The difference between negative punishment and positive punishment/negative reinforcement is that with negative punishment you are simply making it clear to the dog that he won't get the consquence that he wants by the behavior he's performing, and then rewarding a better choice with positive reinforcement. With P+ and R- you are applying an aversive (something unpleasant enough the dog wants to avoid it) and removing the aversive if he does what you want. Sometimes one crosses into other quadrants, but in general, I don't want my dog having to look for ways to avoid unpleasantness in training because I don't want the dog associating me with situations worth avoiding, and I don't want him discovering HOW to avoid what I ask for in a life-or-death situation. And I don't want a dog who is too inhibited to be creative. I love creative dogs.
> 
> A lot of people who really don't understand positive reinforcement based training (what I call what I do, because it's not 100% R+) talk about "purely positive". Some people use the phrase to argue that people aren't (purely positive). Well, of course they aren't. And the other misconception is that positive reinforcement is permissive. It's not. It's goal is effective training to get consistent, reliable behaviors that work for our living situation. It's just a more pleasant and understandable way to get the dog to the behavior we want.


That's quite interesting. I've read so many people's comments on different forums or heard different vets or dog owners who say to never use punishments in response to someone saying they use time outs. But that always confused me since a time out seems to work under the same principles as being a tree, yet that's not considered a punishment. It seems like people tend to only think P+ or R- when they think punishment. Good to know the difference!





Pawzk9 said:


> Get the treats out of the picture by putting them where you can get to them, but the dog doesn't see them on you. Be subtle about your clicker.


Would it be ok if the treats are placed, say, somewhere near but not on me? I have a lot of clothes that don't have pockets so I end up having to use a treat pouch, which is, uh, not exactly what you'd call subtle. I've read clicker training books where they suggest giving the treat RIGHT after a click. But others say it's ok to delay a little as long as the dog knows you're on your way to get the treat, or you can toss it out so the treat can act as a resetting tool as well. What's your preference / experience with this?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

lil_fuzzy said:


> I wasn't talking about shaping at all. I was talking about bad behaviour around the house, like chewing things. Chewing is self rewarding, so ignoring it won't work. You need to prevent the dog from chewing in the first place.


Or it could be a way to get attention, which is what the dog is aiming for. 

Or take jumping up, which is often considered "bad". 

Chewing, no, ignoring won't work. Barking, it might, depends on why the dog is barking. Jumping, it might. "Bothering you" (poking, pawing, etc, trying to get your attention), it might.

Depends on the behavior and the motive behind it, imo.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

iheartmarcus said:


> Would it be ok if the treats are placed, say, somewhere near but not on me? I have a lot of clothes that don't have pockets so I end up having to use a treat pouch, which is, uh, not exactly what you'd call subtle. I've read clicker training books where they suggest giving the treat RIGHT after a click. But others say it's ok to delay a little as long as the dog knows you're on your way to get the treat, or you can toss it out so the treat can act as a resetting tool as well. What's your preference / experience with this?



I generally have a package of treats on a shelf, counter, near where I am working with the dog. Treat pouches are a big giveaway that it's training time to an experienced dog. The more novice the dog the faster you need to deliver the treat. You can also "bridge" to the treat if you are in a bind. Mark and then while you are headed for the treat, carry on a conversation about how wonderful he is and what a wonderful cookie he is getting ready to get.
Sometimes that is more exciting than simply handing him a treat.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> I know this is an oft-discussed subject among trainers. I'm not sure that simply *not* reinforcing always amounts to negative punishment. For instance, in the shaping stage, if I withhold a click, I'm not trying to get the dog to offer less of the behavior - I'm trying to get him to make the behavior bigger. When I am weaning the dog off the click and treat on a behavior that is on cue, I'm not trying to get less of the behavior, I'm just putting it on a different schedule - differential, some variety of variable - and hopefully making the behavior MORE durable, not less. If I am effectively punishing the behavior, I'm decreasing the intensity/frequency/likelihood of that behavior. That wouldn't be my goal, and if I am doing so, I've got some problems with my training technique.


Hmmm, this is an interesting point. They always say that withholding an expected reward is P-, but when shaping, you are right, you're not trying to weaken a behaviour, so technically you are not punishing the dog. Unless you say that you punish the weaker behaviour in order to get the dog to offer a stronger behaviour? Or, maybe this is technically R-, because withholding is the negative, and it strengthens behaviour. I think I would be inclined to say the latter, it's R-.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

lil_fuzzy said:


> Hmmm, this is an interesting point. They always say that withholding an expected reward is P-, but when shaping, you are right, you're not trying to weaken a behaviour, so technically you are not punishing the dog. Unless you say that you punish the weaker behaviour in order to get the dog to offer a stronger behaviour? Or, maybe this is technically R-, because withholding is the negative, and it strengthens behaviour. I think I would be inclined to say the latter, it's R-.


I suppose you could consider frustration an aversive that you remove when the dog offers more or better. But I do think that may be over-thinking it. My dogs have learned through the process that if they aren't getting the reinforcement they expect to either offer more or offer something else. Something else is likely to be something similar. But, I think they enjoy the problem solving process. Sometimes Alice will leave her treats on the floor until she's solved the problem, THEN go back and eat them. The information is more important than the treat, but she knows the treat has been offered. They understand how to go the "next step" through experience, and seem to enjoy it. And I think it is still part of positive reinforcement, because that is what they are working towards. If they get so confused or frustrated that they stop trying, that's my fault. Either I didn't notice that the dog really wasn't in the game, or I lumped. I suspect that pushing the dog to the next step, done correctly, has more to do with the seeking system than with the four quadarants, but isn't in any way incompatible.


----------



## Candydb (Jul 16, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> I'm thinking that possibly you don't understand the scientific definition of negative reinforcement. If a child is given attention for negative behavior, that's still positive reinforcement, if A) the attention has been added to the situation and B) the child is more likely repeat that sort of behavior to receive attention again. It doesn't matter that we perceive that the consequence SHOULD be negative than it matters that the dog SHOULD want our treats when they are too stressed to eat. Negative in behavioral code only means something taken away, not something we should like or something we are not expected to like. However, zapping a dog until he responds to the recall would in fact be negative reinforcement.


 Yes I am aware that "zapping " the dog is negative reinforcement which is why I mentioned it. I have mentioned my ethical dilema around the "zapper" in previous posts and do not use the e-collar lightly(I treat-- toys as well as food-- and use positives but for life and death like the recall I have the e collar as Backup) ..... The mention of children was more about what I have observed around negative attention seeking behavior (and since I just looked this up we do use negative reinforcement in the work that we do to get desired behaviors with the tykes as well-- it was a very weird example I found online about using good manners to avoid setting the table... but am drifting..offtopic)....
Back to topic--the trainer we went to (our first private trainer after years and years and years of class sessions with the clicker and "treats") did also incorporate a "Touch" to distract the dog, negatively, away from behaviors, but I never took that on...
Just the ecollar, as backup.... for NOT recalling (and lots of praise for following through ) of course....


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

The minus doesn't have to be "aversive", it can be anything that strengthens behaviour. If withholding the treat strengthens the behaviour, and the withholding goes away once the dog has offered it, it's technically R-.

Withholding to get more = R-, giving the treat once the dog offers more = R+.

I shape every new trick and behaviour, and my dogs love the game, their tails wag the whole time and when I say we're gonna do some training they get excited.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Candydb said:


> Yes I am aware that "zapping " the dog is negative reinforcement which is why I mentioned it. I have mentioned my ethical dilema around the "zapper" in previous posts and do not use the e-collar lightly(I treat-- toys as well as food-- and use positives but for life and death like the recall I have the e collar as Backup) ..... The mention of children was more about what I have observed around negative attention seeking behavior (and since I just looked this up we do use negative reinforcement in the work that we do to get desired behaviors with the tykes as well-- it was a very weird example I found online about using good manners to avoid setting the table... but am drifting..offtopic)....
> Back to topic--the trainer we went to (our first private trainer after years and years and years of class sessions with the clicker and "treats") did also incorporate a "Touch" to distract the dog, negatively, away from behaviors, but I never took that on...
> Just the ecollar, as backup.... for NOT recalling (and lots of praise for following through ) of course....


"zapping" a dog with a e-collar, in the sense that you are trying to shock him when he doesn't listen, is Positive Punishment not Negative Reinforcement.

There are ways to use a e-collar -R style but "zapping" the dog is not it.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> *I generally have a package of treats on a shelf, counter, near where I am working with the dog.* Treat pouches are a big giveaway that it's training time to an experienced dog. The more novice the dog the faster you need to deliver the treat. You can also "bridge" to the treat if you are in a bind. Mark and then while you are headed for the treat, carry on a conversation about how wonderful he is and what a wonderful cookie he is getting ready to get.
> Sometimes that is more exciting than simply handing him a treat.


Trying to get one of my dogs a little bit more ring ready, I started leaving the treats off me (like you mentioned in your bolded post). I went from asking for behaviors already known and reinforcing very infrequently (with food on me), to asking for those behaviors and reinforcing VERY frequently (with the food on the counter). It's basically become a neon sign to my dog that "if there's food in her hand, it's going to be hard to earn it", vs. "if there's no food in sight, the likelihood of GETTING some food is much higher". It's kind of bass-ackwards (as to what most people think of when using food), but it's really working out well. 
And for the working mode comment, I rarely use food in agility anymore except at the end of a sequence. The next obstacle is the reward for the previous one, and the first jump is the reward for a good startline wait. I recently had one of my dogs turn his heeling from bright and cheery to slow, sniffy, etc. Food was nice to him, but using the agility tunnel for a single step of GOOD heeling sped him right up. In that case, it was click and tunnel. Two of my dogs enjoy a good chase game, so last night the reward for work was "GO, GET HIM!" and I allowed the working dog to blast off and chase down the other and they had a good romp. Being creative can make training a lot more fun, and a lot more durable when looking long term


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Candydb said:


> The mention of children was more about what I have observed around negative attention seeking behavior (and since I just looked this up we do use negative reinforcement in the work that we do to get desired behaviors with the tykes as well-- it was a very weird example I found online about using good manners to avoid setting the table... but am drifting..offtopic)....
> ...


Being somewhat of a behavior geek, I was pointing out that children soliciting negative attention has nothing to do with negative reinforcement. I also don't think that holding threats (or bribes) over one's head is a good use of operant conditioning. While it may make the behavior more or less likely to occur *in this moment* it's not likely to change behavior over time - and we're not just interested in this one instance, but in an over-time change in the frequency of behavior. (at least that is my take on it.) And of course, some children probably don't mind setting the table. I always thought it was a priviledge. And, of course if we want children to be able to learn to set tables (might be useful in the future) it's not wise to poison that behavior by making it a punishment. Also, if we threaten or use an aversive on our dog, and we have to keep using it with the same frequency, it's not punishment (or reinforcement) as it doesn't have any long term effect on the behavior. Is the dog you use the ecollar on the one who won't take treats when she is working?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> I suppose you could consider frustration an aversive that you remove when the dog offers more or better. But I do think that may be over-thinking it. My dogs have learned through the process that if they aren't getting the reinforcement they expect to either offer more or offer something else. Something else is likely to be something similar. But, I think they enjoy the problem solving process. Sometimes Alice will leave her treats on the floor until she's solved the problem, THEN go back and eat them. The information is more important than the treat, but she knows the treat has been offered. They understand how to go the "next step" through experience, and seem to enjoy it. And I think it is still part of positive reinforcement, because that is what they are working towards. If they get so confused or frustrated that they stop trying, that's my fault. Either I didn't notice that the dog really wasn't in the game, or I lumped. I suspect that pushing the dog to the next step, done correctly, has more to do with the seeking system than with the four quadarants, but isn't in any way incompatible.



Hmm...it may depend on the dog's viewpoint here. If they enjoy the actual process, then it's all rewarding and the "treat" is just feedback they are on the right track with what they are trying. I would say that's all positive reinforcement. That is what it sounds like with Alice. Removing this type of dog from engaging in the process would be the punishment side (-P) or perhaps an "abstract" aversive (-R, the dog has to do something to get back into the process which is what the dog wants).

For the dog where the puzzle is in the way of the "treat", then lil_fuzzy has an interesting point. The puzzle itself isn't rewarding, but it's a necessary step to getting what they really want. For example, when I was teaching Wally to push the door closed - was that rewarding to him, or was it a necessity to get the mark/reward? When I don't reward and he SLAMS the door because he's like "give me reward, I'm DOING it, damn!" then that might be an exercise in -R. The slamming the door gets the reward, ending the state of not getting what he wants. It's kind of like an "abstract" e-collar and the behavior is an abstract concept (push harder) instead of physical (sit).

It might be overthinking on the human side, but if it gives more insight on the process and how dogs enter, think about, and are rewarded from it, it's worth it.

It's an interesting line of thought if nothing else, and it could very well be correct if looking at the dog's point of view with some dogs.

I do think the dog can still enjoy the overall process because of the end rewards they get. Plus, the "abstract aversive" doesn't induce any defensive or withdrawing type behaviors. If anything it pushes drive forward, energizing him. It's probably a very compmlex thing as to how/why shaping works. There's probably some pieces of a lot of things going on, which may be why shaped behaviors can be so strong.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> And for the working mode comment, I rarely use food in agility anymore except at the end of a sequence. The next obstacle is the reward for the previous one, and the first jump is the reward for a good startline wait. I recently had one of my dogs turn his heeling from bright and cheery to slow, sniffy, etc. Food was nice to him, but using the agility tunnel for a single step of GOOD heeling sped him right up. In that case, it was click and tunnel. Two of my dogs enjoy a good chase game, so last night the reward for work was "GO, GET HIM!" and I allowed the working dog to blast off and chase down the other and they had a good romp. Being creative can make training a lot more fun, and a lot more durable when looking long term


That's the pure magic of clicker training. When you pair the behavior with a reinforcer often enough, the behavior itself becomes the reinforcer. They associate the cue with good things, and even without a treat every time, that association remains. And . . . Premack rocks!


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Being somewhat of a behavior geek, I was pointing out that children soliciting negative attention has nothing to do with negative reinforcement.


If anything, you might could call it positive reinforcement from a behavioral standpoint. The action of the child was performed with the motive of getting attention. The behavior gained that attention, the child might be more likely to perform similar behaviors in the future, just for attention.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

lil_fuzzy said:


> The minus doesn't have to be "aversive", it can be anything that strengthens behaviour. If withholding the treat strengthens the behaviour, and the withholding goes away once the dog has offered it, it's technically R-.
> 
> Withholding to get more = R-, giving the treat once the dog offers more = R+.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

RBark said:


> "zapping" a dog with a e-collar, in the sense that you are trying to shock him when he doesn't listen, is Positive Punishment not Negative Reinforcement.
> 
> There are ways to use a e-collar -R style but "zapping" the dog is not it.


You mean electricity isn't used at the lower levels? I consider any use of electricity in training to be zapping. It's not a technical term, though.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KBLover said:


> For the dog where the puzzle is in the way of the "treat", then lil_fuzzy has an interesting point. The puzzle itself isn't rewarding, but it's a necessary step to getting what they really want. For example, when I was teaching Wally to push the door closed - was that rewarding to him, or was it a necessity to get the mark/reward? When I don't reward and he SLAMS the door because he's like "give me reward, I'm DOING it, damn!" then that might be an exercise in -R. The slamming the door gets the reward, ending the state of not getting what he wants. It's kind of like an "abstract" e-collar and the behavior is an abstract concept (push harder) instead of physical (sit).
> 
> It might be overthinking on the human side, but if it gives more insight on the process and how dogs enter, think about, and are rewarded from it, it's worth it.
> 
> ...


If one is careful about how they raise criteria, I think the dog understands that if they don't get reinforced for one thing, they need to keep puzzle solving. So I think it is just another step in the R+ game, even if it involves a bit of frustration. The dog is STILL working towards the R+ goal. If one is not careful about how they raise criteria, it is possible to make the withholding of the reinforcer become P- as a dog who doesn't understand how to play the game and that they are still working towards a reward may quit. That would be very bad technique though. And again, I think this part of the process is more Panksepp than OC.



KBLover said:


> If anything, you might could call it positive reinforcement from a behavioral standpoint. The action of the child was performed with the motive of getting attention. The behavior gained that attention, the child might be more likely to perform similar behaviors in the future, just for attention.


That's exactly how I'd interpret it.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> I know this is an oft-discussed subject among trainers. I'm not sure that simply *not* reinforcing always amounts to negative punishment. For instance, in the shaping stage, if I withhold a click, I'm not trying to get the dog to offer less of the behavior - I'm trying to get him to make the behavior bigger.


Very technically, it's probably extinction - "riding the extinction bursts" (Bailey?). In in the boots on the ground, actual training of dogs, quadrant analysis isn't that helpful.

A lot of electrons are inconvenienced in arguing about what quadrant something is, and while talking theory and analysing is fun and all (and you all KNOW I love me some theoretical discussions), I don't think it's really helpful, and you shouldn't stop using something just because it falls into a "bad" quadrant (there are no "bad" quadrants, there is nothing inherently wrong about P+ or R- by the definition of operant conditioning). Look at the dog. 

First of all, are you training the dog? Are the consequences you are using changing future behavior, or just addressing the behavior in the moment (ex, pulling the treat out when the dog doesn't sit the first time, using a tight leash to bounce the dog back into heel position, clapping sharply to stop a dog from peeing midstream)?

If you are training, are you using pain or fear to enforce compliance? Not only is this mean (and possibly crossing into abuse, or at least opening the door to escalating force) if often creates a dog that only obeys when the handler is present, or able to enforce the response. When the leash comes off, the dog wants nothing to do with the trainer.

EDIT: IME, there are two main camps of dog training: R+ and R-. Behavior comes from reinforcement, so if you want a dog to do things, you must use reinforcement. R- in the most standardized form is called escape/avoidance training. The dog escapes pressure by compliance, and later can avoid pressure all together by compliance. R+ in the most standardized form is marker training. "Pure" training, whether pure positive or pure negative, is largely theoretical. There is a spectrum from one extreme to the other. 

Question: Is training more effective, clear, consistent, and fair the closer to the middle you are, or the closer to either extreme? I am leaning towards the extremes, because that is more consistent for the dog (as opposed to sometimes I do this, and I get a treat, but sometimes I do that and I get a correction), but if anyone thinks it's better in the middle, I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning.

The more I think on it, the more I can understand having P+/R- tools in your toolbox. Are they appropriate for most dog training (heel, fetch, weave, etc)? I think not. There are many reasons that teaching new behaviors is better done with R+ and I'm sure you all know them. But I think there may be a role for them in manners training. I don't think that conveys what I want it to, I'm talking about how the dog is while not under command/working, just laying around the house. Things like, we don't jump on people when they come to the door, or bite them either.



lil_fuzzy said:


> But I don't see why management wouldn't work for every dog, so that it simply can't do bad behaviour and form bad habits, and then reinforce what you like and teach the dog what you want it to do, rather than what not to do.


Because management always fails. 

And what do you do with the three year old dog that hasn't had any formal training and been largely unmanaged and formed a lot of bad habits? I suppose you could teach incompatible behaviors and reinforce those and let the bad habits extinguish, but that will require a ton of management (because if it's reinforced even ONCE it's going to be a hundred times more resistant to extinguishing) and the definition of operant conditioning tells us that punishment would speed along the process. In conjunction with reinforcement, it should work like DON'T do _that_, DO _this_. Instead of just DO this.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> You mean electricity isn't used at the lower levels? I consider any use of electricity in training to be zapping. It's not a technical term, though.


Uh I don't even know if you have a point or if you just were looking for someone to jump on so that you could stroke your anti-ecollar bias. I mean I don't even need to argue with you here, you defeated your own point in the same post with a "its not a technical term though." So you basically assumed what my definiton of zapping was, pointed out the inconsistency of my argument based on your imagination's percepion of my stane, and attempted to debunk your own imagination.

In other words, what you have here is a breakdown in communication.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

RBark said:


> Uh I don't even know if you have a point or if you just were looking for someone to jump on so that you could stroke your anti-ecollar bias. I mean I don't even need to argue with you here, you defeated your own point in the same post with a "its not a technical term though." So you basically assumed what my definiton of zapping was, pointed out the inconsistency of my argument based on your imagination's percepion of my stane, and attempted to debunk your own imagination.
> 
> In other words, what you have here is a breakdown in communication.


No need to get your knickers in a knot RBark. I'm not jumping on you, and I readily admit a bias against choosing to shock your dog in order to train it. I did not assume anything about your definition of "zapping" but mine involves delivering some level of electricty. If that's not what the ecollars you are familiar with do, then I heartily apologize for my imagination's perception of your stane (what?)


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> No need to get your knickers in a knot RBark. I'm not jumping on you, and I readily admit a bias against choosing to shock your dog in order to train it. I did not assume anything about your definition of "zapping" but mine involves delivering some level of electricty. If that's not what the ecollars you are familiar with do, then I heartily apologize for my imagination's perception of your stane (what?)


Where in my post did I say low levels did not deliver electricity? You said "you mean low levels don't deliver electricity?" Then imagined my answer and countered that imagination.

Next time, end your post at your question to give me an opportunity to answer it before you let your imagination get the best of you and imply I believe anything but.

Most people's definition of zapping is the act of hitting the ecollar to give the dog a short shock.

With tha excessively obvious definition, it should be obvious how "zapping" would be +P and nhw -R would not be zapping. If you want me to use more technical terms to clarify,feel free to do the polite thing and request clarification before you get carried away.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> No need to get your knickers in a knot RBark. I'm not jumping on you, and I readily admit a bias against choosing to shock your dog in order to train it. I did not assume anything about your definition of "zapping" but mine involves delivering some level of electricty. If that's not what the ecollars you are familiar with do, then I heartily apologize for my imagination's perception of your stane (what?)


I always preferred the term fryin-em, but that's just me.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

RaeganW said:


> Very technically, it's probably extinction - "riding the extinction bursts" (Bailey?). In in the boots on the ground, actual training of dogs, quadrant analysis isn't that helpful.
> .


Might be, the first time. After a while, I think the animal just understands that trying different/trying harder is part of the game. I agree that trying to fit all things neatly into the quadrants can be pretty tricky and overall, not terribly useful all the time. I'm a big believer in understanding operant conditioning, but I think there may always be other things in the mix. (Pavlov is always on your shoulder. I'm thinking maybe Panksepp is, too)



wvasko said:


> I always preferred the term fryin-em, but that's just me.


Works for me!


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

If it diminishes the frequency of a behaviour it is punishment, if it increases the frequency of a behaviour it is reinforcement. 
Pretty simple. 
I am a positive trainer, or at least consider myself one, but I do use negative punishment and very occasionally negative reinforcement. I avoid positive punishment (applied aversives) as much as I can. I also use body blocking without any guilt, depending on the dog. Not the breed, the dog.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Not the breed, *the dog*


Out of the darkness comes a beam of light.

Where you been?


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I like my dogs to to perform day today tasks without having to be told to do so, routine tasks. Thus is that nature of the cattle dog & any working dogs resume to do so. As for offering behaviors during training or, in my case in "real world" situations where I do most of my training offering behaviors would be not only annoying, but a waste of our time. I like a dog who waits by my side or laying down somewhere, at beckoning call.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

dogdragoness said:


> I like my dogs to to perform day today tasks without having to be told to do so, routine tasks. Thus is that nature of the cattle dog & any working dogs resume to do so. *As for offering behaviors during training or, in my case in "real world" situations where I do most of my training offering behaviors would be not only annoying, but a waste of our time.* I like a dog who waits by my side or laying down somewhere, at beckoning call.


A clicker savvy dog does not suddenly stop heeling and start cycling through every behavior in his repertoire in the middle of the ring. The answer is stimulus control.

1. Do the behavior I ask for when I as ask for it
2. Don't do it when I don't ask for it
3. Don't do behavior A in response to cue B
4. Don't do behavior B in response to cue A


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Would not a real life everyday working dog be totally different than a dog in "in the ring" I think there is no comparison between the two.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

RaeganW said:


> A clicker savvy dog does not suddenly stop heeling and start cycling through every behavior in his repertoire in the middle of the ring. The answer is stimulus control.
> 
> 1. Do the behavior I ask for when I as ask for it
> 2. Don't do it when I don't ask for it
> ...


Ya, the only time they should be offering behaviors is during the shaping process. If they are offering behaviors during the inappropriate times then that's a training issue, not a method issue.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

Im basically a Caveman..and so are my dogs...
They only understand one to three word commands ....and thats all Im capable of giving them..
So far .So Good..


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

wvasko said:


> Would not a real life everyday working dog be totally different than a dog in "in the ring" I think there is no comparison between the two.


It doesn't make a difference in this instance. If you have cued a behavior, and the dog stops doing that and starts throwing behaviors at you, something has gone amiss in your training. Really, this is not a problem that clicker trainers routinely face. It is a problem non-clicker trainers think will happen. 

Non ring example: Let's say you're heeling your pointer through the field while hunting. If the dog suddenly stops heeling and offers you a roll over, a beg, a handstand, etc, that is a stimulus control problem. If the dog suddenly stops heeling to chase down the quail you almost stepped on, that's a proofing problem.

When I sit down to shape my dogs, I don't say anything, I just start clicking stuff. If I cue something, I don't click things that are not what I asked for (and usually by the time I'm asking for it, I'm not clicking it). The dogs know the difference. I shape almost exclusively in my living room or other low distraction, highly familiar space. I TRAIN anywhere but.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> I like my dogs to to perform day today tasks without having to be told to do so, routine tasks. Thus is that nature of the cattle dog & any working dogs resume to do so. As for offering behaviors during training or, in my case in "real world" situations where I do most of my training offering behaviors would be not only annoying, but a waste of our time. I like a dog who waits by my side or laying down somewhere, at beckoning call.


Odd, when I ask my dog to do something I've taught them, they only offer what I asked for. Offering behaviors is a game that gets us to that point of having something (sometimes something spectacularly complicated or difficult to teach by helping my dog or showing my dog) to name. I don't think you actually understand how that process works.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Would not a real life everyday working dog be totally different than a dog in "in the ring" I think there is no comparison between the two.


Doing what, precisely?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Ok, but the term "in the ring" means it's man made club oriented program that would be a total different program than a dog going out to move cows/sheep from one pasture to another or possibly moving cows to the barn at milking time twice a day. Need some opinions/info from people who are out daily with working chore dogs. Just curious.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Ok, but the term "in the ring" means it's man made club oriented program that would be a total different program than a dog going out to move cows/sheep from one pasture to another or possibly moving cows to the barn at milking time twice a day. Need some opinions/info from people who are out daily with working chore dogs. Just curious.


Never heard it referred to as "in the ring" for things like herding or field work - more like in the arena or in the field. (Ring, I'm thinking conformation/obedience/that sort of stuff.) I'm a city girl and my only real experience with working livestock came in training or in trialing. But I know many people who work their dogs for a living AND trial. Generally what I hear is that doing chores is much easier than trialing. The dog knows the drill and the stock, the stock knows the drill and the dog, and once the routine is established, the human doesn't have to give a lot of direction unless something special needs to be done. On the other hand, a strange dog trying to get a small number of sheep/ducks/cattle (safety in numbers - 50 sheep are less flighty than 3) through a man-made course that makes no sense in terms of real life to the dog requires a lot of direction and finesse, unless the dog knows the course very well or the livestock is incredibly course broke. Add to that the fact that even with a limited number of runs per day, the livestock is usually in a strange location (stressful) and being worked by several dogs they don't know.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

wvasko said:


> Ok, but the term "in the ring" means it's man made club oriented program that would be a total different program than a dog going out to move cows/sheep from one pasture to another or possibly moving cows to the barn at milking time twice a day. Need some opinions/info from people who are out daily with working chore dogs. Just curious.


I agree that there is a difference, but in this instance, the venue is not a relevant detail. I would conjecture that offering behaviors inappropriately is even less of a problem in the pasture than the ring. Based on what I have read for free on the internet, when the same dog moves the same livestock along the same path at the same time day in and day out, everyone's sort of on autopilot. I don't mean that in a bad way, but it's a well rehearsed pattern. Like when I drive home from work, I don't have to think "turn left at the next stop light, then right at the third street over the hill" I just drive home.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well now we need somebody who actually works dogs to dive in. I do believe showing a dog in anything is harder because it's man made with each judges view/opinion on what they think is proper within the accepted standard. I'm not sure that working dogs have such an easy life though


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

RaeganW said:


> Based on what I have read for free on the internet, when the same dog moves the same livestock along the same path at the same time day in and day out, everyone's sort of on autopilot. I don't mean that in a bad way, but it's a well rehearsed pattern. Like when I drive home from work, I don't have to think "turn left at the next stop light, then right at the third street over the hill" I just drive home.


Intersesting theory...


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

RaeganW said:


> Based on what I have read for free on the internet, when the same dog moves the same livestock along the same path at the same time day in and day out, everyone's sort of on autopilot. I don't mean that in a bad way, but it's a well rehearsed pattern. Like when I drive home from work, I don't have to think "turn left at the next stop light, then right at the third street over the hill" I just drive home.


I wonder if this works for dogs...

I am constantly told on here that dogs don't understand when they are doing something "wrong" and while I have an argument for this, this is neither the place nor the time. 
But IF dogs don't understand wrong and right (not morally, but its wrong to chew socks and right to go potty outside) then how can they have complex thoughts "I have to get these sheep to this barn when my owner goes outside in the morning, and I have to do it by "enter technique here" " and "that sheep is escaping I must round it up with the others" and even yet, have the ability to do these complex thoughts enough that they can do them on "auto pilot" 

Not argueing anything today , just curious. I am not (I repeat NOT) trying to make an argument that dogs understand wrong and right but only trying to understand that if that is the case, is it possible that they can go into auto pilot...


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

What we know of the mind of a dog (since we can't read it) is that they recognize patterns in the environment. They perform complex behaviors by following a pattern they are familiar with, not by a human-style abstract thought process. That's why dogs are extremely good at routine behaviors and why they follow a set routine during the day.

It is why they do not know right from wrong. They know the pattern of not chewing socks leads up to (positive or avoidance), they avoid pottying inside because the pattern in which they attempt to do so leads to negative things, or in which they go outside leads to positive things. They read those patterns and follow them based on momentary emotions and environmental cues.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

True even trials are "organized" in a way IMO. I work in a real everyday work environment, NOT a competition ring, NOT a sanctioned trial (tho I have competed in the latter also). The worst thing that can happen in a ring is the dog or the handler flubs up, oh well, something to work on, go home & try again. In the real world in a REAL environment where the dog is REALLY doing whatever they were bred to do... OR what they were BORN to do ... Whatever that is (a working dog doesn't have to be a pure bred lol) there are variables that you can't control, unlike a ring or trial where everything is "rigged" so to speak.


----------



## Candydb (Jul 16, 2011)

RBark said:


> "zapping" a dog with a e-collar, in the sense that you are trying to shock him when he doesn't listen, is Positive Punishment not Negative Reinforcement.
> 
> There are ways to use a e-collar -R style but "zapping" the dog is not it.


Zapping was not my term, and actually I felt it was sarcastic reference to the use of e collars. I was actually somewhat offended by it. I suppose I was being sarcastic back to the Poster who used it....
As I said I thought long and hard before using this method, in conjunction with training and under consultation with a Private Trainer, and it was/is in no way and easy way out for me.... And I use only for recall. If not followed.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Well now we need somebody who actually works dogs to dive in. I do believe showing a dog in anything is harder because it's man made with each judges view/opinion on what they think is proper within the accepted standard. I'm not sure that working dogs have such an easy life though


Well, maybe then you need someone who works dogs in real life AND trials them, in order to contrast the differences.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> I don't think so. R- is paired with P+, and generally involves removing something the dog finds worth avoiding when the learner offers the behavior. The aversive doesn't need to be severe - for instance, a bit of social pressure can still be a R-. Withholding is not the same thing as removing. In R- you have to first apply the aversive in order to be able to remove it when the behavior is offered.


The aversive is that the dog didn't get a treat that he expected. He offered the behaviour you rewarded the previous 5 times, and got nothing. That would be mildly aversive wouldn't it? Enough so that the dog keeps trying to earn the reward by offering the same behaviour with more intensity, and then gets rewarded. The aversive goes away, because you are no longer withholding the expected reward, and the behaviour was strengthened. If a behaviour is strengthened, you must be using reinforcement.

And I guess technically you are also using extinction, as mentioned by someone else, but you are not only using extinction, because then the behaviour would go away, not be strengthened.

R- doesn't HAVE to be paired with P+, even though it is a lot of the time. Just like R+ doesn't have to be paired with P-. When capturing a behaviour, you are using only R+.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KodiBarracuda said:


> I wonder if this works for dogs...
> 
> I am constantly told on here that dogs don't understand when they are doing something "wrong" and while I have an argument for this, this is neither the place nor the time.
> But IF dogs don't understand wrong and right (not morally, but its wrong to chew socks and right to go potty outside) then how can they have complex thoughts "I have to get these sheep to this barn when my owner goes outside in the morning, and I have to do it by "enter technique here" " and "that sheep is escaping I must round it up with the others" and even yet, have the ability to do these complex thoughts enough that they can do them on "auto pilot"
> ...


Have you ever heard of instinct and training? Animals may not understand the fine moral judgements we humans put on stuff. But they understand a "job." They also learn what works and are more likely to do what works that what doesn't. That's the basic premise behind training. And it's also a basic law of survival. You don't think dogs (and other animals) can learn a routine?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> True even trials are "organized" in a way IMO. I work in a real everyday work environment, NOT a competition ring, NOT a sanctioned trial (tho I have competed in the latter also). The worst thing that can happen in a ring is the dog or the handler flubs up, oh well, something to work on, go home & try again. In the real world in a REAL environment where the dog is REALLY doing whatever they were bred to do... OR what they were BORN to do ... Whatever that is (a working dog doesn't have to be a pure bred lol) there are variables that you can't control, unlike a ring or trial where everything is "rigged" so to speak.


LOL, I'd like to see someone try to "rig" cattle. . .OR ducks!


----------



## Candydb (Jul 16, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Being somewhat of a behavior geek, I was pointing out that children soliciting negative attention has nothing to do with negative reinforcement. I also don't think that holding threats (or bribes) over one's head is a good use of operant conditioning. While it may make the behavior more or less likely to occur *in this moment* it's not likely to change behavior over time - and we're not just interested in this one instance, but in an over-time change in the frequency of behavior. (at least that is my take on it.) And of course, some children probably don't mind setting the table. I always thought it was a priviledge. And, of course if we want children to be able to learn to set tables (might be useful in the future) it's not wise to poison that behavior by making it a punishment. Also, if we threaten or use an aversive on our dog, and we have to keep using it with the same frequency, it's not punishment (or reinforcement) as it doesn't have any long term effect on the behavior. Is the dog you use the ecollar on the one who won't take treats when she is working?


Yes -- she is a driven (my def not sure if it fits yours) young Giant Schnauzer. We had to do puppy class a squeaky ball after trying to use frozen raw liver (something she favors, but not enough when in that kind of setting). She has very strong prey drive and lives in an environment where alot is coming at her, for example a drunk homeless guy brandishing a champagne bottle at her in the park, people moving and dragging rolls of carpet down the sidewalk in front of us as we walk, skateboarders, militant bike riders (again on the sidewalks), random children biking and squealing and skating, various types of dogs (pits, Swiss Mountain dogs, little dogs -- you name it we got) , lotsa bus traffic, cars the UPS man, the trucks delivering to the hospital accross the street-- I am trying to give you a picture of the very demanding urban environment we live in. Even to get downstairs (we are on the 3rd floor) we have to run a gauntlet of 4 other barky dogs to get out the front door-
She is very reactive and does not like her space invaded. The e collar is for a quick recall in the "offleash" section of the Park-- big dogs cannot make "mistakes" in this environment.... It is my backup when I need her attention and fast. SHe is a velcro dog (another post...) and we are bonded. But in the moment... I dunno .... SHe is not yet 2 and in a few years who knows, but she is a HUGE Terrier pup with alotta drive at present.. And I havent used it it for 6 months but just brought it out d/t some scheduling changes and now we walk on the weekends so run into many untrained unneutered male dogs (for some reason she is very Alpha with these) and on the occasions I have forgotten the ecollar still notice better follow through on her recalls since I periodically use it ( I recall her back to me and walk her by unneutered males...)...


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

lil_fuzzy said:


> The aversive is that the dog didn't get a treat that he expected. He offered the behaviour you rewarded the previous 5 times, and got nothing. That would be mildly aversive wouldn't it? Enough so that the dog keeps trying to earn the reward by offering the same behaviour with more intensity, and then gets rewarded. The aversive goes away, because you are no longer withholding the expected reward, and the behaviour was strengthened. If a behaviour is strengthened, you must be using reinforcement.
> 
> And I guess technically you are also using extinction, as mentioned by someone else, but you are not only using extinction, because then the behaviour would go away, not be strengthened.
> 
> R- doesn't HAVE to be paired with P+, even though it is a lot of the time. Just like R+ doesn't have to be paired with P-. When capturing a behaviour, you are using only R+.


LOL. I still think that is a stretch. And I also think that it doesn't need to go in any quadrant other than asking the dog to try harder for that R+ (though the first time it happens, it may have an element of extinction). My dogs appear to enjoy the "puzzle solving" element of shaping sessions.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

lil_fuzzy said:


> The aversive is that the dog didn't get a treat that he expected. He offered the behaviour you rewarded the previous 5 times, and got nothing. That would be mildly aversive wouldn't it? Enough so that the dog keeps trying to earn the reward by offering the same behaviour with more intensity, and then gets rewarded. The aversive goes away, because you are no longer withholding the expected reward, and the behaviour was strengthened. If a behaviour is strengthened, you must be using reinforcement.
> 
> And I guess technically you are also using extinction, as mentioned by someone else, but you are not only using extinction, because then the behaviour would go away, not be strengthened.


The situation you are describing is extinction.

What are the consequences of an action?

a) something pleasant can happen
b) something unpleasant can happen
c) nothing can happen

A = reinforcement
B = punishment
C = extinction

Withholding a treat isn't an unpleasant thing, it's a no-thing (presenting then removing the treat would be unpleasant, as in a common way to teach hand zen). If it was punishment, behavior would get weaker, not stronger. The extinction burst comes after extinction before the behavior starts to fade.



> The aversive is that the dog didn't get a treat that he expected.


All punishments are aversives, but not all aversives are punishers.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Candydb said:


> Yes -- she is a driven (my def not sure if it fits yours) young Giant Schnauzer. We had to do puppy class a squeaky ball after trying to use frozen raw liver (something she favors, but not enough when in that kind of setting). She has very strong prey drive and lives in an environment where alot is coming at her, for example a drunk homeless guy brandishing a champagne bottle at her in the park, people moving and dragging rolls of carpet down the sidewalk in front of us as we walk, skateboarders, militant bike riders (again on the sidewalks), random children biking and squealing and skating, various types of dogs (pits, Swiss Mountain dogs, little dogs -- you name it we got) , lotsa bus traffic, cars the UPS man, the trucks delivering to the hospital accross the street-- I am trying to give you a picture of the very demanding urban environment we live in. Even to get downstairs (we are on the 3rd floor) we have to run a gauntlet of 4 other barky dogs to get out the front door-
> She is very reactive and does not like her space invaded. The e collar is for a quick recall in the "offleash" section of the Park-- big dogs cannot make "mistakes" in this environment.... It is my backup when I need her attention and fast. SHe is a velcro dog (another post...) and we are bonded. But in the moment... I dunno .... SHe is not yet 2 and in a few years who knows, but she is a HUGE Terrier pup with alotta drive at present.. And I havent used it it for 6 months but just brought it out d/t some scheduling changes and now we walk on the weekends so run into many untrained unneutered male dogs (for some reason she is very Alpha with these) and on the occasions I have forgotten the ecollar still notice better follow through on her recalls since I periodically use it ( I recall her back to me and walk her by unneutered males...)...


You know, you might want to look at Sue Ailsby's training levels list. She is a lady who can do pretty much anything with mostly R+ and has a long and successful history with Giant Schnauzers, so she absolutely understands the breed, and their needs/concerns. Her website is sue-eh.ca


----------



## Candydb (Jul 16, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> You know, you might want to look at Sue Ailsby's training levels list. She is a lady who can do pretty much anything with mostly R+ and has a long and successful history with Giant Schnauzers, so she absolutely understands the breed, and their needs/concerns. Her website is sue-eh.ca


OK thanks will do!


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

+a billion for the training levels. Sue really *gets* it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

RaeganW said:


> +a billion for the training levels. Sue really *gets* it.


Sue is brillliant. I got lucky at the last one of her seminars I attended. Got to be her chauffeur, so had an extra half hour each way from the hotel to the seminar site and back to pick her brain. Only problem was that it was dead of the winter in Indiana, and this Okie girl had to concentrate on the snowy roads some!


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Cool! She's met Marsh, the lady he used to live with has PWD too, and they've trained for water work together. I'd kill to go to a seminar of hers, she's up there with Bob Bailey for me.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> LOL, I'd like to see someone try to "rig" cattle. . .OR ducks!


I can only offer this, that in bird dog trials birds used are for the most part all pen raised birds and there is a big difference from wild birds.



> Well, maybe then you need someone who works dogs in real life AND trials them, in order to contrast the differences.


Same answer as above because in bird dog field trials there have been bird dog champions who had enough expertise to handle hand planted/released birds but were not what us Pros would call "Bird Dogs" 

Years ago as I was striving to start a dog business one of my part time jobs was a "Classified Ad Courier" I would drive from newspaper office to newspaper office and a Willie the Weimie would be with me. When I got out of truck I would give Willie a Naugahyde envelope to carry and then he and I would go to whatever desk was necessary and he would then hand it to whoever. Believe it or not by 3rd visit I could come into office and he would go to desk needed. This was not a training program just something curious that happened with a dog and I spending quality time together. 

I know ancient history and has no training value cause if it did I would not know how to explaine quadrants used anyway cause I'm clueless, It was just something that happened.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

KodiBarracuda said:


> I wonder if this works for dogs...
> 
> I am constantly told on here that dogs don't understand when they are doing something "wrong" and while I have an argument for this, this is neither the place nor the time.
> But IF dogs don't understand wrong and right (not morally, but its wrong to chew socks and right to go potty outside) then how can they have complex thoughts "I have to get these sheep to this barn when my owner goes outside in the morning, and I have to do it by "enter technique here" " and "that sheep is escaping I must round it up with the others" and even yet, have the ability to do these complex thoughts enough that they can do them on "auto pilot"



Because dogs can understand complex patterns. As far as right or wrong - the dog doesn't think "it's wrong to chew socks", he thinks "every time I chewed these socks, something I don't like happens/happens to me."

Any pattern can get put on "auto pilot". That's a lot of the point of repeating behaviors over and over again. Any skill is going to be on "auto pilot" when it's well-trained. It's "second nature" as the saying goes. 

What people mean when they say "the dog knows what he did wrong", imo, is that the dog knows the pattern is broken, and he may know that he broke it (i.e. he knows he didn't catch the ball or find the treat or close the door) and is predicting what tends to happen based on another pattern - the consequence that comes to pass. 

Just like today, mom changed the floor DRASTICALLY (new color, painted subfloor, tiles down on it - and Wally was (is) like WHAT. THE. FUUUUUUUUUU and has been agitated and somewhat skittish all day. The staying out of the kitchen behavior is weaker. The opening/closing the door is more tenative, even walking on the floor. The environment is changed. He's not thinking OMG, it's wrong to walk on this floor, all his environmental cues and landmarks are gone. We'll have to each him that what he knows still applies - a new pattern.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Any pattern can get put on "auto pilot". That's a lot of the point of repeating behaviors over and over again. Any skill is going to be on "auto pilot" when it's well-trained. It's "second nature" as the saying goes.


I remembered what this is called - fluency.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

KBLover said:


> What people mean when they say "the dog knows what he did wrong", imo, is that the dog knows the pattern is broken, and he may know that he broke it (i.e. he knows he didn't catch the ball or find the treat or close the door) and is predicting what tends to happen based on another pattern - the consequence that comes to pass.


Part of the behaviorist worldview is that dogs have minds, but it is a "black box" that we can't see in to. In other words, a human has NO IDEA about what a dog is thinking at any given moment. Or even what form those thoughts might take, which is getting into cognition which is a whole 'nother can of very interesting worms. So we don't ask "Does he know this is wrong?" and then use disobedience as an excuse to punish, we ask "How can I change the behavior the animal is giving me?"


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> If one is careful about how they raise criteria, I think the dog understands that if they don't get reinforced for one thing, they need to keep puzzle solving. So I think it is just another step in the R+ game, even if it involves a bit of frustration. The dog is STILL working towards the R+ goal. If one is not careful about how they raise criteria, it is possible to make the withholding of the reinforcer become P- as a dog who doesn't understand how to play the game and that they are still working towards a reward may quit. That would be very bad technique though. And again, I think this part of the process is more Panksepp than OC.



I'm not familiar with Panksepp, so thanks for giving me something to look up and learn today 

You make a lot of good points too. 

Of course, I'm always more interested in what's going on "under the hood" instead of the surface (to me, teaching Wally things is as much trying to see how/why he makes the decisions and choices he does as much as it is giving him new things to learn and keeping his mind sharp).

But Wally is "just" a pet, and not a working dog (though I'm trying to change that to some degree with him "working" with me/helping me with stuff like picking things up and carrying them for me, etc), and not been in a competition, so what do I know (probably nothing, right?). *shrug*


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

RaeganW said:


> I remembered what this is called - fluency.


Squash's trainer calls it muscle memory.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> Part of the behaviorist worldview is that dogs have minds, but it is a "black box" that we can't see in to. In other words, a human has NO IDEA about what a dog is thinking at any given moment. Or even what form those thoughts might take, which is getting into cognition which is a whole 'nother can of very interesting worms. So we don't ask "Does he know this is wrong?" and then use disobedience as an excuse to punish, we ask "How can I change the behavior the animal is giving me?"



True, but isn't part of behaviorism the concept of using behavior to try to see into that black box? Using behavior as a "window to the mind", so to speak. So while we'll not know what his doggie mind voice barked to himself to make him do this or that, by piecing together his choices, when he makes them, and what might be common threads, we can get an idea. Just like with the example of the floor today. No, I don't know what he really is thinking about the floor, but using his emotions, his reactions, and the changes in established, learned behaviors, and his overall temperament, I can "see" in his mind to say "he's very uncertain about the massive changes." 

It may not be what he's "really" thinking in that melon head of his, but it's a handle with which I can work to formulate a solution.


----------

