# Why positive only training?



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

I'd like to ask a question about positive training methods that I realize will be a little controversial, just to be clear I am not a dog trainer, just an average owner interested in learning.

My question is this: why use only the positive in absence of the negative?

I understand that a positive association makes the behaviour more likely to occur again but shouldnt the inverse also be true, a negative association makes the behaviour less likely to occur again? Essentially, consequence cuts both ways... we teach our children using this idea, why not dogs? Its true that the human psyche is different from a dogs but dog-dog communication is almost exclusively negative (you will not see a dog give another dog a treat, but you might see one snap at another). Also why is dominance theory so denigrated, dogs aren't wolves but they do have pack hierarchy. Shouldnt we be trying to communicate with dogs in a "language" that is most natural to them?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Basically, because most people stink at properly using punishment, and there's a fair chance we'll mess our dogs up if we try.

Same with kids, too, actually.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

Humans, including children, see the world in cause and effect. So children can easily see "I am being punished because I hit my sister". Children also speak English and have a working memory, so you can punish a child today for drawing on the wall yesterday and the child understands this.

Dogs, however, learn by association and do not have the same working memory. In order for punishment or praise to work, it must occur within 3 seconds of the action. 

This is why you cannot train dogs like children.

Consequence does cut both ways, but association is tricky and hard to predict. For example, the dog pees on the rug. You smack him. You mean to tell the dog that peeing on the rug is unacceptable, what the dog learns is that peeing in front of the humans is unacceptable. So now he won't pee in front of you outside, and he'll hide in the closet in your bedroom to pee. Not really what you wanted, is it?

Using positives in training bonds you to your dog. Using negatives can easily damage your relationship. So why risk it, especially since the average person doesn't have the timing to make punishment work anyway. Punishments can also have other, undesired, consequences. Suppose my dog lunges and barks at other dogs we pass on walks. I buy a choke chain and "correct" the dog every time he lunges and barks. He's very likely to start associating the other dogs with pain in his neck, and now his behavior is even worse.

As to why we shouldn't take our cues from wolves or other dogs . . . why would we? Dog mothers frequently eat their babies, should I take parenting advice from a dog, too? We're humans, we can do better.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Not to mention even wolf pack hierarchy is starting to be disproven...


----------



## EdDTS (May 30, 2012)

When most people use negative techniques, they actually get angry and that doesn't help the bond between human and dog, and it doesn't teach the dog anything, just scares them. If you are actually calm and use negative techniques, it's less likely to hurt that bond. There's a difference between smacking your dog when you're angry and when you're calm.

By using positive training only, for one, it keeps your dog having fun and the actual person stays happy and relaxed when they see constant success, which is better environment for dogs to and it doesn't hurt their confidence, it builds it.
There is a place for dominance theory and negative reinforcement, like in a K-9 environment, where the dog HAS to do what the handler says to do and it could end badly if it doesn't do what they say, but it's going to become less necessary in a pet environment and the dog does it because it's the preferred behavior.
Personally, I believe negatives should be used in a more desperate situation, after positive methods have failed.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

I use both in training. I use as little negative as needed though. I want training and interacting to be super fun. My retired patrol dog, was originally trained the old yank and crank way. He works, and well, but he doesn't live for it. My younger dogs absolutely live and breathe to work! They can't wait to train, can't wait to find the victim, and will work non stop in any situation. 

Have you ever tried training a new command or cue? You think the dog knows it after a couple rewards, then you see it doesn't.quite have it yet. Same.for punishment, many people think the dog knows what it did.wrong, so they jerk the pro.g collar, when in reality the correction wasn't timed so the dog is confused.

I'm in the process of teaching the pups (12 week old malinois) their names and basic obedience. They are also learning "no". While all four were playing like crazy in the house, Hunter, the trouble maker, grabbed the shih tzus tail. Instantly I said "hunter, no!" And each pup dropped their toy and looked to me lol. So I just corrected all 4 puppies my mistake, for doing right as three were.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

juliemule said:


> I use both in training. I use as little negative as needed though. I want training and interacting to be super fun. My retired patrol dog, was originally trained the old yank and crank way. He works, and well, but he doesn't live for it. My younger dogs absolutely live and breathe to work! They can't wait to train, can't wait to find the victim, and will work non stop in any situation.


This.

Kabota _loves _training. He was terrified of it at first, and I had to switch to using hand gestures only because the word "sit" sent him into a complete shut down. Now, he'll walk up to me, sit, stand, lay down and roll on his side. It's his way of saying, "Let's train!"


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Yeah, I agree that working out of anger isn't productive at all but isnt there the same potential for mistakes when working with a positive method? What if the dog associates the treat with peeing and not necessarily peeing outside? Or a dog who is bristling with other dogs, if they get treats won't they think that being wary/aggressive was the right thing?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

While I'm not sure that "positive only" really exists, I concentrate on the things I want to see, because I believe the saying "What you focus on grows." So, I can give my attention and energy to the things I like rather than the things I don't like. Dogs are not children and don't understand concepts in the same way as someone you can explain it to in words. Even so, I haven't seen evidence that most punishments meted out to children are that effective either. Frequently negative attention is better than no attention at all, and you'll see children pushing their parents' or teachers' buttons just to get attention. I know when I was a kid, punishment seldom stopped me from doing anything , it just made me careful not to get caught.
As to dogs teaching dogs - the things dogs want from each other are simple. Leave me alone, leave my food alone, don't hurt me. The things I want from dogs are complex and against their nature. Invade my space bubble, look into my eyes, come to me quickly and in a straight line. Leave that yummy dead toad alone. If I don't want a dog who gives me a respectful amount of space, refuses to meet my gaze, and wouldn't come to me, I suppose imitating dogs would be okay.
Another reason I prefer reinforcing good behavior is that I like a dog who is "in the game" Everytime I punish a wrong choice I am risking the possibility that next time the dog will be less willing to try to offer me stuff. For a lot of people, that's what they want. A dog who won't do anything it's not told to do. That's not my idea of enjoying the relationship with my dog.


----------



## Losech (Apr 5, 2011)

I would rather have a relationship with my dog that is based on friendship and trust than a relationship that is based on intimidation and fear.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

aiw said:


> Yeah, I agree that working out of anger isn't productive at all but isnt there the same potential for mistakes when working with a positive method? What if the dog associates the treat with peeing and not necessarily peeing outside? Or a dog who is bristling with other dogs, if they get treats won't they think that being wary/aggressive was the right thing?


Mistakes can be made in positive reinforcement. In general, if you just get it right the next three times, you're golden. The difference is that clicking at the wrong time isn't likely to have a lasting effect on your dog the way a punisher can. And while being emotional can make your use of aversives more than it needs to be, your dog will still perceive punishment as punishment if you are cool and calm. Otherwise it wouldn't work. Why would you want to punish and not have it be effective? It is also quite difficult to give the exact right level of aversive. Too much and your dog may shut down, too little and you may desensitize him to the aversive so you have to keep upping the ante.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

It's a myth that treating can enforce anger or fear in a dog. Dogs cannot feel two emotions at once. A dog is either happy about getting treats or angry/fearful, but not both at once. Using treats shifts the dog's emotion from angry/fearful to happy. Besides, a dog caught up in fear or anger won't take treats, anyway. You have to work "under threshold", so you're reinforcing behavior/emotion that isn't fully engaged fear or anger, rather the calmer emotion/behavior you want. 

Yes, you can reinforce behavior you don't want with poorly timed treating, but you don't damage your relationship and you can always retrain the correct behavior. If you mess up with corrections, it's hard to fix. I'm trying to add back verbal commands, (see my previous post in this thread) and its not going well. Kabota associates "sit" with something scary and getting past that association is proving to be difficult. Mind you, I have never corrected him, ever. I can't imagine how hard this would be if I had been the one whi scared him in the first place.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Amaryllis said:


> It's a myth that treating can enforce anger or fear in a dog. Dogs cannot feel two emotions at once. A dog is either happy about getting treats or angry/fearful, but not both at once. Using treats shifts the dog's emotion from angry/fearful to happy. Besides, a dog caught up in fear or anger won't take treats, anyway. You have to work "under threshold", so you're reinforcing behavior/emotion that isn't fully engaged fear or anger, rather the calmer emotion/behavior you want.
> 
> Yes, you can reinforce behavior you don't want with poorly timed treating, but you don't damage your relationship and you can always retrain the correct behavior. If you mess up with corrections, it's hard to fix. I'm trying to add back verbal commands, (see my previous post in this thread) and its not going well. Kabota associates "sit" with something scary and getting past that association is proving to be difficult. Mind you, I have never corrected him, ever. I can't imagine how hard this would be if I had been the one whi scared him in the first place.


This is all good stuff. 





aiw said:


> My question is this: why use only the positive in absence of the negative?


It's impossible to be 100% positive. The idea is to practice reward based methods. In otherwords, we're dealing with adding or removing appetitive stimulus to make behavior happen or to stop behavior. By dealing with appetitive stimulus instead of aversive stimulus, we run minimal risk of hurting the animal. It's a matter of ethics. If you were able to equally effectively teach a dog to sit using either food or by pulling up on a choke collar, which would you choose to do?

The other thing is, people who use aversive punishment tend to become addicted to it. When the dog is misbehaving, we want to make it stop, so if we use a quick punisher and it stops, it's a very rewarding process for us. Because it was so easy to do and required very little forethought to pull off, we will tend to use it more in the future. As the dog becomes accustomed to pain or yelling, the less effective it becomes, and the harder your punishers have to be to stay effective.




> Also why is dominance theory so denigrated, dogs aren't wolves but they do have pack hierarchy. Shouldnt we be trying to communicate with dogs in a "language" that is most natural to them?


Dogs are in fact, *not* pack animals. That is a myth that still lives on.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

REALLY? Dogs aren't pack animals? That seems pretty surprising. I've heard people say that dogs arent a whole lot like wolves (makes sense given the centuries of breeding) but I've never heard that they're not pack creatures... gives me something to think about. 

I think NEVER correcting a dog might require emotional control beyond my abilities, if someones in the garbage I think they should learn that makes their owner very unhappy. Most dogs aim to please so a verbal correction is plenty (firm but not scary angry). I would then follow up with teaching "leave it". That seems like a reasonable approach to me, it does include some correction though. If the bond between owner and dog is good then wouldnt the dog continue to respond to verbal corrections without needing the escalation?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Not sure what you consider a "verbal correction". Is "hey, get out of the trash!" a verbal correction? Because I think most people would do that .

But it's not really fair to punish at a dog if you've never actually taught him what to do (teach "leave it" AFTER you've yelled?).

Dogs as pack animals. . .well, if you've ever lived anywhere with street dogs, you'd see they don't form packs. They may loosely hang out together, but no actual pack is formed.


----------



## bgmacaw (May 5, 2012)

aiw said:


> My question is this: why use only the positive in absence of the negative?


Because the results you get from positive interaction are much better than those you get from negative interaction. While there will be cases of negative interaction, such as giving meds or grooming, and negative training, "stop right now!", these should be far outweighed by the positive.



aiw said:


> Its true that the human psyche is different from a dogs but dog-dog communication is almost exclusively negative (you will not see a dog give another dog a treat, but you might see one snap at another).


Dog-to-dog communication is far from all negative.

Some dogs do give others a treat of sorts to encourage play/interaction with other dogs. For example, last week at the dog park a poodle brought over her tennis ball and dropped it in front of our dog trying to get her to play. Our pup, who's only 6 months old and still a bit unsure around other dogs, joined play after this friendly gesture.



aiw said:


> Also why is dominance theory so denigrated, dogs aren't wolves but they do have pack hierarchy.


Dogs don't have a pack hierarchy as it's traditionally thought of. They're social animals that will form loose associations based on their current needs and situation. This isn't the stable pack/family relationship found in wild wolves.

Dogs also also adept at forming social relationships with other species, including humans and other pets (some more than others). This isn't a pack but a social cooperative relationship. 

Dominance is often used as an excuse for abusive or potentially abusive and often dangerous and ineffective training techniques. That's why it's viewed not being good by many. Dominance is also incorrectly used by some as a blanket cause for many dog problems which isn't the case. 



aiw said:


> Shouldnt we be trying to communicate with dogs in a "language" that is most natural to them?


Dogs are naturally bilingual. Not only do they understand dog-to-dog communication but human-to-dog communication. So, communicating with humans has, over many centuries of breeding, become part of the natural dog. It actually confuses them when a human tries to speak dog because it doesn't seem natural to them.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Dogs (and people) experience punishment every day. That is, they make direct contact with aversive stimuli every day.

There is nothing bizzare or particularly cruel about these things. Of course, aversive stimuli are certainly the most common ingredient in cruelty, but aversvie stimuli are entirely common and natural.

When a dog (or person) is laying in one position for too long... starts to feel uncomfortable like that and rolls to a new position for relief and renewed comfort, he has just confronted aversive stimuli and reacted to it. Not a particularly cruel scenario to my eyes.

When you are "being a tree" and a dog expends effort pulling on that leash (as well as the probable discomfort from the collar pressure on the neck), and then ceases ....voila... your dog has probably just encountered aversive stimuli and responded to it.

Walk outside in the glaring sun and then go back inside to find those sunglasses. Again, you have been punished: for going outside unprotected from the glare.

I do agree that these situations can be considered "cruel" (or extra, extra aversive) if the dog (or person) did not know how to escape the aversive stimuli... and I think it is here that the use of aversive stimuli requires some ethical and behavioral consideration.

Regardless of our desire to use 80% or 100% positive reinforcement, the world is utterly dripping with aversive stimuli that are unavoidable, daily events, and they come at our hands and at the hands of the natural environment.

What I like most about a positive reinforcement philosophy is that it might help make the dog a bit more responsive to mild corrections (mild aversives) without having to resort to heavy handed measures. Dogs that have been raised with lots of aversive techniques _can_ get desensitized ... or so my theory goes... and require even more intense versions of aversives to get the same result. (assuming you must you punishment) Things can get ugly fast.

OhBehave


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Amaryllis said:


> It's a myth that treating can enforce anger or fear in a dog. Dogs cannot feel two emotions at once. A dog is either happy about getting treats or angry/fearful, but not both at once. Using treats shifts the dog's emotion from angry/fearful to happy. Besides, a dog caught up in fear or anger won't take treats, anyway. You have to work "under threshold", so you're reinforcing behavior/emotion that isn't fully engaged fear or anger, rather the calmer emotion/behavior you want.
> .


Plus, treats induce endorphins, which have a natural calming effect on a dog. If I have a dog too stressed to take treats I help him, and then his ability to accept treats becomes a pretty good barometer of small internal changes.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

aiw said:


> REALLY? Dogs aren't pack animals? That seems pretty surprising. I've heard people say that dogs arent a whole lot like wolves (makes sense given the centuries of breeding) but I've never heard that they're not pack creatures... gives me something to think about.


Dogs are social animals. As small prey hunters/scavengers, they don't need a pack to bring down large prey, and it would not benefit them. In feral dogs, they sometimes hang together with other dogs, but there is no true consistent pack or pack order.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

aiw said:


> My question is this: why use only the positive in absence of the negative?


Perhaps think of it like a bank account, with positives being the deposits and negatives being the withdrawls. Some people strive to see their account balance go up up up, exclusively. 

A poor person has likely experienced the deterimental nature of excessive withdrawls. A wealthy person has done their best to avoid them entirely.

My question is this: would you rather be poor or wealthy, figuratively speaking?



The cultural shift away from a reliance upon negatives towards a 'purer', more positive-style of training has allowed many individual dogs and some non-obedience breeds to become highly competitive in dogsports, who I suspect would not have been so competitive otherwise, under the old regime.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

aiw said:


> REALLY? Dogs aren't pack animals? That seems pretty surprising. I've heard people say that dogs arent a whole lot like wolves (makes sense given the centuries of breeding) but I've never heard that they're not pack creatures... gives me something to think about.


Yeah, as others have mentioned, dogs are social animals, not pack animals. Left alone to fend for themselves, feral dogs are generally solitary. When I visited Taiwan, I saw a lot of stray and feral dogs, and they were all solitary, with the exception of two huskies who seemed to follow each other. They were more concentrated in areas with human activity and food. All of my observations were consistent with research done by Ian Dunbar on feral dogs.

The idea of dogs as pack animals is subconsciously ingrained by stories, TV, and media. Everybody *thinks* they understand dominance, but really don't. Ask yourself how dominance or pack hierarchy works. Can you explain it? It's actually a complex and debated subject even in the academic world.





> I think NEVER correcting a dog might require emotional control beyond my abilities, if someones in the garbage I think they should learn that makes their owner very unhappy. Most dogs aim to please so a verbal correction is plenty (firm but not scary angry). I would then follow up with teaching "leave it". That seems like a reasonable approach to me, it does include some correction though. If the bond between owner and dog is good then wouldnt the dog continue to respond to verbal corrections without needing the escalation?


That dogs aim to please us is also a myth. They aim to please _themselves_. It's possible to use corrections with minimal fallout, but it's a very fine line and it's a risky thing to try to pull off. At first I thought the positive reinforcement stuff was just a new age mumbo-jumbo fad. As time went on, the fallout from aversive punishments was real and observable. Everything I read about the fallout from aversive/dominant training came true. It was clear I needed to shift my paradigm.

You can minimize your need for corrections by setting up the environment so that your dog does not have the opportunity to get practice unwanted behavior. Then as your dog gets more reliable, you can start adding stuff back into the environment. Reward methods actually require planning, creativity, and forethought. We're humans, so we're capable of it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> Dogs (and people) experience punishment every day. That is, they make direct contact with aversive stimuli every day.
> 
> There is nothing bizzare or particularly cruel about these things. Of course, aversive stimuli are certainly the most common ingredient in cruelty, but aversvie stimuli are entirely common and natural.
> 
> ...



Thing is, nature is full of aversive stimuli. One of my dogs learned that jumping up on the fence is a bad idea, because you can get your leg caught in the fence and break it. However, I don't particularly want to "help" the natural process by aversive stimuli coming from me. I can't control everything else, but I can control what I do. Plus there are different kinds of punishers. Trying to avoid pain or discomfort has a whole other meaning (and comes from a different place neurochemically) than mild frustration because you're not going to get the cookie right this moment.
Because I am the human with a larger brain, I can plan my lessons to be LIMA (least invasive, minimally aversive) and desensitize my dogs to things I do which could be considered aversive (like trimming toenails, necessary handling.) I don't know what the word "correction" means, so I can't say if my dogs are responsive to mild weasel words or not. I do try not to present my dogs with things worth avoiding to any degree, because avoidance is not my goal. I really like Emily Larlham's (the lady with all the cool Kikopup videos) definition:
http://www.auf-den-hund-gekommen.net/-/Progressive_Reinforcement_(+R_-P)_Training_Manifesto(E).html
I will admit that I am sometimes guilty of making eh-eh sounds at my dogs.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Pawzk9 said:


> Because I am the human with a larger brain, I can plan my lessons to be LIMA (least invasive, minimally aversive) and desensitize my dogs to things I do which could be considered aversive (like trimming toenails, necessary handling.) I don't know what the word "correction" means, so I can't say if my dogs are responsive to mild weasel words or not. I do try not to present my dogs with things worth avoiding to any degree, because avoidance is not my goal. I really like Emily Larlham's (the lady with all the cool Kikopup videos) definition:
> http://www.auf-den-hund-gekommen.net/-/Progressive_Reinforcement_(+R_-P)_Training_Manifesto(E).html
> I will admit that I am sometimes guilty of making eh-eh sounds at my dogs.


"Correction" usually refers to a punishment procedures.... often a pop on the leash or a zing from an e-collar... or a harsh "no!".

I do use the "eh eh" sound and it is merely a "no reward mark" (or more technically correct: an S-delta).

If "eh eh" has become the new "punishment!", then I am exiting the building with the positive-only crowd.

There are basic behavioral principles by which we all live by. Sometimes we get startled, sometimes we crunch our shin against a coffee table, and sometimes we get scolded.

I do recognize that a person (or dog) can have a relationship and when a human and dog get together, it is best that the human take responsibility for making the relationship as healthy as possible. 

In a healthy relationship, a "correction" or "punishment" can be imposed and it is all taken in stride. For example, there are people who can correct me and their are no hard feelings at all... I appreciate the information and attempt to behave better.

There are others who may try to do the same thing, and the punishment creates problems and fails to improve my behavior.... and my produce unwanted side effects.
Murray Sidman (a radical behaviorist such as myself) wrote a book called "Coercion and it's Fallout" in the 60's)

Mis-timed reinforcement can create problems and mis-timed punishment can create problems. In addition, the intensity of the punishment can be inappropriate, too... producing problematic behavioral fallout.

There are times in which there are competing reinforcers (the running bunny) for which we have no alternative. Emily's example of the couch sitting dog, to my eyes, would fail miserably for any dog that loves the couch. Any solution that requires the focused attention and continual presence of the owner is not a solution at all.
And that wasn't just a "pure reinforcement" problem. If she had offered a solution that involves the same technique, but included punishment of couch sitting, THAT solution would require the constant presence as well. In the end, she recommends containing the dog ... I suppose in a crate.... in the absence of an owner.

To me, a better solution would be to contrive convincing scenarios in which the dog learns to never jump on the couch with me or without me. Once that training is done, the dog could live freely in the house and not in a crate! In my opinion, this is the most ethical training because it produces maximum and long term physical freedom. Yay for the dog!

People provide free health care, super healthy diets, play time, and protection from the elements... and on important and safety related occasions, the proper use of aversive stimuli seems fair (and perfectly, mundanely natural) to me.

In my opinion, I am being exceedingly, over-the-top, soft handed with my pup. However, I can identify a number of occasions in which my interactions with her include aversives.

A no-reward mark is aversive. It is a punisher (if it has been conditioned properly). Walking away from an attention-wanting dog is bad news from the dog's perspective and bad news is a punisher. These sorts of consequences are devastatingly aversive to certain types of dogs. 

All of my other dogs have been quite naturally biddable and very Rin-Tin-Tin like. They were never trained by myself or anyone else. Granted, I behave and acted in ways that helped maintain and encourage the cool, livable behaviors, but I did not formally train them. My greyhound walked with me, off leash, to my University of Florida classes in the late 1980's. She would wait outside the building door. No leash. Untrained. Then, I would exit the building and she would be there waiting...and walk back to my apartment with me... through massive crowds of student pedestrians and bicyclists... across a busy main street (University Ave)... all the while, she'd walk so close when in crowds her front shoulder bone would begin to bruise the outside of my knee.

No training. 

When I called her (Lucy!), nothing could prevent her from getting back to me.

If I were not aware of behavioral science and if my only experiences were with that adult dog, I could see how I could get caught up in the animal-rights, PETA type purely positive philosophy (dogma?). I didn't like the idea of that lovely dog getting the slightest flea bite... she was an angel that, to me, deserved only the comforts... fluffiest bedding and best food.

*Not all dogs are like Lucy*, though. On occasion, situations need to be carefully contrived that will _directly_ reduce or eliminate serious problem behaviors. 

A working **** Hound would not have given me such an easy time... and would test the last nerve of even the greatest of purely positive trainers. Try as they might, they will never be able to produce an apartment-friendly Cockapoo out of that Hound.

It's a reinforcement problem. A dog driven to smell every scent and chase every insect and mammal to the exclusion of your best edible or toy will be dicey, at best, even with excellent positive reinforcement training. Again, with no training, I could walk my Lucy through a field of squealing bunnies, children, or other dogs and she would be 100% reliable. You wouldn't get that from a positive only trained **** Hound. Ever.

It's a reinforcement issue... a dog with the DNA to seek and find prey or any other happy consequence that isn't in tune with our desires gives us a reinforcement problem.

So, I remain unconvinced about the purely positive only philosophy.

oh behave


----------



## bgmacaw (May 5, 2012)

qingcong said:


> That dogs aim to please us is also a myth.


Most dogs that have not had bad experiences with humans do desire to be around humans. They've been bred that way for centuries. They have it engrained that having a good relationship with humans is a positive survival factor. This may not be an overt thought that they have to "aim to please" humans but, in practice, it usually produces the same result.


----------



## bgmacaw (May 5, 2012)

ohbehave said:


> A working **** Hound would not have given me such an easy time... and would test the last nerve of even the greatest of purely positive trainers.


I haven't been around hunting dog training for about 20 years now but I always thought many people who did it were too caught up in the macho aspect of using potent aversives/punishments to train. The thought was that you had to beat/punish/choke/shock/whatever a hunting dog into submission to get it to perform. I think some of those trainers actually enjoyed the punishment they inflicted.

My Grandfather (a veterinarian), his brothers (2 of them were also veterinarians) and my cousins always used mostly positive training for hunting and herding dogs. They had great dogs that would follow whistle commands quite well in the field. (I recently posted a link to a dog training book from 1882 that is a lot like their training methods.) They never used choke chain, prong collars or hands on punishment to train dogs. By technical definition they probably did use some aversive methods like saying "No" but these weren't common because they were rarely necessary. 

While it would be rare to have a scent hound or other very driven breed to operate untrained in a highly distracting environment, training that is 95-99% positive with only the mildest aversives can allow them to work effectively in spite of distractions.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

You could train in dog language, though it may take a lot of learning on your part. Dogs don't care if the other chess a shoe, tears up the trash, or peed on the carpet. Dogs don't reward others for good behavior. They may intice one to play by giving a toy, but they won't give one a treat for sitting.

Some high drive dogs get great satisfaction out of certain behaviors. The coonhound for example, may get much more out of running a track than doing as told. So the reward must be greater than the distraction, and given so the dog understands it clearly. One of mine during a certification, couldn't help but chase a rabbit she stirred up working cadaver. She was stressed, though had what I thought to be 100% recall lol. Sometimes reactive dogs can't resist! 

I have never seen a purely positive trained dog. I have seen minimal punishment used, and these dogs work great. Then some take more discipline. I do feel if raised as a young pup with lots of positive training, they do much better.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

bgmacaw said:


> Most dogs that have not had bad experiences with humans do desire to be around humans. They've been bred that way for centuries. They have it engrained that having a good relationship with humans is a positive survival factor. This may not be an overt thought that they have to "aim to please" humans but, in practice, it usually produces the same result.



Survival is a selfish thing, typically. So they hang around us because doing so help them survive. It's still not "desire to please" but "doing what needs doing to get to eat today". 

That said, dogs don't have to have bad experiences to shy away from some human contact. Wally couldn't stand me - because he's not used to men/male voices, etc. Every human in his life was female and he wasn't very well socialized - which is another thing. Some random wandering dog in the neighborhood isn't just "wanting a relationship with me" either. 

So if it's engrained, I must have always met dogs with bad experiences *shrug*


As far as positive only - that's extremely difficult in practical application, imo. If you withhold a single treat/reward/whatever the dog wants to do (like go out the door, continue the walk, sniff something) as a response to a behavior, that's punishment.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

By "verbal correction" I essentially mean "Get off the table you jerk!". I wanted to make it clear that when I am talking about corrections I don't mean hitting the dog, just communicating my unhappiness. I am definitely on board with the idea that you want a strong, positive relationship with your dog. If you dont want that you probably have no business owning a dog. And, yes its best to teach good manners before bad habits crop up but there is often enough work to be done with things that ARE issues that sometimes things which arent get set aside. 

We have a problem in our house with a self-reinforcing behaviour, jumping up on the kitchen table. Generally we keep unattended food out of reach but a couple of times our dogs found some. They are even jumping up there when we are in the room! I'm not prepared to 'just ignore' that behaviour or essentially relinquish our food to doggy appetites. If I don't set a negative consequence with getting up on the table wont their motivation for our food win out every time? What if its both, a negative consequence ("NO!) for jumping up and reward for leaving it alone? I think its really important to keep the vast majority of your interactions positive but surely the world cannot be engineered to be all positive all the time.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

For most dogs, saying "no" may not be a negative consequence. Unless they're learned that bad things happen when someone says no, what makes it negative? For some dogs, it might even be a positive thing, because any attention is better than no attention.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Hmmm... I hadn't really considered that before. It does work, because he stops whatever he's doing (unless hes eating something particularly delicious) but why? Maybe he's intimidated that I'm angry? But I haven't hurt him or given him any reason to believe me being angry will be directly harmful to him... Pete in particular is very owner-oriented, almost too much so. That reaction is part of my "dogs aim to please" idea I guess. Maybe its just instinct, angry atmosphere = bad?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> "Correction" usually refers to a punishment procedures.... often a pop on the leash or a zing from an e-collar... or a harsh "no!".


Then why not just call it a punisher? The reason is because "correction" sound nicer. I believe that if you (general you) are going to punish, you should have the courage to admit it at least to yourself. And if you can admit it to yourself, you can admit it to others. I have more respect for someone who states that they use some punishment than someone who dances around the issue with weasel words like "correct" that have no real definition in behavioral or training terms.




ohbehave said:


> "
> I do use the "eh eh" sound and it is merely a "no reward mark" (or more technically correct: an S-delta).
> 
> If "eh eh" has become the new "punishment!", then I am exiting the building with the positive-only crowd.


And yet, later in the same post you write:



ohbehave said:


> "A no-reward mark is aversive. *It is a punisher (if it has been conditioned properly)*. Walking away from an attention-wanting dog is bad news from the dog's perspective and bad news is a punisher.
> .


So which is it? It is or it isn't. I will certainly admit that walking away from a dog is a negative punisher. But it also isn't generally a no reward marker. I guess I don't condition mine correctly, because I use eh eh very rarely simply to interrupt a bad idea (not just a wrong choice). No primary aversive attached. And I think you'll find the majority of people talking against some mythical positively only crowd are people who are arguing against a red herring. The people who use primarily positive reinforcement (I suppose you could use primarily positive punishment and still call yourself "positive only"?) will usually admit to occasionally thoughtfully using something in another quadrant.



ohbehave said:


> "In a healthy relationship, a "correction" or "punishment" can be imposed and it is all taken in stride. For example, there are people who can correct me and their are no hard feelings at all... I appreciate the information and attempt to behave better. .


If someone points out to me where the equation went wrong, and gently leads me to an understanding of the right way to solve it, I'd be fine with that. If they yell at me for being stupid and rap my knuckles with a ruler, they are likely to poison any affinity I might have for math. If I make a social faux pas and you correct me for it instead of tell me a better way to handle it, I'm likely to have an aversion to future social events of the same sort, because I am anxious and don't know what to do instead.



ohbehave said:


> "There are others who may try to do the same thing, and the punishment creates problems and fails to improve my behavior.... and my produce unwanted side effects.
> Murray Sidman (a radical behaviorist such as myself) wrote a book called "Coercion and it's Fallout" in the 60's).


I'm familiar with it. I'm not sure I'd consider you in the same league as Murray Sidman anymore than I'd claim that Karen Pryor or Bob Bailey is "like myself"



ohbehave said:


> "There are times in which there are competing reinforcers (the running bunny) for which we have no alternative. ).



Odd. My alternative to bunny chasing is a recall. Because my dogs have a great history of reinforcement and I have created a habit, it works, even though my cookie is not as exciting as killing and eating the bunny would be. 



ohbehave said:


> " My greyhound walked with me, off leash, to my University of Florida classes in the late 1980's. She would wait outside the building door. No leash. Untrained. Then, I would exit the building and she would be there waiting...and walk back to my apartment with me... through massive crowds of student pedestrians and bicyclists... across a busy main street (University Ave)... all the while, she'd walk so close when in crowds her front shoulder bone would begin to bruise the outside of my knee.
> 
> No training.


I did much the same with my first "own" dog, an Aussie named Demian back in the early 70s. I'd take him to college with me and he'd wait till I came out, and I frequently walked him on sidewalks near busy streets off leash, and play with him off leash in the park bordering one of the busiest retail areas of Kansas City, MO. I was very young and stupid and he was very lucky to survive my cluelessness. By the way, if you and the dog are in the same space and you are both awake, training is going on. Either you are training the dog or the dog is training you. 




ohbehave said:


> " It's a reinforcement problem. A dog driven to smell every scent and chase every insect and mammal to the exclusion of your best edible or toy will be dicey, at best, even with excellent positive reinforcement training. Again, with no training, I could walk my Lucy through a field of squealing bunnies, children, or other dogs and she would be 100% reliable. You wouldn't get that from a positive only trained **** Hound. Ever.
> 
> It's a reinforcement issue... a dog with the DNA to seek and find prey or any other happy consequence that isn't in tune with our desires gives us a reinforcement problem.


It depends on your reinforcer. If you've studied behavior, I'm sure you've heard of Premack? Sue Ailsby teaches her stud llamas to walk nicely on the way to breed the girls by Premacking it. Sex is the reinforcer. It does involve a bit of negative punishment, though. Also, "go sniff" is a great Premack for many dogs. Interestingly, if you give them permission to do something it become much less interesting than if you try to keep it forbidden fruit.



ohbehave said:


> " So, I remain unconvinced about the purely positive only philosophy.
> 
> oh behave


Well, I don't think anyone is going to hold a gun to your head and tell you you have to depend solely on R+/-P (as I said, purely positive probably doesn't exist except as an ideal.) But, if you haven't tried it, or at least seen it done well, I'll remain unconvinced by your lack of convincedness (is that a word?)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

bgmacaw said:


> Most dogs that have not had bad experiences with humans do desire to be around humans. They've been bred that way for centuries. They have it engrained that having a good relationship with humans is a positive survival factor. This may not be an overt thought that they have to "aim to please" humans but, in practice, it usually produces the same result.


It's not a great thing to assume, though.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

aiw said:


> By "verbal correction" I essentially mean "Get off the table you jerk!". I wanted to make it clear that when I am talking about corrections I don't mean hitting the dog, just communicating my unhappiness. I am definitely on board with the idea that you want a strong, positive relationship with your dog. If you dont want that you probably have no business owning a dog. And, yes its best to teach good manners before bad habits crop up but there is often enough work to be done with things that ARE issues that sometimes things which arent get set aside.
> 
> I think its really important to keep the vast majority of your interactions positive but surely the world cannot be engineered to be all positive all the time.


Ah, but when other people say "correction" they may mean other, very different, things. 
That's why it isn't a very useful word when describing behavior and what you do with it. Punishment means something that reduces the likelihood of that behavior occuring again. (so, unless I want my dog to be less likely to sit, I'm not going to punish a sit if I asked for a down). Unfortunately, people who haven't educated themselves about operant conditioning don't necessarily understand that (or that "negative" isn't "bad" - it simply means you took something away from the situation) 
It's too bad that both punishment and negative have other meanings in common speech. I could come up with "nicer" terms probably. But then I'd be in the same situation as using the word "correction" which doesn't mean anything to the majority of people I'd be talking to. If you don't understand the meanings of the words, you know, the information is readily available at the click of a key. Look up operant conditioning.
The world can't be controlled as far as aversives go. But I can engineer my training to control MY use of aversives. That's the point.


----------



## Poly (Sep 19, 2007)

Very interesting thread.

There's just two points I'd like to add.

The first point I'd like to add is about the term "correction". I don't really get hung up about terminology. But the reason why- speaking only for myself- I use the term "correction" rather then "punishment" is twofold. 


 While "punishment" has a clearly defined meaning in operant conditioning theory - and "correction" has no such meaning - most people misunderstand that word. That's because the word punishment also has a common meaning which does not necessarily line up with learning theory, and very few people who handle dogs are versed in the theory. 

 I actually don't even use the specific word "correction" very often in real life training. The terms I use more often are "correct that..." or "fix that..." and ALWAYS followed by a specific action that should be done. As in, for example, "let's try to fix that wide turn by a pop just as you go into it" (there are other ways of doing that, of course - this is just one way)

The second thing is about restraint and removal. There are times when dogs have to be restrained from doing something - often when doing something that could be dangerous to themselves or to others. There are also times when you have to remove something that a dog likes - maybe for the same reasons. I'm not going to get into the whole "nurture vs. nature" argument, just describing a fact. Now you can simply do the restraint or removal, and not attach anything to it. Or you can use the situations as a teaching opportunity. I prefer the latter - even though these are clearly punishments in the operant conditioning sense- because I always want to be teaching my dogs. But it's up to you.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

aiw said:


> I wanted to make it clear that when I am talking about corrections I don't mean hitting the dog, just *communicating my unhappiness*.


People who aren't savvy to operant conditioning will see nothing wrong with this explanation. The issue with the bolded part, is that it is our own interpretation of what we're doing. Whether the dog sees it that way is anyone's guess, but I'd say it's highly unlikely that the dog cares the slightest about our happiness or unhappiness. The only reason why the dog would care about us being unhappy, is because bad things usually happen to the dog when the human is in an unhappy state. Regardless, trying to communicate unhappiness is likely to do nothing about behavior. The only reason why a correction will change behavior is because the interaction was aversive to the dog.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

I'm not sure I buy the idea that dogs are entirely self-interested. I think that there is an emotional bond which extends both ways. If a close friend is upset I experience that as an aversive, it would be all the more so if they brought me my dinner each night! Dogs don't experience the world in the same way as humans but kindness and emotional bonds arent solely the province of humans. "Aversive" events happen in relationships (between both people and animals) all the time and it doesnt destroy the bond, I've never had a relationship that didnt involve at least one disagreement.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> "There are times in which there are competing reinforcers (the running bunny) for which we have no alternative. Emily's example of the couch sitting dog, to my eyes, would fail miserably for any dog that loves the couch. Any solution that requires the focused attention and continual presence of the owner is not a solution at all.
> And that wasn't just a "pure reinforcement" problem. If she had offered a solution that involves the same technique, but included punishment of couch sitting, THAT solution would require the constant presence as well. In the end, she recommends containing the dog ... I suppose in a crate.... in the absence of an owner.
> oh behave


Ooorrrr . . . you can teach the dog that HIS bed is absolutely the best place in the world. Sometimes when you are on it, treats fall from the sky. In early stages of training, management is key. But once you've created a habitual behavior you don't need the management or the presence of the human. I've taught all my dogs a very good leave it. True story, we have some awful hailstorms in OK lately. In the last two years we have had storms with tennisball sized hail, having to replace glass in cars and roofs. It's also very hard on any birds around to be hit by something that big. Kills a bunch of them. About three days after the first storm, Ray came trotting around the house with a rotting starling. I told him to drop it (he did, without any attempts to keep his prize) and I told him and his mom and auntie (who were also out) to "leave it." I went into the house to get stuff to dispose of the mess. When I got back out, all three dogs were sitting a respectful distance from the carcass and it had not been moved. Because I had trained the behavior I didn't have to be right there to enforce it.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

aiw said:


> I'm not sure I buy the idea that dogs are entirely self-interested. I think that there is an emotional bond which extends both ways. If a close friend is upset I experience that as an aversive, it would be all the more so if they brought me my dinner each night! Dogs don't experience the world in the same way as humans but kindness and emotional bonds arent solely the province of humans. "Aversive" events happen in relationships (between both people and animals) all the time and it doesnt destroy the bond, I've never had a relationship that didnt involve at least one disagreement.


I hear what you're saying, and I get that aversion "happens" in nature, however, this alone does not justify aversion in training. The only way to justify aversion is to 1) prove non-aversion isn't working, and 2) prove aversion works to the proper end result - that being, aversion is minimized and diminished. Most people don't bother to quantify these things, so they instead use non-related examples from nature as proof. Proof of what? It's in our best interest to prove we are humane, and as you know, this resides on a sliding scale, which I hope we all want going in the same direction. I believe if more people took the time to quantify their non-aversive training they would likely not see a need for more aversive training. At least this has been my experience.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

aiw said:


> I'm not sure I buy the idea that dogs are entirely self-interested. I think that there is an emotional bond which extends both ways. If a close friend is upset I experience that as an aversive, it would be all the more so if they brought me my dinner each night! Dogs don't experience the world in the same way as humans but kindness and emotional bonds arent solely the province of humans. "Aversive" events happen in relationships (between both people and animals) all the time and it doesnt destroy the bond, I've never had a relationship that didnt involve at least one disagreement.



Even if you break down altruistic human behavior, you will still trace the roots back to basic selfish needs.

- If my boss is in a bad mood, I'm going to stay out of his way so that I don't F myself over somehow.
- If my best friend is upset, I want to cheer him up so that I can be back to joking around. You could say, "but I'm concerned about my friend's well-being". Why? Because you like your friend and you don't want to lose him/her.
- If my dog does a bunch of cute stuff at me that makes me laugh, there is a good chance I will give him food or play with him or pet him.

As kids, we're taught selfishness is a bad thing, but actually, if you think about it, it's kind of the driving force behind society. It's just, there's proper selfishness which helps your society and ultimately yourself, and improper selfishness which helps yourself in the short term but harms everybody in the long run. Everybody wants to do whats best for themselves because that increases your rate of survival, and as it turns out, for social creatures like dogs and humans, what's best for ourselves correlates with what's best for everybody. So if we are able to tap into our dogs' selfish needs for survival, we have about a 100% chance of reaching his brain.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Without getting philosophical let me just say I don't agree with the premise that society and human nature is based in selfishness. That said, it makes sense to create incentive for good behaviour, unfortunately sometimes bad behaviour has stronger innate incentives (food on the table is a good example). In that situation you would have to either come up with something more motivating than the bad behaviour or find a way to lessen the bad incentive... or both.

Aversive is the operant conditioning term but I prefer the idea of consequence. A predictable system that offers both good and bad outcomes, I think the system should be set up to create the maximum good outcomes but occasionally its in the best interest of everyone to teach that a certain choice is a BAD one. In those cases the discomfort of the aversive might be WAY less than the possible real-world consequence (eg. a dog that chases animals into the street who wont respond to treats but will respond to an ecollar). Mostly though I think we all agree that minimizing discomfort and unhappiness is the way to go, the world's not perfect though and there is only so much we can control.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

its not just dogs, i have seen it with horses also (i work with race horses, a fickle animal in itself as it is) something as simple as a blowing tarp: one day a windstorm hit at the other place where we were at, one of the horses, retired now was turned out in the big round pen & the wind blew the shavings tarp against the round pen fencing & he went magic bananas, freaked him out really bad. a stall opened up in the barn so we put him in (too hot to stay out there with no shelter) the next time i turned him out in there (days had passed) it was hell to get him to even enter that pen & he was hesitant after that... he associated the pen with something scary, dogs are the same way. we have to understand (& trust me i used to be a yank & crank trainer, as was the way 10-15 yrs ago) but now, having rescued a couple of 'soft' dogs, i have changed my ways, i am less rigid about their 'bad' behavior: sometimesd Buddy pees on our potted plants, so what? no big deal, before i would have masde a stink about it, now i 'pick & choose' i mean hell they are DOGS


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

aiw said:


> Aversive is the operant conditioning term but I prefer the idea of consequence. A predictable system that offers both good and bad outcomes, I think the system should be set up to create the maximum good outcomes but occasionally its in the best interest of everyone to teach that a certain choice is a BAD one. In those cases the discomfort of the aversive might be WAY less than the possible real-world consequence (eg. a dog that chases animals into the street who wont respond to treats but will respond to an ecollar). Mostly though I think we all agree that minimizing discomfort and unhappiness is the way to go, the world's not perfect though and there is only so much we can control.



I can relate with this viewpoint. Training = operant conditioning, and operant conditioning is ALL about consequences - how to manipulate consequences to achieve desired behavior or lack of behavior. The general trend is that the better people get at reward training, the less they need to use aversive stimulus. In your real-world example where a dog may run into the street, first and foremost, we would have to manage it with a leash, but beyond that, there are ways to solve the problem that don't involve aversive methods. It just takes more preparation, creativity, knowledge. Aversive-less training is more sustainable, because you can do it forever. If someone trains with ecollars and prong collars and has to rely on that everytime they train, then they run a serious risk of permanent injury to the dog.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

True, if you're looking for a pristine apartment or you're not prepared to occasionally lose your dinner a dog is not a good idea. I'm pretty far from a perfectionist but there are some basic lines I don't want crossed. I would never want to scare or traumatize a dog, the way that WORKS with the least amount of of discomfort all around has my full support. While I'm not prepared to rule out all aversives if there is a better way to deal with a problem then I'm all for it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

aiw said:


> Without getting philosophical let me just say I don't agree with the premise that society and human nature is based in selfishness. That said, it makes sense to create incentive for good behaviour, unfortunately sometimes bad behaviour has stronger innate incentives (food on the table is a good example). In that situation you would have to either come up with something more motivating than the bad behaviour or find a way to lessen the bad incentive... or both.
> 
> ol.


Or create a new habit. I had a client with a large puppy and two small children. Pup would stroll up to the table and eat off the children's plates while they were trying to eat. We taught her that when there was food on the table, better treats came on her bed. Mom and I rehearsed with left over mac and cheese. If the dog walked towards the table, we picked up the icky orange food, stood and turned our back. If she got on her bed, she got goodies. With a little bit of variable reinforcement, it was not that long until she would go to her bed when people were eating because that was the best chance for reward. A tad bit of negative reinforcement in showing the dog that food from the table was not available.


----------



## NozOnyCalAur (Jun 6, 2012)

I've been following this thread with interest. I'm the average layman dog owner. First dog of my adult life, and I'm rather pleased at the moment with the positive training. I give punishment, not going to say correction in the form of 'eh, eh' and time outs. I've never hit my dog, and never yelled at her, even though I swear sometimes I want to. I have however yelled at various things she's chewed. I've chastised my shoes for being chewed. Bad, BAD shoes! HOW dare YOU get CHEWED on! I then proceeded to put my shoes in the closet when I'm not wearing them.

To Auriel, my 14 week old peke, 'eh, eh' means, "Stop what you're doing and run to Mommy, then sit down for treat." I kept making her sit to give her good behavior to reward for. At this moment, positive training _is_ working for me. Even at her young age, and this may change, my pup's attention is constantly on me when I say her name and I believe this is because I'm the bearer of good things. Being a long time cat owner, I'm more inclined to believe the self serving dog, the dog does it for the benefit of themself rather than to please me but this is because I've been so used to cat behavior. Auriel is more eager than my cats, but when I whip out the boiled chicken I have the cats' attention too.

I think for the average layman dog owner, the positive training is the best recommendation.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> Ooorrrr . . . you can teach the dog that HIS bed is absolutely the best place in the world. Sometimes when you are on it, treats fall from the sky. In early stages of training, management is key. But once you've created a habitual behavior you don't need the management or the presence of the human. I've taught all my dogs a very good leave it. True story, we have some awful hailstorms in OK lately. In the last two years we have had storms with tennisball sized hail, having to replace glass in cars and roofs. It's also very hard on any birds around to be hit by something that big. Kills a bunch of them. About three days after the first storm, Ray came trotting around the house with a rotting starling. I told him to drop it (he did, without any attempts to keep his prize) and I told him and his mom and auntie (who were also out) to "leave it." I went into the house to get stuff to dispose of the mess. When I got back out, all three dogs were sitting a respectful distance from the carcass and it had not been moved. Because I had trained the behavior I didn't have to be right there to enforce it.




Did you use any aversive feedback or punishment methods to get such a reliable "leave it"?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

aiw said:


> Hmmm... I hadn't really considered that before. It does work, because he stops whatever he's doing (unless hes eating something particularly delicious) but why? Maybe he's intimidated that I'm angry? But I haven't hurt him or given him any reason to believe me being angry will be directly harmful to him... Pete in particular is very owner-oriented, almost too much so. That reaction is part of my "dogs aim to please" idea I guess. Maybe its just instinct, angry atmosphere = bad?


For me, it "worked" because it's an interrupter (it grabs his attention from whatever) which then gives me a small window to redirect. So "no" (or similar, I don't use "no" but have a verbal/sound equivalent) became "stop and see what my person wants", which has more use than just a punisher, imo.

Of course, tone of voice matters and then what you're seeing is likely calming signals. I believe dogs desire a peaceful environment (otherwise, why have calming signals), not necessarily aiming to please anyone. More like 'live and let live, but if we have to interact, let's make it peaceful'. So I agree with the 'angry atmosphere = bad' equation. As social animals, having peaceful interactions tends to be more beneficial than ones that involve strife - be it humans or dogs (since we're both social animals after all).

With our dogs, though, it also becomes emotional connection - but I still think that's not necessarily "I'm pleasing you", they just want to feel good and happy and play and whatever gets their jollies on (for some, it's some good hard work) all that. They want to do what gets them that feeling and what can get you to give them things that can make them feel good and at the same time, we can use training to slide these things around to have dogs help us, be companions, etc. It's a mutual thing, imo.



aiw said:


> Without getting philosophical let me just say I don't agree with the premise that society and human nature is based in selfishness. That said, it makes sense to create incentive for good behaviour, unfortunately sometimes bad behaviour has stronger innate incentives (food on the table is a good example). In that situation you would have to either come up with something more motivating than the bad behaviour or find a way to lessen the bad incentive... or both.


It is. Survival is a self-interest thing. Cooperation in society, in the end, is a way for each party to get what they want in a way that does the least harm and brings the most benefit to the parties involved. Still, each party is getting something and if one party feels like they aren't, cooperation can become much more difficult. I agree with qingcong's view here. "Being good" is so good things can happen and bad things stay way. That's self-interest. You can't help others if you can't help yourself after all. So even a saint would need to have enough self-interest to be able to keep doing whatever. Think of a food bank. Still self-interest (otherwise, it shuts down for lack of resources to give). 

And dog behavior isn't really "bad" or "good", imo. There's nothing "bad" about a dog doing what dogs do, foraging for food. You just don't want the dog to do it. That doesn't make it "bad", it makes in undesirable. So instead of trying to fight the fact that dogs forage for food because that's part of their survival instinct, teach him a new way to forage. Instead of grabbing the food off the table, have him sit in front of the table and you'll give him some. Play him against himself. Use what he wants as a reward for what YOU want. Then you both get what you want, and can satisfy their desires. He gets the food. You keep him off the table.




aiw said:


> Aversive is the operant conditioning term but I prefer the idea of consequence. A predictable system that offers both good and bad outcomes, I think the system should be set up to create the maximum good outcomes but occasionally its in the best interest of everyone to teach that a certain choice is a BAD one. In those cases the discomfort of the aversive might be WAY less than the possible real-world consequence (eg. a dog that chases animals into the street who wont respond to treats but will respond to an ecollar). Mostly though I think we all agree that minimizing discomfort and unhappiness is the way to go, the world's not perfect though and there is only so much we can control.


Consequence is also an operant conditioning term. It means the result of a behavior. That's it. Rewards are just as much a consequence as a swat on the nose, for example. 

No, a treat probably won't get the dog from chasing once the chase has begun. That's where we need to use our brains and read signals and manage and anticipate so we can cut problems off before they start if at all possible. If I don't want Wally running out the door, it's easier to handle before he actually starts running than to try to stop from once he starts running, especially if he's succeeds in getting out the door. 

I agree that usually it's much easier to present a yes/no situation so the dog can make "better" choices (i.e. ones we want him to make). However, there are ways to make one choice work out for him so well that no other choice is likely to enter his mind. I didn't slam the door in Wally's face (figuratively) to have him not bolt out the door. I established a pattern. You sit on the rug. I open the door. We go out. Since he likes routines and patterns (and it's said all dogs do) - this worked for him. After the 40th time (sounds like a lot, but I take him 4x a day, so not even 2 weeks) - he was doing it like it's what dogs do, sit in front of doors.

Like Paws said, train it enough and it just becomes "it's what I do". A couple days ago, he pooped three times, and I only had 2 bags (sometimes he poops twice - of course, he'd have to go three times lol) so I put him in a sit-stay near it so I remembered where it was. Left him there, went home (it wasn't far, from the neighborhood mailboxes), but I had to go completely out of sight because well, he can't see in the house from there). I came back and there he was just sitting there, looking towards the house waiting for me to come back. I made sure to come back with a super good treat. 

No aversives needed - no me being there to have to "enforce" it. Obviously, he could have moved if he wanted to, but he knows - when leash is on the ground, you don't move (it's an environmental stay cue for him). We've worked on this constantly, no ecollar, etc. Just a lot of practice and consistency, and randomly doing it to test, etc.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Pawzk9 writes: _Then why not just call it a punisher? The reason is because "correction" sound nicer. I believe that if you (general you) are going to punish, you should have the courage to admit it at least to yourself._ 

*I'm attempting to speak in the terms of the current lingo of the dog trainers I have met. When they refer to a "correction", I know what they mean. I sometimes use the word in casual conversation, but it doesn't come up much.*

*I would declare that a punishment has been used by myself, you, or Karen Pryor more than any of us would like. I have no problem whatsoever admitting it and calling it what it is. Someone in this thread asked about the meaning of "correction" and I gave a definition as used commonly by many dog trainers.*



_And yet, later in the same post you write:

So which is it? It is or it isn't. I will certainly admit that walking away from a dog is a negative punisher. But it also isn't generally a no reward marker. I guess I don't condition mine correctly, because I use eh eh very rarely simply to interrupt a bad idea (not just a wrong choice). _

*I'm not sure what you are asking, here. A no reward marker is a positive punisher if it has been conditioned as such.* 


_I'm familiar with it. I'm not sure I'd consider you in the same league as Murray Sidman anymore than I'd claim that Karen Pryor or Bob Bailey is "like myself"_

*Gosh, you seem to be seeking an argumentative or defensive tone to this discussion. I'm not. 

I have had dinner with Murray Sidman at a conference for behavior analysts. He has a PhD in Applied Behavior Analysis and I have a Masters in it. He is well published and I am not at all. I did not say I am in the same league, but we are both in the same profession. I'm thinking that Bob Bailey is a behavior analyst out of FSU if I'm not mistaken. Again, same profession... and never said that I was in the same league.

Incidently, I too feel rather foolish for how I lived with Lucy the wonder-Greyhound. All that off-leash stuff was risky.*

_It depends on your reinforcer. If you've studied behavior, I'm sure you've heard of Premack? _
*Yes, I use it quite a bit. The Premack Principle is discussed usually in the first week of your first behavior analytic class. Without a reinforcer on hand, I insist on a polite behavior before I allow access.*


*Let me say also that when I label something as a reinforcer or punishement (pos or neg, too), I am making a guess. Unless it is utterly obvious, it is hard to know without a functional assessment.

Someone may be believe that their "eh eh" is some sort of flowerly non-punishment, but a complex, difficult to detect, early learning history may have conditioned it to act as a punishment.

And that early learning history may or may not have included you or other people! Otherwise, it could indeed involve some other kind of happier learning history. It's hard to say.

You mention that "training" is going on all the time, and I agree, but if we are to be so picky about our words, I would say it is more accurate to say that "learning" is going on all the time. "Training" implies a kind of deliberate attempt at changing behavior.

The lingo of behaviorism is very specific and allows very little interpretation (as a proper natural science should be), so when speaking in a forum such as this, I do not expect finely tuned vocabulary at all... and I speak rather casually myself unless someone seems to seek a more formal chat.

Being keenly aware of behavioral principles puts a person at an advantage as a trainer. However knowing all the principles does not make a person a great teacher or trainer.... not at all. 

I once had a conversation with a leading behavior analyst (also well publish and "out of my league") and he whispered that one of THE most respected and productive analysts would probably make a lousy practical teacher. It would be like having a theoretical physicist attempt to tune a car.... he might know all the important principles, but having never held a wrench is a disadvantage.

Similarly, a person might know and understand every single letter of the alphabet and hundreds of thousands of words, but that does not mean that they can write Shakespear.

Even with such "word" knowlege, a person needs to know how to arrange the facts in clever and creative ways to get the result they seek. 

I'm sure there are skilled dog trainers with 9th grade educations that could run circles around a behavior analyst with his first puppy.*


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> Did you use any aversive feedback or punishment methods to get such a reliable "leave it"?


I would say "no" to the aversive, possible "yes" to the negative punishment (treat is not available, or you can't get to it) because I don't really consider negative punishment "aversive" in the same way as +P or -R. (The dog is not working to avoid something, but working out how to get something) First I teach food zen with a treat in my fist. (you only get the treat when your nose is away from it) which usually goes quick enough that there is not much frustration built up. That carries over very quickly to a piece of kibble under the foot, and a much better treat from the hand. Then the kibble is right next to the foot, and if the dog dives for it, you slide your foot over it. Click and treat as soon as he raises his nose or moves it away. Then we go to an object on the floor - cue "leave it" (which you've added during the stationary exercises) as soon as the dog looks at it and take a step away from the food (if your timing is really bad, you might get a tight leash, but not usually) As soon as the dog stops looking at yummy or interesting object , click and treat with something better from your hand. I coach my students that if they think they might automatically jerk their leash hand when they are doing a moving leave it, (common with people taught yank and thank with a previous dog) that they should hook that thumb in their pocket. That way if they jerk, they give themselves a wedgie, but don't tug on the leash. (So I guess that might be aversive feedback for the handler - but it usually gets a laugh) Most dogs get this in a single session, many in three reps. Then it's not that much effort to keep it up, and raise criteria until it becomes a good habit. I've also taught "leave it" to rescues who needed to be okay with cats (I would NEVER suggest doing this for a seriously cat predatory dog) and if I put my dinner on the arm of the sofa and tell the dogs to leave it, it will still be there when I get back. If I don't tell them what to do, I'm probably out of luck. BTW, if I've told a dog to leave something, I NEVER give them permission to "get it" though I might give them the food later out of my hand. If it's spilled prescription medication or a putrid bird carcass, I don't want them to be anticipating that it's just a wait and then they will be allowed to get it.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

There is some fog in how a person could interpret the "zen" technique. I'm not familiar with the "zen" thing, but from your description, it might be more accurate to say that you are using "extinction".

The dog can bump your fist, nuzzle it, paw at it, or bark.... and nothing. The treat is there. The fist is there. But those behaviors are failing to produce the reinforcer. That part sounds like extinction.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> I'm attempting to speak in the terms of the current lingo of the dog trainers I have met. When they refer to a "correction", I know what they mean. I sometimes use the word in casual conversation, but it doesn't come up much..




Funny, I am a dog trainer and I don't think "correction" is part of my "lingo" If I was a "balanced trainer" it likely would be, as they often spurn behavioral terms and frequently don't really understand their meaning. But I think you'll find that this group (particularly in discussing subjects like this tend to be a little more savvy. And if they don't understand the terms, the information is readily available on this very same internet. Research is a very cool thing.



ohbehave said:


> I would declare that a punishment has been used by myself, you, or Karen Pryor more than any of us would like. I have no problem whatsoever admitting it and calling it what it is. Someone in this thread asked about the meaning of "correction" and I gave a definition as used commonly by many dog trainers...



Again, most +R/-P trainers try to look at interactions more specifically. I can't deny that I have used punishment (can you have been training dogs back in the 70s and NOT?) I don't doubt that Karen Pryor didn't start out where she is now. The difference is, if you make a conscious decision about training methods and what you are willing to do, instead of just allowing "whatever works" and excusing the use of aversives by calling them something else, you end up needing a whole lot LESS in the way of aversives. That's the whole point, to be able to evolve into a more humane and connected dog trainer (pet trainer as well as professional) And understanding behavior terms and having at least a little ability to analyse how they work helps us reach that goal. (Have you figured out yet that nobody here is claiming to be purely positive, and you can quit arguing about why it would never work?)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> There is some fog in how a person could interpret the "zen" technique. I'm not familiar with the "zen" thing, but from your description, it might be more accurate to say that you are using "extinction".
> 
> The dog can bump your fist, nuzzle it, paw at it, or bark.... and nothing. The treat is there. The fist is there. But those behaviors are failing to produce the reinforcer. That part sounds like extinction.


I guess you could look at it that way. Does extinction generally happen in less than five minutes? I think it is more likely that the dog quickly figures out what produces the better treat. And the clicker helps them.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

ohbehave said:


> There is some fog in how a person could interpret the "zen" technique. I'm not familiar with the "zen" thing, but from your description, it might be more accurate to say that you are using "extinction".
> 
> The dog can bump your fist, nuzzle it, paw at it, or bark.... and nothing. The treat is there. The fist is there. But those behaviors are failing to produce the reinforcer. That part sounds like extinction.


Hmm...it might be extinction, or the use of negative punishment to bring it about. That said, if, let's say pawing - Wally paws at my hand. I don't open it and no treat for him. He stops pawing. I open my hand, he gets it. Have I "deleted" pawing from his mind? I would say no, considering that he'll paw something else (which is what I want, in the sense of I want him to try pawing in other situations - it's why I 'taught' it in the first place  ).



Pawzk9 said:


> BTW, if I've told a dog to leave something, I NEVER give them permission to "get it" though I might give them the food later out of my hand. If it's spilled prescription medication or a putrid bird carcass, I don't want them to be anticipating that it's just a wait and then they will be allowed to get it.


Sadly, I didn't do it like that when I was first teaching it, but he did have to wait until explicitly told to get it. I would make him "leave it", and then wait. And wait. And wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait until then finally I would cue him to get it. If he made a move towards it on his own - it disappeared (i.e. I ate it - as you might guess, we worked with stuff like deli ham, not dead carcasses! ). So I suppose same net result in that if I never give him the go-ahead, I'll mark and treat him from something else. 

Sort of a mismash messed up version - but all no-aversive...well unless you consider "avoiding my person from eating my treat" aversive LOL  I call it our "competitive training" either he wins the prize (he eats it) or I do (I eat it).


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

PawzK9...

You still seem bent on taking a defensive and insulting tone which keeps me baffled.

You ask me to stop arguing against positive only training.... as though I am dropping endless posts on the matter. The title of this thread asks the very question, "why positive only...?". It's the subject!

Also, I more specifically meant to say that I am a radical type of behaviorist... which is the type that Sidman is as well.... along with being a behavior analyst. You might be a clicker trainer (don't know) which is the type that Pryor is known for as well.

If someone asks an honest question ("what's 'correction' mean?"), I'll answer it if it's easy enough.... rather than sending them away. (are you sure you avoid harsh consequences???) 

Besides, it is more interactive to discuss things in a forum. You and I have now posted two or more threads on this "correction" word. Apparently, it deserves a bit of chat!

KBLover,
Extinction is merely the non-delivery of reinforcement after the occurence of a behavior.... and usually it is the occurence of a behavior that probably has, in the past, produced the reinforcer. 

This protocol serves to reduce (and possibly eliminate) a behavior if we are, indeed, truly eliminating the reinforcer for that behavior consistently.

You are right, though. You have not wiped pawing from his repetoire, but you have probably worked toward wiping pawing from his repetoire _in that specific context _(you squating on the kitchen floor, fist extended with a treat inside).

You'd probably have to be braced to manage the "extinction burst", too! On the first training trials, that dog might try to work us for all he's got.... and it can be very energetic and disappointing!

ohbehave


----------



## PunkyPug (Jun 4, 2011)

Sorry if this was asked already:
But if your dog pees inside and you're using the "positive only" training. What do you do? Just ignore it, clean it and go about your daily day? Makes no sense to me. And the dog doesn't see that peeing inside is a bad thing.

I think that if you punish the peeing indoors and then when they pee outdoors you praise them. They may associate peeing inside bad. Peeing outside good.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

PunkyPug said:


> Sorry if this was asked already:
> But if your dog pees inside and you're using the "positive only" training. What do you do? Just ignore it, clean it and go about your daily day? Makes no sense to me. And the dog doesn't see that peeing inside is a bad thing.
> 
> I think that if you punish the peeing indoors and then when they pee outdoors you praise them. They may associate peeing inside bad. Peeing outside good.


You have to be careful about what dog you're talking about. Peeing is something the dog has to do, and often in your presence. If the dog doesn't make the connection, you can make a confused dog, and at worst a shy pee-er. Not just in the house, but anywhere you are. I don't speak from a 'positive only' stand point, but from a 'least aversive' standpoint, who's to say the reinforcer isn't enough for the dog to make the connection? This is the flaw in the 'need' to punish logic. Prove you have a good enough reinforcer, create a nice long history of reinforcement, and then see what more is needed. Interrupting the dog in the moment of the act, more out of necessity than for training, is likely all that's needed. However, a schedule and preventing owner-absence also goes a long way in the least aversion equation.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

BTW, my interrupter of choice is an "outside" cue - this too with a nice long history of reinforcement.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

I find "house training" to be fascinating.

A dog that will only "go" outside is a remarkable feat. I don't get it.

Sure. In a crate, a typical dog possesses some sort of instinct to "not go" right where it sleeps. This seems to be the primary horsepower behind the thinking irrespective of the owner's reinforcing the proper piddling.

I'm guessing that we are wanting the dog to eventually expand his "no-pee zone" crate to include the entire interior of the house! I'm amazed that many dogs manage to do this.

Sure, I can understand why a dog might avoid piddling in the main room, but houses are large spaces. It just seems remarkable that they would avoid piddling in the 4th bedroom, upstairs, at the far end of the hall! 

I've had a number of adult dogs, but have not house trained any of them (and one was a race track greyhound...with no home living experience at all). I foolishly just expected the dog to "not go" and got lucky.

The act of relieving yourself produces it's own reinforcer. That makes things a bit more dicey, in my opinion. It is a good idea, I suppose, to reward a dog for "going" outside (I am doing it with my new pup). I'm not sure of how the behavioral contingency is playing out, though. At best, I woudl think that I am merely teaching the pup to "hurry up and go" when we go out. That's a good thing, but I just don't know if I am improving my chances of having a house trained dog per se.

Now, if one were to apply some sort of aversive to a dog's environment at the moment that it is piddling in the house (a startling "no!"), then the formulation might start leaning in favor of a dog that prefers going outside.

You wouldn't want to have the side effect of a dog that won't piddle in your presence, though! Hopefully, a long history of getting rewards from you, outside after a pee, innoculates the dog from forming an unfortunate association!

For myself, I am going to do the things that I have learned from other people.... but the principles involved lack clarity... so I am mindlessly giving reinforcement for outside piddles/poos, preventing indoor accidents, and have said "no!" the one time that I have caught her piddling in the house... and that was about six days after bringing her home from the pound.

In all, she has had 4 or 5 accidents in the 13 weeks of ownership... and those were within the first two weeks.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

AHA! I am secretly pleased that this thread took a 'housebreaking' turn. Pete has this problem and its driving us pretty crazy. He has never been disciplined for going indoors by us but he is a rescue and his previous history is unknown. He NEVER goes in the house in front of us but instead he sneaks away and goes in the attic, or the basement. I reward him for going outside but he doesnt really like to be outside anyways and wont go if I'm not out with him (a big problem for when I'm not home and he has to pee). He also has some SA issues so I dont want to tether him to me 24/7 because I don't want to reinforce the needy behaviour. He whines and barks in his crate but can be left alone quietly when given room to run. Its a conundrum... can we deal with both the SA and the housebreaking? Without use of the crate?


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

ohbehave said:


> Pawzk9 writes: _Then why not just call it a punisher? The reason is because "correction" sound nicer. I believe that if you (general you) are going to punish, you should have the courage to admit it at least to yourself._
> 
> *I'm attempting to speak in the terms of the current lingo of the dog trainers I have met. When they refer to a "correction", I know what they mean. I sometimes use the word in casual conversation, but it doesn't come up much.*
> 
> ...


My my, it sounds like someone thinks a lot of themselves :/. Just because someone doesn't have "credentials" doesn't nessessarily mean they are beneath anyone who does. Also thr methods you choose to use are not always the best & they do not always work with every dog. JMO


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> PawzK9...
> 
> You still seem bent on taking a defensive and insulting tone which keeps me baffled.
> 
> ...


Shrug. I thought my last post was pretty polite. But take it however you want to. You HAVE made the reference to purely positive several times, and as many have said (not just me) it probably exists as an ideal, We can only do our best to make the best choices we are capable of. And for best choice, to me that equals the least aversive method I know to get the point across.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Curbside Prophet said:


> You have to be careful about what dog you're talking about. Peeing is something the dog has to do, and often in your presence. If the dog doesn't make the connection, you can make a confused dog, and at worst a shy pee-er. Not just in the house, but anywhere you are. I don't speak from a 'positive only' stand point, but from a 'least aversive' standpoint, who's to say the reinforcer isn't enough for the dog to make the connection? This is the flaw in the 'need' to punish logic. Prove you have a good enough reinforcer, create a nice long history of reinforcement, and then see what more is needed. Interrupting the dog in the moment of the act, more out of necessity than for training, is likely all that's needed. However, a schedule and preventing owner-absence also goes a long way in the least aversion equation.


Where is the "LIKE" button?


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Pawzk9 said:


> I guess you could look at it that way. Does extinction generally happen in less than five minutes? I think it is more likely that the dog quickly figures out what produces the better treat. And the clicker helps them.


Extinction doesn't describe a change in behavior. It is a procedure used to reduce behavior. If you deny a behavior it's customary reinforcement, you are using extinction.

Some people like to use the phrase " the behavior was extinquished ", which is probably what you are referring to when you ask about whether "it" can happen in five minutes, but this is a manner of speaking losely. 

Can behavior decrease within five minutes? It depends upon the learning history of the individual behavior (its resistance to extinction)... but "yes"... it can decrease in five minutes.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

dogdragoness said:


> My my, it sounds like someone thinks a lot of themselves :/. Just because someone doesn't have "credentials" doesn't nessessarily mean they are beneath anyone who does. Also thr methods you choose to use are not always the best & they do not always work with every dog. JMO


Not sure if I'm the one who thinks a lot of himself or not in this post, but I certainly don't. I meant to say that I am a radical behaviorist. Many think that behaviorists are cold and use harsh methods to change behavior. Because of this possible concern, I am saying that Murray Sidman ... the guy who wrote Coercion and its Fallout ... often referred to by positive reinforcement enthusiasts.... is also a radical behaviorist. So we aren't all bad.

Incidentally, you do not need any kind of formal education to be a behaviorist (radical or otherwise).

Like I said, a good dog trainer can give a degree'd behaviorist a run for his money in real world, applied applications.... and maybe even Sidman himself!

Now, I don't know Sidman's experience with dogs, but does anyone think that he could get a Bluetick Coonhound to heal faster than a solid dog trainer? I wouldn't bet on it. 

Granted, if he decided to bone up on dog training methods, he would be at a distinct advantage to someone who never studied behavior (of course).


----------



## michelleling (Jul 14, 2012)

If you want to successfully train your dog, you must first have a healthy relationship with it and this can only be achieved if you use cruelty-free training techniques in comparison to the aggressive method. For a long time, people used the aggressive method and only professionals have discovered that it is much more effective to work with a dog’s natural instincts and being positive helps build a lifelong bond and trust. If you use the aggressive method on your dog, your dog will have difficulty trusting you and he will be resistant to what you have to train him.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

The houebreaking thing really doesn't mystify me. Yes, going is a self-rewarding behavior, but housetraining isn't really *training*, per-se. You aren't teaching the dog not to go in the house, so much as you are removing the opportunity for them to self-reward (bathroom) in the house. The 'reward' of going outside gets associated with outside, they figure out fairly quickly, with consistency and supervision that inside isn't gonna happen, and it self-extincts. 

Yes, it takes a long time to be completely reliable, and yes, even one accident inside will be a setback, but it's really not mysterious. You don't let it happen, the reward and act that comes from it (and by this I mean bladder relief) gets associated with outside and it becomes ingrained. I have never used rewards OR punishments for housebreaking and never had serious issues. I just supervise like HECK until the dog is well and truly trained. (In a crate, on a leash, in a room with immediate access to a door, or actually outside.). It's just - a self-reenforcing habit.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

Why positive only? Because it works and because it's nicer. Not just for the dog, but for the owner too. Imagine how much more relaxing it is to see every mistake made by the dog as "feedback" rather than a "mistake". If the dog breaks the sit, he's telling you he doesn't see enough value in the sit yet. If he leaves work to go and sniff a pole, he's telling you that the pole has higher value than working with you right now. Then, instead of thinking that the dog "failed", you think "oh, I need to help the dog see more value in working with me".

Why use aversives when it's not necessary? And I'm not saying that because I have an issue with aversives. I don't. I'm a dog trainer, I know how to use them correctly, I know they work and produce good results when used correctly, but I just don't see the need for them in obedience training and everyday manners training. And no one WANTS to punish their dog, so when you know that it's not needed, and you don't want to do it, why do it?

I have used aversives on my dogs for avoidance training, to teach them to stay away from cane toads. I figure a correction is better than a sick/dead dog, and it produced the result I wanted. But I hated doing it. For every correction I spent 10 minutes going over it again and again to figure out if I'd used the right intensity, was the timing right, could I have done something differently etc.

While when I train my dogs using rewards and see every mistake as "feedback", I have fun, and the dogs have fun, and I end every training session with a big smile on my face. Why wouldn't I choose that?


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

lil-fuzzy,

That all sounds perfectly good to me. 

In my case, I have no interest in punishing a dog for mere disobedience or failing to perform something with precision.

As with your toads, I'm concerned with behaviors related to safety and the predisposition of the dog. For that, I am willing to formally apply an aversive.

My past dogs seemed intently concerned with what "we" were doing and, for lack of a better word, wanted to "please" or go along with what we were doing... staying underfoot. This current pup _clearly_ has different DNA! For sure, she'll need to come when called even when under distraction.... and she is the opposite of an "underfoot" type animal. 

I'm plotting and scheming now, but won't introduce the formal use of an aversive until she is closer to a year old.... if it is necessary. 

ohbehave


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Ha, "supervising like HECK"... that's really 99% of what I'm doing much to the annoyance of my girlfriend.

But my confusion about the principles involved is what is motivating me to do so much supervision! By keeping her piddling behavior outdoors, I am assuming that some sort of genetic/instinctual predisposition is going to give me a helping hand eventually.

Your statement, "..housetraining isn't really *training* per se." captures it fairly well.


----------



## hamandeggs (Aug 11, 2011)

aiw said:


> AHA! I am secretly pleased that this thread took a 'housebreaking' turn. Pete has this problem and its driving us pretty crazy. He has never been disciplined for going indoors by us but he is a rescue and his previous history is unknown. He NEVER goes in the house in front of us but instead he sneaks away and goes in the attic, or the basement. I reward him for going outside but he doesnt really like to be outside anyways and wont go if I'm not out with him (a big problem for when I'm not home and he has to pee). He also has some SA issues so I dont want to tether him to me 24/7 because I don't want to reinforce the needy behaviour. He whines and barks in his crate but can be left alone quietly when given room to run. Its a conundrum... can we deal with both the SA and the housebreaking? Without use of the crate?


I'll pick up on this one. My dog was similar, except she wouldn't go near people at all. I suspect before we got her at 7 months someone had tried to housetrain her with aversive methods and it backfired badly. I can't speak to SA, but for the housebreaking, I would strongly suggest sticking to the positive method. You've already got a good start in that he's willing to go outside!

You'll want to start by convincing him that outside is fun and not scary. I would do this by taking him outside and asking nothing of him, and giving him praise and treats. Do this a few times a day in different locations. 

In the meantime, deny him access to places to sneak away and pee. If he can't go in his preferred option, he'll come to see that outside in front of you is the only option. Reward him for that. I do think you should tether him to you as part of denying access. You can tether without giving him attention. 

Are you expecting him to use a doggy door or something when you're not home?


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Sticking with the positive theme.... how do you folks normally carry your edible treats?

I have been using the method that I've seen on TV dog shows.... carrying hotdog or string cheese in my mouth... leaving my hands free. Do you strap a fanny pack type treat bag around your waist? 

What's the latest good idea on treat holders?


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

I use the little waist treat bag. I almost always have it on with young dogs. Also, I wear bdu's training, so I always have a tug, ball, and squeak toy in pockets.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Funny, I am a dog trainer and I don't think "correction" is part of my "lingo" If I was a "balanced trainer" it likely would be, as they often spurn behavioral terms and frequently don't really understand their meaning.)


So only those that agree w you are intelligent?:lie:

.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

ohbehave said:


> Sticking with the positive theme.... how do you folks normally carry your edible treats?
> 
> I have been using the method that I've seen on TV dog shows.... carrying hotdog or string cheese in my mouth... leaving my hands free. Do you strap a fanny pack type treat bag around your waist?
> 
> What's the latest good idea on treat holders?


If I'm at home, I keep them in a little container on a table or shelf. If I'm in class or otherwise out and about, I just keep them in my pocket (yes, even stuff like hot dogs). I just don't like the little treat bags.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

"I wear bdu's training"

Juliemule, what is bdu's? I lived most of my youth in a military family and then was in the military myself, so BDUs means "battle dress uniform" in my world. It kinda makes sense, though. Lots of pockets, durable, no worries about stains, etc.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

PunkyPug said:


> Sorry if this was asked already:
> But if your dog pees inside and you're using the "positive only" training. What do you do? Just ignore it, clean it and go about your daily day?


Basically, yes, because it's too late otherwise, UNLESS I catch him in the actual act of doing it. If I catch him in the act or as he's about to lift a leg, then I can interrupt that and then redirect outside (I never want peeing-in-my-presence. If I happen to see a spot on the ground - well...yeah, I can't do anything then. He won't know what I'm ticked off about and I'll get the "guilty look" (calming/appeasement signals) but not know what he's "looking guilty" about.



CptJack said:


> The houebreaking thing really doesn't mystify me. Yes, going is a self-rewarding behavior, but housetraining isn't really *training*, per-se. You aren't teaching the dog not to go in the house, so much as you are removing the opportunity for them to self-reward (bathroom) in the house. The 'reward' of going outside gets associated with outside, they figure out fairly quickly, with consistency and supervision that inside isn't gonna happen, and it self-extincts.


I disagree a bit that there's no training.

At the minimum, you're creating an association between two things. Outside = Pee place. So when I need to pee, I need to get to go to the pee place. To me, that's training. 


Of course, my definition of training = a process by which learning takes place. So if the dog is learning something, he's being trained.



ohbehave said:


> Sticking with the positive theme.... how do you folks normally carry your edible treats?


I just use pockets. 

Or if I'm inside, they are on the floor or a nearby table. Basically, some place where I can grab it and throw it in his mouth after the marker ASAP. 



ohbehave said:


> KBLover,
> Extinction is merely the non-delivery of reinforcement after the occurence of a behavior.... and usually it is the occurence of a behavior that probably has, in the past, produced the reinforcer.
> 
> This protocol serves to reduce (and possibly eliminate) a behavior if we are, indeed, truly eliminating the reinforcer for that behavior consistently.
> ...


Okay, cool, I need to adjust my understanding of extinction. Situational, not overall. Duly noted! 

Yeah, the extinction burst I'm familiar with. I use it a lot to my advantage during shaping if at all possible, especially if I want to teach "adverbs", i.e. "how" something is done. For example, don't just lightly paw the door, paw it hard with a push so it closes. Don't just tap the ball with your nose, push it like you have a pair (he doesn't, but he can still push like he does LOL). So if I take those puny taps or paws and then hold out, he's like WTF??? and starts pawing HARD (more like a WHAP, THERE I DID IT, DID YOU SEE *THAT*?!), which is exactly what I want!


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

That's why captJack says to supervise the heck out of a puppy.

My schedule looked like this (to avoid unsupervised piddling):
1. If the dog recently pee'd outside... she gets freedom in the house with minimal supervision for up to an hour. 

2. After an hour, if I'm too busy to increase the intensity of the supervision, she goes back in the crate with a great, treat toy.... usually for _at least _30 minutes.

3. When I am available, I let the dog out of the crate and we go direction outside. If she pee's, she gets the indoor freedom for an hour. If not, back in the crate with great toy.... or...

4. I supervise the heck out of her in a confined area of the house.

5. If I notice that the dog has been chugging water, I might start intensifying my scruitiny early.

The reason for this is that an piddling indoors is a lost learning opportunity. Actually, it is a learning opportunity, but the lesson is: "I enjoyed some piddling relief INSIDE".

I agree with the notion that you can not arrive, after the fact, and inform the dog that it was a bad behavior. It's just a setback and you have to suck it up and continue with the "supervise like heck" plan.

To tell you the truth, I HATE dealing with this! 

Not only is all this supervision a hassle, but you just never quite know when you truly have a "house trained" dog! It's not like the dog hands you a diploma, "Congratulations, I am now officially house trained! You can now relax.".

With most behaviors, there is a far more distinct time when you realize, "great! that behavior is looking solid! I can prove it... just watch this retrieve behavior!". With house training, you can't say, "watch my dog's house trained behavior!".


----------



## JulieK1967 (May 29, 2011)

I keep seeing this thread pop up but as a novice, I didn't really feel qualified to respond but every time I see it the same answer keeps popping into my head: "why not? It works." I clearly haven't worked with any difficult or special needs dogs. I've only trained 2 dogs in my life but positive for anything, IMO, is always better than negative.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

JulieK1967 said:


> I keep seeing this thread pop up but as a novice, I didn't really feel qualified to respond but every time I see it the same answer keeps popping into my head: "why not? It works." I clearly haven't worked with any difficult or special needs dogs. I've only trained 2 dogs in my life but positive for anything, IMO, is always better than negative.


I would definitely agree that there are far fewer disadvantages (and fewer possible pitfalls) from a positive reinforcement approach... even when mismanaged or possibly over-the-top generosity with the reinforcement, the problems (if they occur) are far less problematic.

There are hard core behaviors, though, that can be eliminated much more quickly with a proper punishment procedure.... and sometimes, within one single trial! Whether this is ethical is up for debate, but I'm saying that this feature is the "big attraction".

(of course, an angered person likes to dole out punishment, too... it's just so satisfying...and the most dangerous training moment for a punitive trainer)


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

ohbehave said:


> Not sure if I'm the one who thinks a lot of himself or not in this post, but I certainly don't. I meant to say that I am a radical behaviorist. Many think that behaviorists are cold and use harsh methods to change behavior. Because of this possible concern, I am saying that Murray Sidman ... the guy who wrote Coercion and its Fallout ... often referred to by positive reinforcement enthusiasts.... is also a radical behaviorist. So we aren't all bad.
> 
> Incidentally, you do not need any kind of formal education to be a behaviorist (radical or otherwise).
> 
> ...


no, i was reffering to Pawz, because i was also getting a condecending undertone feel to her posts, just saying


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

ohbehave said:


> That's why captJack says to supervise the heck out of a puppy.
> 
> My schedule looked like this (to avoid unsupervised piddling):
> 1. If the dog recently pee'd outside... she gets freedom in the house with minimal supervision for up to an hour.
> ...




amen!!!!


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Thats where we got into trouble initially, the rescue told us he was housetrained so in the first few days when he was with us 99.9% of the time we didnt notice any accidents or leg-lifting we just assumed... and then discovered he had been peeing on our couch in the basement the WHOLE TIME! Seriously, in the middle of the cushions. Oh Pete.... the funny part is when I put the cushions outside to dry Pete came out and immediately lifted his leg and peed on them AGAIN!!! I just laughed. I guess I'll tether without attention and maybe try to block off part of the kitchen for him. Maybe he'll stay outside alone with a treat involved, hes not so much into playing, only cuddling so if he expects me to come outside and pet him he will be even MORE annoying when I am not there. 

I've been pretty well convinced about positive training, I'm still not going to rule out mild aversives but they will definitely be a last resort.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Neither pack theory or dominance theory has been "disproven". Findings regarding both are temperament and drive related meaning it comes down to what kind of dog you're working it. Obviously Akita Inu isn't the same thing as Border Collie. Some dogs have strong pack drive and some dogs are really into dominance but I agree that those drives contribute little to pet dog training.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

JulieK1967 said:


> "why not? It works."


Agreed.

Is there ANY behaviour that cannot be trained by positive methods? any behaviour that MUST be taught using aversives?

If the answer is "no" (and IMO it's a _resounding_ no), ... well, then ....


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

SassyCat said:


> Neither pack theory or dominance theory has been "disproven". Findings regarding both are temperament and drive related meaning it comes down to what kind of dog you're working it. Obviously Akita Inu isn't the same thing as Border Collie. Some dogs have strong pack drive and some dogs are really into dominance but I agree that those drives contribute little to pet dog training.


Correct. It has not been "disproven" because they've never been proven with any living species on the planet. Kinda hard to disprove something that's never been proven, or easy depending on how you look at it. The logic behind the theory, however, is easily dissected with...logic.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

ohbehave said:


> There are hard core behaviors, though, that can be eliminated much more quickly with a proper punishment procedure.... and sometimes, within one single trial! Whether this is ethical is up for debate, but I'm saying that this feature is the "big attraction".




What would be considered a hardcore behavior? 

I will use forms of P+ or aversive punishment, such as body blocking, sharp sounds, screaming in horror, to deal with stuff like getting into trash or getting too close to my dinner. The good thing is that over time, I don't have to use it anymore, and that's the whole goal. It's not ideal, but those are minor problems and the degree of aversive needed to effectively deal with the behavior is low. Sometimes, it's just not possible from a logistical standpoint to do R+ for every single problem. I don't need my dog on his bed for 30 minutes while I eat. He can do anything around the house, just not eat my dinner.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

qingcong said:


> What would be considered a hardcore behavior?
> 
> I will use forms of P+ or aversive punishment, such as body blocking, sharp sounds, screaming in horror, to deal with stuff like getting into trash or getting too close to my dinner. The good thing is that over time, I don't have to use it anymore, and that's the whole goal. It's not ideal, but those are minor problems and the degree of aversive needed to effectively deal with the behavior is low. Sometimes, it's just not possible from a logistical standpoint to do R+ for every single problem. I don't need my dog on his bed for 30 minutes while I eat. He can do anything around the house, just not eat my dinner.


Is body blocking +P or -P? I'm denying him what he wants, that would seem to be negative punishment just like closing my hand over a treat. 

I didn't use +R to keep Wally from my food, I used it to reward him while he was away from it. Since staying away is what's rewarded, usually around a "landmark" given how he seems to think and orient to his environment, especially at home, he uses those spots to stay at while I'm eating. He's not forced to stay there, he basically has the same rule you do - "anything but bother me for food or try to eat my dinner" - but since being at spot X makes food fall from the sky...

I try to use +R to prevent problems so I don't have to use it to solve them, if that makes any sense.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

qingcong said:


> What would be considered a hardcore behavior?
> 
> I will use forms of P+ or aversive punishment, such as body blocking, sharp sounds, screaming in horror, to deal with stuff like getting into trash or getting too close to my dinner. The good thing is that over time, I don't have to use it anymore, and that's the whole goal. It's not ideal, but those are minor problems and the degree of aversive needed to effectively deal with the behavior is low. Sometimes, it's just not possible from a logistical standpoint to do R+ for every single problem. I don't need my dog on his bed for 30 minutes while I eat. He can do anything around the house, just not eat my dinner.


 How would you handle a dog that attacked you? Say you had him out on lead, and he attacks your leg, not letting go. Is there a way to handle this positively?


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

I am not commenting on most of this as I have a differnt view from the vast majority of this forum(I am NOT all postive and I have nothing whatsoever against dominance theory) 

but I do feel the need to comment on the point expressed of "all postive is not as easy to screw up" I disagree, my mom is all postive and I am not, and she is currently trying to fix the mistake she made trying to teach my puppies not to jump on her using all positive..all because she made a small mistake in timing, creating a behaviour chain she didnt intend. her tiny timing mistake meant that instead of teaching the puppies she sit down and she would give them lovin, what she instead taught them was that every single time they see her(and we live together so thats all the time..) they get super exited, jump all over her, then throw themselves on the ground, smack my moms dog around with their front feet THEN plant there feet firmly on the ground for lovin , and they do it all with a giant grin, content that they are doing exactly what my mom wants. my mom cant so much as walk 2 steps in the house without the puppies chasing her around, jumping/clawing, smacking her dog then throwing themselves on the ground at her feet. and that is what a very experinced postive trainer did by accident. ANY methode can be screwed up with a timing error, not just negative methodes.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

juliemule said:


> How would you handle a dog that attacked you? Say you had him out on lead, and he attacks your leg, not letting go. Is there a way to handle this positively?


A better question would be, is it a training scenario? The answer becomes obvious, then.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Miss Bugs said:


> I am not commenting on most of this as I have a differnt view from the vast majority of this forum(I am NOT all postive and I have nothing whatsoever against dominance theory)
> 
> but I do feel the need to comment on the point expressed of "all postive is not as easy to screw up" I disagree, my mom is all postive and I am not, and she is currently trying to fix the mistake she made trying to teach my puppies not to jump on her using all positive..all because she made a small mistake in timing, creating a behaviour chain she didnt intend. her tiny timing mistake meant that instead of teaching the puppies she sit down and she would give them lovin, what she instead taught them was that every single time they see her(and we live together so thats all the time..) they get super exited, jump all over her, then throw themselves on the ground, smack my moms dog around with their front feet THEN plant there feet firmly on the ground for lovin , and they do it all with a giant grin, content that they are doing exactly what my mom wants. my mom cant so much as walk 2 steps in the house without the puppies chasing her around, jumping/clawing, smacking her dog then throwing themselves on the ground at her feet. and that is what a very experinced postive trainer did by accident. ANY methode can be screwed up with a timing error, not just negative methodes.


Do we need to bring up examples of bad training with dominance theory, and its fallout to explain the difference? You may get poor behavior with bad positive training (which is correctable), but you're more likely to create a screwed up dog with bad dominance theory (which is not easily correctable). It's a huge difference.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Curbside Prophet said:


> A better question would be, is it a training scenario? The answer becomes obvious, then.


 Doesn't matter. Say its a rescue, you get him out of the kennel on lead to take into your home. Whatever, you didn't raise him from a pup on positive only, didn't see the aggression coming, and its now you vs dog. 

You can change it to a training scenario, or whatever you like. Besides never getting the dog out of a kennel, is there a way you can train this behavior out by using no negatives, punishment, corrections, whatever wording is chosen? 

Or what about the dog that isn't aggressive, just redirects to a handler bite?


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Do we need to bring up examples of bad training with dominance theory, and its fallout to explain the difference? You may get poor behavior with bad positive training (which is correctable), but you're more likely to create a screwed up dog with bad dominance theory (which is not easily correctable). It's a huge difference.>>>>>>

does the use of corrections when you feel a dog ignores a known command an example of dominance theory?? does corrections in general necessarily have anything to do w dominance theory?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

juliemule said:


> Doesn't matter. Say its a rescue, you get him out of the kennel on lead to take into your home. Whatever, you didn't raise him from a pup on positive only, didn't see the aggression coming, and its now you vs dog.
> 
> You can change it to a training scenario, or whatever you like. Besides never getting the dog out of a kennel, is there a way you can train this behavior out by using no negatives, punishment, corrections, whatever wording is chosen?
> 
> Or what about the dog that isn't aggressive, just redirects to a handler bite?


Positive or negative whatever is dependent on whether its OC or not. The scenarios you painted would not be OC, counter conditioning rules.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

jiml said:


> does the use of corrections when you feel a dog ignores a known command an example of dominance theory?? does corrections in general necessarily have anything to do w dominance theory?


To a dominance theorist, yes.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> To a dominance theorist, yes.


How many are training from the point of view that its all about dominance? CM and the CM wannabees?

I think to many get caught up in the Cesar Millan brand of dominance theory. I know of quite a few very good trainers that feel some dogs can have a "dominant" personality and "need a leader" but that is not the focus of their training day to day. They teach w clickers and markers rarely/try to minimize giving corrections. None would throw the dog on its side.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

jiml said:


> How many are training from the point of view that its all about dominance? CM and the CM wannabees?


All of them? I'm not sure why a dominance theorist would pick and choose a belief if the weren't invested in the theory. 



> I think to many get caught up in the Cesar Millan brand of dominance training. I know of quite a few very good trainers that feel some dogs can have a "dominant" personality and "need a leader"...


Dominance theory was here before CM. So too the definition of dominance in dogdom, to characterize a relationship (not to characterize a dog). So, do I believe there are trainers who have a better understanding of dominance, and their own definition of "being a leader." I do, but I would not characterize them as dominance theorists.

Typically, when someone says they have a "dominant" dog, they just mean the dog exhibits behavior they wish to have under control. This describes every dog I've ever met. And if being a "leader" means I must do my responsibility as the dog's handler to train it, well, duh.


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

IMO there is a difference between believing a dog can have a "dominant" personality in that the dog often takes the dominant position in a relationship, and believing in "Dominance Theory." Dominance Theory as it was originally described based on a study done on a captive wolf "pack" is the belief that dogs need to be physically dominated in order to be put in their proper place within the pack, which would be below humans.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

juliemule said:


> Doesn't matter. Say its a rescue, you get him out of the kennel on lead to take into your home. Whatever, you didn't raise him from a pup on positive only, didn't see the aggression coming, and its now you vs dog.
> 
> You can change it to a training scenario, or whatever you like. Besides never getting the dog out of a kennel, is there a way you can train this behavior out by using no negatives, punishment, corrections, whatever wording is chosen?
> 
> Or what about the dog that isn't aggressive, just redirects to a handler bite?


yes, counter conditioning.

IMO this is sometimes/w some dogs a longggg process. This is where I believe corrections if used correctly should be in the toolbox as it may speed recovery time.

Others will talk about possible fallout and pos always works. In the real world Time and money are real factors.

Ex... I have an acquaintance who has had his boxer going to school for severe dog and stranger aggression issues with a local and respected pos trainer ( i know some that use/love her). He told me after over a year the dog is not much better he was thinking he may need to get rid of the dog. He sent the dog to a highly regarded balanced trainer (multiple titles in schutzhund) for a 2 week board and train. Lets see how he comes back. Ill bet quite a different dog.

Now Im not saying that all dogs need corrections but I think the option should be on the table w some dogs/conditions.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Gally said:


> IMO there is a difference between believing a dog can have a "dominant" personality in that the dog often takes the dominant position in a relationship, and believing in "Dominance Theory." Dominance Theory as it was originally described based on a study done on a captive wolf "pack" is the belief that dogs need to be physically dominated in order to be put in their proper place within the pack, which would be below humans.


Did it or was that some peoples interpretation when applied to dog training?


<<< So, do I believe there are trainers who have a better understanding of dominance, and their own definition of "being a leader." I do, but I would not characterize them as dominance theorists.>>>>

got ya


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

Did it what?


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Gally said:


> Did it what?


yeah, I guess my response didn't make sense - misread your post.

<<<<Dominance Theory as it was originally described based on a study done on a captive wolf "pack" is the belief that dogs need to be physically dominated in order to be put in their proper place within the pack, which would be below humans.>>>>

I will say that many I know do believe (myself included) that a pecking order can take place (that may include the humans) and that an individual dog MAY need to be "put in its place" in some instances although having to have them be "physically dominated" as I read it is prob rare unless a "correction" for inapropriate behavior/decision after one has taught and thinks the dog understands what is expected is defined as "physically dominated"


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

jiml said:


> yes, counter conditioning.
> 
> IMO this is sometimes/w some dogs a longggg process. This is where I believe corrections if used correctly should be in the toolbox as it may speed recovery time.
> 
> ...


 I completely agree. I have had a few that were just tough dogs, and possibly could have gotten there with just positive. However, with some adult dogs, that are serious about biting, I have yet to see a reward take its mind off of it.

Another example is the current pup Libby. She was showing extreme animal aggression. I could have spent a year out of threshold, rewarding for good behavior and it would have worked. I chose to add a correction, a harsh no, and change in direction fast. Now two months later, she can work offlead in our venue. Can I trust her in any situation, no. Could I if trained differently, no. Imo, aggression issues are never cured, only managed. It's just the dogs nature, and if approached aggressively she may react. However, she now looks to me for guidance. I corrected her maybe three times, and the rest was, look at me get rewards. So it was a combination. The biggest issue for her, was no matter what the situation, don't ignore me. 

I really would like to see a true HA dog handled with only positive training. Of course avoidance is best, but when pushed in stressful situations, it tends to revert back, even momentarily. I can't keep dogs out of stress with what we do, so a correction when needed, appropriate for the action, has never caused any issues. I do prefer to keep training as positive as possible.


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

I agree that there is some kind of hierarchy to a family with a dog or multiple dogs. When people say Dominance Theory as per my definition above has been disproven I believe what they mean is that it has been disproven that: 1. Wolves use physical force to maintain their position as "alphas" (studies of wild wolf packs have shown that a pack is usually made up of family members and the "alphas" are the parents of the other wolves, they may have some control over resources but they also often let pups and other relatives have priority access (ie. eating first etc.) 2. Dogs need to be physically dominated in order to be shown their place in the family 3. Dogs are always trying to be in the dominant position in their relationship with humans.

I believe dogs need a leader especially when they are living in close social proximity to others the way they must when living with humans. Someone needs to set the rules so everyone can live in happy coexistence but being a good leader for your dog doesn't need to equal physically dominance or any of the Dominance Theory techniques such as going through a door first or eating first (unless of course you want your dog to go through the front door second then that is a matter of setting rules or teaching manners, rather than being in "dominant" or "submissive" position in your relationship).


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

In regards to HA/DA, with some major exceptions, they are driven by fear. I think that fear is uniquely responsive to positive reinforcement. I also suspect that many dogs who had "issues" with people and dogs can be made exponentially worse with improper punishment.

Right now, I am in a class with a fearful and reactive german shepherd. Any time that poor dog looks at another dog, it is corrected to screaming with a prong collar. They are "showing her who is in charge" and making her look away from all the animals. I can see that dog's stress level jumping. If they actually think that they are "fixing" her with their method, they are insane. They are making a nerve-box out of her and probably won't be able to fix her now. In her case, desensitization might have worked wonders. 

But it would have taken time.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Is body blocking +P or -P? I'm denying him what he wants, that would seem to be negative punishment just like closing my hand over a treat.


The act of body blocking is a kind of aversive stimulus. What it does is reduce the occurrence of a behavior by adding my body in the way of the dog. It can also be negative reinforcement if it makes the dog do something else, but whatever the result, the tool used is a physically intimidating body, which qualifies as aversive.







juliemule said:


> How would you handle a dog that attacked you? Say you had him out on lead, and he attacks your leg, not letting go. Is there a way to handle this positively?


Extreme life situations don't really qualify as training examples. If a dog attacks me, I'm not training jack, I'm trying to save my life. The difference between a reward trainer and a balanced trainer, is that the reward trainer will work with the dog during the threshold moments, keeping the situation safe, while the balanced will push the dog into a dangerous situation and justify the use of aversive punishment because the dog is dangerous. Dogs are not inherently aggressive or dangerous or red-zone, they are under or over threshold. Can a correction possibly work? Yeah, possibly, but it can also amp the dog up even more. You see that all of the time in the Dog Whisperer. 







Gally said:


> I believe dogs need a leader especially when they are living in close social proximity to others the way they must when living with humans. Someone needs to set the rules so everyone can live in happy coexistence but being a good leader for your dog doesn't need to equal physically dominance


I don't think characterizing the relationship with terms like leader and hierarchy is necessary. They might make it easier for the human to relate, but are by no means accurate representations of the dynamics of the relationship. Our relationship with another animal is dynamic, not static. Nothing is fixed, it is always changing. The ways in which we are "higher" than a dog - 1) that we own them, 2) that we buy them everything, 3) that we control their environment etc, etc... are irrelevant to the dog. Only WE care about it, but the dog does not see what we see.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

trainingjunkie said:


> In regards to HA/DA, with some major exceptions, they are driven by fear. I think that fear is uniquely responsive to positive reinforcement. I also suspect that many dogs who had "issues" with people and dogs can be made exponentially worse with improper punishment.
> 
> Right now, I am in a class with a fearful and reactive german shepherd. Any time that poor dog looks at another dog, it is corrected to screaming with a prong collar. They are "showing her who is in charge" and making her look away from all the animals. I can see that dog's stress level jumping. If they actually think that they are "fixing" her with their method, they are insane. They are making a nerve-box out of her and probably won't be able to fix her now. In her case, desensitization might have worked wonders.
> 
> ...


 Some are, but trust me, these aren't fear issues. If the problem is fear based, yes corrections will make it worse.
When dealing with many for protection, there isn't much fear period. The dogs are selectively bred to have no fear. Most aren't given any obedience until one year or older, and they are built along by winning tugs, any sign of aggression is rewarded with a win. They go through a few handlers, decoys, and pretty quickly learn to run the show. 

When trained correctly, it is a balance of give and take, manners are added in. Many times its incorrect training, a super strong dog, that gets handled poorly, and there you have it. 

Big difference in fear based dogs. Usually the first sign of nerve issues the dogs are washed.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

Protection/Ring sport dogs are a different sort all together. I would still maintain that there is a giant difference between "aggression" and "over threshold." Also, many "aggressive displays" have been reinforced and encouraged and are, to some degree, the result of intentional training. I would not call that actual "aggression." It is a trained response. Obviously there are also some truly aggressive dogs out there. They rarely do well in any area, sport, protection, OR pet. 

I live with a threshold-challenged dog who can go over-the-bend in a flash if he hasn't been getting enough exercise. He's not aggressive, but that doesn't count for much when he's out of his mind. Correction would not have been a good tool of choice for him. He's soft enough that it would have either shut him down or pushed him to aggression. Hard to know which. Slowly working closer and closer to his threshold has resulted in a very nice dog.

For me, I don't want to fight my way out of anything that I can finesse. I train my dogs because I love them and I love working with them. I love problem-solving and working on challenges together. I don't compete because I want to impose my will on my dog, I do it because I want to dance with him/her. I am always impressed by how bright they are. A dog without fear is so much more willing to problem solve. For example, today, my dog came in on a crooked front. When I saw it happening, I shifted my shoulder slightly to push him into the right position. He saw my shoulder move and adjusted his body. I have never taught this, but we run agility together and he cues off of shoulders usually from behind me. How brilliant! Would have probably cost me huge points in the ring, way more than the crooked front, but what a bright and willing dog. Dog that are concerned about being wrong are much less willing to take such chances.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

"hardcore behavior" - With that, I'm just speaking casually.

But we've all seen dogs that appear to be "hard wired" to follow a scent or chase moving prey for instance. Lot's of dogs like this stuff, but some dogs are koo koo for it.

My pup isn't as bad as some, I suppose, but when she catches an interesting scent, I can't gain her attention with a frig'n hotdog... even if she hasn't eaten in 10 hours! 

Now, I have found some ways to address her behaviors with a different reinforcer, but if she wasn't interested in that... I'd be screwed without some version of punishment. 

When the time comes to check her against some even more serious distractions (powerful reinforcer distractions like a stranger walking by), I may have to impose a penalty.


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

>>I don't think characterizing the relationship with terms like leader and hierarchy is necessary. They might make it easier for the human to relate, but are by no means accurate representations of the dynamics of the relationship. Our relationship with another animal is dynamic, not static. Nothing is fixed, it is always changing. The ways in which we are "higher" than a dog - 1) that we own them, 2) that we buy them everything, 3) that we control their environment etc, etc... are irrelevant to the dog. Only WE care about it, but the dog does not see what we see. <<

I agree our relationship with our dogs is dynamic and there is much more to them than just a simple hierarchy. I think of Leadership the way Suzanne Clothier describes it. Leaders are in control of resources, they are the ones actively influencing others behavior to get a desired result and the ones who proactively intervene in situations to protect others. 

Maybe dogs themselves wouldn't think they need a leader but humans still need to be responsible "leaders" and care for and guide our dogs in how to fit into human society, including training, providing resources like food and protecting them.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

ohbehave said:


> "hardcore behavior" - With that, I'm just speaking casually.
> 
> But we've all seen dogs that appear to be "hard wired" to follow a scent or chase moving prey for instance. Lot's of dogs like this stuff, but some dogs are koo koo for it.
> 
> ...


Sounds like you need to build the game then. If you train well enough and long enough, the game of training together can become the greatest thing ever. If you train in blasts and make it count, you can make a dog love training with you so much that they actually will drown out the rest. It isn't fast. It isn't easy. But it's so much fun when it all comes together.

And I own a hound and 2 terriers. I get it.

It's about working in sterile environments and then adding distractions as they can be handled. Manage when you aren't training, and train very, very well when you are.

I'm no purist and I do correct behavior, but the magic for me has been in having my dog buy in to the process.

I started out a million years ago as a 100% yank and cranker and have come pretty close to a complete turn-around as my results kept improving as I moved closer and closer to positive only.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

In negative punishment, you are removing something that he has. Preventing access is an interesting issue for analysis, but it probably depends upon the learning history and context.

So, if the dog misbehaves in some way (or fails to comply with some cue), it may result in the phrase "oh well" and ending the rewarding fun... or putting the treats away. If the learning history looks like that, then "oh well" has been conditioned to act as a positive punishment. 

The sight of the closing hand could act as a positive punishment as well. It is a new stimulus that is added to the dog's environment. You hand is open and the dog is behaving in some fashion, and then bam! ... the hand slams shut. If the dog has a solid learning history of knowing the meaning of the shut hand, then the sight may be construed as a positive punishment.

It doesn't matter terribly much regardless of how we conceptualize these details. What matters is that the dog's "world" just worsened as a result of the behavior... whether through positive punishment or negative. With punishment (or reinforcement), THAT is the most important thing behaviorally: "Did my world just worsen (or improve) as a consequence of my behavior? "


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

ohbehave said:


> It doesn't matter terribly much regardless of how we conceptualize these details. What matters is that the dog's "world" just worsened as a result of the behavior... whether through positive punishment or negative. With punishment (or reinforcement), THAT is the most important thing behaviorally: "Did my world just worsen (or improve) as a consequence of my behavior? "


I like that way of describing it.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

So, to that way of thinking, p+ and p- are equivilants?


----------



## ofthelogos (Mar 1, 2012)

I think the addition of a negative stimulus is often much more aversive than the removal of a positive stimulus.
Obviously, this depends somewhat on the dog, but you usually see a lot more calming signals after a correction than you do after the application of negative punishment.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> Extinction doesn't describe a change in behavior. It is a procedure used to reduce behavior. If you deny a behavior it's customary reinforcement, you are using extinction.
> 
> Some people like to use the phrase " the behavior was extinquished ", which is probably what you are referring to when you ask about whether "it" can happen in five minutes, but this is a manner of speaking losely.
> 
> Can behavior decrease within five minutes? It depends upon the learning history of the individual behavior (its resistance to extinction)... but "yes"... it can decrease in five minutes.


Ahem. behavior decreasing IS a change in behavior. No, that is not what I am referring to. There are a lot of behaviors I don't want to go extinct, but I may not want them this very minute. And of course the issue (is it a bug or a feature?) with extinction is that if you reinforce that behavior just once, you've put it on a variable schedule, and just made it stronger. This is probably why you can withhold reinforcement from a clicker savvy dog and they'll just work harder.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> but does anyone think that he could get a Bluetick Coonhound to heal faster than a solid dog trainer? I wouldn't bet on it.
> 
> ).


I guess that would depend on his medical expeience and how sick/badly injured the Coonhound is. Oh. Did you mean "heel"?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> So only those that agree w you are intelligent?:lie:
> 
> .


Where did you read that? Or are you just twisting it to meet your own goal? There are many people who spurn behavioral terms (and so would not know their meaning) without being stupid. Stupidity and ignorance are not the same thing. And while I don't think one has to agree with me to be intelligent, I'll happily concede that when it comes to dog training, there are a lot of ignorant ideas out there. And not all of them come from people who haven't studies behavior.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> Sticking with the positive theme.... how do you folks normally carry your edible treats?
> 
> I have been using the method that I've seen on TV dog shows.... carrying hotdog or string cheese in my mouth... leaving my hands free. Do you strap a fanny pack type treat bag around your waist?
> 
> What's the latest good idea on treat holders?


I sometimes use a bait bag, or stash it in my mouth if I'm not using something too gross. But generally I don't have the food on my person, but nearby. And I don't reach for it until I've marked the behavior. Drawing attention to the treat befor that point is counterproductive


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

qingcong said:


> to use it anymore, and that's the whole goal. It's not ideal, but those are minor problems and the degree of aversive needed to effectively deal with the behavior is low. Sometimes, it's just not possible from a logistical standpoint to do R+ for every single problem. I don't need my dog on his bed for 30 minutes while I eat. He can do anything around the house, just not eat my dinner.


As can I. However, if you have a dog who has gained continual reinforcement from plucking food off the children's plates, sometimes giving them a specific behavior which they can understand will be strongly reinforced is more useful than body blocking or screaming in horror.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KBLover said:


> Is body blocking +P or -P? I'm denying him what he wants, that would seem to be negative punishment just like closing my hand over a treat.
> 
> .


If you are looking at it as social pressure (which it usually is) it would probably fall into the areas of +P and -R. May not be terribly aversive though, depending on how the dog perceives it. For some dogs invading their space bubble can be a pretty major thing, and other dogs don't seem to have one.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> How would you handle a dog that attacked you? Say you had him out on lead, and he attacks your leg, not letting go. Is there a way to handle this positively?


If the dog is firmly attached to your leg, is it still a training situation? I'd call it damage control.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> Doesn't matter. Say its a rescue, you get him out of the kennel on lead to take into your home. Whatever, you didn't raise him from a pup on positive only, didn't see the aggression coming, and its now you vs dog.
> 
> You can change it to a training scenario, or whatever you like. Besides never getting the dog out of a kennel, is there a way you can train this behavior out by using no negatives, punishment, corrections, whatever wording is chosen?
> 
> Or what about the dog that isn't aggressive, just redirects to a handler bite?


Am two hours out of the hospital and slogging through three days worth of posts (that's how dedicated I am!) and just answered your previous question much the same, but yes. It matters. If the dog is biting you he's probably over threshold. You need to protect you (and the dog) as best you can and then come up with a plan to give the dog alternate base emotions/behaviors that don't involve needing to knaw on you.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Am two hours out of the hospital and slogging through three days worth of posts (that's how dedicated I am!) and just answered your previous question much the same, but yes. It matters. If the dog is biting you he's probably over threshold. You need to protect you (and the dog) as best you can and then come up with a plan to give the dog alternate base emotions/behaviors that don't involve needing to knaw on you.


 You can keep him on a catch pole, muzzled, or not have access to you, but how do you train? I have had two dogs that were Hell bent on biting the handlers. No toy or treat was going to prevent this. I don't see how any positive method would work here. Most situations, yes. On these occasions, no. It was simply having the dog on lead. No distractions to put him over threshold yet. However, after the corrections, redirecting that aggression was so much easier when distractions were added.

Not knowing the full past, I don't know how the dogs got to this point, but it had to be corrected.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

juliemule said:


> You can keep him on a catch pole, muzzled, or not have access to you, but how do you train? I have had two dogs that were Hell bent on biting the handlers. No toy or treat was going to prevent this. I don't see how any positive method would work here. Most situations, yes. On these occasions, no. It was simply having the dog on lead. No distractions to put him over threshold yet. However, after the corrections, redirecting that aggression was so much easier when distractions were added.
> 
> Not knowing the full past, I don't know how the dogs got to this point, but it had to be corrected.




If the dog is hell bent on biting someone, there HAS to be a trigger. Dogs don't just aggress for no reason, unless there is a serious mental issue. The idea is to work on the trigger, not correct what happens after the trigger has set off.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

> Do we need to bring up examples of bad training with dominance theory, and its fallout to explain the difference? You may get poor behavior with bad positive training (which is correctable), but you're more likely to create a screwed up dog with bad dominance theory (which is not easily correctable). It's a huge difference.


hence



> ANY methode can be screwed up with a timing error, not just negative methodes.


I dont find it any more difficult to "fix" a problem screwed up from either positive or negative methodes, its only a huge difference if your firmly planted in 1 camp and refuse to see anything else.

for the record I am not a dominance theorist, but I DO believe in dominance, and I HAVE pinned some of my dogs(OMG!!!! cue the abuse calls!!) I dont hate CM and I dont hate BP(dont love them either), but I cant stand VS. I have been training and competing for half my life and my mom has been training and competeing since she was 14. I do train with treats, and I own several clickers, and I dont think its fair to correct a dog for incorrectly doing something it has never been taught. but I never ignore behaviour I dont want, and if my dogs are afraid to do something I dont want them doing...GOOD.

I usually try to avoid any traing questions on this forum because all the total postive/anti dominance crap makes me want to scream.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Miss Bugs said:


> I dont find it any more difficult to "fix" a problem screwed up from either positive or negative methodes, its only a huge difference if your firmly planted in 1 camp and refuse to see anything else.


What? This argument doesn't follow. It doesn't matter where you place yourself, or where you believe others are in this camp thing...either you're cognizant of classical conditioning during training, especially with aversives, or you're a horrible trainer, and perhaps a foolish one. Classical conditioning is always happening, and if you've made a wrong impression on the dog, sorry, it's no fun to fix. I hope you never have to address it, it's hard work. 



> I usually try to avoid any traing questions on this forum because all the total postive/anti dominance crap makes me want to scream.


I won't be any help. Dominance theory is garbage.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Miss Bugs said:


> for the record I am not a dominance theorist, but I DO believe in dominance, and I HAVE pinned some of my dogs(OMG!!!! cue the abuse calls!!) I dont hate CM and I dont hate BP(dont love them either), but I cant stand VS. I have been training and competing for half my life and my mom has been training and competeing since she was 14. I do train with treats, and I own several clickers, and I dont think its fair to correct a dog for incorrectly doing something it has never been taught. but I never ignore behaviour I dont want, and if my dogs are afraid to do something I dont want them doing...GOOD.



What's the difference between dominance theory and dominance? There's one form of dominance that you don't agree with and another form that you do believe in?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> You can keep him on a catch pole, muzzled, or not have access to you, but how do you train? I have had two dogs that were Hell bent on biting the handlers. No toy or treat was going to prevent this. I don't see how any positive method would work here. Most situations, yes. On these occasions, no. It was simply having the dog on lead. No distractions to put him over threshold yet. However, after the corrections, redirecting that aggression was so much easier when distractions were added.
> 
> Not knowing the full past, I don't know how the dogs got to this point, but it had to be corrected.


You get him under threshold. I've seen quite a few protection trained dogs who go up the leash to the handler's body parts. While these dogs are bred to be quicker to bite (and enjoy it) I have to say that the ones I've seen who do this have been trained in ways which created conflict, not partnership with their handlers. And the dogs got fed up with being jerked around (not to mention, that just made them higher). At some point you have to decide whether jacking the dog up to get him "high" is worth the results.


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

I don't understand why someone would want to bring fear into any relationship with any other living being. Fear creates stress, anxiety and aggression and hinders the forming of meaningful bonds. Why would you want a dog that works out of fear of their owner rather than a dog who works because they love to work with their owner?


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Curbsideprophet: I think what Miss Bugs is trying to say is that sometimes the dogma of balanced training or classical conditioning gets in the way of actually finding a solution and being intellectually honest. I think its pretty unfair to suggest that any trainer who isn't aware of classical conditioning and treating it as gospel is horrible. Classical conditioning is a theory like any other and has to be subject to some doubt. Remember how convinced everyone was that the world was flat? Now we are more sure it is round... who knows maybe we'll find out that our fallible human brains can't perceive the world as it truly is and its not any shape at all. 

Gally: sometimes fear is good. I never want my dog to be afraid of me but I would like him to be afraid of jumping off our balcony or running into the busy street. To a MUCH lesser degree I would like him to think twice about jumping up on the table. We teach our children (even more cherished beings) that some choices are BAD and unacceptable. The way we teach is different but the premise is the same. Not every option is a good one, choose wisely and you will be rewarded, choose poorly and you will face somewhat unpleasant consequences. Often the world can be engineered to offer mostly motivators (especially in a dogs limited world) but not always and I prefer the job of preparing the dog for the world than the world for the dog.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

aiw and curbside:
The (apparently) emotional, problematic behaviors that result from punishment seems to be what you are discussing.

I am gleening that a "balanced" trainer is one who uses reinforcement and also punishment (especially positive punishment) when it serves the purpose.

All living things are be conditioned "classically" by the environment.... and whether you are using reinforcement or punishment, the principles of classical conditioning are at play.

I'm not sure the word "classical" is being used anymore or not. Behavior analysts use the word "respondent" ... I think Skinner did, too.... can't recall. respondent conditioning


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> You get him under threshold. I've seen quite a few protection trained dogs who go up the leash to the handler's body parts. While these dogs are bred to be quicker to bite (and enjoy it) I have to say that the ones I've seen who do this have been trained in ways which created conflict, not partnership with their handlers. And the dogs got fed up with being jerked around (not to mention, that just made them higher). At some point you have to decide whether jacking the dog up to get him "high" is worth the results.


 The trigger is he can. I'm not talking only when something happens, just standing there, no stimulation, no anything going on. The dog has done this in the past, figured out its an easy bite, which is like crack to them, and just bites. There were never any boundaries taught. 

Both dogs have since gone on to be active working dogs. Stable. They both tested the new handlers. One needed just a coupke months, whike the other took about six to be stable in high stress situations.

If avoidance is the only way to train without corrections on a situation like this, the dogs would not be able to be handled period. Euthanasia would have been the option. It didn't take abuse, or even hard corrections. 

I honestly want to learn if there is a better way to train.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

Check out "How Police K9 Techniques Can Transform Your Everyday Training" (Steve White).

Interesting. On topic. Very funny.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

trainingjunkie said:


> Check out "How Police K9 Techniques Can Transform Your Everyday Training" (Steve White).
> 
> Interesting. On topic. Very funny.


Is there a link? All I see is a dvd for sale.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

juliemule said:


> Is there a link? All I see is a dvd for sale.



Here's a youtube video from the guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHiejASuDyQ

He says stuff myself and others have mentioned in this thread.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

qingcong said:


> Here's a youtube video from the guy
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHiejASuDyQ
> 
> He says stuff myself and others have mentioned in this thread.


 Thank you. Perfect example of some of the crappy training that goes on in LE. Again, its a totally different situation than working a dog on a sleeve, and the example of the two dogs I mentioned. Mr white states he does use corrections, but he sounds fair with them. 
I would still like to hear if there is any positive way to handle the dogs I described.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> aiw and curbside:
> The (apparently) emotional, problematic behaviors that result from punishment seems to be what you are discussing.
> 
> I am gleening that a "balanced" trainer is one who uses reinforcement and also punishment (especially positive punishment) when it serves the purpose.
> ...


Do you understand the difference between classical and operant conditioning? It sort of sounds to me like you are saying "classical" but describing "operant". Of course, like Bob Bailey is fond of saying "Pavlov is always on your shoulder" but the two are not interchangable. Science based dog trainers use both, for different reasons. Non science-based dog trainers use them as well, but don't think as much about why what they do works in either OC or CC. If it works well, chances are you are thinking about your process, but if it works at all, you are at least unknowingly using the process.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

aiw said:


> Curbsideprophet: I think what Miss Bugs is trying to say is that sometimes the dogma of balanced training or classical conditioning gets in the way of actually finding a solution and being intellectually honest. I think its pretty unfair to suggest that any trainer who isn't aware of classical conditioning and treating it as gospel is horrible. Classical conditioning is a theory like any other and has to be subject to some doubt. Remember how convinced everyone was that the world was flat? Now we are more sure it is round... who knows maybe we'll find out that our fallible human brains can't perceive the world as it truly is and its not any shape at all.


If you're suggesting the laws of learning are a flat earth, then we also have a problem with other laws, like gravity. Or does that baby stay in the bathwater with you? Laws are laws because there are no better explanations, and they are generally agreed upon by the scientific community. It's sort of silly to throw them out for an alternate explanation, which we know nothing about. That's called acting on a whim. 

BTW, Dominance Theory, unlike learning theory, is actually a hypothesis...it is NOT generally accepted by the scientific community, and as such, there are no laws derived from it. It's more accurately a meme, but not as funny as the infamous double rainbow. 

I'm also steadfast in my belief that a trainer who isn't concerned or aware of the effect aversion has on their dog is not only a horrible trainer, but also inhumane - results do not matter more than our humanity. If being humane, then, is unfair, well, I want to be the unfairest of them all. Why not everyone else? 

I know, I know...because aversion sometimes works. So too a brick across the head to effect a down, but obviously because it works is NOT GOOD ENOUGH.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> Thank you. Perfect example of some of the crappy training that goes on in LE. Again, its a totally different situation than working a dog on a sleeve, and the example of the two dogs I mentioned. Mr white states he does use corrections, but he sounds fair with them.
> I would still like to hear if there is any positive way to handle the dogs I described.


If you were to pay a little more attention to Steve White with a really open mind, I think you might find the answer to your question. The biggest problem is that the answers require a completely different mindset, and often the hardest part is being willing to let go of what you think you know.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

juliemule said:


> Thank you. Perfect example of some of the crappy training that goes on in LE. Again, its a totally different situation than working a dog on a sleeve, and the example of the two dogs I mentioned. Mr white states he does use corrections, but he sounds fair with them.
> I would still like to hear if there is any positive way to handle the dogs I described.





Pawzk9 said:


> If you were to pay a little more attention to Steve White with a really open mind, I think you might find the answer to your question. The biggest problem is that the answers require a completely different mindset, and often the hardest part is being willing to let go of what you think you know.



In short, as Steve would ask - Are you setting your dog up for success?


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Where did you read that? Or are you just twisting it to meet your own goal? There are many people who spurn behavioral terms (and so would not know their meaning) without being stupid. Stupidity and ignorance are not the same thing. And while I don't think one has to agree with me to be intelligent, I'll happily concede that when it comes to dog training, there are a lot of ignorant ideas out there. And not all of them come from people who haven't studies behavior.


" If I was a "balanced trainer" it likely would be, as they often spurn behavioral terms and frequently don't really understand their meaning.)"

Ok so your meaning implied in this quote is balanced trainers frequently are the ones "ignorant"

sorry for the mis-interpretation.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> If you were to pay a little more attention to Steve White with a really open mind, I think you might find the answer to your question. The biggest problem is that the answers require a completely different mindset, and often the hardest part is being willing to let go of what you think you know.


 Unfortunately pawz, I'm not finding the answer in what he is saying. But maybe since you clearly see it, you could point it out to me, since I've paid about as much attention as I could. What he is describing is a totally different situation, unless you aren't understanding that.

Being over threshold is one thing. It's not a fear issue. It's not an expectance issue. The dogs had poor training, mishandling, and figured out they could just bite whenever. It's a self rewarding behavior. The only prevention is avoidance, which leaves the dog not being handled period, which isn't going to solve anything.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> " If I was a "balanced trainer" it likely would be, as they often spurn behavioral terms and frequently don't really understand their meaning.)"
> 
> Ok so your meaning implied in this quote is balanced trainers frequently are the ones "ignorant"
> 
> sorry for the mis-interpretation.


Ignorant of training theory, yes. Doesn't make them stupid. But it does make it difficult to carry on a conversation.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> Unfortunately pawz, I'm not finding the answer in what he is saying. But maybe since you clearly see it, you could point it out to me, since I've paid about as much attention as I could. What he is describing is a totally different situation, unless you aren't understanding that.
> 
> Being over threshold is one thing. It's not a fear issue. It's not an expectance issue. The dogs had poor training, mishandling, and figured out they could just bite whenever. It's a self rewarding behavior. The only prevention is avoidance, which leaves the dog not being handled period, which isn't going to solve anything.


I don't think I can explain it to you, because I'm not sure what part of it you don't understand. Being over threshold is not always about fear. It's simply about being in a place where meaningful learning can't take place. Are you familiar with lizard brain/einstein brain? and how you can't be both places at once?


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Again, that's what you aren't understanding, its not over threshold. Is a dog that walks up to a tennis ball and picks it up over? No its a dog that enjoys a tennis ball. 

I've tried keeping an open mind, and asked others how they would handle this, including you, but you can't explain it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> Again, that's what you aren't understanding, its not over threshold. Is a dog that walks up to a tennis ball and picks it up over? No its a dog that enjoys a tennis ball.
> 
> I've tried keeping an open mind, and asked others how they would handle this, including you, but you can't explain it.


What needs to be explained? I understand what he is saying, but don't understand what part you don't understand. I understand that a dog likes to bite. I don't think it is the same as picking up a tennis ball. And I've seldom seen a sane dog who bites without reason. And frequently LE (and protection sport hobbyists) create situations where the dog doesn't have a lot of other choices. At any rate, you can teach a dog to pick up a tennis ball on cue, and to leave it on cue. Basically what you seem (to me) to be asking is how do you take a dog who has been badly trained and "fix it" in one session. My answer is that you take the time to teach the dog better skills and better impulse control. That may mean sacrificing the dog who is way over-the-top aggressive (which, yes, looks impressive) for a dog who actually is thinking about what he needs to do (which may not look as impressive but ends up with a more effective dog. You have to let go of the idea of owning a beserker. You teach the dog to think about what he's doing (and give him other things to do) And that takes time. You CAN just surpress behavior. But a lot of times it really doesn't (or doesn't effectively)


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

juliemule said:


> Again, that's what you aren't understanding, its not over threshold. Is a dog that walks up to a tennis ball and picks it up over? No its a dog that enjoys a tennis ball.


You have three components to play with to effect voluntary behavior - which is what you're suggesting the biting is, voluntary. 

1) The antecedent (cue, and it may be environmental).
2) The behavior (what do you want instead - reinforce that).
3) The reinforcer (what is appetitive to the dog).

Not specific enough? Which dog, which handler?

I also believe avoidance isn't necessary where a muzzle will help you keep your fingers while you replace the behavior with something more rewarding.


----------



## ofthelogos (Mar 1, 2012)

juliemule said:


> Unfortunately pawz, I'm not finding the answer in what he is saying. But maybe since you clearly see it, you could point it out to me, since I've paid about as much attention as I could. What he is describing is a totally different situation, unless you aren't understanding that.
> 
> Being over threshold is one thing. It's not a fear issue. It's not an expectance issue. The dogs had poor training, mishandling, and figured out they could just bite whenever. It's a self rewarding behavior. The only prevention is avoidance, which leaves the dog not being handled period, which isn't going to solve anything.


Here's what I would do

Put the dog under protected contact. Into a fenced enclosure with them.
Next, hand feed them through the barrier (all food, not just treats) to build a positive association with you.
When they are reliably taking food, you can start asking for behaviors - lots of self control exercises. Remember, marker training was created to work with marine mammals due to the challenge of distance for delivering reinforcement and the danger of working physically with such large animals.
When you feel that the dog has properly associated you and listening to you with positive responses, you can start to remove the protected contanct and enter the enclosure.
At this point, I would start working on a solid "take it" and "leave it" (or whatever cues you want to use that haven't been poisoned yet) with objects. First starting with "deads" and moving up to a game of tug. The important part here is to transition the game so that the "take it" becomes the functional reward of the "leave it."
In this way, we are conditioning a cycle of reinforcement, where the "leave it" becomes just as rewarding as the "take it" because it becomes linked in the dogs mind with the continuation of the game (the highest reinforcement for them in this scenario). 
When you have the game completely under stimulus control, then you can start adding the sleeve and decoy again.

If at any point the dog goes over-threshold, you terminate the game and leave. Negative punishment.

On another note, I'm not really sure why we are having this discussion (I'm using the general "we" here, and referring to the thread).
Problematizing "positive only" to positive trainers is a bit like problematizing fire-breathing dragons to an evolutionary biologist. 
No (educated) positive trainer that I know of uses only one quadrent of learning theory (only positive reinforcement). Not one of them believes there can be absolutely nothing aversive involved in training (if for no other reason than training does not occur in a vacuum). Positive training means using the least aversive methods possible to change behavior. That can include negative punishment and certain types of negative reinforcement (like BAT) but always with an eye to making the learning environment AS positive as possible and to what is most rewarding, and most aversive to the dog. 
This is not a contradiction, and I am confused why so many people think they are catching us in a logical fallacy.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

ofthelogos said:


> Here's what I would do
> 
> Put the dog under protected contact. Into a fenced enclosure with them.
> Next, hand feed them through the barrier (all food, not just treats) to build a positive association with you.
> ...


The whole reason I asked is because I would like to use more positive training, not catch anyone in anything. Lol, sorry you would feel that way. 

The muzzle worked while he was muzzled, he had been there done that. Wouldn't attempt a bite.

You could pet the dog, hand feed him, play tug, had an awesome out, as long as it wasn't on the handler. This was more of a "fun" habit the dog had acquired. It didn't look cool, it looked like an idiot trainer had worked the dog. 

Enter his kennel, no problems, leash no problem, just from time to time, he would bite the handler, not a nip, a full mouth bite with no release. This was walking, standing, any time he felt like it, no decoy or equipment in sight. No telling the punishment he had recieved prior, I'm assuming it was pretty bad, poorly timed, as the dog would still do it. 

The second dog wasn't near as bad, though still dangerous to handle. Psycho dogs? Nah, just taught poorly. Once we resolved the issue of biting the handler, the rest was simple. It resurfaced briefly when distractions came up, but no more bites. Was much easier to correct with a word, once the dog understood. 

I would love to start a pup and have him fully trained in serious protection (not sport, as there is an immense difference) with positive methods only, and I'm sure it can be done. I just doubt that one can take a serious problem dog and use no corrections and have it working correctly. Thank you for explaining the way you did.


----------



## ofthelogos (Mar 1, 2012)

juliemule said:


> The whole reason I asked is because I would like to use more positive training, not catch anyone in anything. Lol, sorry you would feel that way. .


Oops, I guess I should have been a bit more clear. The last paragraph was supposed to be a comment on the scope of the whole thread (I think it's a flawed premise to start with), not my response to you  
Even if I don't agree with using corrections personally, I have no problem with a professional who understands learning theory (like you do) and uses corrections minimally and properly (like you do) as a last resort when other options appear exhausted. What I find frustrating is debating the viability of positive training by the measure of "positive only" training. Again, not what you are doing, but what the thread, or parts of it, seems to be debating as a whole.
Conversely, I am happy to debate the "most positive" way to handle a training scenario. That is actually productive and helpful to other people (not just a masturbatory "my training is better than your training," but a positive exchange of ideas). 



juliemule said:


> The muzzle worked while he was muzzled, he had been there done that. Wouldn't attempt a bite.
> 
> You could pet the dog, hand feed him, play tug, had an awesome out, as long as it wasn't on the handler. This was more of a "fun" habit the dog had acquired. It didn't look cool, it looked like an idiot trainer had worked the dog.
> 
> ...


From what you are saying here, it sounds like the handler aggression was created through a miss-application of punishment. The dog was striking pre-eptively, at least in the beginning.
So
a) if the dog had been trained positively from the get-go this wouldn't have been a problem (a little obvious, I know, but if we're talking about the viability of positive training in this situation it cancels the scenario via prevention) 
b) this means that originally this behavior started in response to handler aggression to prevent a correction. On some level this is fear-reactivity, even if now it only manifests as redirected frustration aggression. In my opinion, if the handler were to re-boot their training and work positively from the ground up (building in better self-control and a more positive perception of work with a handler), the dog will not re-direct anymore because the dog's association will have totally changed. Handlers are no longer the people who make the dog's life worse (there to take away the fun and deliver punishment) they are exclusively the gate-keeps to awesome fun. That, and a wealth of self-control exercises should ameliorate how easily the dog is going over threshold. Makes sense?


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

trainingjunkie said:


> Check out "How Police K9 Techniques Can Transform Your Everyday Training" (Steve White).
> 
> Interesting. On topic. Very funny.


I'm sorry, I should have explained. This IS a video and it's about 10 hours long. Steve White is a positive reinforcement trainer who says that he uses corrections because he isn't always good enough to avoid them. The video is a recording of him on the seminar curcuit a few years back. It's worth the renting or purchase. Lots of REALLY interesting stuff about training, body language, positive reinforcement training, stories. I'm not sure why you commented on bad law enforcement training. While there IS plenty of that, it isn't at all what he's about. I think the guy and the video are great. I learned a lot.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

trainingjunkie said:


> I'm sorry, I should have explained. This IS a video and it's about 10 hours long. Steve White is a positive reinforcement trainer who says that he uses corrections because he isn't always good enough to avoid them. The video is a recording of him on the seminar curcuit a few years back. It's worth the renting or purchase. Lots of REALLY interesting stuff about training, body language, positive reinforcement training, stories. I'm not sure why you commented on bad law enforcement training. While there IS plenty of that, it isn't at all what he's about. I think the guy and the video are great. I learned a lot.


Sorry, my comment was on the handling of the dog in the video. The jerking of the lead, being allowed to re bite, not a clear bite command, no out, etc. The corrections by no mean were clear to the dog, fair, or given at appropriate times. The speaker/trainer sounds great, from what I could watch. Definitely what LE needs, someone who isn't about choking dogs off of bites, and better handling all around.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

ofthelogos said:


> Oops, I guess I should have been a bit more clear. The last paragraph was supposed to be a comment on the scope of the whole thread (I think it's a flawed premise to start with), not my response to you
> Even if I don't agree with using corrections personally, I have no problem with a professional who understands learning theory (like you do) and uses corrections minimally and properly (like you do) as a last resort when other options appear exhausted. What I find frustrating is debating the viability of positive training by the measure of "positive only" training. Again, not what you are doing, but what the thread, or parts of it, seems to be debating as a whole.
> Conversely, I am happy to debate the "most positive" way to handle a training scenario. That is actually productive and helpful to other people (not just a masturbatory "my training is better than your training," but a positive exchange of ideas).
> 
> ...


 I completely agree. If this dog had been handled and trained properly, he wouldn't have ended up here! He didn't go back to that handler, a totally different department, in another state now. Yet I'm sure the original handler now has a lab, or single purpose dog. 
That's my whole deal. While I will give occasional corrections, when starting most dogs there isn't the need. Fixing dogs, sometimes no need, but then there are times where I don't see any other way. I would rather a dog have a few correction s, and go on to be productive, than face euthanasia, or stuck in a breeding kennel with no handling


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

I'm aware of the differences between classical (aka: respondent) and operant conditioning.

Perhaps I did not explain myself very well.

There was an earlier post that seemed to imply that balanced trainers use classical conditioning AND operant, while some other type of trainers use only operant. (not sure if I am interpretting their email correctly). One of the important problems with heavy handed punishment is that it can have some very unfortunate classical (respondent) results that can impede efficient learning, and I'm thinking that the OP was referring to this? don't know.

What I am saying is that the behavioral principles of classical (respondent) conditioning are at play continuously with an awake dog. When when you are providing a reinforcer, it is also likely that classical stuff is happening as well.

A very positive reinforcer will elicit all kinds of respondent behaviors when he approaches the dog. This, because the trainer has paired himself with wonderful things. The dog, seeing the approaching trainer, may squeal with delight... experience an increased heart rate.... or might even salivate if the trainer is associated with edible reinforcers.

As I sit here, I am watching my pup react to particularly severe and shocking thunder claps. Surely, the dog is experiencing all manner of unhappy visceral reactions to these violent sounds (as witnessed by her overt "worried" behaviors). She isn't out of her mind with anxiety, but she ain't calm about it either! For myself, I am reacting notably calm for her benefit....making some nice smelling food for myself in the kitchen... going about life as though nothing urgent is happening. Not attempting to stroke or directly reassure her. When she lays down, I occasionally and non-chalantly give a bit of kibble.

The above protocol is, of course, focused specifically on the classical (respondent) end of her behaviors.

The two mechanisms are not interchangeable, but it is highly likely that the two are intermingling at all times..... whether you are training the dog or whether the dog is walking alone through the woods.

Give a hungry dog a bit of hotdog, and you have probably produced both operant and classical effects.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Ignorant of training theory, yes. Doesn't make them stupid. But it does make it difficult to carry on a conversation.>>>>


I got it - if they dont agree with you on "training theory" they are "ignorant" and "difficult to carry on a conversation". derogatory as usual for you.

unfortunate you find it difficult to carry on a conversation w those you disagree with.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

"Different breeds, different individuals, different levels of severity of the problem (s), is it a life threatening issue, different physical ability of the owner, how reliable the dog must be … these are only some of the factors an experienced instructor will have to take under consideration when choosing the right tools and approach"

Ivan Balabanov

http://ivanbalabanov.com/site-training-tips/what-tools-and-methods-do-you-use/


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> As I sit here, I am watching my pup react to particularly severe and shocking thunder claps. Surely, the dog is experiencing all manner of unhappy visceral reactions to these violent sounds (as witnessed by her overt "worried" behaviors). She isn't out of her mind with anxiety, but she ain't calm about it either! For myself, I am reacting notably calm for her benefit....making some nice smelling food for myself in the kitchen... going about life as though nothing urgent is happening. Not attempting to stroke or directly reassure her. When she lays down, I occasionally and non-chalantly give a bit of kibble.
> .


If your pup is showing clear concern, you could be having a thunder party - where you celebrate every clap of thunder with a goody or a chance to play games, and leave the computer until the storm has passed by. It wouldn't likely take very long and be safer for your hard drive as well.



jiml said:


> Ignorant of training theory, yes. Doesn't make them stupid. But it does make it difficult to carry on a conversation.>>>>
> 
> 
> I got it - if they dont agree with you on "training theory" they are "ignorant" and "difficult to carry on a conversation". derogatory as usual for you.
> ...


Not all. Just the ones who want to make it personal.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

jiml said:


> "Different breeds, different individuals, different levels of severity of the problem (s), is it a life threatening issue, different physical ability of the owner, how reliable the dog must be … these are only some of the factors an experienced instructor will have to take under consideration when choosing the right tools and approach"
> 
> Ivan Balabanov
> 
> http://ivanbalabanov.com/site-training-tips/what-tools-and-methods-do-you-use/


I have one of Ivan's dogs. Awesome female


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

ofthelogos - I started this thread... as I said at the beginning I'm not an expert by any means, just an average dog owner interested in learning. The intention was really to ask why people are so against "Dominance Theory" and "blalanced training". The thread has taken several twists and turns so at this point the title isnt necessarily a perfect indication of the content. It has been mentioned that no one is positive only so I guess the premise is not ideal. 

Curbsideprophet - I mentioned the "flat earth" to illustrate the fallibility of people's belief systems, not to suggest the earth is actually flat. Its really the dogma I wanted to address, the idea that a single system is the ONLY acceptable one and the fact that there needs to be some room for doubt in everything. People who arent familiar with the system you use or don't choose to follow it arent inherently terrible. Its pretty terrible to use force indiscriminately on another living being but I don't think all people who use another system are guilty of that. Essentially we are talking psychology here and even human psychology is as much art as science... for a dogs brain, we can have an idea but fundamentally, who KNOWS what goes on there!


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

aiw said:


> Its really the dogma I wanted to address, the idea that a single system is the ONLY acceptable one and the fact that there needs to be some room for doubt in everything. People who arent familiar with the system you use or don't choose to follow it arent inherently terrible. Its pretty terrible to use force indiscriminately on another living being but I don't think all people who use another system are guilty of that. Essentially we are talking psychology here and even human psychology is as much art as science... for a dogs brain, we can have an idea but fundamentally, who KNOWS what goes on there!


I don't think anyone here has accepted a single system. A single system shouldn't be confused with wanting the most humane system. I would be more interested in defining the most humane system, but then I'd have to limit my humanity to some definition. It would likely be an amusing task, but a daunting one also.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Pretty impossible I would say... some of it would be simple (no meaningless cruelty) but so much of this is complicated and grey that I personally find it better to learn as much as possible and sample sensibly from several systems.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

aiw said:


> Its really the dogma I wanted to address, the idea that a single system is the ONLY acceptable one and the fact that there needs to be some room for doubt in everything. People who arent familiar with the system you use or don't choose to follow it arent inherently terrible. Its pretty terrible to use force indiscriminately on another living being but I don't think all people who use another system are guilty of that. Essentially we are talking psychology here and even human psychology is as much art as science... for a dogs brain, we can have an idea but fundamentally, who KNOWS what goes on there!


What dogma? You asked "why positive only?" and you have received a number of answers that such a beastie probably doesn't exist in the real world, and that nobody here claims to be "purely positive." So, is that dogma? You've referred to calling people or their methods "inherently terrible" but I haven't seen anyone here do that. The only people I see making mention of mild aversives being cruel are the people who seem to be anticipating (and aren't getting any) being roasted for saying they use them. Is that the dogma? I see people saying that they are trying to understand and use sound scientific theory (CC and OC, which, by the way contain four quadrants and extinction, and so is a mix of positive and negative, reinforcement and punishment) to formulate a less confrontational training plan for their dogs. Is that the dogma you are referring to? Nobody (I seem to be the bad guy here) has said that anyone is inherently terrible or guilty of anything. So where is the dogma? For a fairly long period of time I used techniques, based on a tradition handed down by the dog trainers before me. I was not cruel to my dogs (thought I do think sometimes I was unfair). I loved my past dogs every bit as much as I love my current dogs. AND I was a pretty effective trainer for them. I do think it is more dogmatic to cling to a system which is handed down without much science behind it than to accept the science that is available and make an effort to understand and use it. That doesn't make people who haven't made the quantum leap bad people. It also doesn't make people who have worked in both systems and aren't afraid to state that one is more humane and more effective than the other system "bad people" either.
Being willing to question "the way it has always been done" is rather the opposite of dogma. Trust me when I say that being willing to challenge the way I'd been training for the past decade and a half was NOT easy for me. We like what we know better than what we don't know. And I was full of "yes, buts" when it came to accepting different ways of thinking. Change is hard and a little scary. As the great poet Maya Angelou said "“I did then what I knew how to do. Now that I know better, I do better.” And if we really want to discuss Dogma, I will say it is on my top ten list of favorite movies.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

aiw said:


> Curbsideprophet - I mentioned the "flat earth" to illustrate the fallibility of people's belief systems, not to suggest the earth is actually flat. Its really the dogma I wanted to address, the idea that a single system is the ONLY acceptable one and the fact that there needs to be some room for doubt in everything. People who arent familiar with the system you use or don't choose to follow it arent inherently terrible. Its pretty terrible to use force indiscriminately on another living being but I don't think all people who use another system are guilty of that. Essentially we are talking psychology here and even human psychology is as much art as science... for a dogs brain, we can have an idea but fundamentally, who KNOWS what goes on there!



The flat earth society is where people say stuff like, "my mom trained this way and it worked for all of our dogs. you MUST correct." With only rough anecdotal, biased memories as evidence, this is dogma. 

On the other side, reward trainers can also be dogmatic. Some R+ folks will declare any instance of a prong, choke, or ecollar as inhumane. 

There are extremes, but what is not extreme and is not up for interpretation, is the HARD evidence that supports a reward based training approach.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> There was an earlier post that seemed to imply that balanced trainers use classical conditioning AND operant, while some other type of trainers use only operant. (not sure if I am interpretting their email correctly). .


Can you point out to me where you got this impression? The "balanced trainers" tend to call themselves that because they are willing to mix and match aversives and appetitives. The most shining example I ever saw was very skilled at balancing her clicker right above the button of her ecollar remote. While some (especially the R-/ecollar users) can talk science, much is based on not scientific theory (either CC or OC) but how it's been handed down to them to train dogs. And I would guess a majority of them don't really use the science to form a training plan (though of course, like gravity, the science is always at work on some level even if you aren't aware of it.)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

aiw said:


> Pretty impossible I would say... some of it would be simple (no meaningless cruelty) but so much of this is complicated and grey that I personally find it better to learn as much as possible and sample sensibly from several systems.


See, here's the thing. You're going to do what you want to do, and take from it what you want to take. Hopefully you'll learn from it (dogs are GREAT teachers) but as long as you are at the training philosophy buffet getting one from column A and one from column B, IF you are using aversives regularly mixed in with appetitives, it's going to be really difficult to actually see the power that positive reinforcement based training can offer. Because your dog is not going to have the freedom to offer truly amazing behavior choices. If sometimes offering a behavior results in reward and sometimes it results in an aversive, there's always going to be just a bit of doubt in the dog's mind whether or not his choice is correct, and he's more likely to be willing to just give you what you ask for. It's safer that way. Now, that's a lot of people's idea of good dog training. Dog does what he's told and nothing more. Dogs who have been trained with aversives can benefit greatly learning and attitude wise when more positive reinforcement is added. But adding aversives to positive reinforcement doesn't have a corresponding benefit. It hurts my soul to see people suggest that you can train a dog with positive reinforcement until a certain age, or until the behavior is "learned" and then it's time to start adding in the aversives. Now, IMO *THAT* is a piece of dogma without basis in any logical system.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Your idea for a "thunder party" might be a better idea.

The day before, another massive storm was coming...with slight thunder booms in the distance. I took her favorite toy outside with her and we played a bit. Unfortunately, a SLAM! thunderclap with a super bright lightening flash happened. That ruined it. 

She is obsessed with this particular toy, but she dropped it and ran for the front door. (I was actually happy that she used the house for cover... I wasn't sure she'd do that)

Now, I was actually expecting that storm to pass to our west.... my mistake. It scared the fool out of me, too.

Not that you don't know this (below).... but it is one of my concerns in making decisions.
There is this tightrope that some people fail to notice. They offer soothing voices or cajoling type praise during the worst moments (like lightening storms, nail trimming, etc.)... the tactic has it's possible risks. If things don't work out, they might create a dog that is, now, suspicious of soothing voices! Or perhaps a kind of sensitization takes place where soothing voices makes the anxiety worse!

When out there with that thunder clap, I was reminded that I could create a "suspicious dog" problem: I may have made her more reluctant to trust me when it is sprinkling... or when my tone of voice somehow reminds her of a terrifying storm.... or when I bring the best toys outside... .etc. etc.

For this last storm, I detected a bit of worry, but decided on another tactic: act bored. joke with someone on the phone. heat up some food. 

Another tactic probably could have worked even better....like that thunder party.... especially indoors, of course.

Part of my decision, too, was that I am trying to condition her to tolerate 8 hrs of crate life. I happen to be home a lot over the past few weeks, but that won't last forever and I don't want her to be a basket case when the real world of work life returns. So, I let that sway my decision on not-having-a-party too.

Today, she went 7.5 hours and appeared to handle it swimmingly.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

aiw said:


> Pretty impossible I would say... some of it would be simple (no meaningless cruelty) but so much of this is complicated and grey that I personally find it better to learn as much as possible and sample sensibly from several systems.



Be aware not to confuse methods with principles. There are a million different methods out there and any of them _can_ work, but the reason they work is based on principles. Because people don't understand the distinction between principles and methods, you'll see people justify faulty principles with a certain method that appears to work. This is why the Dog Whisperer is flawed from its core. While his methods may appear to work, the core principles he presents in the show, dominance & energy, are not the primary reasons why his methods work. Tiger Woods didn't perfect his swing by being calm assertive, he got good at golf by practicing and actually getting good at it. The calm assertive part is an outcome of him being good at what he does.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

While some (especially the R-/ecollar users) can talk science, much is based on not scientific theory (either CC or OC) but how it's been handed down to them to train dogs. And I would guess a majority of them don't really use the science to form a training plan (though of course, like gravity, the science is always at work on some level even if you aren't aware of it.)>>>>>

I want to say that much of your last few posts were very good. However "r-/ecollar" trainer's are using cc/oc regardless of their understanding of the "science" behind it (and believe me on the other side I have had many a PP trainer argue that there they do train "purely positive"). The effectiveness has more to do with the art in dog training IMO than the science. "defining the most humane system" as CP stated is a separate argument.

Zak George recently stated on facebook that anyone who used corrections was incompetent/unethical which inevitably led to a CM discusion. My question to him was Is Ivan Balabanov incompatent? why always go for the easy target in Milan? The vast majority of gundogs, working sport dogs, retrievers ect... that work w high drive dogs at high level with heavy distractions are trained w at least some physical corrections. Are they all incompetent and only the agility and freestyle and frisbee trainers (dominated by pos) competent? I think correct is fluid.
i think i went on a tangent LOL


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> I want to say that much of your last few posts were very good. However "r-/ecollar" trainer's are using cc/oc regardless of their understanding of the "science" behind it (and believe me on the other side I have had many a PP trainer argue that there they do train "purely positive"). The effectiveness has more to do with the art in dog training IMO than the science. "defining the most humane system" as CP stated is a separate argument.
> [/U]


Well, I'm so pleased to have your approval. (I suppose) I've never met a single effective trainer who claimed to be or do "purely positive." That includes several members of the faculty of Clicker Expo and KPA - AND Bob Bailey. And if you are going to quote me, it might be nice if you read what you were quoting and did not restate it for the purpose of argument. I did not question the -R trainer's understanding of OC/CC. I said that much of what they do is based more on tradition than the science. I also stated that the science is always at work even if one doesn't understand it. That's not aimed at one specific group. It simply is.
Here, I'll run it by you again:
*While some (especially the R-/ecollar users) can talk science, much is based on not scientific theory (either CC or OC) but how it's been handed down to them to train dogs. And I would guess a majority of them don't really use the science to form a training plan (though of course, like gravity, the science is always at work on some level even if you aren't aware of it*
I'm familiar with Zak George as a trick dog trainer, but I'm not sure how much I'd invest in his opinion on other areas. I am especially not sure how much I would invest in what you say his opinion is, since you seem to be particularly prone to misinterpreting what I say quite badly. I wouldn't expect you to be more generous or fair to him. And yes, when I have to resort to an aversive, I do consider it less than competent on my part. Less than ethical? Not if I'm doing my best. I'm not perfect and not perfectly knowledgeable. Yet I know that if I really consider the problem, there's probably a less aversive and more instructive way to solve it that I'm just not seeing. And, I don't care how good a trainer is, the dogma that at some point you have to resort to physical aversives to get dependable behavior is an idea perpetuated by tradition, not science. And the fact is that if one believes something is impossible, one doesn't look very deeply into how to make it possible.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Well, I'm so pleased to have your approval. (I suppose)>>>>>

well I tried...

<<<<since you seem to be particularly prone to misinterpreting what I say quite badly.>>>>

Sorry, but I dont feel that is true. You speak poorly of and insult groups of trainers with generalities and when anyone defends themselves you claim they are getting personal or misrepresenting what you say. Hence the reason you feel you are being portrayed as the "bad guy"

<<<<the dogma that at some point you have to resort to physical aversives to get dependable behavior is an idea perpetuated by tradition, not science.>>>>>

I bet you know of unbiased peer reviewed material that shows this. otherwise its opinion NOT science 

any way im done with it, Sorry you felt I "badly" misinterpreted your dig against "R-/ecollar users".


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> Sorry, but I dont feel that is true. You speak poorly of and insult groups of trainers with generalities and when anyone defends themselves you claim they are getting personal or misrepresenting what you say. Hence the reason you feel you are being portrayed as the "bad guy"
> QUOTE]
> 
> LOL. In a single post I provide what I said, and what you re-interpret it to say. DeNile - it ain't just a river in Egypt anymore. I suspect it's purely intentional, but if not, sorry your comprehension skills are so poor. I say what I think and if you want sugar coated, I suggest you read someone else's posts.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

jiml said:


> The effectiveness has more to do with the art in dog training IMO than the science. "defining the most humane system" as CP stated is a separate argument.


IMO, the science is what makes the art possible. If dogs didn't work the way they do (discovered by science), then the existing methods would work much more ineffectively (or not at all), unless they were so creatively applied that they are using whatever hypothetical different principles would be in play in that scenario.

All the intuitive/creative thinking to handle Wally's fear issues would not work if Pavlovian/classical conditioning and/or habituation did not work the way it does in dogs. Learning his signals and using them the way I do would not work if they didn't mean what they do (discovered by science).

Any creativity I used in shaping to get him to learn things wouldn't matter if dogs were not able to learn that way. Science says and has proven dogs can learn via successive approximation (shaping), the art is unlocking that so he can use it to learn whatever.

If a dog couldn't learn well (or at all) via shaping, then all the creative breaking down of tasks/problems wouldn't mean a thing.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

There was talk about wolves allowing lower ranking members to eat first. I'm not trying to be snarky at all but is there any kind of reference to this? It's being used as a proof to prove a point but it goes against everything I've ever seen and read about wolves and I have seen and read a lot. I agree that domestic dog packs have little structure and are usually unstable but I've seen two stray dogs build their own pack with their own litter... it was _structured_ to say the least and these dogs considered humans and other dogs nothing but potential prey - you won't see this phenomena in developed countries.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Lol, I have a structured "pack" of my own. They eat according to where the big guy says, have their spots to sleep, they have an order to who does what to some extent. Both males are neutered, but when a female comes into heat, the leader doesn't allow the other near her. 
The pups never test the two old males, or the lead female, but they sure push the limits with the rest. Now of course, it isn't the same as a wolf pack, but I have no doubt if left to go back to the wild, and people disappeared, dogs would again form packs. The ones that didn't conform would be out, die off, and genectics would return on successful survival. Just my opinion though


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> There was talk about wolves allowing lower ranking members to eat first. I'm not trying to be snarky at all but is there any kind of reference to this? It's being used as a proof to prove a point but it goes against everything I've ever seen and read about wolves and I have seen and read a lot. I agree that domestic dog packs have little structure and are usually unstable but I've seen two stray dogs build their own pack with their own litter... it was _structured_ to say the least and these dogs considered humans and other dogs nothing but potential prey - you won't see this phenomena in developed countries.


 When stray dogs can ramble from house to house stealing garbage, there is no need for pack structure. In true wilderness there would be. The loners wouldn't survive long.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> <<<<the dogma that at some point you have to resort to physical aversives to get dependable behavior is an idea perpetuated by tradition, not science.>>>>>
> 
> I bet you know of unbiased peer reviewed material that shows this. otherwise its opinion NOT science
> 
> .


 I freely admit that it is my opinion, based on 30+ years of training dogs. And being exposed to various training techniques and philosophies. And observing what works and what works much better. Your mileage may vary. Prove to me that routinely adding aversives is necessary to get dependable behavior.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> When stray dogs can ramble from house to house stealing garbage, there is no need for pack structure. In true wilderness there would be. The loners wouldn't survive long.


 When you are scavanging and hunting small prey, having extra mouths to feed is not a benefit to survival. It's not like dogs are out there in the wild bringing down elk (in which case having a pack would be beneficial.) You don't need teamwork to grab a rabbit or a squirrel. I do think that perhaps we have gone too far in the opposite direction if we claim dogs aren't oriented towards a social structure when there are several congregate together (like in a household) I've had multiples for years, and there's always been higher ranking and lower ranking animals, though it is more fluid than set in stone. I just don't think it is a very smart premise to base training on. Dog to dog relationships and human to dog relationships are not interchangable. And trying to communicate to dogs in the same way other dogs would communicate to each other is counterproductive for my purposes,.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

SassyCat said:


> There was talk about wolves allowing lower ranking members to eat first. I'm not trying to be snarky at all but is there any kind of reference to this? It's being used as a proof to prove a point but it goes against everything I've ever seen and read about wolves and I have seen and read a lot.


Read David Mech "The Wolf. The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species." Mech is regarded as one of the premier wolf behaviorists, and responsible for most of the research people misconstrue today. Mech even goes on to state that dog training books which tell people to feed their dogs after themselves is "wrong."


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Read David Mech "The Wolf. The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species." Mech is regarded as one of the premier wolf behaviorists, and responsible for most of the research people misconstrue today. Mech even goes on to state that dog training books which tell people to feed their dogs after themselves is "wrong."


We get up quite early and feed our home dog about 5:00 morning and then 4:00 evening, I eat breakfast about 8:00 and we eat dinner about 6:00. I guess we should eat breakfast at 4:00, feed dog at 5:00 then do same in evening. Oh my all these years and we been eating at the wrong times. 

Some of this stuff is getting so silly.

Oh boy, I now just remembered I have not been feeding my dogs after I eat lunch. What I gonna do now!!!!!!!


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> You don't need teamwork to grab a rabbit or a squirrel.


You hear that, Wally? You don't need my help to find the squirrel or to try to corner him or run him back to you!

*now I have to teach him how to understand sentences so he can read this for himself LOL*


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

wvasko said:


> We get up quite early and feed our home dog about 5:00 morning and then 4:00 evening, I eat breakfast about 8:00 and we eat dinner about 6:00. I guess we should eat breakfast at 4:00, feed dog at 5:00 then do same in evening. Oh my all these years and we been eating at the wrong times.
> 
> Some of this stuff is getting so silly.
> 
> Oh boy, I now just remembered I have not been feeding my dogs after I eat lunch. What I gonna do now!!!!!!!


Yeah, I put Wally's food down and he starts eating before I start eating.

Silly me, letting my dog "have dominance" over me.

Maybe I'm just simple, but I just don't buy into "he's trying to take over me/my stuff" when he does what he does. Whether it's him putting his butt up against my back if I let him sleep in the bed with me or when he sit on my foot or he paws me and looks out the door because he needs to pee (which I never taught).


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Yikes, this thread seems to have taken a confrontational turn...
Pawzk9 when I mentioned dogma I was actually responding to this post from curbsideprophet


> It doesn't matter where you place yourself, or where you believe others are in this camp thing...either you're cognizant of classical conditioning during training, especially with aversives, or you're a horrible trainer, and perhaps a foolish one.


I've been told positive only doesnt exist and I'm happy to accept that, even if it did I wouldnt consider it a "beastie" at all. I've actually found your posts (actually pretty much everyones) helpful and informative and was bridling at the suggestion that if you don't use classical conditioning you're horrible or foolish. That is why I mentioned dogma. I really am not interested in deriding anyone here or their methods.


----------



## james downey (Jul 31, 2012)

So here's some food for thought. B.F. Skinner said, " The problem with positive punishment is....it does not seem to work very well". I just went to a 3 day Schutzhund seminar, with 4 time world champion Edgar Scherkl....and he said, "Positive punishment....I do not think it works. but negative reiforcement is much more effective". Now, Skinner was a versed animal trainer, and Scherkl has some seriously high success in training dogs....both came to similar conclusions.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

i think people forget that in a sense a dog is an alien consciousness. They don't intake the same types of sensory input we do. They don't have the same processors we do even though the hardware has the same components so to speak. They have their own language that is nothing like ours. When we see a yawn, we think "tired and/or bored" whereas a yawn to a dog is something akin to "I am a little stressed right now". So you can extrapolate that if their body language is as different as their input and processors(which it is/google Turid Rugaas for details)...so too would tones and pitch and physical stimuli likely carry different meanings and elicit different interpretations than what seems intuitive to us humans. I think of the level of communication we are able to achieve with them with largely "positive" style is probably analogous to hammering a nail into a board with a speeding train as far as nuances of meaning are concerned. so if that's true....what might punishment be analogous to?

just a brief, rambling two cents/food for thought type of thingymajigger


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

just as an addendum of sorts.. .

dogs see blues and violets better than they see yellows and reds. they process brightness at about half the capacity of humans. they have been shown to be able to identify individuals at distances of 800 or so meters but only if the individuals are in motion. they have a hearing range of 40 to ten of thousand of hz. they can pinpont the location of sounds faster and better than any human.. .


so apply that to a hypothetical of a misbehaving dog. you note that something is wrong and begin to vocalize your displeasure. their perception of your vocalization is going to hit them harder and stronger than you think it does. if you rush in to physically move them away from the behavioral blooper, those rushed movements are going to appear much more nuanced to a dog than to you because they see movement better than they do stationary objects. 

anyway. .I'm done. just my thoughts.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

aiw said:


> I've been told positive only doesnt exist and I'm happy to accept that, even if it did I wouldnt consider it a "beastie" at all. I've actually found your posts (actually pretty much everyones) helpful and informative and was bridling at the suggestion that if you don't use classical conditioning you're horrible or foolish. That is why I mentioned dogma. I really am not interested in deriding anyone here or their methods.


For one "positive" can be either reinforcement or punishment in the behavioral sense. There's not just one positive portion to OC. Just one reason I don't like these "positive/negative/balanced trainer" labels. However, I assume it's meant as positive reinforcement. You aren't using 100% +R unless you are rewarding every action where the dog is expecting/wanting a reward. Otherwise, you're doing something other than positive reinforcement. Be it manipulating extinction bursts, negative punishment, aversive/positive punishment, whatever.

I won't say it "does not exist" (everything is a possibility besides teaching a dog to something not physically possible for a dog to do, like fly) but it seems much more difficult to use just a "Yes" signal without a "No"/Not this time/try again/give me more/Stop it/etc signal. 

As far as classical conditioning...they say Pavlov is always on your shoulder. If the dog's emotional response is impacted, you could argue there's an elemental of classical conditioning at work, which means it can be argued that you're using it whether you're "formally" using it or not.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> They have their own language that is nothing like ours. When we see a yawn, we think "tired and/or bored" whereas a yawn to a dog is something akin to "I am a little stressed right now". So you can extrapolate that if their body language is as different as their input and processors(which it is/google Turid Rugaas for details)


I love calming signals. 

Wondering up against Turid and her book and work on these signals was one of the best things to happen to Wally and I. Definitely helped me understand what Wally was "saying" to me. I think for a while, I made him more nervous (especially back then) because I just wanted to see the signals, especially since he slings them at me left and right constantly, even now.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

KBLover said:


> I love calming signals.
> 
> Wondering up against Turid and her book and work on these signals was one of the best things to happen to Wally and I. Definitely helped me understand what Wally was "saying" to me. I think for a while, I made him more nervous (especially back then) because I just wanted to see the signals, especially since he slings them at me left and right constantly, even now.


I've been evolving I guess. the focus of training for me now is more an attempt to understand than anything else. like. I don't really think of it in terms of getting behaviors anymore. I wanna know how they think. I wanna know how they see, hear, process touch and smell and how the differences between us and them distort our efforts at connecting and communication . I want to know what is intuitive to them and try to approach them on their own terms. the more I roll that way.. the less trouble I have to go to to get behavior if the situation arises where I need it. they do the same thing you know. they mimic us and our social behaviors even though a lot of those things are counterintuitive from a dogs point of view. Astro, my boxer buddy will push his face super close to mine where one eye is literally an inch from my own in this apparent weird amalgamation of a dogs convention of not looking at others directly and making direct eye contact like a human. its rather odd.. ..

to the op...in a nutshell I think aversion is probably counterproductive to effective two way communication. that why I like to avoid it. it certainly is you communicating to them.. .but it doesn't much allow for them to give you feedback.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> I've been evolving I guess. the focus of training for me now is more an attempt to understand than anything else. like. I don't really think of it in terms of getting behaviors anymore. I wanna know how they think. I wanna know how they see, hear, process touch and smell and how the differences between us and them distort our efforts at connecting and communication . I want to know what is intuitive to them and try to approach them on their own terms. the more I roll that way.. the less trouble I have to go to to get behavior if the situation arises where I need it. they do the same thing you know. they mimic us and our social behaviors even though a lot of those things are counterintuitive from a dogs point of view. Astro, my boxer buddy will push his face super close to mine where one eye is literally an inch from my own in this apparent weird amalgamation of a dogs convention of not looking at others directly and making direct eye contact like a human. its rather odd.. ..



Yeah, same here. 

I guess that's why I like shaping a lot when doing training because it just seems like he's using whatever thinking he's using to come up with ideas on what to do next. I can see him just sorta "staring at the problem" and trying to figure out what it is he needs to do next. And then he's like "was that it?" when he finishes doing whatever. It's really fun and amazing to watch him do it and work this stuff out in his head. 

I've been trying to figure out just what's happening and why this is the way he ran with learning just about everything. Reminds me, I need to grab that book "Reaching the Animal Mind" someone recommended to me here. 

LOL I'd LOVE to see that boxer do that! I still remember the boxer that licked her nose three times while walking a curve around me, and when I turned away, she pulled her owner over to me and she started sniffing me all over (while whipping me with that tail - my gosh that tail). Even Wally got interested, and he normally isn't too keen about dogs coming up on us like that when we're sitting somewhere.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

I haz peekture.. .the pibble is Nola. I have video but I'd have to cut it down to post it.. which I may do at some point. so here's Yer teaser.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

James, do you know where your BF Skinner quote comes from? I'd like to see it in context.

I'm wondering what he means by "I do not think it (positive punishment) works". Hard to believe he'd say that, but perhaps there was an overcall context.

I know he has discussed the management of a human society. The problem with aversive control (punishment) is that people tend to engage in troubling counter-control measures.

Of course, harsh punishment can make a continuation of training less effective if the dog has been crushed into some sort of anxious mode.







james downey said:


> So here's some food for thought. B.F. Skinner said, " The problem with positive punishment is....it does not seem to work very well". I just went to a 3 day Schutzhund seminar, with 4 time world champion Edgar Scherkl....and he said, "Positive punishment....I do not think it works. but negative reiforcement is much more effective". Now, Skinner was a versed animal trainer, and Scherkl has some seriously high success in training dogs....both came to similar conclusions.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

james downey said:


> I just went to a 3 day Schutzhund seminar, with 4 time world champion Edgar Scherkl....and he said, "Positive punishment....I do not think it works.


Last time I watched him in a world championship he got disqualified for dog not outing... so... :suspicious:

This is actually irrelevant to discussion but I couldn't resist pointing to the irony. His dog obviously had no breaks installed... he couldn't even drive for 10 minutes without hitting the wall.


----------



## james downey (Jul 31, 2012)

I could only find this qoute on multiple websites. 

Skinner did not advocate the use of punishment. His research suggested that punishment was an ineffective way of controlling behavior, leading generally to short-term behavior change, but resulting mostly in the subject attempting to avoid the punishing stimulus, instead of avoiding the behavior that was causing punishment. A simple example of this is the failure of prison to eliminate criminal behavior. If prison (as a punishing stimulus) were effective at altering behavior, there would be no criminality, since the risk of imprisonment for criminal conduct is well established. However, individuals still commit offenses, but attempt to avoid discovery, and therefore punishment. The punishing stimulus does not stop criminal behavior. The criminal simply becomes more adept at avoiding the punishment. Skinner argued that reinforcement, both positive and negative (the latter of which is often confused with punishment), proves to be more effective in bringing about lasting changes in behavior.


----------



## james downey (Jul 31, 2012)

SassyCat said:


> Last time I watched him in a world championship he got disqualified for dog not outing... so... :suspicious:
> 
> This is actually irrelevant to discussion but I couldn't resist pointing to the irony. His dog obviously had no breaks installed... he couldn't even drive for 10 minutes without hitting the wall.


4 world championships. And your going to focus on one out? 

That out, was one the first FMBB world championship where the top 10 dogs had to repeat protection and obedience. He lost the trial on the last out of the trial. Up until that point he was winning. If the trial had been done in traditional fashion he would have won....he had 2 championships prior to this, and went on to win 2 more. I am not sure you can discredit a guy that has had that type of success with one failed behavior. 

And I had made the comment on another forum. that I believe the rule was poor to allow a second round of B and C.....that the weak dogs would be aided by having a second chance, and the strong dogs would become stronger and have a harder time keeping it together. Generally is IPO you see the weak dogs always do better the second time around in training, and the strong dogs get worse...why would a trial be any different.


----------



## james downey (Jul 31, 2012)

SassyCat said:


> Last time I watched him in a world championship he got disqualified for dog not outing... so... :suspicious:
> 
> This is actually irrelevant to discussion but I couldn't resist pointing to the irony. His dog obviously had no breaks installed... he couldn't even drive for 10 minutes without hitting the wall.


BTW his last championship... he score a perfect 100 pts in Protection on a championship stage. and Cayman knocked the helper out.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Last time I watched him in a world championship he got disqualified for dog not outing... so...


Yes, that does not mean anything because what's that saying, something about "each dog having his day" 

Did we not just watch Michael Phelps not place in an Olympic swim. Not trying to compare but competition is, what competition is. Think about it if his dog was gonna win/place every time that would not be competition. Sorry for repetitive stuff.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> James, do you know where your BF Skinner quote comes from? I'd like to see it in context.
> 
> I'm wondering what he means by "I do not think it (positive punishment) works". Hard to believe he'd say that, but perhaps there was an overcall context.
> 
> ...


And of course, generally, negative reinforcement requires the addition of an aversive so that it can be removed.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> Last time I watched him in a world championship he got disqualified for dog not outing... so... :suspicious:
> 
> This is actually irrelevant to discussion but I couldn't resist pointing to the irony. His dog obviously had no breaks installed... he couldn't even drive for 10 minutes without hitting the wall.


Most dogs make a mistake once in a while. (whether they are trained with positive punishment, negative reinforcement or positive reinforcement. I do think dogs trained with primarily +R probably worry less about making mistakes, because the stakes aren't as high.) And so do Handlers under pressure. I remember when Terri Arnold blew the Gaines National Superdog Championship when she double cued a drop on recall. And it wasn't because she didn't know better. Or wasn't a practiced and competent handler. It was because she messed up.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I love calming signals>>>>

ahh turid - Instincts can not be competed with so dont try.


"dogs should allowed to be dogs" "I respect his intense urge to investigate an animal track or the scent from a bitch in heat along the side of the road. I allow him to do so without nagging. "

now thats training


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Correct. It has not been "disproven" because they've never been proven with any living species on the planet. Kinda hard to disprove something that's never been proven, or easy depending on how you look at it. The logic behind the theory, however, is easily dissected with...logic.



http://rogerabrantes.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/dominance-making-sense-of-the-nonsense/

Dr. Roger Abrantis evolutionary biologist view on "dominance" author of "DOG LANGUAGE - AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CANINE BEHAVIOR" which orig issue i believe pre-dates the breakthrough Turid Rugas's book


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

jiml said:


> http://rogerabrantes.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/dominance-making-sense-of-the-nonsense/
> 
> Dr. Roger Abrantis evolutionary biologist view on "dominance" author of "DOG LANGUAGE - AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CANINE BEHAVIOR" which orig issue i believe pre-dates the breakthrough Turid Rugas's book


I'm not sure how regurgitating a hypothesis proves dominance exists. I'm also not saying a definition for dominance does not exist. I'm clearly saying not one living species on the planet has proved dominance exists. Understand the distinction.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I'm not sure how regurgitating a hypothesis proves dominance exists. I'm also not saying a definition for dominance does not exist. I'm clearly saying not one living species on the planet has proved dominance exists. Understand the distinction.



I think the word dominance and the meaning of dominance is well accepted by the scientific community. I think you are referring to dominance theory and its application to dog training. Dominance itself is not a theory but a word with a definition.

Not trying to be condescending to you CP just trying to clarify

Also if you are talking about "dominance theory" then couldent that same statement be made about any theory accepted or not such as various "Learning theories"


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

jiml said:


> http://rogerabrantes.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/dominance-making-sense-of-the-nonsense/
> 
> Dr. Roger Abrantis evolutionary biologist view on "dominance" author of "DOG LANGUAGE - AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CANINE BEHAVIOR" which orig issue i believe pre-dates the breakthrough Turid Rugas's book


The part I like the most out of that link:
"These are highly quantitative and quantifiable behaviors, with many variables. There is not one single correct strategy. It all depends on flexibility and the strategy adopted by others.

Of course, we don’t build stable and profitable relationships in the long run by showing dominant or submissive behaviors’. These are necessary behaviors to solve the inevitable social conflicts. We build relationships on the necessity of partnership—we as well as dogs (and wolves of course)—to solve common problems related to surviving and preferably with an acceptable level of comfort."

And I think there's where the issue lies.

A lot of times, dominance is used as a relationship tool. I.e. how you build a good relationship to a dog when it's best use as a conflict resolution tool. Dominance is also presented as "the" strategy to use on a dog. Otherwise, the dog is going to take over the house, kids, whatever else (who says the dog even wants all of that?) Of course, how much conflict comes over resources? I can't think of a time that Wally and I both wanted something and only one of us could have it. I'm certainly not going to fight him over a squirrel and he doesn't want my computer. I don't want his dog treats. Or that raw bone or whatever else. 

Perhaps the only time I can think of is if we're playing a "competitive training". It's something I'll eat, and something he wants - so perhaps in his mind, we're "fighting" over the resource. Of course, what he offers isn't necessarily a "submissive" behavior (it doesn't fit on that chart of expressions and postures) and I don't get calming signals. Instead I get (hopefully) the correct behavior. 

Otherwise, I don't see us in contention over resources. Like you put in my post - if he wants to sniff, I let him sniff, etc.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> http://rogerabrantes.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/dominance-making-sense-of-the-nonsense/
> 
> Dr. Roger Abrantis evolutionary biologist view on "dominance" author of "DOG LANGUAGE - AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CANINE BEHAVIOR" which orig issue i believe pre-dates the breakthrough Turid Rugas's book


Dr. Abrantes is a very brilliant (and exceptionally nice) person. I don't find anything to disagree with here. He's basically talking as an ethologist, about canid to canid relationships. And I think anyone who lives with multiple dogs and don't realize that dogs do have hierarchies and pay attention to status isn't looking very closely. But, as he states, it's fluid, not static, and not always easily defined (sometimes a dog will defer to a dog, and other times they will not) I believe I recall him saying that dominance/submission is an action, not a definition. What I also see him saying is that owner/dog relationships should be based on relationship, not superstitious behavior. By the way, when I ended up in the hospital at the time of his last seminar in the state (went the previous year) he and one of the seminar organizers took time to visit me at the hospital. It was a really nice surprise, and helped a bit with my disappointment not to get to spend three days picking up good information from him. Like I said, very nice guy and full of common sense about dogs.


----------



## james downey (Jul 31, 2012)

From my experience with dogs. I do not think that Dominace is a training strategy that works. Simply because the training calls for asserting your will over the dog, I do not think dogs can learn this a direct result of the training....I do however think they learn what kind of relationship the have you from the training. It's a by-product. Good training, produces a good relationship.... Not the other way around. So if I impose proper boundries on a dog with fair and clear training...the relationship has always taken care of itself.


----------



## james downey (Jul 31, 2012)

I also believe that our evolution with dogs is drastically different from how dogs have evolved living with other dogs. We have very different reasons for living with dogs, than dogs do with living other dogs. Trying to replicate how dogs interact with each other as a basis for training I do not think works very well simply because we have a different deal with dogs, than dogs do amongst each other.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Dr. Abrantes is a very brilliant (and exceptionally nice) person. I don't find anything to disagree with here. He's basically talking as an ethologist, about canid to canid relationships. And I think anyone who lives with multiple dogs and don't realize that dogs do have hierarchies and pay attention to status isn't looking very closely. But, as he states, it's fluid, not static, and not always easily defined (sometimes a dog will defer to a dog, and other times they will not) I believe I recall him saying that dominance/submission is an action, not a definition. What I also see him saying is that owner/dog relationships should be based on relationship, not superstitious behavior. By the way, when I ended up in the hospital at the time of his last seminar in the state (went the previous year) he and one of the seminar organizers took time to visit me at the hospital. It was a really nice surprise, and helped a bit with my disappointment not to get to spend three days picking up good information from him. Like I said, very nice guy and full of common sense about dogs.


I remember you once saying you went to his seminars. 

As a self professed balanced trainer I still have to say loved this quote from his blogs. 


"We are over swamped by labels because labels sell, but they only sell if you buy them. Should you be a positive, ultra-positive, R+, R++, R+P-, balanced, naturalistic, moralistic, Milanese, conservative, realistic, progressive, clickerian or authoritarian dog owner? Stop caring about what label you should bear. When you enjoy a great moment with your dog, the label you bear is irrelevant. A label is a burden; it restricts you and takes away your freedom. Labels are for insecure people that need to hide behind an image. Believe in yourself, be the type of dog owner you want to be and you won’t need labels."


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

jiml said:


> "We are over swamped by labels because labels sell, but they only sell if you buy them. Should you be a positive, ultra-positive, R+, R++, R+P-, balanced, naturalistic, moralistic, Milanese, conservative, realistic, progressive, clickerian or authoritarian dog owner? Stop caring about what label you should bear. When you enjoy a great moment with your dog, the label you bear is irrelevant. A label is a burden; it restricts you and takes away your freedom. Labels are for insecure people that need to hide behind an image. Believe in yourself, be the type of dog owner you want to be and you won’t need labels."


That IS an awesome quote. Going to put part of it in my signature.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> I remember you once saying you went to his seminars.
> 
> As a self professed balanced trainer I still have to say loved this quote from his blogs. ".


I'm not sure you got his point, since you are labeling yourself a "self-professed balanced trainer".


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> "We are over swamped by labels because labels sell, but they only sell if you buy them. Should you be a positive, ultra-positive, R+, R++, R+P-, balanced, naturalistic, moralistic, Milanese, conservative, realistic, progressive, clickerian or authoritarian dog owner? Stop caring about what label you should bear. When you enjoy a great moment with your dog, the label you bear is irrelevant. A label is a burden; it restricts you and takes away your freedom. Labels are for insecure people that need to hide behind an image. Believe in yourself, be the type of dog owner you want to be and you won’t need labels."


Absolutely



> That IS an awesome quote. Going to put part of it in my signature.


KB please do that.

That quote even made sense to a high school dropout, just sayin'..


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

wvasko said:


> KB please do that.
> 
> That quote even made sense to a high school dropout, just sayin'..


I could only pick a few lines  Freaking character limit. But it's in there. (Sorry, Nicole Wilde  )


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I'm not sure you got his point, since you are labeling yourself a "self-professed balanced trainer".>>

I got the point as I think was evident in my wording- we all need to strive for something better. LOL

:grouphug:


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> I'm not sure you got his point, since you are labeling yourself a "self-professed balanced trainer".>>
> 
> I got the point as I think was evident in my wording- we all need to strive for something better. LOL


Really? Better than . . . what? It appears to me to be about labeling one's self and one's method

"We are over swamped by labels because labels sell, but they only sell if you buy them. Should you be a positive, ultra-positive, R+, R++, R+P-, balanced, naturalistic, moralistic, Milanese, conservative, realistic, progressive, clickerian or authoritarian dog owner? Stop caring about what label you should bear. When you enjoy a great moment with your dog, the label you bear is irrelevant. A label is a burden; it restricts you and takes away your freedom. Labels are for insecure people that need to hide behind an image. Believe in yourself, be the type of dog owner you want to be and you won’t need labels." 

I have to say, I don't know what I'd call myself as a trainer. Clicker is only one part of my philosophy, only one of my tools. (Abrantes uses clicker technology for several things as well) I think what has been a constant theme in this thread is that the people here aren't labeling themselves as "purely positive" or "positive only" I do think, though, that it is useful to go into training with an clear understanding of what you are, and aren't willing to do to a dog to get behaviors.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> I have to say, I don't know what I'd call myself as a trainer. Clicker is only one part of my philosophy, only one of my tools. (Abrantes uses clicker technology for several things as well) I think what has been a constant theme in this thread is that the people here aren't labeling themselves as "purely positive" or "positive only" I do think, though, that it is useful to go into training with an clear understanding of what you are, and aren't willing to do to a dog to get behaviors.


I don't know what I'd call myself either. I just try to observe how Wally attempts to solve problems, what behaviors he tries first and when, and always consider his signals and such to know if he's getting too frustrated, confused, down-spirited, try to engage his creativity, etc. 

Completely agree about knowing what you will/won't do and what your strengths and weaknesses are as a trainer.


----------



## james downey (Jul 31, 2012)

I am a Scientist. No Degree on the Wall... Here is a Quote

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, 
which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail 
to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is 
contempt prior to investigation." 
This I feel is my biggest asset as a trainer. I experiment. I am willing to actions that I am fearful to take. In 2008 I went all positive. Not out of some ethical morale stance. I did it because another trainer, a friend, suggested that I do it. Because he said, " You think your good with markers and rewards, but your not. You compensate with complusion for in ept ability to control resources." That was hard to swallow. But you know what, best thing I ever did. I went back and looked at all the training video documentation I had of my dog. And if you watched one video from each year of her life. You would see something remarkable, a dog that was crazy drive, slowly over time being eroded. And not much better behaviors to speak of. Just less dog. 

So for the better of 4 years I used no collars....not once. No intentional -R or +P. Just +R and -P. I finished a dog, and started a new one. Then I also in that time, read everything I could get my hands on about using aversives, and went to seminars and watched. Most of it was crap....just a bunch of people spitting out the same things...It has to be fair, and clear....but having the same results as I had. They just could not see it. 

Then I found a training protocol that implemented aversives, I thought was well thought out and preserved the dog as much as possible. And I started to implement it. I have thus far good results.

But the morale of my story is both times, taking the collars and putting them back on, I had massive amounts of apprehension. The best thing, I ever did as a trainer was take a course of action I did not know was going to work or not, I was unsure of the outcome. 

So, I think, never again will I make the mistake to be so sure I am right. It's all an experiment, every bit of it. Until you have results, it's simply only, "what you think".


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Really? Better than . . . what? It appears to me to be about labeling one's self and one's method


Well from a dog trainer I labeled myself as a blacksmith, does that count.

In old school time most of us weren't bright enough to label ourselves, let me rephrase that, at least I wasn't. Even then there were a few that were legends in their own minds.


----------



## EdDTS (May 30, 2012)

Pawzk9 said:


> I have to say, I don't know what I'd call myself as a trainer. Clicker is only one part of my philosophy, only one of my tools.


I love this. I constantly say that there is not a single way to train every single dog. Personally, I like to learn all the different methods and keep them as "tools" to help a dog. I work with a lot of problem behavior dogs, usually, so I need a variety of "tools" to work with different dogs with different behaviors and different reasons for said behaviors.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Really? Better than . . . what? It appears to me to be about labeling one's self and one's method
>>>

May i label you :boink:


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Well from a dog trainer I labeled myself as a blacksmith, does that count.


Nah, because, in a sense, that what trainers do - take a raw material (the dog) and refine it to achieve whatever purpose. Sometimes, impurities must be taken out (behavioral modification) and sometimes existing "purposes" just need refining (proofing, re-training, assigning a new signal to an existing behavior, etc).

You're not labeling yourself after your desired process or your tools.



EdDTS said:


> I love this. I constantly say that there is not a single way to train every single dog. Personally, I like to learn all the different methods and keep them as "tools" to help a dog. I work with a lot of problem behavior dogs, usually, so I need a variety of "tools" to work with different dogs with different behaviors and different reasons for said behaviors.


IMO, the only to train every single dog is to read the dog, do no harm, and work with what you have.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

One more thing I will add regarding the dominance issue 

"I do not in any way reject the notion of dominance." David Mech

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...nce-is-not-myth-wolves-dogs-and-other-animals

good article on the existence and limitations of dominance


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> One more thing I will add regarding the dominance issue
> 
> "I do not in any way reject the notion of dominance." David Mech
> 
> ...


It is a good article. I think the salient part to the discussion is:
"Some of the critic's concerns are legitimate because we need to be very careful about generalizing from the behavior of wild and captive wolves (from whom dogs emerged) to the behavior of dogs. It's also important to realize that the misuse of the concept of dominance that results, for example, in a person violently dominating a dog, is not a valid, respectful, or humane way to treat or to train our best friends. "

It's also important when we choose to "act like dominant wolves" to A) really consider if our skills and anatomy allow that to be possible and B) whether the things we want out of dogs is really what other dogs want out of dogs.
Is the Kelley mentioned the infamous Lee Charles Kelley, who can make a sow's ear out of any silk purse available?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> Really? Better than . . . what? It appears to me to be about labeling one's self and one's method
> >>>
> 
> May i label you :boink:


If it makes you happy.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

james downey said:


> I went all positive. Not out of some ethical morale stance. I did it because another trainer, a friend, suggested that I do it. Because he said, " You think your good with markers and rewards, but your not. You compensate with complusion for in ept ability to control resources." That was hard to swallow. But you know what, best thing I ever did. I went back and looked at all the training video documentation I had of my dog. And if you watched one video from each year of her life. You would see something remarkable, a dog that was crazy drive, slowly over time being eroded. And not much better behaviors to speak of. Just less dog.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> If you were using -P, you weren't really "all positive", that's okay. I don't know anyone who relies on primarily +R who doesn't. But that "all positive, purely positive, positive only" label is often mythological if you look at it closely.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> It is a good article. I think the salient part to the discussion is:
> "Some of the critic's concerns are legitimate because we need to be very careful about generalizing from the behavior of wild and captive wolves (from whom dogs emerged) to the behavior of dogs. It's also important to realize that the misuse of the concept of dominance that results, for example, in a person violently dominating a dog, is not a valid, respectful, or humane way to treat or to train our best friends. "
> 
> It's also important when we choose to "act like dominant wolves" to A) really consider if our skills and anatomy allow that to be possible and B) whether the things we want out of dogs is really what other dogs want out of dogs.
> Is the Kelley mentioned the infamous Charles Lee Kelley, who can make a sow's ear out of any silk purse available?



dont disagree. Many in the dog training world went a little, to say the least, overboard in there interpretation of dominance. I post these for those that do as the article states say that dominance doesn't exist at all and is not accepted in the science world because they heard so on a forum. (not even regarding its pertinence to training which is an entirely diff issue)


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

jiml said:


> I post these for those that do as the article states say that dominance doesn't exist at all and is not accepted in the science world because they heard so on a forum. (not even regarding its pertinence to training which is an entirely diff issue)


I assume this is in response to what I said, and I was hoping you understood the distinction I was making. I'll say it again (for my amusement)... Dominance is defined, and I believe most of us here understand it is defined to describe a relationship between two beings (really, an outcome over a resource). The fact remains dominance has not been proven to exist as a trait with any living creature on the planet, and is a human projection (hypothesis). Show me a study proving dominance is the principle behind a social organization, and maybe I'll word the facts differently. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> dont disagree. Many in the dog training world went a little, to say the least, overboard in there interpretation of dominance. I post these for those that do as the article states say that dominance doesn't exist at all and is not accepted in the science world because they heard so on a forum. (not even regarding its pertinence to training which is an entirely diff issue)


I think it's common for a pendulum to swing from one extreme to another. From everything being about dominance and how your dog will take over the world if you let him to there's no such thing in the animal kingdom or canine world. From "your dog's out to rule the universe and does things to piz you off. to dogs are lemon brains and can't form a thought". As in everything, eventually the pendulum (and the truth) ends up back in the middle. I think dominance exists, but it is a social interaction, not a state of being. I also think that it's important if we don't absolutely KNOW why a dog is doing something, that we not act on baseless assumption, and give the benefit of the doubt to the dog. We're the one who knows what we are looking for and we are the ones with the big brains. And explaining instead of posturing gets the point across a lot faster.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Nah, because, in a sense, that what trainers do - take a raw material (the dog) and refine it to achieve whatever purpose. Sometimes, impurities must be taken out (behavioral modification) and sometimes existing "purposes" just need refining (proofing, re-training, assigning a new signal to an existing behavior, etc).


Oh my, you do have a way with words.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

With regard to Skinner and his objections to, say, prison and it's failings.

#1 - to the extent that a person is in prison, he can no longer harm people outside the prison. It effectively "manages" the behavior by containing it.

#2 The only contexts in which Skinner worries about punishment is with regard to humans.I'm working from my memory, here. For this, he is rather well known among behaviorists. Skinner wrote a number of articles and books that describe how a science of behavior could be applied to humans (rather than rats, chickens and pigeons). It is here than I have seen him lament about punishment.
Humans, though, possess a special behavioral trick: "rule governed behavior". That is, a human can read, hear, or self-talk a "rule" and follow it without ever making direct contact with the contingency. So, a person's behavior can be changed without ever contacting reinforcement or punishment.

A smoker, for instance, might quit smoking when he is told that it will do him harm. 

Using aversives to control humans results in a kind of "revolt!" behavior. Skinner calls it "counter control" and I believe it is a special feature of humans and maybe some of the higher primates. It is why, with humans, it is important to think very carefully about punishment protocols. They better be well designed!


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Let me say also that the use of aversives can create possible problems with all species if the program isn't well designed, too.... but they "revolt!" and special kinds of avoidance behaviors is just so spectacular with humans.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I assume this is in response to what I said, and I was hoping you understood the distinction I was making. I'll say it again (for my amusement)... Dominance is defined, and I believe most of us here understand it is defined to describe a relationship between two beings (really, an outcome over a resource). The fact remains dominance has not been proven to exist as a trait with any living creature on the planet, and is a human projection (hypothesis). Show me a study proving dominance is the principle behind a social organization, and maybe I'll word the facts differently. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish.


As I stated dominance is a observational trait with a definition. It is excepted and referenced throuout both human and animal peer reviewed lit. I do not believe dominance itself is a "hypothesis" as stated any more than anger is.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> With regard to Skinner and his objections to, say, prison and it's failings.


Prison (and other criminal penalties) may be a pretty muddy form of punishment. Punishment is most effective if it is immediate and appropriate. So, if you get a ticket for running a red light, that might decrease the likelihood of that behavior. However, if you rob a bank and the police investigate for a year or so, then you come to trial, recidivism is likely. Additionally, if you get away with several bank robberies, and get caught on only a few, the behavior might be on a variable schedule of reinforcement. And very few smokers have success in quitting because someone tells them "it's bad for you" because that consequence is so far away.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

jiml,

Well stated! I like your "anger" point.

It seems to me that the original "dominance" debate began with regard to special training techniques which were designed to assert one's ranking in your "pack".
(alpha rolls, never let the dog exit the door before you do, never let your dog "win" at tug)


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Pawzk9

I agree.... that's why I was trying to be careful to use the words "aversive" or "aversive control" in describing what he was referring, too. 

However, rule governed behavior allows for long delayed (or non-existant!) consequences. For instance, a person might pray three times a day for fear of ever lasting hell. (escape/avoidance)

And obviously, with respect to repeat offenses, the aversive control isn't serving to punish those behaviors.... so it isn't, say, "theft punishment".


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

jiml said:


> As I stated dominance is a observational trait with a definition.


There are many definitions. Which one are you referring to? Please, no Wiki, please! How is it used to observe a trait? 



> It is excepted and referenced throuout both human and animal peer reviewed lit.


This proves a common language. So what? 



> I do not believe dominance itself is a "hypothesis" as stated any more than anger is.


What is dominance theory, then?


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

the relative position of an individual in a social hierarchy - Webster




Curbside Prophet said:


> What is dominance theory, then?


 a theory on the role of dominance in maintenance and stability of group-based social hierarchies.


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

jiml said:


> As I stated dominance is a observational trait with a definition. It is excepted and referenced throuout both human and animal peer reviewed lit. I do not believe dominance itself is a "hypothesis" as stated any more than anger is.


What observable behaviors would be defined as displays of dominance?


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...lf-interest-drives-animals-dominate-or-submit

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/faculty/gosling/reprints/jpsp03-adogsgotpersonality.pdf

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/faculty/gosling/reprints/CDPS99Xspeciesreview.pdf

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/96/2/491/

http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/...ominance preferences_lukaszewskironey2009.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8999780


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

jiml said:


> the relative position of an individual in a social hierarchy - Webster
> 
> a theory on the role of dominance in maintenance and stability of group-based social hierarchies.


There are likely more than 20 definitions of dominance. It would have been more amusing if you had chosen the one from urban dictionary.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)




----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

This "dominance theory" is the stuff of a soft science. This isn't chemistry or physics. It is social (very soft) science.

It might be more appropriate to write it: Social "Science" 

Unlike chemistry, the social science / psychology experts debate their lexicon routinely. It is probably why we can't easily come to term agreement here, either.

Skinner noticed this problem and it is why he decided to wipe the slate clean and start fresh... and in the traditional of the natural ("hard") sciences.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

aiw said:


> I'd like to ask a question about positive training methods that I realize will be a little controversial, just to be clear I am not a dog trainer, just an average owner interested in learning.
> 
> My question is this: why use only the positive in absence of the negative?
> 
> I understand that a positive association makes the behaviour more likely to occur again but shouldnt the inverse also be true, a negative association makes the behaviour less likely to occur again? Essentially, consequence cuts both ways... we teach our children using this idea, why not dogs? Its true that the human psyche is different from a dogs but dog-dog communication is almost exclusively negative (you will not see a dog give another dog a treat, but you might see one snap at another). Also why is dominance theory so denigrated, dogs aren't wolves but they do have pack hierarchy. Shouldnt we be trying to communicate with dogs in a "language" that is most natural to them?


I could reply in 2 ways..
1) This is the most interesting post I have ever read!!! Awesome!
2 ) Wow!! What a bunch of crap...you suck!

The positive comment I make will create a bond between us. 
whilst...
The negative comment will make you less likely to listen to me


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I used to pose this exact question, a while back but the addition of Buddy has changed how I operate ... At least as it partains to him, I try to be as non confrontational as possible because it makes him unsure.

Josefina is a tad different, I HAVE to be a tad confrontational with her because of her lack of social skills in general, she just doesn't get things & she needs someone to be very 'no, don't do this ... THIS is what I WANT you do do' not in a bad way but she is supposed to be a full bred (full... NOT well bred) ACD but she doesn't act like one, she is very much a puppy, it's like she didn't mentally mature beyond 6 mos or so. So she needs more management then thr average dog her age.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

jiml said:


> a theory on the role of dominance in maintenance and stability of group-based social hierarchies.


I don't dominate Wally and he doesn't dominate me. There's just no struggle. We work together and both get something we want (I get a behavior, he gets some kind of reward, be it the behavior itself, a treat, whatever) - there's no struggle for power or whatever else. 

So does that mean our "group" is unstable?


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Yeah i dont 'dominate' mine either... I dont have to, I already AM the boss as i control all things good & fun in life & the dogs aren't idiots, they know this. If a dog does something undesirable he isn't trying to 'take over' he just plain doesnt know any better or...... 'forgets' that he knows better (like in Josefina's case, as she is a special case, she has to be reminded what is allowed & what is not... not in a harsh way, all i have to say now is 'Hey... you want a _time out_?' & she ceases to do whatever undesirable behavior that is... usually pestering the other dogs :/)


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Roloni said:


> I could reply in 2 ways..
> 1) This is the most interesting post I have ever read!!! Awesome!
> 2 ) Wow!! What a bunch of crap...you suck!
> 
> ...



or you could say "nice try that answer was wrong, this is the correct way"


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

I thought Roloni's example ("...you suck!") was an excellent way of characterizing the problem with positive punishment as depicted by purely/90% positive trainers, but then jiml responds with a very good counter-example.

Not all positive punishment is nasty or insulting.... it can be, in fact, informative!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> I thought Roloni's example ("...you suck!") was an excellent way of characterizing the problem with positive punishment as depicted by purely/90% positive trainers, but then jiml responds with a very good counter-example.
> 
> Not all positive punishment is nasty or insulting.... it can be, in fact, informative!


I really haven't seen that many "you suck" answers here. It's actually been a pretty interesting conversation. Who are the purely positive trainers here, please?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

ohbehave said:


> Not all positive punishment is nasty or insulting.... it can be, in fact, informative!


 Isn't the definition of positive punishment "adding something unpleasant" (nasty)? If it's informative, is that really punishment? Is "nice try, that answer was wrong, this is the correct way" punishment?


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Pawzk9 - scroll up just one post before mine, and you'll see the "... you suck!".

Also, I included 90% positive in my statement to include other positive trainers... and saw one person in this entire thread that claimed to be "one of those purely positive people.

Nevertheless, the problem with punishment, as characterized by the decidedly positive trainers, was succinctly presented in Roloni's example. They think of punishment as a stressful, relationship damaging, obstacle to learning.


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Isn't the definition of positive punishment "adding something unpleasant" (nasty)? If it's informative, is that really punishment? Is "nice try, that answer was wrong, this is the correct way" punishment?


Wouldn't it depend on if the dog sees it as negative or not? Couldn't it also be negative reinforcement if it indicates the reward is not available for that response.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

ohbehave said:


> They think of punishment as a stressful, relationship damaging, obstacle to learning.


I guess I can't think of anything that can be characterized as positive punishment that isn't stressful/nasty. Isn't that the point of punishment?


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

positive punishment "adding something unpleasant>>>

no its anything that tends to decrease a behavior.

it could be a "no" a look, a slight pull, or a hard correction depending on the dog and or circumstance. technically something can be be positive punishment in some circumstances and not in others (same goes for +R)


I really haven't seen that many "you suck" answers here. It's actually been a pretty interesting conversation. >>>

I agree. 

Who are the purely positive trainers here, please?>>>>

I think PP trainers know who they are, although the term is admittedly incorrect.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Willowy,

You can think of positive punishment as a "worsening" that occurs immediately after a behavior (and ultimately results in a behavior decrease).

So let's say you use a word for extinction: So you say "nope!" to indicate that a treat will not be forthcoming due to some behavior. After repeated exposures to that contingency, the word "nope!" becomes a punisher. My version of "nope!" is actually a very quiet and low "nah". Still, she now seems to get the meaning of that word.

I'm not sure if you would call this "nasty", but I would guess that my "nah" now serves as a punisher. 

Things that signal that there will be no reinforcer [extinction - Sdelta] probably serves as a punisher.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Eh, I suppose I'm thinking of a layman's concept of punishment. I guarantee most people would not consider a no-reward marker to be punishment.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Willowy,

All that matters is that you present something...anything..... "nah" for example.... and the behavior decreases as a result. 
That, by definition, is positive punishment. 

You are right, though. Most people would not consider "nah" a punishment.... they would probably miss all kinds of other things that are punishments, too. What most people think, though, does not play a role in the _formal _definition of punishment.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Here is the exact thing I am referring to
"2 ) Wow!! What a bunch of crap...you suck!"


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

ohbehave said:


> What most people think, though, does not play a role in the _formal _definition of punishment.


It kind of does, though. Because, if you say to the average person that punishment plays a role in dog training, almost everybpdy (unless you explain exactly what you mean) is automatically going to think of hitting, jerking on the collar, zapping, pinching, etc. Dictionary definitions change according to popular perception. It's confusing to people when words have secret definitions only the geeks know about.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Gally said:


> Wouldn't it depend on if the dog sees it as negative or not? Couldn't it also be negative reinforcement if it indicates the reward is not available for that response.


The dog's subjective experience is unknown to us although I, like you, do make assumptions.

Negative reinforcement implies that something that is present is being removed or made inaccessible. In fact, negative reinforcement means that something _unpleasant _ (speaking subjectively) has been removed and has _increased _behavior as a result.

The word "nah" is bad news. If it has been conditioned to signal "no reward", and it is a sound that I am bringing into the situation.... it is a punisher. 

That is my interpretation. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

If you answer a question on Jeopardy and you get the buzzer (my "nah")... then your behavior of answering in that way has been punished and you are unlikely to offer that behavior again under those circumstances. This circumstance does require some prior conditioning (to the meaning of the buzzer and/or the meaning of "nah").


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

ohbehave said:


> The dog's subjective experience is unknown to us although I, like you, do make assumptions.
> 
> Negative reinforcement implies that something that is present is being removed or made inaccessible. In fact, negative reinforcement means that something _unpleasant _ (speaking subjectively) has been removed and has _increased _behavior as a result.


Sorry I meant to type negative punishment, assuming there is a history of rewarding for the behavior saying Nah could indicate that the reward is no longer available (ie. it's being removed). Or must it be that the reward, lets say a treat, is physically removed?


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Negative or Positive reinforcement/punishment can get muddy. It is imperfect.

But going with the usual definintions, I would say that any "signal" that implies bad news...like a vocal "no reward for you"... is a punisher thanks to the dog's _past learning history _with negative punishment _combined_ with that signal. After a while, that signal all by itself affects the behavior. It is an unwanted signal / sound that is _presented_.

Jack Michael, one of the most respected of behaviorists, has argued that the negative/positive monikers could be dropped. That those phrases aren't terribly important. All that matters is that there is a worsening or improving of the organism's circumstance.

For instance, when use your windshield wipers... are you _removing_ aversive blurriness?.... or are you _presenting_ clarity?


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

I agree it's muddy waters. I still struggle to keep positive/negative punishment/reinforcement straight in my head so trying to figure out the nuances of specific cases is helping me learn.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Karyn Garvin said:


> If a trainer withholds a food reward until the dog gets the behavior right, just with holding the food is negative reinforcement.


How does the dog know you are holding food? Should the dog know you are holding food? What happens when food is phased out?


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

what i love is that you are a cruel person if you DONT use what some call 'positive only training, positive doesnt work for every dog just like balanced doesnt. its unfair IMHO to pnly limit yourself to one method.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

dogdragoness said:


> what i love is that you are a cruel person if you DONT use what some call 'positive only training, positive doesnt work for every dog just like balanced doesnt. its unfair IMHO to pnly limit yourself to one method.


First off, I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that.

But some training methods ARE cruel. What a person is willing to do to a dog says volumes about their character, IMO. Even if it "works".


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

dogdragoness said:


> positive doesnt work for every dog...


If you had said, positive reinforcement doesn't work for every handler, I would agree. I do not agree that some dogs have no appetitive reinforcers. They may be tougher to find with some dogs, but that goes back to the handler. 



> its unfair IMHO to pnly limit yourself to one method.


Why would it be unfair?


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> First off, I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that.
> 
> But some training methods ARE cruel. What a person is willing to do to a dog says volumes about their character, IMO. Even if it "works".


no but i have seen on other forums ppl say that, that was what i meant, sorry for not being clear... i get hasty in posting sometimes & forget this is internet LOL

Of course no one should use mentally damaging methods like the ones BP uses, but a little standoffishness i.e.: body blocking, (GENTLE) leash checking & 'touching' (NOT kicking!!!) might be nessessary for some dogs, they need to know that you are 'serious' about them behaving lol


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> First off, I haven't seen anyone in this thread say that.
> 
> But some training methods ARE cruel. What a person is willing to do to a dog says volumes about their character, IMO. Even if it "works".


no but i have seen on other forums ppl say that, that was what i meant, sorry for not being clear... i get hasty in posting sometimes & forget this is internet LOL

Of course no one should use mentally damaging methods like the ones BP uses, but a little standoffishness i.e.: body blocking, (GENTLE) leash checking & 'touching' (NOT kicking!!!) might be nessessary for some dogs, they need to know that you are 'serious' about them behaving lol


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

And for a lot of dogs, "gentle" leash jerks or "touching" would do absolutely nothing, if you wanted to use physical methods effectively you would have to get pretty harsh. Do you escalate? How far? That's what I mean about what someone is willing to do to a dog.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

I marvel at how a dog can pull an owner by it's neck... and on it's neck is a choke chain!.... gagging and coughing.... and THE TAIL IS WAGGING as the dog appears to celebrate life.

If I said, "I'm going to do something that will result in a dog that gags and coughs"... you might think that I'm cruel. I do wonder if that dog would agree!


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

jiml said:


> or you could say "nice try that answer was wrong, this is the correct way"


Exactly...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

ohbehave said:


> I marvel at how a dog can pull an owner by it's neck... and on it's neck is a choke chain!.... gagging and coughing.... and THE TAIL IS WAGGING as the dog appears to celebrate life.
> 
> If I said, "I'm going to do something that will result in a dog that gags and coughs"... you might think that I'm cruel. I do wonder if that dog would agree!


I agree that it's obviously not acting as an effective punisher in that case. But it is still cruel. The dog's trachea could be sustaining permanent damage.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Willowy said:


> I agree that it's obviously not acting as an effective punisher in that case. But it is still cruel. The dog's trachea could be sustaining permanent damage.


+1

Humans are responsible for being HUMANe. Not DOGe. I know that's not a word, but you get the point.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

yes, yes... of course.

I'm merely saying that NO HUMAN would do such a thing to their breathing or throat.... so it is hard to assess the accuracy of our subjective judgements of a dog's experience or "misery". Therefore, I wonder about the dog's experience of life.

Happily wagging the tail while, apparently, loving life. strange. Could this be like the football player who is cold and slightly injured and yet celebrating like it is the best day of his life?


----------



## Gally (Jan 11, 2012)

ohbehave said:


> yes, yes... of course.
> 
> I'm merely saying that NO HUMAN would do such a thing to their breathing or throat.... so it is hard to assess the accuracy of our subjective judgements of a dog's experience or "misery". Therefore, I wonder about the dog's experience of life.
> 
> Happily wagging the tail while, apparently, loving life. strange. Could this be like the football player who is cold and slightly injured and yet celebrating like it is the best day of his life?


There is some evidence to show that dogs and other animals don't experience pain the same way a human does. It may not be that it hurts any less but simply that they are not programmed to care as much as we do. Pain doesn't always equal suffering for animals while it almost always does for humans, hence a dog who was just spayed can run around and jump sometimes as soon as a few hours after surgery. That doesn't make it right to harm animals.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> what i love is that you are a cruel person if you DONT use what some call 'positive only training, positive doesnt work for every dog just like balanced doesnt. its unfair IMHO to pnly limit yourself to one method.


I don't know what "positive only" training is. But I do know that using positive reinforcement, done with at least a little skill not only works for every dog, but also porpoises, chickens, hyenas, horses, etc. And I think I've accused very few people of being actively and intentionally cruel (okay, BP)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> Pawzk9 - scroll up just one post before mine, and you'll see the "... you suck!".
> 
> Also, I included 90% positive in my statement to include other positive trainers... and saw one person in this entire thread that claimed to be "one of those purely positive people.
> 
> Nevertheless, the problem with punishment, as characterized by the decidedly positive trainers, was succinctly presented in Roloni's example. They think of punishment as a stressful, relationship damaging, obstacle to learning.


The "you suck" was not actually aimed at anyone. Does "90% positive" include +P, if we are using the terms behaviorally? I would expect a behavior analyst to be a little more precise in language. Maybe not. Out of 250 posts, you saw ONE person claim to be an ex-purely positive trainer. As I pointed out to him/her that was not so as s/he also claimed to have used -P.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

I have wondered (again)... about dolphins and chickens etc.

Those animals are generally under very VERY tightly controlled environments.

A hungry dolphin wallowing inside a _sterile_ bowl of water is a PERFECT candidate for 99.9999% positive reinforcement. Assuming that I am the only one holding that bucket of sardines.

A dog in the yard with people walking by, visitors, a relatively full belly, and all kinds of insects/birds/squirrels and interesting smells? It is different.

Granted, if I did that trick in which I walk down a row of hundreds of dogs bouncing a tennis ball to seek that perfect, ball-driven, retriever? Then I, in possession of a tennis ball, can possibly compete with a world that is vying for his attention.

Dogs can be very individual beasts. Bassetts don't show up in obedience competitions very frequently.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> Who are the purely positive trainers here, please?>>>>
> 
> I think PP trainers know who they are, although the term is admittedly incorrect.


ooooooh, THEY know who they are . . . . (shudder)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Eh, I suppose I'm thinking of a layman's concept of punishment. I guarantee most people would not consider a no-reward marker to be punishment.


It could be.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> It kind of does, though. Because, if you say to the average person that punishment plays a role in dog training, almost everybpdy (unless you explain exactly what you mean) is automatically going to think of hitting, jerking on the collar, zapping, pinching, etc. Dictionary definitions change according to popular perception. It's confusing to people when words have secret definitions only the geeks know about.


That's the beauty of the internet. The concepts and definitions of Operant Conditioning are readily available to anyone with even a slight interest in educating themselves.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> Negative reinforcement implies that something that is present is being removed or made inaccessible. In fact, negative reinforcement means that something _unpleasant _ (speaking subjectively) has been removed and has _increased _behavior as a result.
> 
> The word "nah" is bad news. If it has been conditioned to signal "no reward", and it is a sound that I am bringing into the situation.... it is a punisher.
> 
> ...


Yeah, and if you quit offering guesses because the buzzer has sufficiently punished that behavior, you're going to come in third place. Most people want to win, and so are going to answer with what they hope is the right answer. So punishing them is not going to make them answer correctly the next time. I want my dogs to feel safe about trying. And I really want them to be partners in learning rather than wait for me to micromanage their every move because they are worried about making a mistake.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Karyn Garvin said:


> It is actually impossible to have positive only training. All training includes some level of negative reinforcement. If a trainer withholds a food reward until the dog gets the behavior right, just with holding the food is negative reinforcement. Like Yin and Yang, one cannot exist without the other.


Negative punishment.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Yes. I have mentioned the problem of the "worried" dog. However, punishment does not have to produce such an unwanted result.

If I am guessing and someone simply responds with "wrong answer", I know that I should move along and try other things. I don't repeat those wrong answers, but I don't necessarily wet my pants either.

It isn't difficult to imagine that this is precisely how we are built to interact with the environment... we experience unhappy consequences, but this doesn't mean that we have a heart attack about it.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Pawz writes: The "you suck" was not actually aimed at anyone. 

*I know that, you seemed to misunderstand it, though.*

Pawz writes: Does "90% positive" include +P, if we are using the terms behaviorally? 

*I suppose so... I'm just trying to, somehow, describe those people are who balanced far in favor of positive reinforcement.... and make a major point of this. Always remember, the social sciences are soft, vague and prone to debate... the discussion of how positive or not a person might be is one of those topics.... not precise at all.*

Pawz writes: I would expect a behavior analyst to be a little more precise in language. 

*Not sure what you are referring to... the 90%?, that is obviously casual language. You are pointedly and defensively fighting against the existance of philosophically purely positive trainers. Fine. It isn't important. Of course, it is the topic of this entire thread!... but not imporant to my points at all.

At the moment, we seem to be discussing the "damage" caused by positive punishment.

*


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> Yes. I have mentioned the problem of the "worried" dog. However, punishment does not have to produce such an unwanted result.
> 
> If I am guessing and someone simply responds with "wrong answer", I know that I should move along and try other things. I don't repeat those wrong answers, but I don't necessarily wet my pants either.
> 
> It isn't difficult to imagine that this is precisely how we are built to interact with the environment... we experience unhappy consequences, but this doesn't mean that we have a heart attack about it.


Punishment ALWAYS decreases the likelihood of behavior (or it doesn't meet the definition.) There may be things I really want my dog to never do again. But the way I train (I shape more than anything else) I don't want to decrease the behavior of making an honest effort.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Karyn Garvin said:


> Withholding a reward is negative reinforcement. All trainers use negative reinforcement. Like Yin and Yang there is no such thing as positively only training.


Withholding a reward can be negative punishment (depending on how it is used). Negative reinforcement involves removing an aversive.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

With a crushing punishment, it is certainly possible to produce a behavior problem. Yes. The dog's target behavior might be reduced, but other desired behaviors may also be affected negatively... or the dog might be so fearful that the dog ceases to go along with the training.

However...
If we may look toward our own examples, it is rather common to hear people describe _improvements_ in their performance "under pressure".

When _competing_ for a limited food supply, dogs are also probably more keen and quick to respond to "food related cues". That is, to avoid a punishing situation in which food is gobbled by others, a dog responds rather sharply, works harder to find a solution, and runs (responds) faster to the cue.

I use this as a point to describe how punishment (and avoidance of it) can sharpen performance in both humans or dogs.

I just pulled this example out of my hat, so it might need some discussion (half baked).... but these serve as _possible_ examples of the way avoidance of punishment can serve to improve performance and focus the mind!

In my own personal experience:
When all is easy breezy, I tend to be a bit numbed mentally. I (my behaviors) get sloppy and careless. When there is something at risk (i.e. when there is some degree of "pressure"), my performance become significantly better.

Now, if the pressure is too great... "fix this bicycle now! or you will be shot!"... my performance might degrade.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> Yes. I have mentioned the problem of the "worried" dog. However, punishment does not have to produce such an unwanted result.
> 
> If I am guessing and someone simply responds with "wrong answer", I know that I should move along and try other things. I don't repeat those wrong answers, but I don't necessarily wet my pants either.
> 
> It isn't difficult to imagine that this is precisely how we are built to interact with the environment... we experience unhappy consequences, but this doesn't mean that we have a heart attack about it.


And yet, the goal of punishment is to decrease behavior, and it often has a scatter-shot effect. You may think you are punishing one thing, and the dog may think you are punishing something else. No sense in getting dramatic about "having heart attacks." What *I* want to avoid is the sense of uncertainty and disappointment when one tries and is constantly informed that they are "wrong." As to interacting with the environment? As far as I know, the environment doesn't have a "training plan" for me, and is not concerned with the results, or whether what happens is or is not humane. So, I'm careful about trying to imitate it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> *You are pointedly and defensively fighting against the existance of philosophically purely positive trainers. Fine. It isn't important. Of course, it is the topic of this entire thread!... but not imporant to my points at all.
> *


Hey, if someone IS able to train a dog with only (or even 90%) +R (which you mistakenly call purely positive), I will happily kowtow before them, as it is my goal to EFFECTIVELY train with as few aversive experiences as possible. But, in the case of this discussion, it's truly a red herring - something people make up so they have something to argue against.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Yes... avoiding the fallout issues (there are a few of them) from fallout is important. We all agree on that. I haven't seen any disagreement there.

Constantly punishing ("constantly informing them that they are wrong") doesn't seem to be anyone's suggestion, either.

That's the stuff of a straw man just as you are suggesting about the non-existent purely positive training philosophy.

When we refer to an organism, it is good to consider the environment in which they evolved. With or without human involvement, the environment "trains" without our permission.

Dog's that are shattered by an aversive event are special cases.... the rest of them are biologically equipped to deal with unhappy things, though. Some are much more resilient and forgiving than others.

Not sure where we disagree at this point





Pawzk9 said:


> And yet, the goal of punishment is to decrease behavior, and it often has a scatter-shot effect. You may think you are punishing one thing, and the dog may think you are punishing something else. No sense in getting dramatic about "having heart attacks." What *I* want to avoid is the sense of uncertainty and disappointment when one tries and is constantly informed that they are "wrong." As to interacting with the environment? As far as I know, the environment doesn't have a "training plan" for me, and is not concerned with the results, or whether what happens is or is not humane. So, I'm careful about trying to imitate it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> With a crushing punishment, it is certainly possible to produce a behavior problem. Yes. The dog's target behavior might be reduced, but other desired behaviors may also be affected negatively... or the dog might be so fearful that the dog ceases to go along with the training.
> .


Doesn't have to be "crushing" punishment. But then I think my definition of what is a problem is probably a lot more subtle than yours. I suspect you aren't very interested in the dog's contribution as long as you can (hopefully) get it to do what you tell it to do.



ohbehave said:


> However...
> If we may look toward our own examples, it is rather common to hear people describe _improvements_ in their performance "under pressure".
> 
> When _competing_ for a limited food supply, dogs are also probably more keen and quick to respond to "food related cues". That is, to avoid a punishing situation in which food is gobbled by others, a dog responds rather sharply, works harder to find a solution, and runs (responds) faster to the cue.
> ...


 
There's a HUGE diffference in attitude when trying to gain an appetitive vs trying to avoid an aversive, so your pont about avoiding punishment sharpening performance doesn't make sense with your example (attaining resources). The fact is, the pressure to attain a resource is almost always present in clicker training. Stress and mild frustration is a lot MORE present in shaping exercises, where you are asking the dog to make that leap to the next progression, than when you are simply marking behavior that you've initiated for the dog. This is one reason why it is so difficult to define one's behavior as "purely positive". Because I expect my dog to be having to deal with some stress to learn, I try to be careful not to pile extra stress on the dog in the form of punishing honest mistakes (either physically, or by constantly informing the dog that his choices are wrong). When I am doing shaping with the dog, there is no "wrong" - just "not what I am looking for at this moment" Disclaimer, this may not include emergency dangerous choices in life, but that's not training, that's damage control.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> Constantly punishing ("constantly informing them that they are wrong") doesn't seem to be anyone's suggestion, either.
> 
> That's the stuff of a straw man just as you are suggesting about the non-existent purely positive training philosophy.


Not really. A lot of training looks like this: (human) Dog, sit (dog) lies down (human) NO! sit! or Oops (NRM). That's pretty much constant punishment even if some of it (NRM) is negative punishment. It's not likely to crush the dog. But it's also not likely to make the dog more willing to try. Trying is important to me. If the dog is willing to try, and I'm not totally inept, I'll get what I want *(or even something better than I was expecting).


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I guess I can't think of anything that can be characterized as positive punishment that isn't stressful/nasty. Isn't that the point of punishment?


No.

The point of punishment is to decrease the occurrence of the punished behavior. I don't need to put Wally in "OMG, I'm scared" mode to punish a response.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Willowy said:


> It kind of does, though. Because, if you say to the average person that punishment plays a role in dog training, almost everybpdy (unless you explain exactly what you mean) is automatically going to think of hitting, jerking on the collar, zapping, pinching, etc. Dictionary definitions change according to popular perception. It's confusing to people when words have secret definitions only the geeks know about.


No, it does not. What is the point of punishing anything? To stop it from happening again? Why else would you punish it? Why would you punish something you want to happen again? Doesn't make sense in the "regular" sense or the behavioral sense either. So, logically, what is a punishment? An action that punishes. Taking things away is not some foreign concept of punishment. Grounding kids, time out, taking away cell phones, etc. Same idea. Replace cell phone with walk or favorite treat and there you go. Punishment. No secret handshake required.

I didn't realize operant conditioning was some secret. I didn't realize there were no books, web sites, or dog forums to go on to find out about this stuff. I'm no "geek" or someone who does nothing but read Skinner and Pavlov and behavioral journals or whatever else. I'm just a regular joe who has a dog (or rather, is doing some caretaking and most of the training for my mom's dog as Wally is hers) and wanted to learn how to maximize the dog. If I can hit Google and Amazon and buy used books for $1 and read up on websites, anyone can. It's no "secret". That's what people who try to sell you their "training systems" want people to think - that it's some foreign science that you can't understand so just buy this or that.

There are no secrets, just people's varying degrees of willingness to discover information.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Not really. A lot of training looks like this: (human) Dog, sit (dog) lies down (human) NO! sit! or Oops (NRM). That's pretty much constant punishment even if some of it (NRM) is negative punishment. It's not likely to crush the dog. But it's also not likely to make the dog more willing to try. Trying is important to me. If the dog is willing to try, and I'm not totally inept, I'll get what I want *(or even something better than I was expecting).


I disagree that a NRM is punishment. It's the same as saying "try again" or "not what I'm looking for" during shaping.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Isn't the definition of positive punishment "adding something unpleasant" (nasty)?


It's adding something undesired. 

It does not have to be nasty. Why would I use something nasty on a soft, formerly fearful dog like Wally? If I say "STOP IT", he doesn't desire me to raise my voice, but I don't have to make him scared for his life either.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KBLover said:


> I disagree that a NRM is punishment. It's the same as saying "try again" or "not what I'm looking for" during shaping.


It's not always a punisher, but it certainly can be (depending on how you've taught it, and how the dog perceives it). It tells the dog that reward is not currently available. When I am shaping, I shut up. The silence of the clicker tells the dog I'd like to see something else, or something more. I would not personally start naming my cue until the dog was anticipating the behavior, so the above example is not how I train. But in 30+ years of working with people and dogs, it's something I've seen more than frequently.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

KBLover said:


> It's adding something undesired.
> 
> It does not have to be nasty. Why would I use something nasty on a soft, formerly fearful dog like Wally? If I say "STOP IT", he doesn't desire me to raise my voice, but I don't have to make him scared for his life either.


Do you consider anything you do to be positive punishment?

I'll argue that the average person doesn't know that there IS anything to look up/research. "Punishment? Oh, I know what that means".


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Do you consider anything you do to be positive punishment?
> 
> I'll argue that the average person doesn't know that there IS anything to look up/research. "Punishment? Oh, I know what that means".


If they want to find out, they will. I would suggest that anyone who reads, for instance, this forum knows that there is something to look up/research. If they are interested, they'll check it out. If they aren't, they won't.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Notice two things, Pawzk9...

1. I have often used the phrase "philosophically purely positive" because I have argued (repeatedly) already that no one is truly purely positive.... although they might be philosophically pure. These folks are probably just not aware of those punishment moments. 

2. I am writing purely positive / 90% in casual language (clearly!)... how would anyone calculate the precise percentage of positivity in training!? So, for those who are philosophically pure or otherwise darn close... like maybe 95%. YOU are the one arguing (as I already have) that no one is PURE whether they think so or not.... so I am including that high percentage, too. Sorry if it was confusing.

There is this drift of thought that punishment is some sort of bizarre, inhumane, or ineffective treatment idea. It is to this line of thinking that I am speaking. 

Now, the appetitive motivation in my other post.... the dog rushing or behaving in some clever way to avoid loss of food.... is NOT included in my example of a human avoiding failure on a test.

The phrase "appetitive motivation" sounds fine to me for the purposes of this talk, but I am not so sure it is used in behavior analysis. I'd want to see or read some examples of how appetitive works differently than other circumstances.
I'm assuming, by appetitive, you are talking about the levels of satiation or deprivation for some resource.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> Notice two things, Pawzk9...
> 
> 1. I have often used the phrase "philosophically purely positive" because I have argued (repeatedly) already that no one is truly purely positive.... although they might be philosophically pure. These folks are probably just not aware of those punishment moments.
> 
> ...


philosophically purely positive? Where do you get this stuff? Do you make it up as you go? I don't know that anyone who is an effective trainer is worried about being "philosophically pure" They are interested in being effective and (hopefully) as humane as they can manage in their methods. Part of that process is examining how one trains, why it works (or doesn't) and being honest about what behavioral forces are "at work"


as to appetitive, all I can say is that if you haven't seen it used, you haven't read much (at least not about how OC works in dog training). Here is a dictionary definition to help you: ap·pe·tite (p-tt)
n.
1. An instinctive physical desire, especially one for food or drink.
2. A strong wish or urge: an appetite for learning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English apetit, from Old French, from Latin appettus, strong desire, from past participle of appetere, to strive after : ad-, ad- + petere, to seek; see pet- in Indo-European roots.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

appe·titive (p-ttv, -pt-tv) adj. 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth EditionAdj. 1. appetitive - of or relating to appetite; "appetitive needs 

In other words, when we use +R or -P, we are dealing with an appetitive - something the dog strongly desires is added to or removed from the situation to change (increase or decrease) behavior. When we use +P or -R, an aversive (I'm sure you know what that is) is added or removed from the situation to change (increase or decrease) behavior. It's been my experience that using mostly appetitives increases willingness to learn. And using many aversives creates a dog who is unsure about offering new stuff. And they work on different parts of the nervous system (sympathetic/parasympathetic) and introduce different neurochemistry into the situation


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I don't know that anyone who is an effective trainer is worried about being "philosophically pure" *They are interested in being effective and (hopefully) as humane as they can manage in their methods.*


In the real world as a trainer (now retired) the bold area was very important as it helped put bread and butter on the table. I am not gonna get into this at all, just mention that I for one never had any "philosophically pure" thoughts. Just a get-em in, get-em trained, get-em out thoughts. 

I surely do like the "now retired" part.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Those are not the posts you're looking for. Let's move forward guys. Take your personal quips to PM or I will Vader choke you.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

The NRM does cause more frustration but you want it in appropriate amount for *that dog's drive and temperament*. You don't _have_ to use NRM all the time. Many working dog trainers, at some point in training, once dog is quite fluent (talking up to 8 months of training), stop using NRM and start using e collar nicks instead - say if dog messed up 5% of the time, it would mess up 0.5% of the time after punishments became more severe. If it so happens that they have to punish the dog all the time, obviously that dog would become reactive, stop trying and become fearful of consequences OR drive would be lost due to nagging - this *only* happens when trainer seriously messed up at some early stage in training. It shows how far application of NRM could go, the concept is the same, wanted result is the same, the punishment is simply more severe in hopes of getting a better performance. The NRM is not a strong punishment on its own, some situations it's not strong enough, in some others it's too strong..... With that said, just the NRM itself cannot cause a dog to loose drive or give up trying.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> The NRM does cause more frustration but you want it in appropriate amount for *that dog's drive and temperament*. You don't _have_ to use NRM all the time. Many working dog trainers, at some point in training, once dog is quite fluent (talking up to 8 months of training), stop using NRM and start using e collar nicks instead - say if dog messed up 5% of the time, it would mess up 0.5% of the time after punishments became more severe. If it so happens that they have to punish the dog all the time, obviously that dog would become reactive, stop trying and become fearful of consequences OR drive would be lost due to nagging - this *only* happens when trainer seriously messed up at some early stage in training. It shows how far application of NRM could go, the concept is the same, wanted result is the same, the punishment is simply more severe in hopes of getting a better performance. The NRM is not a strong punishment on its own, some situations it's not strong enough, in some others it's too strong..... With that said, just the NRM itself cannot cause a dog to loose drive or give up trying.


If you are prompting the dog's behavior (luring, modeling, collar guiding) a NRM would be less likely to cause a dog to give up (because you are doing the thinking for the dog anyway). I find that sort of training less interesting. At this point in my life, I can't even imagine using an ecollar on a dog for sport or recreational behavior. I can get "a better performance" without either.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

wow................................ this thread is getting very deep LOL Im no pro... all i do is: correct what i dont like, show the dog what i WANT & reward it with whatever the dog likes best, rinse, repeat LOL, Im almost glad im NOT a professional


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> wow................................ this thread is getting very deep LOL Im no pro... all i do is: correct what i dont like, show the dog what i WANT & reward it with whatever the dog likes best, rinse, repeat LOL, Im almost glad im NOT a professional


Well, if you aren't interested in the technical stuff, it's probably good that you're not a professional. And that's perfectly okay. Getting to the indepth stuff takes time to research and study. I don't talk much of it to my students (it CAN make eyes glaze) but I think it is important that I understand as much as I can. And some people like discussing it. Some people don't.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Do you consider anything you do to be positive punishment?
> 
> I'll argue that the average person doesn't know that there IS anything to look up/research. "Punishment? Oh, I know what that means".


Technically, saying "STOP IT!" is adding something he doesn't desire - so, yes, that's positive punishment. What I consider it is irrelevant. It's what Wally (the operant) considers it, the response his behavior demonstrates, which is what tells me what that signal/stimulus is. When I'm working with Wally, my thoughts are relevant only for:

-Knowing the rules of the human world that do not exist in the canine world ("why can't I pee on that grass, but this grass?")
-Knowing how to break down behaviors so I can explain a complex chain/behavior/task to Wally better via shaping.
-Interpreting his signals, performance, and responses.
-Increasing the difficulty of learned behaviors to increase mastery and fluency in a way that still brings him a high probability of success.
-Doing the previous four frequently in ways that keep him interested and teach him more and more behaviors which he can draw on in future problems.

My opinions of what my signals are is not one of those relevant things. Wally's opinion, however, is what matters.

And - unless I'm some "non-average" person - I just typed in "how to train a dog" and got a TON of links and information - and it just snowballed from there.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Technically, saying "STOP IT!" is adding something he doesn't desire - so, yes, that's positive punishment. What I consider it is irrelevant. It's what Wally (the operant) considers it


Geeeezzzzeeee!!!! That surely isn't rocket science, it's just good old fashioned common sense.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

dogdragoness said:


> wow................................ this thread is getting very deep LOL Im no pro... all i do is: correct what i dont like, show the dog what i WANT & reward it with whatever the dog likes best, rinse, repeat LOL, Im almost glad im NOT a professional


What do you think that is?

You're using positive reinforcement and some form of punishment. 

What's so complex? Conditioning, either Pavlov-style or Skinner-style, at its heart is simple. It's about giving clear feedback to the dog. Humans make it complicated because we like 40 words for the same thing for whatever reason. That, and we'd rather argue than just accept the fact other humans aren't always going to do things the way we do, and we always want to think about what we consider things and all that.

To the dog it's simple:

-Did I want that? No? I won't do that again, then. (Punisher)
-Did I want that? Yes? I will try that again, then. (Reinforcer)

Negative or Positive is just changing (or using) the environment to give the feedback. 

And when something was working but isn't:

-Maybe I'll try it harder. Maybe that will make it work. (extinction burst)
-Oh well, I'll try it again later. It worked before. (Variably Reinforced Behavior)

And when it just never works:

-Oh well, guess I'll give up doing it that way. (true extinction)

Shaping can get complex but, from the dog's perspective, I think it's still simple. That hardest part is actually breaking down behaviors and carrying the dog through it slowly in case of lack of confidence, etc

-Everything I know has worked at some point, I just need to figure out which one is going to work now. (starting the process of solving a new problem)

Then when something is found:

-Oh! Maybe I'll try another twist. If one paw worked - maybe two paws works. If one bark worked, maybe I'll bark twice. (offering behaviors similar to the one(s) reinforced)

When the new idea didn't work:

-Oh, I see. I'll go back to do what worked. Let me make sure that is still right. (goes back a step for reconfirmation)


Maybe it's just me though and I'm OVER-simplifying it, but it's basically how I think when working with Wally and how I see him thinking (through the window of his behavior and signals) when he does this stuff.


----------



## mynameis (Aug 23, 2014)

I have a question. Can a person teach a dog basic obedience only not behavior issue without treats AND a clicker. I'm doing research on differant ways to train a dog. I notice most or some dog trainer view Treat and clicker dog training method superior than other methods. What is wrong with not using food or a clicker to basic obedience a dog


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

You have two choices when you teach a dog:
Make the behavior you want a positive experience for the dog
or
Make doing anything BUT the behavior you want a negative experience for the dog.

I don't like creating negative experiences for the dog. It's pointlessly mean, and isn't very good for making the dog enjoy the process of learning. It's also an awful good way to get the dog not to offer behavior and makes training more advanced behaviors almost impossible. 

Do you have to use treats and a clicker for that? No. My puppy had tummy troubles for three days this week and is still on a bland diet. She feels fine, so we've still been training - sans treat, and I never use an actual clicker. However, I'm still using a marker (YES!) and reward (tug/fetch). She's learning just fine that way, because she likes tug and fetch. The learning principal is still the same, though. Mark the correct behavior with a word with something the dog recognizes (for my deaf dogs it's thumbs up, for the rest it's a verbal "yes!") and then follow up with something good.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Awww. Didn't realize this was an old thread. I get a jolt when I see one of Sandy's posts.  

I was actually just thinking of her on the way home from petsmart. I had planned to take Nextdog to her for basics and now I don't have anywhere to go. And after watching the petsmart class it made me even sadder that Sandy is no longer training around here.


----------

