# How do you discipline or punish bad behavior in a way they can understand?



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

I don't know how else to title this, and I'll probably get a lot of people thinking that I mean collar jerking or hitting, but what I really want is ideas on how to get a dog to know when what he's doing is not acceptable? eg. deliberately ignoring a command they know in favor of doing something else..

Right now, walking away or removing attention or giving him a timeout is pretty much the main form of punishment I currently use and it is effective in situations where I can use it, but what other options do I have? I have heard of redirecting behavior, but I have tried it (maybe I'm doing something wrong), and it simply does not make sense to me. For example, in the case of a dog that was playing with a toy starts biting on some wires instead, if I redirect by giving him a toy to chew on instead then won't I be doing several things that are counter productive to training?

a) Won't I be rewarding his biting of wires by giving him attention?
b) Also giving him an actual reward - the toy
c) Attempting to trade the lower value toy for the higher value wire (since he was already playing with the toy, grew bored, and then decided the wire's more novel and fascinating)

I've tried just acting very displeased and giving him a firm "no" before redirecting, but my displeasure really seems to mean little to him, so that doesn't really work as a punishment. Plus there are misbehavior that can't be redirected, eg. when he's ignoring a recall. I can't ignore it, since he will probably go off and find something to amuse himself with, and thus reward himself for disobeying . I can't put him in time out, since I'd have to catch him first, and I think he will soon figure out that he could run away to avoid being caught. And I can't really redirect it, since if he's running off, then clearly what I have to offer is not nearly as worthwhile to him as whatever has got his attention.

My dog Sherlock is much like his namesake: clever, independent, stubborn and endlessly curious and driven. It's very hard to keep his attention, and makes it even harder when he feels that he can deliberately ignore me if he doesn't feel like doing what I say. Of course I do try and reward and strengthen everything that he already knows, but it just doesn't feel like rewarding alone is enough, so I am looking for other options for training better discipline/compliance.


----------



## swellmomma (Apr 21, 2012)

I am brand new to dog ownership so I may be doing things wrong but with my puppy I Give a very firm no with a snap of my fingers followed by a finger point. WHen it came to things like biting wires in addition I would pull her away, after all that is a safety issue. Now at 14 weeks all it takes is "no" *finger snap* and she 8/10 will stop and lay down. It is not 100% yet, I still have to actively move her away from something when it really has her interest. 

When it comes to ignoring recall I would use a long training lead outside for sure, and inside if needed. That way no matter when you say "come" dog can be brought to you if they ignore. 

1 thing I did read was never call dog to you to discipline, always go to dog (of course when teaching come that doesn't follow that guideline). Anyway, if you call the dog to come to you for discipline it will learn that resonding to your call is a negative thing. I always 100% make responding to come a happy thing. WIth lots of love and praise everytime. If she does not respond the first time I call her I keep calling her and when she finally listens I heap on the love and praise. SHe usually comes running when I call her because she knows nothing but good stuff happens when she does. I do not discipline for disobedience in this regard. It is all about the positive reinforcement.

Generally speaking I think of training my dog just like teaching/disciplining my children. Discipline does not mean punishment, it means teaching. 

Another thought with the dog that abandons the toy for a wire. (trust me we went through several chewed wires in the training process), is that he is bored, so find a way to engage with him and do some training. If he is the type that would rather explore for a while, hide treats/chews that he can have and find on his own. Generally I keep chew treats in my puppy's toy box, but occasionally I will randomly place them around for her to find.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

I don't discipline. Never did. Management, redirection and training are key. With them, you don't need discipline. (If they're doing something dangerous, I use recall.)

First of all, dogs do not think like people. People think in terms of cause and effect. I bite the wire, cause, I get attention, effect. Dogs DO NOT think in terms of cause and effect. Dogs associate. In the example with the wire, the puppy bites the wire, you give them a toy, they bite that, they get praised. The puppy comes to associate chewing on toys with praise and chews on the toy. (Also, they sell wire covers, I'd recommend buying them.)

Puppies don't chew on things to piss you off, or because they lack a middle finger with which to flip you the bird. They chew because they do. You need to manage that behavior by removing from their reach things you don't want them to chew and redirecting by providing them with things to chew and training by praising chewing toys greatly to encourage it.

If you want, I'll tell you what happens to an overdisciplined dog. Oh, and it's the dog that decides he's overdisciplined.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

To echo Amaryllis - when the pup bites the wire, he wants to chew something. Give him a toy to chew. If he doesn't like that toy (after you offer it... don't read his mind  ), then have a special toy available as a distraction. Jiggle it. Also, you are allowed to pick up the puppy and remove it from dangerous situations, then provide the toy. You can also block access - puppy proof the house, so that he can't chew inappropriate things.

Pups have a very short attention span, so he wouldn't associate the new chew toy as a 'reward' for chewing wires.

He is not ignoring you... he is distracted by something of more interest. So you have to incrementally make yourself even more interesting with training and treats and attention beforehand.... It's an ongoing process.

BTW, after I taught my dog Bite Inhibition by yelping at him, I was able to yelp at him to communicate "Please don't do that." It won't work with all dogs... and yelping doesn't mean much until you train it...


----------



## chubby (Aug 18, 2011)

I don't discipline either,

Check out some Positive Training books and blogs - some good places to start: Dog Star Daily.com (Ian Dunbar), and the book "The Other End of the Leash" by Patrician McConnell, and "Kikopup" on Youtube.

Positive Training uses distraction, redirection, and positive reinforcement instead of punishment. Much more effective, and in the end, your dog listens because he finds joy in having a harmonious relationship with you, not because he's fearing you.

Also, keep in mind that your dog will work better with you the more time you spend training with them. You really get out of it how much you put in. Incorporate training into your lifestyle, and always reinforce good behaviour with attention, pets, treats, and play time. Bad behaviour that's ignored will eventually dissipate unless they're self reinforcing in themselves (like peeing inside the house), in which case, you need to incorporate management as well (keeping forbidden objects out of reach, supervision, prevention).


----------



## hargyle (Mar 21, 2012)

I taught Loki the "leave it" command. Every time he would get something he was not suppose to have "leave it" and if he stopped he got a treat, Or If I had to take it and re direct him he got a treat. I started though by watching the videos on the training forum stickies ... "its your choice" ... I think thats what it was called. 

Redirecting is your best bet from what I have learned... remove from the situation and stimulate him in another, more rewarding way - - be that play or training session. Maybe invest in a bottle of Bitter Apple to spray on the wires, to he learns that these are not tasty things to chew on.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

Also, keep in mind that when you discipline, you're teaching your dog what you _don't _want him to do. That's nice, but the problem is, there are about 5,000,000 things you don't want your dog doing, and only a few you do want him doing. It's a much more efficient use of time to teach him what you _do_ want him doing instead. Dogs are simple creatures. They do what gets them what they want. They want attention, play and food. If you give them those things for doing something (i.e., chewing a toy), they'll chew a toy. If you discipline instead, you may end up having to discipline for chewing the wire, then the remote, then the couch, then your shoes . . . you'll spend all your time disciplining!


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

Just to add, management, in my opinion is super important. If you can PREVENT the "bad behavior" before it even starts, then you are one step ahead. So, get the wire covers, OR just don't let him have access to the wires. That may mean rearranging furniture, OR, just watching him very closely, so that you can stop him BEFORE he gets to the wires.

For intance, puppy walks over in the direction of the wires, you distract him BEFORE he even gets close to them. Give him a toy, play a quick game with him, ask for a command. What you've done is distract, redirect, and really take the option of chewing wires out of his list of cool things to do. 

If you PREVENT him from even getting to the wires, pretty soon he doesn't even consider that as a choice of something to do.


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

Amaryllis said:


> First of all, dogs do not think like people. People think in terms of cause and effect. I bite the wire, cause, I get attention, effect. Dogs DO NOT think in terms of cause and effect. Dogs associate. In the example with the wire, the puppy bites the wire, you give them a toy, they bite that, they get praised. The puppy comes to associate chewing on toys with praise and chews on the toy. (Also, they sell wire covers, I'd recommend buying them.)


You call it association, but 'a' is followed by 'b' is the most basic learning concept and a more generalized version of understanding causation. If you don't think that dogs can understand that at all then you are underestimating how smart dogs are, in fact that would put them below even the intelligence of pigeons and rats, because even they can understand 'press a button and food will follow'. If what you mean is dog can't learn 'a' is followed by 'b' then 'c', and that they will only learn the 'b' to 'c' association (ie. that biting the correct toy is good, and not that biting wire will get you toy/attention) then I can somewhat agree, since most dogs will only associate the most recent behavior to the reward. But for others, attention in itself, is already a reward, and can learn 2 associations rather than one: 'biting wire' is followed by attention, 'biting toy' is followed by 'praise/treat'. I just want to have some way to say to him 'a' is bad, to break that chain before following it with 'b' gets you 'c', whether it's yelping like what hanksimondoes or saying 'leave it' like hargyle.

Those are the kind of options i mean in terms of discipline and trying to get them to understand when behaviors are bad, not hitting or yelling, so whatever you have to say about over-disciplined dogs have little to do with me. Besides I have watched almost all those vids, I already incorporate training into his daily life, I already use various method to try and improve important training like his recall: doing a 'jackpot' of treats, playing recall games where I toss treats leading from one recall to another, letting him back off to play so that he doesn't associate it to leaving or getting crated every time. But no matter what I do, and how much I train him in recall, I still think he will ignore me in favor of a fleeing cat simply because we both know that I can't trump that in terms of how interesting I can be. 

I never said that he's doing things to piss me off or give me the finger, I said he's doing things because he only understands what's good, not what's bad. You might think it's fine to ignore a whole side of learning: the negative reinforcement and positive punishments (note this does not mean 'good' punishment), but I think it depends who or what the pup associates punishment with. Eg. if they bite a bee and get stung, it is associated with the bee, not you, so there's no breakdown of your relationship. 

Here's another one using the wire as an example, if you attach a can with coins inside by string to a unplugged wire, when he bites or tugs, it dislodges the can sending it clattering to the floor, the pup would associate it with the environment rather than to you punishing him. Or using bitter apple spray to make things yuck to bite. Dogs learn things from their environment all the time if they are allowed to make their own mistakes, so why can't/shouldn't we set them up to learn from small mistakes to prevent them from making big ones (eg. actually getting electrocuted)?

I am looking at options in training to better communicate what I want and don't want to him. Especially with things that are essential, such as recall. He should be trained to come the first time he's called, not wait till he decides after the 10th time I call to come wondering in. No, he doesn't get punished, I've never punished him before, but I just think there must be more ways to constructively communicate what I want than simply treating what's good and ignoring the bad.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Here are my thoughts on the puppies and punishment:

First, I am not opposed to punishment in general. It is something that requires a good deal of thought and great timing. (Reinforcement also requires timing as well... and badly timed reinforcement can lead to nasty problems, too)

Second: For a puppy, I am going to try using super-care in preventing problems and redirecting the pup to things that I allow. If I can not supervise the dog, it is crated or contained somehow. I give it serious exercise (not hard to do on a small puppy) and then don't feel guilty about the crating.

The reason I am avoiding punishment is that I want MILD forms of punishment to be effective once the pup is an adult. If I expose the pup to too many "NO!" or other versions of punishments, it could become desensitized to those things. Then, when I need an emergency and resounding punishment effect, my "NO!" will fail to have it's effect. That being the case, I would have to resort to more dramatic or intense forms of punishment to produce the same suppressive effect.

I have never owned a pup before, but I am familiar with behavioral principles. I have always rescued large dogs in the past. Even though I sometimes regret getting this puppy, I am resolving to obsessively supervise and create as much of an error-free, early development phase for the puppy.

I find it interesting, though, that my adult dogs required no help. They seemed rather easy-to-be-with shortly after taking them home. No training... none of this fatiguing puppy chasing. So how did they become so wonderful with, clearly, no formal home training?

I'm honestly a bit worn with this puppy. Keeping after the pup's waking moments AND supervising my girlfriend's interactions with the puppy (to prevent her from reinforcing obnoxious behavior) is sort of tense for me. 

But I want my pup to remain somewhat easily affected by mild punishment stimuli... so I'm trying to avoid the use of it for now.

For instance, when she barks or whines, I do nothing. This, I hope, is simple extinction. If she is seeking attention or some sort of reaction from others, she gets none of it if she barks. Eventually, if the barking continues incessantly, I may come up with some simple, sharp, bark-ending reaction.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

You want to teach her to leave things alone, hten you need to teach her a command, it's called "Leave It" and it's taught via Doggy Zen, one of the easiest things to teach, you just have to be patient. In the mean time, PUPPY PROOF, anything you don't want that curious little pup to chew, should be put OUT OF HER REACH. Use baby gates to keep her out of certain rooms, keep cords hidden from her and pick up anything you don't want her to destroy. Get on her level and look for things that are hazards JUST as you would with an infant or toddler.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

I dont punish for bad behavior , or give treats for good behavior..
Teach Recall , Once you have this rock solid...everything else falls into place.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I use ignore for one dog but I use loss of privileges for another, for ajosefins. Of listening (like deliberately ignoring a command) means a time out & a bit of being ignored & not paid any mind at all, bc I learned that she as acting out to gain attention when we got buddy (when she was the only dog for a while she was like the perfect dog) so I have been using time outs for her. For buddy he loves attention so to renforce him being around me from day one he got here I had him on leash (other place is obliviously not safe for a dog to even be off leash in my presssence) but here on this ranch its a lot more remote & very safe (premeiter fence is coyote proof due to the fact that this is a breeding farm & small babies are vulnerable to attacks) so when he chooses to stay around me I make sure to give him lotsa attention & reinforcement for his choice in behavior, when he goes away from me (remember they can NOT leave the property into someone else's property) I ignore him, now he is never gone longer then 10 minutes & never very far (he isn't a very active guy, he plays wih the other dogs for a bit but only usually leaves for bsthroom breaks).


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

Well, Ice222, if you already know the answer to the question, why did you ask it?

You've got numerous forum members, all with well behaved, well trained dogs, telling you they don't discipline. And no, cause and effect and association are not the same thing. At all.

For example, you punish your dog for chewing on wires. Maybe he learns that the act of chewing on wires is bad. Maybe he learns that wires are around when owner goes nuts and makes him scared. Maybe he learns that chewing makes owner nuts. In the first scenario, you've taught him not to chew on wires. Nice, but you still haven't taught him want you do want him to chew. In the second scenario, you've taught him to fear wires, which could end very badly. In the third scenario, you've taught him not to chew, which is very, very, very bad.

Dogs DO NOT THINK LIKE HUMANS. Full stop. Not kinda, not sort, not but, they don't think like us. That's what makes punishment such a bad idea when dealing with a dog. You can't quite be sure what lesson you are teaching. It might very well be that you are scary and cannot be trusted.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

It is true, a dog's cognitive process is NOT like that of humans. ANYTIME you hear anyone on the forum suggest or discuss any form of punishment, you will find that they also talk about timing being KEY. For instance, if you are going to punish, you have to do it when the dog is in the middle of the "bad" activity. Many people don't have the timing down, and that is one of the reasons punishment can be ineffective in some situations. 

This also shows that dogs need that IMMEDIATE correction (if you choose to use corrections/punishment), or they won't make the correct associations, as far as WHY they were punished. The reason for this is, once they are done with the "bad" activity, they are done. It's over, they've moved on. They are not going to remember, and be able to reason out that they may have been punished for something they did 2 minutes ago.

This is why, for corrections AND for proper rewarding, it is always recommended to get the timing right. Even for praise/reward, it's recommended that you praise (or at least mark) the good behavior within seconds, for the dog to understand EXACTLY what behavior was right. If you wait, that connection is lost. It's the same with punishment. If you wait, that connection is lost.

I always say, it's better to PREVENT before the bad behavior even starts, so that you take away that "bad" option. We've seen it with our own dogs, anytime they went NEAR the wicker chair to chew on it, we interrupted them. We called them to us, we played a game, we gave a toy, etc. We NEVER let them get near it. Ever. When we were gone, we blocked their access to it. Now, months later, they have no interest in it at all, because we took that option away, didn't even give them the chance to put that on their list of things to do.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

I'll give you the speech on the over disciplined dog.

When I first got Kabota, he wouldn't chew on anything. He wouldn't even try. He did have teeth removed, but I took him to my vet 2 weeks after that, and he said the other vet had done a great job and the extractions had healed up nicely, try stuffed toys for the softness. I bought stuffed toys, Kabota had no interest. He did pick out a stuffed sheep at the groomer, but he would just carry it around, and if he saw me looking at him with it in his mouth, he would drop the sheep and go pure appeasement: curled up, tail touching his belly, head down.

During this time, on day my husband was baking croutons. He opened the oven to get them out and realized he didn't have pot holders. So he turns to grab the potholders and turns back to see Kabota just about to stick his head in a 450F oven, so my husband instinctively shouts "NO!" and Kabota squeals, pees and runs away. He was still hiding under the coffee table when I got home from work an hour later. 

My guess from all of this is that Kabota was taught, through punishment, that all chewing is bad. He probably went to town on some shoes and learned the lesson of a lifetime: chewing makes people attack me, chewing is scary, I won't chew. Dogs _need _to chew. Dogs _need _to play. These are basic dog needs. Kabota was punished into not being a dog. This may have been well-intentioned punishment, but the effect was terrible.

It took me two months to convince Kabota that I love it when dogs chew. Then I had to ignore him chewing on socks, slippers, blankets, pillows and anything else the same texture of a stuffy for two weeks. Why? I feared that the slightest hint of correction would push him back to not chewing and not playing. I'd rather replace every soft textured thing I own. After that, it didn't much training and redirection to get him to understand that toys are for chewing- I love it when you chew toys!- and other things are not for chewing.

You don't have to hit every operant conditioning box to train a dog. Just because positive punishment is an option doesn't mean you have to use it. It would be very easy for you to create another Kabota with punishment, but impossible to do so with management, training and redirection.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Wow, everybody here has FAR more intelligent and informed things to say than what I've got (and its all great stuff!), but I thought I'd give my two cents anyway...

With Caeda, for nipping for instance before she got a time out we would use "no" as a warning and "bad" as the cue for "You're getting a time out". At the time, she didn't care one bit about our displeasure, just about the time out. I think two things happened though. First off, the sounds became a "positive interruptor", despite being negative words sometimes she stopped because she heard something and would look at us....lots of praise. Then the sounds of the words No or Bad became conditioned punishers....the punishment of course being a time out (no hitting or anything, but it is still a punishment). 

Move on about 8-9 months and she actually did start caring about our displeasure, or so it seems, she certainly has become more of a velcro dog (well...not velcro, more orbiting us). The word "no" quite often, depending on her level of drive, seems to get her to stop what she is doing. Usually "leave it" or "carry on" does the job, but No actually helps our scattered human brains that might not bring up the right term for her at that second. Sometimes if I say Caeda and sound disappointed (say she is doing something not dangerous, but a real pain in the butt) she usually stops too...I think she has picked up on our tones of voices and body language to a point, and even looking back I don't think we ever did anything consistently enough for her to attach that tone to her doing something wrong. Perhaps she does care a bit now! Either way, she does behave more depending on our attitude towards what she is doing. If we are excited she does tend to misbehave a little more lol...

Prevention works the best, but there will be things a dog will get into, to me the next step is a redirection/incompatible behaviour. But in our case we seem to have stumbled into a conditioned punisher (I didn't have a clue of that at the time....reading later on I kind of figured it out). The punishment had no violence, and is actually a punishment that is often recommended for nipping....the walking away for a few minutes. Yeah, she probably "fears" the punishment when she hears it, but IMO, that isn't the worst thing in the world. She has also started connecting "Eh Eh" with "you are about to hit the end of the leash and not get to go further", most of the time she turns back and stays within the leash range, sort of a conditioned punisher. 

I have heard of individuals who believe that negative words like "no" and such are bad to use because of the negativity, and that it can hurt your relationship with your dog.....when it comes down to it, IMO, its a sound to a dog, and we attach the meaning. The word "Apples" could be used too and have the same effect or you could use profanity to mean "sit". Words seem to be sounds to dogs, and they learn the meanings as they go along. 

Anyway, that's my relatively uninformed two cents....just the fruits of a fair bit of pondering Caeda's behaviour when it comes to the issue of punishment. (If I'm way off base with my "theories" please let me know! I'm learning, this is just what I've figured from reading and observing Caeda)


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

Amaryllis said:


> Well, Ice222, if you already know the answer to the question, why did you ask it?
> 
> You've got numerous forum members, all with well behaved, well trained dogs, telling you they don't discipline. And no, cause and effect and association are not the same thing. At all.
> 
> Dogs DO NOT THINK LIKE HUMANS. Full stop. Not kinda, not sort, not but, they don't think like us. That's what makes punishment such a bad idea when dealing with a dog. You can't quite be sure what lesson you are teaching. It might very well be that you are scary and cannot be trusted.


I don't already know the answer, but I'm not allowed to question yours if it doesn't make logical sense just because you're more experienced with dogs? In that case should I take Caeser Millains methods on blind faith too? Heck he has years of experience and has well behaved dogs. I've said many times that I don't mean hitting or yelling, yet you still assume that is what I meant.

I may not be an expert, but from my understanding of behavioral psychology, I agree with the premise that all animals learn in a similar way, including humans. The main difference is that humans have speech so we can communicate an attach meaning, and we are able to project and plan further than the immediate moment so it's possible to delay human punishment/rewards, but not so for dogs. If you're going to dispute the fact that dogs learn completely different to humans, you'll need a better argument, or a better explanation of what you mean by association because right now it doesn't make sense. If you give human a reward for doing something, they are more likely to repeat that action, if dogs don't learn like humans AT ALL, by that logic, dogs don't repeat a behavior more often if you reward them so why give treats and rewards at all? I'm not saying this is what I believe, but it's an example of why it DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

I have considered your opinion, I have told you why I question you opinion. I am open to hear new and different stand points and take in what I believe to be useful, logical, and constructive, and I agree that the people of this forum have a lot to offer, but if you seem to fixated on what you THINK I'm talking about when I talk about discipline/punishment which is not the same as what I've been telling you I mean. On the other hand almost everyone else here had something to contribute towards what I was actually asking and have given me great insight into what THEY do in terms of managing bad behavior. Whether it's only using timeout, or the word "no" eventually had a meaning since it got associated with a timeout, yelping or whatever else.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

The word 'no' is overused and has no meaning for a dog because of that. Train a command, as linked 'leave it' is very effective. If I want a dog to get off the couch I train them to the command 'off' if I want my dog to wait while I open the door, I teach a sit, then train them to 'wait' (different than 'stay' I which they remain in place while I walk away). By training specific commands you make what you want clear to the dog. That's not saying I don't use interrupters, I do, but they are just that, a way to interrupt the unwanted behavior, direct attention to me so I can redirect the dog to something appropriate.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

Ice222 said:


> I may not be an expert, but from my understanding of behavioral psychology, I agree with the premise that all animals learn in a similar way, including humans.
> 
> *This is not true. Dogs do not have the same cognitive process as humans. I mean, really, cats don't even think the way dogs think, much less humans, or apes, or lions, or tigers, or bears (oh my!).*
> 
> ...


My responses in bold.


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

The operative words are “NOT AT ALL”. That means ZERO similarities, NOTHING the same zilch. Nada. So if you are to accept that there is 'NOTHING the same between human and dog learning', and 'humans will be more likely to repeat a behaviour if it gets rewarded immediately', and 'dogs are more likely to repeat a behaviour if it is rewarded immediately', then your argument is completely hypocritical. You can't have both the first two statements be true AND have the third one correct as well, because it's simply contradictory logic. It's like arguing that dogs and humans share NOTHING in common because we are different species, when that is simply WRONG because despite vast differences, there are also many similarities, eg. Both are mammals. I'm not saying that dogs THINK like humans, I am disputing the fact that you/Amaryillis believe that dogs can't learn simple 'a' entails 'b' connection that even rats and pigeons are capable of learning, maybe they don't THINK about the connection, but they still learn it, and increase or decrease behaviour depending on their perceived rewards/punishments.

Here is a dog example: If I say, “sit” and the dog sits I give him a treat immediately every time. Over time, the dog will learn to sit every time I say sit because he gets a treat for doing it and no treat is he does anything else. If I say “sit”, and a human sits, and I give them $1 immediately each time, the same thing happens, the person is more likely to do it again if I reward them every time. It doesn't matter what either the person or the dog is thinking, I know that they have learned something because it gets more and more likely for them to sit when I say sit. It doesn't matter whether they are hearing, seeing, smelling, feeling vibrations in the air to sense my instruction either, as long as they can perceive that I am speaking and tell it apart from everything else that's going on it doesn't matter. It doesn’t matter how they are cognitively processing it either because they have both still learned something. How can you still say that NOTHING is the same?

Now I’m not saying that there are no differences, or that differences don’t matter - I had already mentioned human speech for one (BTW I never said it was the ONLY difference). In fact I even added that humans are able to project into the future, while dogs cannot (ie. this means timing), which you then repeated later on. I didn't mention the sensory differences, because their capacity for learning has little to do with the sensory perceptions. Eg. pigeons have good eyesight, rats do not, you can't train a rat to identify different photos and press a button for food because it physiologically can't tell the difference, but the fundamental part of being capable of associating behaviours to rewards is a fundamental mechanism of learning behaviour that both rats, and pigeons (dogs and humans too) share when they are within their physiological boundaries of being able to discern the behaviour that is rewarded from those in extinction.

I’m not saying there are no differences to human vs. dog learning, but if you still cannot see ANY similarity between human learning and dog learning AT ALL then there is no point talking further, because despite whatever valuable experience and knowledge you might have, we won't reach any kind of communicative understanding if you can't understand basic logic. This is my last ditch effort to show what I mean when I’m talking about explanations that make logical sense, back to the dog and the wire:

It doesn’t matter if the dog chews the wire because he smells it or because he sees it, he’s still chewing it. Now if chewing wire is followed by a reward, it doesn’t matter if you’re a dog, a pigeon, a rat or a human, as long as it’s a reward, you will be learning that wire = reward follows. Now I get that redirection works for a lot of people, so I do think it’s possible that there’s something missing in this analysis that makes it not so. Eg. Somehow a toy or attention is not considered a reward (in that case it begs the question WHY it isn’t considered a reward), or there’s an interrupter missing between the behaviour and the presentation of the toy that makes it not act as a reward, or there’s somehow some kinda of mental shift that turns into a selection of “wire or toy?” rather than a sequence of wire THEN toy, thus turning it into stimulus-stimulus differentiation rather then stimulus-behaviour-reward situation. Essentially if you don’t think the dog would be rewarded with the toy/attention and thus learning to bite wires more, then I’m looking for the explanation of HOW, WHY and WHAT makes them different, rather than just saying “Because they just are. Full stop.”


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Ya know, I thionk it's funny that you've completley ignored the ADVICE being given to argue with one person. I'll remember not to waste my time posting and linking things I think could help you and your pup from now on...


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

I would actually suggest that punishment (or reinforcement) usually needs to be fairly immediate for humans, too. 

Thanks to language, a human can be given a verbal "rule" and, once given the rule, the human _can be_ affected by more delayed types of reinforcement.

Language doesn't always work, though. I can tell you that the overuse of credit cards will destroy your finances (a rule about a delayed consequence) or I can tell you that cigarettes will kill you (a rule about a delayed consequence), and it is possible that those rules... those bits of language.... will not affect the bad behaviors. Note also, that the consequences are very intense (financial destruction and death).

Have you ever seen a morbidly obese person consume incredible quantities of food? There is no doubt that the person realizes the deadly path (delayed consequence), but the immediate reinforcer is too powerful.

If the more immediate consequences are strong enough, the delayed one's are likely to fail ... even with humans. 

I will grant you that dogs do not enjoy poetry or a good movie. They probably don't harbor resentments or engage in revenge, either. In _that_ sense, we are very different.

About "cognitive processes", we know very little about that sort of thing. It is still fodder for philosophers as much as it is for science. 

Our capacity for language seems to be the big trick for us humans. With language, we are capable of all sorts of behaviorally complex feats. It may be the key to what amazes us about our "cognitive processes".

We humans are more likely to be affected by short delays in consequences and less affected by longer delays. In that sense, we share much in common with the other mammals (and birds etc.)

It annoys me to listen to folks over-state the similarities between animals and people, but we can also go overboard in over-stating the differences.


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> Ya know, I thionk it's funny that you've completley ignored the ADVICE being given to argue with one person. I'll remember not to waste my time posting and linking things I think could help you and your pup from now on...


Sorry if you feel ignored. I didn't comment on it, but it doesn't mean I ignored it. I already read the doggyzen thread as well as read the Ian Dunbar site, and watched the vids there, before even getting my dog. I think i went through all the stickied threads in the training section actually, the only parts I've ignored are the books, since I don't like to buy books without being able to leaf through them and see if I like the writing style, the content, the amount of content for the price and such before buying, and I've yet to find any of those books on shelves here in NZ.

I did actually find DoggyZen I've also seen a vid (called Impluse Inhibition I think) that also taught much of the same thing and actually found it very helpful. I have been using these methods since the start, and my dog is pretty good at it. Unfortunaately he is only good with food and only at home, since he doesn't generalize them to other situations. It's been a lot more difficult to train the same thing when actually out and about, since he doesn't generalize the idea to anything when on his walk. I often have my hands full wrangling all sorts of stuff - leash, treats, possibly a bag of dog poop - it makes it difficult to predict what he might go for and reward him or praise him at the right time, esp when we're constantly moving. So there's still a ways to go but he is learning.

Basically I didn't comment on the link since nothing in the techniques there cause me to question their validity, so I didn't feel a need to bring it up. But in the case where there's something I disagree with, then why shouldn't I question it? I want to know the reasoning behind it so even if I can't fully agree with it, I can better understand their standpoint and basis of reasoning.


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> I would actually suggest that punishment (or reinforcement) usually needs to be fairly immediate for humans, too.
> 
> Thanks to language, a human can be given a verbal "rule" and, once given the rule, the human _can be_ affected by more delayed types of reinforcement.
> 
> It annoys me to listen to folks over-state the similarities between animals and people, but we can also go overboard in over-stating the differences.


Exactly what I mean. Differences are important, so are similarities. Language in humans do have an amazingly huge effect on learning and behavior, certain meanings can only be understood if there is a word for it. Apparently there have even been studies that show that tribes where language does not have anything past the present tense are less able to do any projected learning since they don't have the concept ingrained into their world view. It does suggest that language does play a big part of why humans are capable of some degree of reinforcement/punishment delays.

Those highlight the importance of differences in behavioral learning, but there are also examples why similarity is important, such as the Premack theory - you can reward a behavior by following it by allowing a behavior that the individual prefers. This is different than the usual idea of reward, since in this case, anything can be considered use as a reinforcer/reward not just the tradition ideas of reward like money, or food. This was originally theorized in a study of apes, but has be shown in studies of humans too - they were able to shape highly autistic people (who only wanted to stand staring out a window doing nothing) to strip wires, by following with a reward of free time where they were not bothered and allowed to just stand there and do nothing. If we can accept that dogs are capable of the same type of learning, then we might find more useful and creative situations to apply it, eg. getting a timid dog to get used to human touch by rewarding it with a hiding place with no people to disturb it and slowly working up the ratio of the duration of touches vs hiding time.

Many people here already know lots of great techniques that work, but without really understanding or knowing why they work so well, they just know by experience that it does. I'm the type of person who always feels the need to know why; Or "why not" in the case of punishment/discipline (again I don't mean hitting/yelling).


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

The interrupter can be anything, it doesn't matter once the pup's attention is off the wire (for example). Dogs generally associate the reward (or punishment) with the most immediately preceding thing they were doing, which is what makes punishment so, so tricky and makes it so easy to accidentally punish things you didn't mean to punish. The trap in comparing human learning and dog learning is that I can think back in time and realize that my hangover this morning was caused by my overindulgence last night, while a dog is generally going to learn associations within just a few seconds' time. 

For example, if I walk into the room to find my dog chewing on a wire, and before he notices me there I call his name, he looks at me and I reward him... the behavior that I am rewarding is him responding to his name, not chewing on the wire. The wire is still there, and he might choose to start chewing on it again, but that's because I haven't trained him an alternative yet -- I've simply rewarded his attention. If I call him to come, he recalls perfectly, and I reward him... the behavior I am rewarding is recall. In that case his name or the recall ARE the interrupters, even though they're not punishment. If the reward I use is something appropriate to chew on, I've rewarded and redirected at the same time. It takes tens and hundreds of repetitions for it to sink in that other stuff is better than the wire, and management is key to prevent him practicing chewing the wire. Another trap I think people fall into is being too impatient and assuming training failure when in reality it takes time and practice to train dogs just like it takes time and practice to master any skill we would take on from scratch.

On the other hand, if I walk into the room to find my dog chewing on a wire, and before he notices me I say his name and then I punish (and depending on the dog a verbal NO may be harsh, harsh punishment or nothing at all) -- I've just inadvertently punished my dog's attention. He's already forgotten about the wire. And a dog who has learned that attention/orienting to you is an awesome, awesome thing to have, so it's worth doing everything you can to NOT punish that. 

I think it's in "Culture Clash" that the author does bemoan our need to know WHY... why does my dog do this, why does my dog do that. When in reality it doesn't really matter WHY my dog wants to chew a wire, if I manage his access and am patient while I train him alternatives I can make the wire chewing go away regardless of the cause. It's just a behavior.


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

sassafras said:


> I think it's in "Culture Clash" that the author does bemoan our need to know WHY... why does my dog do this, why does my dog do that. When in reality it doesn't really matter WHY my dog wants to chew a wire, if I manage his access and am patient while I train him alternatives I can make the wire chewing go away regardless of the cause. It's just a behavior.


I like your explanation on interrupters, and it makes sense to me in terms of calling the dog to you and rewarding that, but not completely sold on the idea that the toy would also serve as an interrupter. Nor am I completely against it though, I may give it another go to see the results (if any) myself. As for my question of why, it was directed at the human reasoning behind why we should or shouldn't train a certain way, because I think it's important to understand a training method the best I can. In your with your example of punishment, I can see how that would backfire and turn it into punishing him for attention rather than the wire chewing, but similar errors can also be made in other training situations including reward based situations. here are 2 examples:

With the Ian Dunbar method of training bite inhibition, if there was no explanation as to why we have to do it in the order of 1) make bites gentler, then 2) make bites occur less often, a trainer with a clever dog might skip step one, since they figure that their dog seems to be learning quickly anyway so why not skip a step or two and work at the pace the dog sets. Then that is a big mistake as you'll end up with a dog that doesn't bite, but when it's pushed to bite, it has no control over it's strength.

On the otherhand, in training a trick like roll over the instructions may be something like 1) teach your dog to sit, 2) teach it to lie down, 3) teach it to roll onto it's side, 4)teach it to roll onto it's back, 5) teach it to roll over completely, 6) attach a verbal queue to it, 7) attach a hand signal to it. Now perhaps the dog is clever, and it would've been fine to start straight on step 3 since it likes to lie on it's side anyway, but since you devoutly went through every step to shape the dog into a roll, that the dog gets fixated into the sequence. Now you have to untrain the sit at the start if you ever want your dog to go straight form a lying position to a roll. In this case, following every step is counter productive.

If I know the reasoning why I should train a certain way, I can make a more informed judgement call about when I should and shouldn't follow advice word for word.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Honestly I think you're getting stuck in some analysis paralysis. It's easy for me to say that because I don't need to know whywhywhy all the time, and I don't spend a lot of time speculating "what if this/what if that" -- I'm happy to start by following the advice of people who have had success and are experienced, and tweaking things if they aren't working for me/my dog. 

I can tell you from experience with the rolling over example, that teaching a sequence like that doesn't typically end with your speculated dog that won't roll over from the down. I don't have time to go into it now, but there's a method of training called shaping that basically slowly builds tiny steps to the final behavior, but the final behavior is what you ultimately end up with based on what you stop rewarding and what you continue to reward. It wouldn't work if dogs always got completely fixed in the initial stages - again, it depends on what steps you choose to discontinue/continue rewarding.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

With the doggy zen, you modify it to the outside, work slowly and don't burden yourself as much. You're right in that *dogs DO NOT generalize*, it's not the technique, it the fact is MUST be worked on consistantly in every situation until the dog learns the new situation is the same as the last whether it's a piece of food, a leaf or a wire, Inside the house, in the yard or on the walking path. I think this, more than having speech is the largest difference in how dogs learn and how humans learn. Stop over anilyzing and BE CONSISTANT, get another pair of hands on walks if needed, or train the pup to 'sit' and 'Wait' while you're picking up the poo.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

ohbehave said:


> I would actually suggest that punishment (or reinforcement) usually needs to be fairly immediate for humans, too.
> 
> Thanks to language, a human can be given a verbal "rule" and, once given the rule, the human _can be_ affected by more delayed types of reinforcement.
> 
> ...


But, aren't understanding the differences between animals and people (primarily, for this discussion, dogs and people) what makes us better able to communicate effectively with them, thereby training more effectively?

As for Ice222, I disagree that sensory differences don't affect how they think. According to William E. Campbell, there is convincing research that states that "dogs think in sensory impressions." And, being that the way they process the world around them involves use a different sense than most humans use is key. And, Monique Udell at the University of Miami indicated in a study that "dogs are not sensitive to all visual cues". So, differences here are key.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Fiancée & I had this discussion today when buddy started to show herding behavior twds the horses (rushing their stall doors to make them get back when I was throwing hay in is how it started) fiancée noticed that he was doing it all of the time & he said that I should train him to only do it when I was hating to help me, I explained to him that dogs dont think that way it's either do the bahavior or not do the behavior... There is no grey area. Any attempt to do the former would result in serious confusion (do I do it or not ??) on the doggy's part & I didn't want to jeapordize the trust Buddy & I have built so far by sound something foolish as that lol.


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

doxiemommy said:


> But, aren't understanding the differences between animals and people (primarily, for this discussion, dogs and people) what makes us better able to communicate effectively with them, thereby training more effectively?
> 
> As for Ice222, I disagree that sensory differences don't affect how they think. According to William E. Campbell, there is convincing research that states that "dogs think in sensory impressions." And, being that the way they process the world around them involves use a different sense than most humans use is key. And, Monique Udell at the University of Miami indicated in a study that "dogs are not sensitive to all visual cues". So, differences here are key.


I didn't say it doesn't affect how they THINK, I said it doesn't change the fact that they are capable of learning the association of "behavior followed by reward" and in that 1 aspect, they share a similarity with human learning. My point was the the differences do not disprove the similarities.

Again, I'm not saying differences aren't important, but that similarities are also important. Same thing with generalization, I would not say that dogs cannot generalize EVER. Dogs DO generalize to some degree, if they bite bee at home in your garden and get stung, most dogs would generalize that a bee in the garden and a bee in the park is still a bee. That is generalizing, and they are capable of some generalizing even without explicit teaching, eg. if chicken tastes good at home, it probably also tastes good in the park.

On the other hand, you cannot assume a dog will generalize in training, because a lot of generalizations we expect does not come natural to a dog. So I do understand why it's important to recognize when your dog isn't generalizing something so that you can rectify it with training, but it's just as important to understand when you dog IS generalizing when you don't want them to. Essentially if you want a dog to be specific, eg. only fetch red balls not blue, they have to taught to be specific and not to generalize to mean ALL balls whatever the colour, if you want them to be general, eg. fetch anything you throw no matter the shape or colour, they have to be taught to be general. You can't assume a dog will be specific all the time and never generalize, in the same way you can't assume a dog will generalize when you want him to. Again both are important. I don't know why we have to pretend one whole side of behavior 'does not exist' or 'never' happens just because you think one side IS important.

Maybe I am being too analytic, but I do train my dogs with the methods I've come to agree with like Ian Dunbar's training methods and not using methods that don't make sense to me eg. rubbing your dog's nose in any mess he leaves to teach a lesson, so far that has worked out well for me. I don't do dominance training even though it was the first thing I ever read on dog training (and it sounded somewhat convincing), because I thought the arguments on this board against it was more convincing. Looking at arguments from multiple sides are important if I want to be a better trainer, better owner, better communicator with my dog.


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Fiancée & I had this discussion today when buddy started to show herding behavior twds the horses (rushing their stall doors to make them get back when I was throwing hay in is how it started) fiancée noticed that he was doing it all of the time & he said that I should train him to only do it when I was hating to help me, I explained to him that dogs dont think that way it's either do the bahavior or not do the behavior... There is no grey area. Any attempt to do the former would result in serious confusion (do I do it or not ??) on the doggy's part & I didn't want to jeapordize the trust Buddy & I have built so far by sound something foolish as that lol.


While it's true that if you make it to hard for the dog to understand the differentiation it can really upset a relationship, but if you can understand why it is too hard, then you can think of how to make it easier for your dog to differentiate. You can then come up with solutions to problems by using creative ways to make it easier. Eg. You can have a specific scarf, harness etc that's very different to what your dog normally wears, and reward him for herding only when he's wearing it and extinct/ignore al Harding when he's not. This makes it much clearer when you want the behavior and when you don't.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Ice222 said:


> Exactly what I mean. Differences are important, so are similarities. Language in humans do have an amazingly huge effect on learning and behavior, certain meanings can only be understood if there is a word for it. Apparently there have even been studies that show that tribes where language does not have anything past the present tense are less able to do any projected learning since they don't have the concept ingrained into their world view. It does suggest that language does play a big part of why humans are capable of some degree of reinforcement/punishment delays.
> 
> Those highlight the importance of differences in behavioral learning, but there are also examples why similarity is important, such as the Premack theory - you can reward a behavior by following it by allowing a behavior that the individual prefers. This is different than the usual idea of reward, since in this case, anything can be considered use as a reinforcer/reward not just the tradition ideas of reward like money, or food. This was originally theorized in a study of apes, but has be shown in studies of humans too - they were able to shape highly autistic people (who only wanted to stand staring out a window doing nothing) to strip wires, by following with a reward of free time where they were not bothered and allowed to just stand there and do nothing. If we can accept that dogs are capable of the same type of learning, then we might find more useful and creative situations to apply it, eg. getting a timid dog to get used to human touch by rewarding it with a hiding place with no people to disturb it and slowly working up the ratio of the duration of touches vs hiding time.
> 
> Many people here already know lots of great techniques that work, but without really understanding or knowing why they work so well, they just know by experience that it does. I'm the type of person who always feels the need to know why; Or "why not" in the case of punishment/discipline (again I don't mean hitting/yelling).


{Premack can be a positive reinforcer) The learner decides what is worth working for. And I do believe that a great many people here already know "why" their great techniques work. If it reinforced with something meaningful and valuable to the dog, the chance of the dog repeating the behavior goes up. If it is punished by something meaningful and undesirable to the dog (and presented with excellent timing so the dog understands what is being reinforced or punished) the chance of the dog not repeating that behavior goes up. Once your timing is good and your game plan clear, and you've figured out what the dog finds important, it' not exactly rocket science


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

Ice222 said:


> I didn't say it doesn't affect how they THINK, I said it doesn't change the fact that they are capable of learning the association of "behavior followed by reward" and in that 1 aspect, they share a similarity with human learning. My point was the the differences do not disprove the similarities.
> 
> *Actually, in the beginning of this discussion, you were questioning that dogs think/learn DIFFERENTLY than humans. I will admit there are similarities in both humans and dogs (I am a teacher). BUT, the WAY they process information around them is different than humans, the information they USE to think/learn is different, this, in part, leads to them learning/thinking differently than humans.
> 
> ...


Response in bold.
I understand there are similarities, as well as differences. BUT, some of the things considered to be similarities are only similarities because we project human qualities, emotions, and logic onto dogs. And, if the differences affect the dog's ability to effectively perform what you are asking, isn't it worth it to adjust your training to fit their needs?
Have you read "The Other End of the Leash" by Patricia McConnel?


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Ice222 said:


> While it's true that if you make it to hard for the dog to understand the differentiation it can really upset a relationship, but if you can understand why it is too hard, then you can think of how to make it easier for your dog to differentiate. You can then come up with solutions to problems by using creative ways to make it easier. Eg. You can have a specific scarf, harness etc that's very different to what your dog normally wears, and reward him for herding only when he's wearing it and extinct/ignore al Harding when he's not. This makes it much clearer when you want the behavior and when you don't.


True but I don't need him to do the behavior at all, trust me with these dogs letting them slide some of the time but not all of the time is a recipe for disaster lol. I don't "need" him to help me with that, these are yearlings & a simple wave of my hand is enough to get them back from the door.

Another question although this isn't a huge problem, Buddy is easily managed, occasionally he "forgets" & does it but I remind him with an "ah ah!" to interrupt his bahavior & focus his attention back on me, then I reinforce with a "leeave it" command followed by praise & sometimes a treat (he loves either equally).

Is this a good way? I want him to stop but I also want to keep the relationship & trust he has in me intact so I'm not being "too" " mean" about rep remanding as he is very sensitive.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Amaryllis said:


> First of all, dogs do not think like people. People think in terms of cause and effect. I bite the wire, cause, I get attention, effect. Dogs DO NOT think in terms of cause and effect. Dogs associate. In the example with the wire, the puppy bites the wire, you give them a toy, they bite that, they get praised. The puppy comes to associate chewing on toys with praise and chews on the toy.


Dogs do both, imo.

Cause and effect is a lot of what operant conditioning is based around. I want Wally to put his paw on a ball and I want him to figure it out. When he paws it, he hears the marker and gets the reward. What caused the marker that predicts the reward? His paw on the ball. He can very well figure that out. 

Shaping is a lot of cause-and-effect figuring out by the dog, imo. Probably one reason it can be so tiring for them. It might not be the preferred/easiest way for a dog to think, but it isn't out of their reach, imo.

Wally wants bread -> Ball on the floor -> Paw Ball -> Wally gets bread. What causes him to get bread? Paw on the ball. I think dogs can very well figure that out. He might try 10 things first, but those cause nothing. When he finds what brings the bread - he knows what caused it if I'm on the ball with marking it to further make the point on exactly what did it.

The association comes with the context. He can associate "ball" with "my paw on it". So if I put a ball down, the first thing he'd do is paw it. That comes from repetition of the pattern to build an association. 

I think you can create one without the other. I can tell him leave 20 times outside, but he won't hesitate to get his food out of his bowl. "Leave it" is not associated with the food bowl, so it is not a behavior he'll offer "on the bowl" in that context. However, outside, if he wants the food, he has to NOT get it. Then I'll mark, pick it up, and give it to him. If he goes after it, the food disappears. Cause and effect, imo, is what gets him to understand to leave it alone - because going after it made it go away. Since this is a constant thing - he can associate "leaving it" with the context. 

Basically, I guess I believe that cause-and-effect creates behaviors (I consider not doing something a behavior - one of waiting/freezing - and requires mental effort). Context creates associations.

Maybe I'm way off base, though.


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

doxiemommy said:


> Actually, in the beginning of this discussion, you were questioning that dogs think/learn DIFFERENTLY than humans. I will admit there are similarities in both humans and dogs (I am a teacher). BUT, the WAY they process information around them is different than humans, the information they USE to think/learn is different, this, in part, leads to them learning/thinking differently than humans.
> 
> As a teacher, I have the challenge of using different methods for students that are learning handicapped. The learning handicapped students learn in a different way, due to many factors. So, I can't generalize and say that other teaching strategies will work with them, as the information that they need, and the process they go through is different.
> So, with dogs, you cannot use the exact same method as you would with humans (even though there may be similarities), because the cues/information they need in order to understand what you are communicating, and how they process it is different.Response in bold.
> ...


No. NEVER in this discussion did I say dogs don’t think differently. Firstly, thinking and learning are not the same thing. By learning, I was always talking about the core mechanics of learning, such as the stimulus – behaviour – reinforcer, and the mechanics of reward/punishment affecting these, these are associations shared by all animals. I was never talking about their thinking when debating this except perhaps when I was giving examples in lay terms to make them sound fluent enough to understand. This underlying system of learning, doesn’t refer to what they’re thinking, only how behaviour is learned, by that definition even plants are capable of learning (eg. bonsai plants, learn to grow tiny because anything that grows out of a certain proportions gets snipped off) and I am not referring to any thinking behind it or projecting any human qualities, yet this is a similarity that humans and dogs share. Secondly, I never said that "nothing is different" or everything is the same; I was always arguing against the idea that, “dogs and humans NEVER learn the same way. NOT AT ALL. Not ever.” Or in other words “EVERYTHING is different”, and I still believe that it is untrue.

In the teaching disabled children example, the stimulus behaviour and reinforcer may differ between individuals, so specific methods like “tell them to be quite and if they do, give them a lolly” may not work for all children, eg. If they are deaf, or do not like lollies. But if you have a relevant stimulus and relevant reinforcer for each individual, then it will work to increase or decrease behaviour regardless of disability. Eg. a hand signal may work as a stimulus for a deaf kid, or a hug might work for someone that doesn't like lollies, just because specific methods differ doesn't mean that the underlying rules do too.

Now back onto how it relates to dog training and the wire example. I was saying that redirecting does not make sense to me, because it seems to fall under the stimulus – behaviour – reinforcer rule where the stimulus is the wire, biting is the behaviour, and reinforcer is the toy. Essentially, if I just give him a new toy without saying a word every time he bites the wire, he might bite they new toy, but he would also have learnt that biting wire gets him toys. Where as if I call him over or tell him to leave it (the wire) first and reward him with the toy for leaving it alone or coming over to me, then I’d be rewarding the behaviour of leaving the wire alone rather than the act of biting the wire. I do understand that we need to adjust training to fit their needs, but I like to understand how and why the methods I use work so that I’m not misusing them. When you know the underlying rules, you can then adjust specific elements in your method to fit your dog's individual needs.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Ice222 said:


> Now back onto how it relates to dog training and the wire example. I was saying that redirecting does not make sense to me, because it seems to fall under the stimulus – behaviour – reinforcer rule where the stimulus is the wire, biting is the behaviour, and reinforcer is the toy. Essentially, if I just give him a new toy without saying a word every time he bites the wire, he might bite they new toy, but he would also have learnt that biting wire gets him toys. Where as if I call him over or tell him to leave it (the wire) first and reward him with the toy for leaving it alone or coming over to me, then I’d be rewarding the behaviour of leaving the wire alone rather than the act of biting the wire.


Practically, though, that doesn't happen - or redirecting wouldn't work well enough for a bunch of people to be suggesting it to you. You can worry about what "might" happen or you can trust multiple people with multiple different ages, breeds, and genders of dogs who are telling you it doesn't happen this way and get on with training your dog. *shrug*


ETA: I will add, if there is too much drama involved in the redirection, I do think dogs can learn to chew the wire for attention. But if you are calm and don't make a big deal about it, the wire chewing will fade with time and practice IME.


----------



## Luna'sOwner (Apr 11, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8JXlj_EgA0

Dogs may not be human but they also aren't all about praise and gentleness. I discipline my dog - which doesn't mean I physically beat her or make her do anything, I draw lines. This is allowed, and this is not. The mother of a litter will create these boundaries as well. Have you ever seen how a dog will take a child's hand in its mouth but not bite? That is a warning in dog terms. Dogs do this to one another as well, as do mothers. So as far as "not disciplining" my dog goes, I think I create boundaries and rules just as her mother and other pack members would. Are dogs real pack members? They are not like wolves, after all? I say dogs are pack animals. Humans just become a part of it in the domestic dog world, and should take it upon themselves to understand body language. The video above doesn't show a huge spectrum of dog behaviors, but the man clearly understands the difference between the dominant and submissive dog. It doesn't mean anything cruel - it just means that you're the head of the household. 

I think with a puppy, however, rules should be implemented with patience and repetition. She won't see giving her her chew toy after chewing wires as a reward, but as a distraction. It is what it is. 'Hey, I can chew on this, too!' You know? Not a "wow, she's rewarding me for chewing on the cables and I'll do it again to generate the same response!" That is definitely the human thinking about it, and way too complex for a dog's simple 'it is what it is' attitude. I think the only time a dog needs to know he's crossing a line is when he bites you too hard, or jumps up on your kids - any behavior you do not want now or in the future, you should teach him now. Repetition and patience is key with puppies, and creativity and energy to be able to keep his attention is important, too. Reward good behavior with play. Or a rub. You know? Keep it simple... but do implement the rules of your household.


----------



## Luna'sOwner (Apr 11, 2012)

another good tip is to give her a calm rub when she is calm or asleep... this give the impression that you 'reward' her being nice and calm, and that you approve of that behavior! It's not just about disciplining, but also rewarding where needs be... and rewarding doesn't have to mean food or play. A good ear rub or tummy rub is just as good, as her mum or other dog would sop off her ears when they're relaxed.

This will prevent her trying to get your attention by doing things that make you irritable... like what you say with the cables. As long as you're calm, and mostly ignore emotional tantrums, you will not be giving her any specific attention. Remember, attention can be both positive and negative, and just like with kids there needs to be a balance for things not to lose control.


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

sassafras said:


> Practically, though, that doesn't happen - or redirecting wouldn't work well enough for a bunch of people to be suggesting it to you. You can worry about what "might" happen or you can trust multiple people with multiple different ages, breeds, and genders of dogs who are telling you it doesn't happen this way and get on with training your dog. *shrug*
> 
> 
> ETA: I will add, if there is too much drama involved in the redirection, I do think dogs can learn to chew the wire for attention. But if you are calm and don't make a big deal about it, the wire chewing will fade with time and practice IME.


The wire is an example, not 1 specific problem I'm trying to solve. Using the core mechanics of learning, I can make speculations as to why and how certain training methods work. Rewarding your dog is a positive reinforcer, that's why it works to increase behavior. Walking away from your dog is a negative punisher, that's why it works to decrease certain behaviors. I understand these rules so that I can use them in multiple situations, with multiple types of rewards etc. I don't need to 'get on' with training my dog, because I am already training him, I am looking to understand other methods so that I have a greater diversity of choice in how to train. Toy and wire is a specific example in a specific situation. Even if I trust you training in faith, and it works in that 1 situation, it only tells me it works for that 1 behavior - chewing. Eg. if he starts chasing the cat, and I let him chase a rabbit instead will he stop chasing cats and only chase rabbits? This is estimated guess, but I don't think it works like that. 

The only explanations I've heard for why my argument against redirection is because you and others says it works, or because dogs don't 'think' like that. So it's not okay to speculate with learning mechanics (because it's just wrong), but it's now okay to infer how the dogs do and don't 'think'? I accepted positive training methods be know I know why/how they work without having to make unfounded speculations about how dogs dog and don't think, I accepted walking away/ignoring behaviors for the same reason. I turned down dominance theory because it is based entirely on speculating about dog social structure and trying to apply it in human dog relationships. It might be a step up from regular dog owners who know nothing of dogs who just baby their dogs and treat them like princesses and end up with spoiled misbehaving dogs, but there's also a lot that's wrong with it's method and theory. I don't like accepting training methods simply because others say it's good (plenty of people says Caesar Millan is good being most popular/endorsed doesn't make it the best), I prefer to use methods that I feel to be well founded on reasoning.


----------



## Nil (Oct 25, 2007)

Ice222 said:


> Eg. if he starts chasing the cat, and I let him chase a rabbit instead will he stop chasing cats and only chase rabbits? This is estimated guess, but I don't think it works like that.


I haven't read everything, just the last page or so but I think (could be wrong) you may not be getting the whole point of redirection with this specific analogy. If your dog is chasing a cat you would first say "Fido, leave it" or "Fido, come" or "Fido". Something to get the dog's attention. If the dog stops chasing the cat to either leave it, come, or look at you then you can reward with a rabbit. Interrupting the chase and rewarding him for obeying something. 

Do this enough and the dog becomes conditioned to not chase the cat. As to why, well, now that requires anthropomorphizing a bit, I think. Could be the dog thinks, "chasing the cat is no fun, I just get interrupted" or "there's a cat, interesting". Maybe he "knows" chasing the cat is something that just gets ended so no point in wasting the energy. Or, it's better to stick by the human because if she says leave it, sit, or come (cat becomes a cue that the human will give the dog potential for a reward) then maybe I will get a rabbit. Either way, the dog doesn't chase the cat. It's fun to play the why game and you get a lot of interesting reasons, but at the end of the day there is no scientific hypotheses to test them very well, least none that I can think of off the top of my head. 

If you saw Fido chasing a cat and said "Good Fido! Go get 'em!" and encouraged the behavior, then you could create a dog who loves chasing cats and is rewarding for doing so (reward being getting to chase and verbal praise/encouragement from owner). 

Am I even close to what we are discussing here? lol I guess I am confused about your confusion over redirection. You can very well train a dog to chew a wire. It's just a behavior. You can very well train a dog to chase cats. You can train them not to do those things using punishment. You can train them not to do those things using positive reinforcement/redirection.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

Ice222 said:


> No. NEVER in this discussion did I say dogs don’t think differently.
> 
> *Sorry, you gave me that impression. Amaryllis posted about how dogs think differently than humans, and you immediately began questioning her post, which made me think you disagreed with that. You DID say, you believed that "all animals learn in a similar way, including humans" which implies, in a way, that they do not learn in different ways.
> *
> ...


I understand your example of the puppy considering the redirection to the toy as a reward/reinforcer, when you redirect from the wire. I prefer to prevent them from even getting to the wire, watching them so you divert them from it in the first place. That way, you are replacing the habit of chewing on the wire, with another habit. The more you are able to prevent him from chewing the wires, through prevention, the more likely he will stop attempting to chew on the wire, because you are providing something more fun and rewarding to do.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Ice222 said:


> On the otherhand, in training a trick like roll over the instructions may be something like 1) teach your dog to sit, 2) teach it to lie down, 3) teach it to roll onto it's side, 4)teach it to roll onto it's back, 5) teach it to roll over completely, 6) attach a verbal queue to it, 7) attach a hand signal to it. Now perhaps the dog is clever, and it would've been fine to start straight on step 3 since it likes to lie on it's side anyway, but since you devoutly went through every step to shape the dog into a roll, that the dog gets fixated into the sequence. Now you have to untrain the sit at the start if you ever want your dog to go straight form a lying position to a roll. In this case, following every step is counter productive.
> 
> If I know the reasoning why I should train a certain way, I can make a more informed judgement call about when I should and shouldn't follow advice word for word.


Just curious. Ever actually trained that behavior?


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Just curious. Have you actually taught this behavior?


Yes I have actually. I taught him the bang trick (play dead) first and went from that to teaching him to roll over. I didn't have trouble with teaching the roll, but I did have trouble with the bang trick - although my dog did not add in a extra sit at the front (taught him from a lie down rather than a sit), but he did add a extra jump at the front. It took about twice as long as the initial training to 'untrain' that jumping. I never intentionally taught him to jump, he included himself by jumping a lot during the initial training. I ignored the jumping and treated him as long as he did the roll correctly, but since he was jumping so much that he was jumping almost every time before he managed to roll onto his back, he ended up jumping every single time. It was as though he thought it was an essential part of the trick. Honestly, it looked REALLY awesome the way he jumps up really dramatically before falling onto his back, but since he's a dachshund and I want to discourage jumping as much as possible I hard to have him relearn it without the jump. There was a lot of frustration involved for both of us, trying to extinct a behavior that used to get rewarded is a LOT harder than never rewarding it in the first place.


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

doxiemommy said:


> You have to think in order to learn. If you THINK differently, it will affect the learning that results. AND, if you think differently, the techniques needed to teach are different.
> 
> Actually, I was referring to the limited abilities to think and understand in children with learning handicaps, as related to their handicap, NOT whether they are deaf or don't like lollipops. I was talking about teaching and learning, and your example was about telling children to be quiet so they can have candy. Really? That is a superficial interpretation that doesn't at all take into account that, depending on the depth of the disability, some children can't follow the "normal" stimulus/reinforcer pattern you speak of.


I'm talking about a very specific definition of learning, the ability to process the stimulus - behavior - reinforcer connection, not leaning in the broader sense. And as I already said, this definition of learning is a focus of the core mechanics it without making inference to thinking or the mind. The plants example already illustrates what I mean, we can make educated and pretty accurate predictions about the future behavior of plants based purely on past stimulus - behavior - reinforcer based learning without having to resort to talking about what it 'thinks'. In the same way it allows us to make logic based predictions about animal behavior without delving into their 'minds' and trying to superimpose how we think into how they think.

As for the case of disabilities, even learning disabilities should still follow the same rule, my examples may be simple, but they still illustrate that while there are individual differences in what constitutes a acceptable stimulus and what is considered a reinforcer/punisher, the core learning rules still holds true. Honestly I can't believe that, "some children can't follow the "normal" stimulus/reinforcer pattern you speak of." if even a plant can do it, unless if they are actually brain dead (in which case they wouldn't be in any condition for a school) then I don't see how. Humor me, give me 1 example of a real situation where a child could not follow the stimulus/reinforcer pattern and what different way you used to teach that managed to overcome that disability. Prove me, and everything I ever learned in behavioral psychology, wrong.


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

Nil said:


> I haven't read everything, just the last page or so but I think (could be wrong) you may not be getting the whole point of redirection with this specific analogy. If your dog is chasing a cat you would first say "Fido, leave it" or "Fido, come" or "Fido". Something to get the dog's attention. If the dog stops chasing the cat to either leave it, come, or look at you then you can reward with a rabbit. Interrupting the chase and rewarding him for obeying something.
> 
> ...
> 
> Am I even close to what we are discussing here? lol I guess I am confused about your confusion over redirection. You can very well train a dog to chew a wire. It's just a behavior. You can very well train a dog to chase cats. You can train them not to do those things using punishment. You can train them not to do those things using positive reinforcement/redirection.


Somewhat close, but not quite.

In the original post I was confused about why redirection works since it seems to reward the behavior. Eventually several people mentioned the way they redirect, and their examples all tended to show some kind of interrupter before they present the toy. This gave me a glimpse into how they redirect, and lead me to conclude that some kind of interrupter should be crucial to prevent the toy from being a reward.

Eventually people keep asking why I have to over analyse WHY it works instead of just doing it since it works for the/others on the forums. I then used redirection as an example, if I didn't understand why redirection works "I wouldn't know that redirection without using any interrupter would be wrong". To which someone then said "Practically, though, that doesn't happen - or redirecting wouldn't work well enough for a bunch of people to be suggesting it to you."

To me, that means that they believe that redirecting would work even without an interrupter. My example with the cat was to show that if there wasn't something crucial (eg. interruptor) missing from the "dog bites wire, give him toy, praise for biting toy" situation then the idea or redirection is flawed since you wouldn't expect it to work on the cat/rabbit situation since it doesn't make sense. It wasn't to prove that redirection itself is flawed, but to argue for why I now think interrupters are important in doing redirection correctly. That make sense to you?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Ice222 said:


> Yes I have actually. I taught him the bang trick (play dead) first and went from that to teaching him to roll over. I didn't have trouble with teaching the roll, but I did have trouble with the bang trick - although my dog did not add in a extra sit at the front (taught him from a lie down rather than a sit), but he did add a extra jump at the front. It took about twice as long as the initial training to 'untrain' that jumping. I never intentionally taught him to jump, he included himself by jumping a lot during the initial training. I ignored the jumping and treated him as long as he did the roll correctly, but since he was jumping so much that he was jumping almost every time before he managed to roll onto his back, he ended up jumping every single time. It was as though he thought it was an essential part of the trick. Honestly, it looked REALLY awesome the way he jumps up really dramatically before falling onto his back, but since he's a dachshund and I want to discourage jumping as much as possible I hard to have him relearn it without the jump. There was a lot of frustration involved for both of us, trying to extinct a behavior that used to get rewarded is a LOT harder than never rewarding it in the first place.


Had to ask, because I've never known anyone who had to take such a complicated route to teach a roll-over. All you need is a down, and a head turn (which you can get with luring, targeting or shaping.)


----------



## titiaamor (Nov 17, 2011)

Never in my life did I think I would ever condone hitting my dogs. Never. But we have free-range chickens, and the dogs play with them as if they are dogs. They try to sniff the chickens' bottoms, do play bows, and nuzzle them. This is OK. However, just at about 8 months, the dogs started 'grabbing' the chickens with their front paws and holding the chickens down. We did A LOT to get them to stop with positive methods but then they killed a chick. It was clear it was accidental and they didn't want to eat the chick. So we got a very small twig, and smacked them on the behind while they were actually holding a chick down. (Actually, my husband did. I couldn't.) They yelped, danced around, and looked at my husband like WTHeck??? It is not something we would ever do for anything else, but death.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

titiaamor said:


> Never in my life did I think I would ever condone hitting my dogs. Never. But we have free-range chickens, and the dogs play with them as if they are dogs. They try to sniff the chickens' bottoms, do play bows, and nuzzle them. This is OK. However, just at about 8 months, the dogs started 'grabbing' the chickens with their front paws and holding the chickens down. We did A LOT to get them to stop with positive methods but then they killed a chick. It was clear it was accidental and they didn't want to eat the chick. So we got a very small twig, and smacked them on the behind while they were actually holding a chick down. (Actually, my husband did. I couldn't.) They yelped, danced around, and looked at my husband like WTHeck??? It is not something we would ever do for anything else, but death.


The smart thing would have been to not allow them to start playing with the chickens in the first place. If a solid leave it didn't work, perhaps supervision and management, as to the point of not allowing the dogs access to learn on their own just what you do with chickens. The fact that the dogs reacted to being hit doesn't mean they understood what the punishment was for. Or that they won't kill another chicken in the future.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Ice222 said:


> To which someone then said "Practically, though, that doesn't happen - or redirecting wouldn't work well enough for a bunch of people to be suggesting it to you."
> 
> To me, that means that they believe that redirecting would work even without an interrupter.


Well since that was me, let me clarify: Interruption is PART of redirection. Redirection wouldn't really do anything if the dog's attention was fixed on what it was already doing. 




Ice222 said:


> The wire is an example, not 1 specific problem I'm trying to solve.


Yes, I realize that, I was just continuing with the example. :/



> The only explanations I've heard for why my argument against redirection is because you and others says it works, or because dogs don't 'think' like that. So it's not okay to speculate with learning mechanics (because it's just wrong), but it's now okay to infer how the dogs do and don't 'think'?


It's ok to do whatever you like, just like it is ok for people to give advice when you asked for it.



> I don't like accepting training methods simply because others say it's good (plenty of people says Caesar Millan is good being most popular/endorsed doesn't make it the best), I prefer to use methods that I feel to be well founded on reasoning.


Well sounds like you can figure it all out for yourself, then. Good luck!


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

I dunno if I'm too late to the show 

1. In Education Psychology ( an application of Learning Theory), Behavioral Psychology and Cognitive Psychology are the two teaching methods.
2. In dog training, the predominant approach is based on Behaviorism. Psychologists are just beginning to study Cognition in Dogs.
3. Based on research by Pavlov, Thorndike, Watson, and Skinner (and others), we know that nearly all organisms respond to behavioral methods. Although plants, especially Bonsai trees don't, birds, fish, reptiles, and even amoebas do respond to stimulus response with a memory of past experience. (You can teach your goldfish to 'come' for dinner, every time you tap the bowl. In fact, some goldfish may learn to come, based on seeing certain shadows within a short time of feeding. In the case of amoebas, they learn to avoid certain areas of light in a way that looks like they have a limited short term memory.
4. In positive training, most puppies need many repetitions to learn a behavior. In contrast, experienced dogs may learn very quickly ... and I believe that they learn to generalize... to digress, Google: Rico, Chaser, or Sue Ailsby for 3 unrelated examples that are interesting to read. The generalizing is my own opinion and I don't believe that it has been studied statistically.
5. Finally... to the point of re-directing, especially from a wire. Yes, you could teach a pup to chew a wire, if you wanted, but you'd have to use many repetitions... And that's the point. When you re-direct, you do it one time, then change the lesson to something that you repeat and reinforce. You may re-direct many times...with lessons in between... but you should never get into the situation where you have to re-direct alone consecutively, like you do when training a dog to Sit.
6. If you understand this, you may be able to generalize it  When your dog is distracted by something - while walking, while training, while you want him to sit quietly, then Cesar suggests 'tapping' the dog with his foot to distract him. His implementation is not good, but the idea is fine. When your dog is distracted, provide a re-direction and stimulus/reward to distract him from the distraction 

For example, Turid Rugaas recommends that you charge your tongue click (in contrast to a precise clicker) as a distraction that means Treat. Then, when you are walking and the dog gets distracted, you try to anticipate and click your tongue ... to re-direct your dog from the distraction... effectively distracting from the distraction .... using positive reinforcement.

???


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

I'm wondering why this is posted in the "first time owners and basic questions" forum ... seems pretty expert and UNbasic to me. Whatever, lol.

Anyhoo, I'll state that I've done my best to read through and understand this entire thread, but inevitably I feel I've missed and misunderstood a considerable amount I'm sure. Frankly, my brain is currently pickled from trying to make heads or tails of all the circular Q's & A's and technical (over?)analysis, and I've merely been following along with the proverbial bouncing ball. 

With that in mind, I'm posting these links for the OP's perusal and consideration, with the vague hope that somehow they will be of some relevant use, ... that is, *if* their subject matter has not been brought to light already in this thread.

(not really sure how applicable they might be to a young pup chewing wires and such, ... but damn the torpedoes I'm posting 'em anyways)

http://www.clickertraining.com/node/179

http://www.clickertraining.com/node/2848


----------



## titiaamor (Nov 17, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> The smart thing would have been to not allow them to start playing with the chickens in the first place. If a solid leave it didn't work, perhaps supervision and management, as to the point of not allowing the dogs access to learn on their own just what you do with chickens. The fact that the dogs reacted to being hit doesn't mean they understood what the punishment was for. Or that they won't kill another chicken in the future.


You are right. (FTR, it was a chick. I'm pretty sure they couldn't kill one of our chickens.) But I'm new to dogs and chickens. Live and learn. I won't make this mistake again. "Leave it" works when we are there....but when we are not is when the death occurred. I guess they haven't internalized it.(?) But I am a first time owner, as is my husband (well, we both had dogs as kids but that was a LONG time ago) Like I said, we did a lot with positive methods, including recall when they started to chase.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> I think it's in "Culture Clash" that the author does bemoan our need to know WHY... why does my dog do this, why does my dog do that. When in reality it doesn't really matter WHY my dog wants to chew a wire, if I manage his access and am patient while I train him alternatives I can make the wire chewing go away regardless of the cause. It's just a behavior.


I think I need to go more with Suzanne Clothier on this one. She talks about how it's okay to be curious about what our dogs are thinking. We tend to be interested in the inner state of those we love. What is not okay is to attribute our own stuff to the dog, without testing to see if our assumptions are correct. As Suzanne says "ask the dog is this true for you". "Culture Clash" was an important bridge between the bad old days, when people were jerking their dogs off their feet, hanging dogs, shoving dogs heads under water for digging holes in a strange belief that we could instill a set of moral values in dogs, and that if we didn't they'd take over the world. Silly sounding stuff for sure. But if you dare, read "Adam's Task" by Vicki Hearne for historical perspective. All that sounds primitive and barbaric now, but until Donaldson swung the pendulum in the far opposite direction it was the common knowledge about dogs. (Address the behavior, ignore the perceived thought or emotion. To the point of referring to dogs as "lemon-brains" and suggesting that their tiny grey matter is simply incapable of much reasoning.) And it's good advice to an extent. But it makes training dogs (and the dogs themselves) less interesting. I think at the time, "Culture Clash" was absolutely essential in the time it was written. I'd like to think we're capable now of moving back into balance - the middle of that big pendulum swing. And admit that dogs have exceptional brains (with the dawn of clicker training, we're just starting to realize how much potential is there. And if we are rational and humane enough, we can admire them for their independent thoughts and emotions, and wonder at them instead of being all ego-involved and punishing it..


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> I think I need to go more with Suzanne Clothier on this one. She talks about how it's okay to be curious about what our dogs are thinking.


LOL of course it's ok to be curious about anything you like. I don't need permission from or feel forbidden from doing so by a book. Just saying that in the grand scheme of things I agree that a person doesn't NEED to know whywhywhy for every little thing dogs do in order to address behaviors, especially everyday stuff around the house.


----------



## titiaamor (Nov 17, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> I think I need to go more with Suzanne Clothier on this one. She talks about how it's okay to be curious about what our dogs are thinking. We tend to be interested in the inner state of those we love. What is not okay is to attribute our own stuff to the dog, without testing to see if our assumptions are correct. "Culture Clash" was an important bridge between the bad old days, when people were jerking their dogs off their feet, hanging dogs, shoving dogs heads under water for digging holes in a strange believe that we could instill a set of moral values in dogs, and that if we didn't they'd take over the world. Silly sounding stuff for sure. But if you dare, read "Adam's Task" by Vicki Hearne for historical perspective. All that sounds primitive and barbaric now, but until Donaldson swung the pendulum in the far opposite direction it was the common knowledge about dogs. (Address the behavior, ignore the perceived thought or emotion. To the point of referring to dogs as "lemon-brains" and suggesting that their tiny grey matter is simply incapable of much reasoning.) And it's good advice to an extent. But it makes training dogs (and the dogs themselves) less interesting. I think at the time, "Culture Clash" was absolutely essential in the time it was written. I'd like to think we're capable now of moving back into balance - the middle of that big pendulum swing. And admit that dogs have exceptional brains (with the dawn of clicker training, we're just starting to realize how much potential is there. And if we are rational and humane enough, we can admire them for their independent thoughts and emotions, and wonder at them instead of punishing it..


This is way beyond basic, but thanks for posting it. I didn't know this history!


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

petpeeve said:


> I'm wondering why this is posted in the "first time owners and basic questions" forum ... seems pretty expert and UNbasic to me.


Well I am a first time dog owner and I thought it would be a relatively simple question "what way to punish/discipline so that dogs understands?" I expected some backlash with people saying "all punishment is bad!!!" assuming I meant hitting yelling, but I didn't expect people trying to tell me that dogs don't have any kind of understanding of causation or the comprehension stimulus-behavior-reinforcer link.

While most people here don't punish, most people do give me a good idea of what they do instead, which is also helpful. It's just that when the solution is just plain "reinforce the good behaviors, ignore the bad" I already know that, so it doesn't tell me anything new at all. Interrupting/redirecting as an example, is something I've learnt more about through this topic, and although I have used it before, I always thought of it as simply a means of avoiding a behavior rather than a tool to actually discourage behavior.

Oh and I forgot to mention, I really like the links about NRM. I've o ly skimmed them, but I'll read through them properly when I have time. Thanks.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

titiaamor said:


> It was clear it was accidental and they didn't want to eat the chick. So we got a very small twig, and smacked them on the behind while they were actually holding a chick down. (Actually, my husband did. I couldn't.) They yelped, danced around, and looked at my husband like WTHeck??? It is not something we would ever do for anything else, but death.


All your husband is doing is giving them a bad association with the chickens, it could well backfire and they could start being aggressive with the chickens on purpose. You need to keep them away from the chickens, PERIOD.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

This thread is quite interesting for the discussion, not basic though!
Something that might be of interest to some of you...I was watching a Mike Ellis vid and he talks about a woman called Temple Grandin, she is a professor of livestock science and autistic (she also designs slaughterhouses ick). She also wrote a book called "animals in translation" that I might check out. She apparently made the connection that animals (dogs included) learn and remember "in pictures", much like many autistic people do, and therefore don't generalize well. They have to see a whole bunch of pictures of different variations of the same thing until they recognize it for what it is. Of course Ellis is talking about how physical gestures (including unintentional ones) override verbal commands, and that a "Sit" outside, or at a distance is a different "picture" than a sit inside or right in front of the handler, or in a supermarket parking lot. Eventually after repeating it enough in many places the dog will finally generalize and can be said to really "know" the command. But to take this back to a previous example, of the wires, you can teach your dog not to chew a wire in the house, say for the stereo, it doesn't necessarily mean that all wires everywhere are safe. 
Anyway, I know its not exactly in line with what has been discussed, but I thought it was quite interesting and does kind of join into the speculations about what might be going through our dog's heads when they are learning. After watching the section on this I also found it a lot easier to be forgiving if I take Caeda somewhere completely new, even if it isn't terribly interesting, and she doesn't want to sit, down or stay, or just doesn't seem to hear. I used to just sigh, roll my eyes and bring out treats to work on it....having a potential "why" I can now just go "OH I know what is going on!" and happily work on it.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

titiaamor said:


> You are right. (FTR, it was a chick. I'm pretty sure they couldn't kill one of our chickens.) But I'm new to dogs and chickens. Live and learn. I won't make this mistake again. "Leave it" works when we are there....but when we are not is when the death occurred. I guess they haven't internalized it.(?) But I am a first time owner, as is my husband (well, we both had dogs as kids but that was a LONG time ago) Like I said, we did a lot with positive methods, including recall when they started to chase.


Why do your dogs have access to the chickens when you're not around?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Ice222 said:


> To me, that means that they believe that redirecting would work even without an interrupter. My example with the cat was to show that if there wasn't something crucial (eg. interruptor) missing from the "dog bites wire, give him toy, praise for biting toy"


There is nothing missing. The toy is the interrupter in that case, if the dog finds the toy interesting/rewarding to bite on. With Wally, this would not work because he's not a toy chewer, however, that does not mean it's invalid. 

However, if I used a raw steak bone - THAT would get him off the wire and on the bone. The bone is then the interrupter. It created an incompatible behavior (he can't chew the bone and the wire), and the bone is more rewarding (raw steak > wire). 

There is nothing at all missing. If he wants to chew and I give him something he'd be more interested in chewing, he's not going to chew wires in order to get me to give him steak bones. He's going to be looking for steak bones when he wants to chew.



sassafras said:


> LOL of course it's ok to be curious about anything you like. I don't need permission from or feel forbidden from doing so by a book. Just saying that in the grand scheme of things I agree that a person doesn't NEED to know whywhywhy for every little thing dogs do in order to address behaviors, especially everyday stuff around the house.


For me, asking whywhywhy

-discover Wally is fearful (and not "disobedient")
-understand why my instructions can be lost in high-emotion situations (again, not "disobedient" but understanding why his mind works the way it does)
-understand all those nose licks, yawns, and stuff weren't meaningless and actually can/do give me info about his emotional state
-understand why desensitization is better than just dumping him in situations "to make him experience it"
-helped me understand and implement shaping, which is what skyrocketed us forward
-understanding why classical conditioning works helped me use it to charge objects I want him to interact with before doing anything else, even if he wasn't scared of it

For me, asking "whywhywhy" helped me learn more about dogs, learn more about observing Wally, and to know more about how his mind works so that I can tailor my "lessons" and "presentation" in a way that burns into his head much faster and improve both our bond/teamwork and his learning and desire to train rapidly. While understanding more about his body language and other signals and how to respond to them.



hanksimon said:


> For example, Turid Rugaas recommends that you charge your tongue click (in contrast to a precise clicker) as a distraction that means Treat. Then, when you are walking and the dog gets distracted, you try to anticipate and click your tongue ... to re-direct your dog from the distraction... effectively distracting from the distraction .... using positive reinforcement.


I'll have to try that. Might have to start practicing doing this 

For now, I usually say "hey!" and then praise/do something he likes when he redirects/focuses on me. Not the same thing, but I'll have to work on that tongue clicking thing - and do it loud enough to break through his focus elsewhere. "Hey" works since he's attuned to my voice. I've also done a "psst!" type sound that seems to grab his attention too (I think because it's higher pitched). Perhaps I could use that in the same vein Turid was mentioning.


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

KBLover said:


> There is nothing missing. The toy is the interrupter in that case, if the dog finds the toy interesting/rewarding to bite on. With Wally, this would not work because he's not a toy chewer, however, that does not mean it's invalid.
> 
> However, if I used a raw steak bone - THAT would get him off the wire and on the bone. The bone is then the interrupter. It created an incompatible behavior (he can't chew the bone and the wire), and the bone is more rewarding (raw steak > wire).
> 
> There is nothing at all missing. If he wants to chew and I give him something he'd be more interested in chewing, he's not going to chew wires in order to get me to give him steak bones. He's going to be looking for steak bones when he wants to chew.


This is why it doesn't make sense to me. Normally you can encourage certain behaviors by offering a reward for it. If I tell him to chew a wire and give him a T-bone for when he does, I'd expect him to chew wires more often. If I don't tell him to chew wires, and he offers up the behavior himself and I give him a t-bone, I'd expect the same result, it's less explicit, but it should still logically work the same way. Eg if I tell the dog to sit and treat him, vs if I wait for a dog to sit without me saying anything and treat him I'd expect the same result - he'd sit more often. So why not with wires?


----------



## Luna'sOwner (Apr 11, 2012)

Pawzk9 said:


> The smart thing would have been to not allow them to start playing with the chickens in the first place. If a solid leave it didn't work, perhaps supervision and management, as to the point of not allowing the dogs access to learn on their own just what you do with chickens. The fact that the dogs reacted to being hit doesn't mean they understood what the punishment was for. Or that they won't kill another chicken in the future.


I agree...

Dogs will also instinctively give leeway to the dominant Alpha male/female. The dominant dogs will claim an object (e.g. prey, tree, toy etc.) as theirs, others will not come close. This is basic dog/wolf behavior - although in the wolf (or wolf hybrids) primitive wild instincts are closer to the surface than with the average domesticated canine. If those rules are broken by pack members the alpha will simply correct the behavior with a warning, and perhaps a bite. The bite isn't necessarily hard, it can also be used as a warning. 

To me it seems logical to implement a dog's natural behavior into the training - I mean, you're not buying a human kid, but a dog. When you buy a giraffe, a crocodile or a hippo you're not going to treat it like a human, and you won't automatically be able to understand how to properly take care of the animal's physical and psychological health - so why do people assume that they can raise a puppy like a kid? Allowing your dog to play with anything is allowing your dog to claim an item as their own - so it is pretty natural that they will end up doing whatever they want with it. The chicken starts with play, and ends with a chicken getting killed, this is nature in progress because it is your dog's toy, and you never claimed it. 

I realize there's a group of people that do not like Cesar's work, but we've been implementing similar concepts before we even knew about him - except for the way he does leash training because our dogs were mostly off leash and behaved well once they did get leash trained. The basic concept for us is: a calm balanced adult dog is your best teacher in understanding dog behavior. So are dogs in a group, and watching a mother dog treat with her pups. If you look at puppies you will see that it is their most basic instinct to find a place in the ranks by competing over mother's milk and pawing each other that drives them. I think observing wolves and dogs in packs is your best way of learning dog language...

point being, you should have claimed the chickens as yours. They should not be allowed to come close, because you 'own' the chickens (literally and figuratively)... hitting the dogs may be what seems like the only option (especially when another animal gets killed, it is frustrating for the humans involved) but I believe perhaps informing yourself on natural behavior may be a good idea - and perhaps managing the behavior on a leash when you are around the chickens. Even distracting them with a good old chew toy may be a better option than hitting them, because hitting is not natural to a dog... and they probably are not able to healthily rationalize the behavior because it is unnatural.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Ice222 said:


> This is why it doesn't make sense to me. Normally you can encourage certain behaviors by offering a reward for it. If I tell him to chew a wire and give him a T-bone for when he does, I'd expect him to chew wires more often. If I don't tell him to chew wires, and he offers up the behavior himself and I give him a t-bone, I'd expect the same result, it's less explicit, but it should still logically work the same way. Eg if I tell the dog to sit and treat him, vs if I wait for a dog to sit without me saying anything and treat him I'd expect the same result - he'd sit more often. So why not with wires?


I really hate to wade into this debate since I'm far from an expert. I think the key stopping the dog from chewing wires, pottying in the house, raiding the garbage, etc. is in management. Sure, the dog may get to the wires, etc. a few times, but the onus is on the owner to _prevent_ access in the future. So, if my dog starts walking towards the garbage, I call her over to me and give her something appropriate to play with. Do that enough and eventually they'll give up and go straight for the permitted toys.

To give a human example, imagine you've just sat down with a plate of pasta. As you take a bite, a friend walks by and offers you the chocolate cake sitting on the counter. You leave the pasta and eat the cake. The next day, before you even get your plate of pasta, your friend is right there telling you to eat the chocolate cake. If that happens enough, eventually you forget about the pasta go straight for the cake. (Of course, in this example, I'm assuming that the chocolate cake is more appealing to the general "you" than pasta. Wouldn't work for me as I don't care for chocolate.)

As I said, I'm not an expert, but from everything I've read, you're not rewarding the dog for chewing the wires, the key is to prevent access and offer an acceptable (and equally pleasant) alternative.


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

Luna'sOwner said:


> I agree...
> Dogs will also instinctively give leeway to the dominant Alpha male/female. The dominant dogs will claim an object (e.g. prey, tree, toy etc.) as theirs, others will not come close. This is basic dog/wolf behavior - although in the wolf (or wolf hybrids) primitive wild instincts are closer to the surface than with the average domesticated canine. If those rules are broken by pack members the alpha will simply correct the behavior with a warning, and perhaps a bite. The bite isn't necessarily hard, it can also be used as a warning.


I personally I am against the belief of dominance theory, it's like pseudo-psychology for dogs and much like Freudian-psychology, it may have some merit and basis on truth, but the majority of it has been debunked. No one KNOWS exactly how a dog thinks, and to make up some convoluted assumptions based purely on observation - and not even observations of dogs, but observations of wolves - is beyond flawed. Think of it this way, a dog pulls ahead on his lead, instead of assuming "he pulls because he's found an interesting scent to follow" with dominance theory it's "he's pulling because he thinks he's the alpha and is trying to lead the way since you don't have dominance over him". I'm not saying that you personally think like this, but it's just to show how dominance theory makes a lot of unnecessary assumptions when the simplest explanation "a dog does what it wants to do unless if taught otherwise" already hold's true. Plus the idea that dogs understand claims of ownership and naturally leave things alone if they are claimed by and alpha is just plain untrue in my experience. Every dog I've met will show interest in food even while their owners are eating it (and therefore clearly claiming it), they don't instinctively leave it alone because it's claimed by an alpha, they leave it alone because they were either taught to leave it alone by extincting/ignoring the behavior or by punishing it (not that I'm advocating punishment). I have never seen any evidence of a dog understanding the idea of claim/ownership, let alone 'instinctively' leaving things alone based on the idea of such claims.

I've known 'submissive' dogs that are so 'submissive' that they pee when people great them too enthusiastically, and paw and beg at me for forgiveness when I accidentally scare her or when they think I'm angry with them, yet will growl when you come near their food while they're eating or pee and mark territory, so this dogs can display dominant and submissive behaviors at the same time and it isn't an all encompassing factor. Overall the only parts of dominance theory I can agree with is the idea of not treating your dog like a human (and definitely not treating them like a baby or princess), and establishing rules for them to understand, but beyond that, it's just a theory based purely on assumption upon assumption of supposed dog social behavior to me.


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

The word "Alpha" might just be an easy way of saying, "the person who tends to control the delivery of reinforcers and punishers".

Some dogs may be more prone to mind-their-manners around a confident "alpha-like" visitors, too. But this response may be a case of stimulus generalization: I behave well for my alpha as well as for people that look/act similar to my "alpha".

Words like "pack leader" and "alpha" are somewhat loaded and imply some silly ideas and techniques, so perhaps we need another word.

That said, I do intentionally walk and act like I am the calm/confident leader, quite intentionally, when I'm around a dog that appears to be pushy. I don't talk/chatter a lot either. These are signs of a "leader" to my eyes. I suppose this is how I am around my new puppy, too. There is something about being a pleading, chatty, begging, stooped over owner that sends all the wrong signals... just the opposite of the "alpha".

Note: That last paragraph is my own opinion and may be nothing more than a bunch of personal BS that I tell myself!


----------



## ohbehave (Apr 20, 2012)

Temple "thinking in pictures" Grandin may be totally wrong on her own intuitions/introspections on her own thoughts as well as on animal thinking.

Human beings are not wired for self-inspection. We do not know, with any confidence, how we think and we certainly don't know how our thinking compares to others. We may, for instance, "think in pictures" just as much as Temple does... how would we know? How would she? Can she see that we don't think in pictures? Also, this idea of "thinking in pictures" may be entirely off the mark, as well.

I'm sure that she is being honest, though. She _believes_ that she thinks in pictures to a greater extent than the general population. All of us have beliefs about our special thinking features, I suppose.

"Thinking" could also be called "behaving privately" (behavior that occurs within the skin).
Clearly, there are some variances in how some of us think and how well some of us think. The notion of "thinking in pictures", though, may be way off base...and may not explain anything.

Psychology is still an EXTREMELY soft "science" and fields related to neurology are still mystified by behavior and cognition. (although they seem to have discovered dopamine plays a role in reinforcement contingencies)




Greater Swiss said:


> ...woman called Temple Grandin, she is a professor of livestock science and autistic (she also designs slaughterhouses ick). She also wrote a book called "animals in translation" that I might check out. She apparently made the connection that animals (dogs included) learn and remember "in pictures", much like many autistic people do, and therefore don't generalize well. They have to see a whole bunch of pictures of different variations of the same thing until they recognize it for what it is. Of course Ellis is talking about how physical gestures (including unintentional ones) override verbal commands, and that a "Sit" outside, or at a distance is a different "picture" than a sit inside or right in front of the handler, or in a supermarket parking lot. Eventually after repeating it enough in many places the dog will finally generalize and can be said to really "know" the command. But to take this back to a previous example, of the wires, you can teach your dog not to chew a wire in the house, say for the stereo, it doesn't necessarily mean that all wires everywhere are safe.
> Anyway, I know its not exactly in line with what has been discussed, but I thought it was quite interesting and does kind of join into the speculations about what might be going through our dog's heads when they are learning. After watching the section on this I also found it a lot easier to be forgiving if I take Caeda somewhere completely new, even if it isn't terribly interesting, and she doesn't want to sit, down or stay, or just doesn't seem to hear. I used to just sigh, roll my eyes and bring out treats to work on it....having a potential "why" I can now just go "OH I know what is going on!" and happily work on it.


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

cookieface said:


> To give a human example, imagine you've just sat down with a plate of pasta. As you take a bite, a friend walks by and offers you the chocolate cake sitting on the counter. You leave the pasta and eat the cake. The next day, before you even get your plate of pasta, your friend is right there telling you to eat the chocolate cake. If that happens enough, eventually you forget about the pasta go straight for the cake. (Of course, in this example, I'm assuming that the chocolate cake is more appealing to the general "you" than pasta. Wouldn't work for me as I don't care for chocolate.)


The difference with the human and dogs example is that you can tell a human that the cake is offered as an alternative, rather than as a follow up/reward. In the human example, I could mean "thanks for trying my lasagna, here have some cake" vs. "here's some cake, eat it instead of the lasagna", with a dog you can't tell them which you mean, you'd just be making an assumption that they will somehow understand it to mean the latter.

Plus, even if your dog always has toys available to them, you won't be constantly rewarding every minute he plays with the toy with attention/praise, but you will interrupt his wire biting EVERY time with toy and praise (if you're doing the training right anyway). Back to a human example, it's as though both cake and lasagna are available at all times, but if you go for the cake straight away I don't always stay and eat with you, whereas if you take a bite of the lasagna first, I always bring the cake over and stay to eat the cake with you. If you really like having company while you eat, that can encourage you to eat some of the lasagna first if you think that will mean you can have the cake AND company while you eat it.

Yes, the best way is probably preventing him from getting to the wire in the first place, but if he is already chewing the wire, I now think that interrupting before redirecting would really help. In a human example, it would be like you eating lasagna, and me calling you over to another room first before offering you some delicious cake once you come to me. You'd still end up eating cake instead of lasagna, but not only have you been distracted from lasagna eating, you are rewarded for listening to me telling you to come. Two birds, one stone.


----------



## The Feather Duster (Apr 14, 2010)

Ice222, it just seems to me that you are over-thinking things a bit. Or maybe more than a bit.

You got some great advice from doxiemommy in particular whom I always listen to because A): she knows her stuff and B): we are in similar professions, involving special needs children which, believe it or not, can transfer itself into teaching/training knowledge across species.

Other people also gave good advice which I think you might do well to take to heart.

Maybe a bit more listening and a bit less arguing?


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Ice222 said:


> The difference with the human and dogs example is that you can tell a human that the cake is offered as an alternative, rather than as a follow up/reward. In the human example, I could mean "thanks for trying my lasagna, here have some cake" vs. "here's some cake, eat it instead of the lasagna", with a dog you can't tell them which you mean, you'd just be making an assumption that they will somehow understand it to mean the latter.
> 
> Plus, even if your dog always has toys available to them, you won't be constantly rewarding every minute he plays with the toy with attention/praise, but you will interrupt his wire biting EVERY time with toy and praise (if you're doing the training right anyway). Back to a human example, it's as though both cake and lasagna are available at all times, but if you go for the cake straight away I don't always stay and eat with you, whereas if you take a bite of the lasagna first, I always bring the cake over and stay to eat the cake with you. If you really like having company while you eat, that can encourage you to eat some of the lasagna first if you think that will mean you can have the cake AND company while you eat it.
> 
> Yes, the best way is probably preventing him from getting to the wire in the first place, but if he is already chewing the wire, *I now think that interrupting before redirecting would really help*. In a human example, it would be like you eating lasagna, and me calling you over to another room first before offering you some delicious cake once you come to me. You'd still end up eating cake instead of lasagna, but not only have you been distracted from lasagna eating, you are rewarded for listening to me telling you to come. Two birds, one stone.


First, I probably shouldn't respond before having my first diet coke of the day. I didn't clearly explain my thoughts (although sometime I wonder if I ever clearly explain my thoughts  ).

Second, I think everyone has been saying interrupt and redirect if the dog is already chewing, but redirecting before getting to the wire (or starting the undesirable behavior) is the better option. If every time you started to do something you were stopped and given something else to do, you would probably give up on the first activity. It's almost the exact opposite of Charlie Brown and the football. Most folks would learn that the ball will always be pulled away and just stop trying to kick it. The desire to chew wires is never reinforced. Someone (and I'm sorry I don't remember who) mentioned changing old habits and building new ones - that's what this is about. 

Chewing is a self-rewarding behavior - you don't need to reinforce chewing itself. If you allow the dog to continue chewing the toy, that's the reward. Same way that eating the cake is the reward. That said, you may have a dog that engages in undesirable behavior to gain attention [like the kid in class who misbehaves and is punished - the punishment (i.e., attention) becomes the reward]. That's a different issue and dealt with in a different way.

I came across this article that explains a few things. It may not explain "why" to your satisfaction, but it does explain the psychological principles behind training techniques. You can research the principles of operant conditioning further, if you'd like.


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

The Feather Duster said:


> Ice222, it just seems to me that you are over-thinking things a bit. Or maybe more than a bit.
> 
> You got some great advice from doxiemommy in particular whom I always listen to because A): she knows her stuff and B): we are in similar professions, involving special needs children which, believe it or not, can transfer itself into teaching/training knowledge across species.
> 
> ...


I'm not arguing because of some personal grudge, i have nothing against her. But if anyone it's going to tell me the sky is not blue, even if they could be right (the sky just looks blue, it isn't actually blue), but without reasonable basis, I'm not going to change my whole world view to accept theirs based on arguments that don't make sense to. To me the stimulus - behavior -reinforcement association it's the most scientificly and logically sound methodology that i have seen when it comes to measuring/understanding behavior and learning. I'm not going to ignor thatwithout good reason. Debunk me if i'm wrong, simple as that


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

Cookieface, that's a good article and in line with what i mean with behavior/learning with logical reasoning, but unfortunately nothing about redirection, it would've been nice to hear their thoughts on how/why it works.


----------



## Luna'sOwner (Apr 11, 2012)

Ice222 said:


> I personally I am against the belief of dominance theory, it's like pseudo-psychology for dogs and much like Freudian-psychology, it may have some merit and basis on truth, but the majority of it has been debunked. No one KNOWS exactly how a dog thinks, and to make up some convoluted assumptions based purely on observation - and not even observations of dogs, but observations of wolves - is beyond flawed. Think of it this way, a dog pulls ahead on his lead, instead of assuming "he pulls because he's found an interesting scent to follow" with dominance theory it's "he's pulling because he thinks he's the alpha and is trying to lead the way since you don't have dominance over him". I'm not saying that you personally think like this, but it's just to show how dominance theory makes a lot of unnecessary assumptions when the simplest explanation "a dog does what it wants to do unless if taught otherwise" already hold's true. Plus the idea that dogs understand claims of ownership and naturally leave things alone if they are claimed by and alpha is just plain untrue in my experience. Every dog I've met will show interest in food even while their owners are eating it (and therefore clearly claiming it), they don't instinctively leave it alone because it's claimed by an alpha, they leave it alone because they were either taught to leave it alone by extincting/ignoring the behavior or by punishing it (not that I'm advocating punishment). I have never seen any evidence of a dog understanding the idea of claim/ownership, let alone 'instinctively' leaving things alone based on the idea of such claims.
> 
> I've known 'submissive' dogs that are so 'submissive' that they pee when people great them too enthusiastically, and paw and beg at me for forgiveness when I accidentally scare her or when they think I'm angry with them, yet will growl when you come near their food while they're eating or pee and mark territory, so this dogs can display dominant and submissive behaviors at the same time and it isn't an all encompassing factor. Overall the only parts of dominance theory I can agree with is the idea of not treating your dog like a human (and definitely not treating them like a baby or princess), and establishing rules for them to understand, but beyond that, it's just a theory based purely on assumption upon assumption of supposed dog social behavior to me.


This pretty much defeats the point that I am trying to make. The dog is a dog, and to communicate with a dog you should learn the body language. There is no "theory" that I follow, I follow instinct and experience - something that is pretty difficult to summarize to the correct standard of agreeability in mere words. I did not watch any "theories" about wolves or dogs on documentaries, I've observed these animals in real live packs and find it (just like with horses) paramount to communicate in a way that is most understandable to them. Peeing is a sign of _fear_, and not submission. "_Begging for forgiveness_" is a result of incorrect 'punishments' being administered that a dog cannot fully process rationally because it is not natural and therefore unpredictable and unnerving for the dog, resulting in fear. 


But from what I've seen so far your cup is full. I wish you luck 






ohbehave said:


> The word "Alpha" might just be an easy way of saying, "the person who tends to control the delivery of reinforcers and punishers".
> 
> Some dogs may be more prone to mind-their-manners around a confident "alpha-like" visitors, too. But this response may be a case of stimulus generalization: I behave well for my alpha as well as for people that look/act similar to my "alpha".
> 
> ...


Yes, the way you summarized your behavior towards dogs is the pretty much how I treat with dogs. And yes, words are words but what else can you do on a website? It's all you really have to communicate, so I wouldn't put too much weight in the words I say... I already find it frustrating trying to describe something that's best seen than explained


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Ice222 said:


> Cookieface, that's a good article and in line with what i mean with behavior/learning with logical reasoning, but unfortunately nothing about redirection, it would've been nice to hear their thoughts on how/why it works.


I'm headed to a meeting, but I'll try to find something better when I get back. Basically, redirection is a form of negative punishemnt and management is a form of extinction. In both cases, the wire chewing or other undesirable behavior is not reinforced so it stops.

You might search for response interruption / redirection. It seems to be a technique used with individuals with autism. Not the same as dog training, but the underlying theory is likely similar.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Ice222 said:


> I'm not arguing because of some personal grudge, i have nothing against her. But if anyone it's going to tell me the sky is not blue, even if they could be right (the sky just looks blue, it isn't actually blue), but without reasonable basis, I'm not going to change my whole world view to accept theirs based on arguments that don't make sense to. To me the stimulus - behavior -reinforcement association it's the most scientificly and logically sound methodology that i have seen when it comes to measuring/understanding behavior and learning. I'm not going to ignor thatwithout good reason. Debunk me if i'm wrong, simple as that


Honestly? I think you're just trying to impress someone (whom, I am not sure)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

cookieface said:


> I'm headed to a meeting, but I'll try to find something better when I get back. Basically, redirection is a form of negative punishemnt and management is a form of extinction. In both cases, the wire chewing or other undesirable behavior is not reinforced so it stops.
> 
> .


If you are offering the dog something "better", how can that be a form of negative punishement? Management is not a form or extinction. You may manage a dog in such a way he doesn't have an opportunity to rehearse a certain behavior, but extinction occurrs when a behavior is performed but no reinforcement is present. The tricky thing about being sure no reinforcement is present is that you have to factor in self-reinforcement. Does the wire have an interesting flavor? Does it feel good on teething gums? If so, you don't have to add anything to make the behavior reinforcing.


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Honestly? I think you're just trying to impress someone (whom, I am not sure)


Right, cause sticking to what I believe to be true means I'm trying to impress someone. If someone says that your religion or reliance on science is complete BS you normally just go "Okay I'll follow your faith then even though I don't understand it"?

I'm not so stuck in my beliefs that I can't accept any others at all, but for me to accept it, it just has to make sense to me. Eg. I know Christians/religious people that accepted evolution because they agree with it, and evolutionists/scientists who accepted religion because they found that they can believe in god found that morality is important to them, but these people accept it not just because someone says so, they learn the reasoning behind it and find out if it makes sense to them. Why am I doing this? Because I think I can be a better owner if I better understand the methods used to teach a dog, and my dog is important to me. That's it.


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

Luna'sOwner said:


> This pretty much defeats the point that I am trying to make. The dog is a dog, and to communicate with a dog you should learn the body language. There is no "theory" that I follow, I follow instinct and experience - something that is pretty difficult to summarize to the correct standard of agreeability in mere words. I did not watch any "theories" about wolves or dogs on documentaries, I've observed these animals in real live packs and find it (just like with horses) paramount to communicate in a way that is most understandable to them. Peeing is a sign of _fear_, and not submission. "_Begging for forgiveness_" is a result of incorrect 'punishments' being administered that a dog cannot fully process rationally because it is not natural and therefore unpredictable and unnerving for the dog, resulting in fear.
> 
> 
> But from what I've seen so far your cup is full. I wish you luck


And my point was that using a tool like dominance theory to try and understand how to communicate with a dog is like using Freudian psychology to interpret people - it will lead you down a lot of dead ends in understanding people/dogs because it has just as many crazy ideas as it does good ones. It's fine if you don't actually subscribe to it, but claiming ownership of items was something entirely of your own words and I don't agree with that either.

I do get that it's difficult to summarize your beliefs in a way that doesn't get misinterpreted, esp when words like 'alpha' or 'dominance' are loaded words. Just like how when I mentioned 'punishment/discipline', they are loaded words and people assumed I'd mean hitting/yelling. Honestly, I may even abandon this topic soon and hunt for articles and information on my own since people are responding less to what I'm actually saying now, and turning to more personal accusations about me as a person.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Ice222 said:


> Right, cause sticking to what I believe to be true means I'm trying to impress someone. If someone says that your religion or reliance on science is complete BS you normally just go "Okay I'll follow your faith then even though I don't understand it"?
> .


What you seem to be missing is that you are basically preaching to the choir. There's maybe a handful of active participants in this conversation who believe what you are railing against. And just because people do things differently from you doesn't mean they are trying to convert you to their "religion" I doubt if anyone cares, actually.


----------



## Ice222 (Nov 21, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> What you seem to be missing is that you are basically preaching to the choir. There's maybe a handful of active participants in this conversation who believe what you are railing against. And just because people do things differently from you doesn't mean they are trying to convert you to their "religion" I doubt if anyone cares, actually.


Maybe they aren't personally trying to convert me, and of course it's completely up to them to decide if they care enough to bother explaining their religion or their science to me, but it's more like I'm looking for a religion to follow so I want to hear the arguments for and against each so that I can make a good judgement in finding what I believe would work for me.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Ice222 said:


> Maybe they aren't personally trying to convert me, and of course it's completely up to them to decide if they care enough to bother explaining their religion or their science to me, but it's more like I'm looking for a religion to follow so I want to hear the arguments for and against each so that I can make a good judgement in finding what I believe would work for me.


There's plenty of info already on this forum about how people train dogs. Take what you think will work for you and leave the rest. Personally, as long as you are't abusing it, I don't care how you train your pup. There's polite conversation, and then there are argumentive know-it-alls. I tend to try to avoid those, and will go back to doing so now.


----------



## Luna'sOwner (Apr 11, 2012)

Ice222 said:


> And my point was that using a tool like dominance theory to try and understand how to communicate with a dog is like using Freudian psychology to interpret people - it will lead you down a lot of dead ends in understanding people/dogs because it has just as many crazy ideas as it does good ones. It's fine if you don't actually subscribe to it, but claiming ownership of items was something entirely of your own words and I don't agree with that either.
> 
> I do get that it's difficult to summarize your beliefs in a way that doesn't get misinterpreted, esp when words like 'alpha' or 'dominance' are loaded words. Just like how when I mentioned 'punishment/discipline', they are loaded words and people assumed I'd mean hitting/yelling. Honestly, I may even abandon this topic soon and hunt for articles and information on my own since people are responding less to what I'm actually saying now, and turning to more personal accusations about me as a person.


Well, it's not that... it is just difficult to summon another word that is not as loaded because I think everyone has pretty much got their own definition of certain words. And because Cesar Milan has screwed up on a few things words like 'dominance' and 'alpha' tend to fly off the reel. 

Look, I am quite a hot headed person so I will try to stay as calm as possible and not take things personally. I understand what you are doing; I am also against just 'believing' in something (and I am not religious) and realize that you are questioning things to create better understanding for yourself. But... 

You seem to have premeditated ideas yourself, you understand? I mean, when I say "observe dog behavior" you immediately jump to the "dominance theory" and take your premeditated idea and push it unto what I was saying - which can be interpreted as a 'personal attack' on me, because I, as I've said, do not use the techniques you are apparently think of. And seeing as I take caring for my dog as one of my utmost priorities, it hits the spot. 

Now, I realize what you are saying and I also totally understand that apparently you've seen or read a few things that are incorrect. Indeed, that is true. What I tend to do is apply only that that I think my dog and I are most comfortable with. I mean, I don't go worrying about 'dominating' my dog all day or wondering if she is 'dominating' me, that'd just be a tiring and energy draining process in my eyes. I just act like a good 'leader', as in, I create a sense of safety and organization for her. And show her that there's nothing that she really has to be afraid of when she is with me because I can control the situation and be there to get her out of the deep ends. 

So, you don't like it when people have pre meditated ideas of "punishment", and I pretty much function the same way. It irritates me when people assume what you mean with a word because I see that as being closed off to ideas. You've had some fantastic advice on this forum, but I think the problem is that it seems you are doing exactly what you do not like about other people... assuming that you know what they are saying. Perhaps instead of arguing about it, you could say: "well, I don't entirely understand this part of the conversation. Could you deliberate? I've also had to work on these things to communicate with people better, and I've found it creates a healthier conversation for both parties. 

Aaanyway, so I don't mean it offensively at all. I pretty much just want to help (as all of the forum members usually want to) and I think you can always take the advice you find helpful and leave it at that


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

KBLover said:


> For me, asking whywhywhy...


You forgot the "for every little thing" part of my quote. Those things weren't little. ETA: Also, I think you misunderstood my point, which is not to say that no one should ever try to learn anything, but that you don't need to understand EVERYTHING about something in order to understand it at all or give it a chance. For example, if you wouldn't accept that Wally wasn't being disobedient because no one could give you a scientific explanation for why dogs look like they're being disobedient when they're feeling fearful vs. accepting that sometimes fearful dogs display behaviors that look like disobedience.



Ice222 said:


> This is why it doesn't make sense to me. Normally you can encourage certain behaviors by offering a reward for it. If I tell him to chew a wire and give him a T-bone for when he does, I'd expect him to chew wires more often. If I don't tell him to chew wires, and he offers up the behavior himself and I give him a t-bone, I'd expect the same result, it's less explicit, but it should still logically work the same way. Eg if I tell the dog to sit and treat him, vs if I wait for a dog to sit without me saying anything and treat him I'd expect the same result - he'd sit more often. So why not with wires?


I'm going to try one more time, because this seems to keep getting lost or overlooked, but... dogs generally associate the reward with the very last thing that happened. So if the dog is chewing the wire, you walk in the room and call them or use a verbal interrupter, they look at you, and you reward them -- you are rewarding them looking at you, not chewing the wire. They've already forgotten about the wire.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ohbehave said:


> The word "Alpha" might just be an easy way of saying, "the person who tends to control the delivery of reinforcers and punishers".
> 
> !


Me, I prefer to be seen as the giver of all things great and wondrous.


----------



## The Feather Duster (Apr 14, 2010)

Me too and Kraft single slices seem to send Plume into eternal bliss. She has to work for them though. She has to magically levitate, produce rabbits from tall hats, walk on water and bring the dead back to life. Oh, and convert vinegar to wine, preferably a full-bodied white.

All this she does on a daily basis; ergo, the Kraft is hers. I do need to teach her a more sophisticated palate though. I'm still trying to get her to appreciate a smelly French cheese. No luck on that front yet ...


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> If you are offering the dog something "better", how can that be a form of negative punishement? Management is not a form or extinction. You may manage a dog in such a way he doesn't have an opportunity to rehearse a certain behavior, but extinction occurrs when a behavior is performed but no reinforcement is present. The tricky thing about being sure no reinforcement is present is that you have to factor in self-reinforcement. Does the wire have an interesting flavor? Does it feel good on teething gums? If so, you don't have to add anything to make the behavior reinforcing.


My apologies. I mistyped - interrupting the behavior is a form of negative punishment in the sense that you are removing something desirable.

I didn't say that interruption and management were textbook examples of negative punishment and extinction. It's murky because in the example of chewing wires the behavior is the reinforcer. It may have been better to say they were "similar to" or "possibly worked in a similar manner to." They are, however, concepts Ice222 might want to explore in her / his quest for greater understanding.

We don't tend to agree on operant conditioning classifications, but I always enjoy reading your posts. I've learned a great deal about dogs from you.


----------



## titiaamor (Nov 17, 2011)

Ice222 said:


> And my point was that using a tool like dominance theory to try and understand how to communicate with a dog is like using Freudian psychology to interpret people - it will lead you down a lot of dead ends in understanding people/dogs because it has just as many crazy ideas as it does good ones. It's fine if you don't actually subscribe to it, but claiming ownership of items was something entirely of your own words and I don't agree with that either.
> 
> I do get that it's difficult to summarize your beliefs in a way that doesn't get misinterpreted, esp when words like 'alpha' or 'dominance' are loaded words. Just like how when I mentioned 'punishment/discipline', they are loaded words and people assumed I'd mean hitting/yelling. Honestly, I may even abandon this topic soon and hunt for articles and information on my own since people are responding less to what I'm actually saying now, and turning to more personal accusations about me as a person.


Amen! Freud's not valid, but he's an interesting read. (if mostly fiction)


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

“Hello, ladies, look at your dog, now back to mine, now back at your dog, now back to mine.
Sadly, your dog isn’t like my dog....
I dont give treats or punish ...I just use strong verbal commands reinforced with praise....and wear Old Spice


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

Ice222 said:


> I'm not arguing because of some personal grudge, i have nothing against her. But if anyone it's going to tell me the sky is not blue, even if they could be right (the sky just looks blue, it isn't actually blue), but without reasonable basis, I'm not going to change my whole world view to accept theirs based on arguments that don't make sense to. To me the stimulus - behavior -reinforcement association it's the most scientificly and logically sound methodology that i have seen when it comes to measuring/understanding behavior and learning. I'm not going to ignor thatwithout good reason. Debunk me if i'm wrong, simple as that



I guess you've never tried to teach a 7 year old that putting the red block (with a two on it, as well as two dots) and a green block (with a one on it, as well as one dot) together equals three, EVERY day for a month, because the connection just isn't there. The wiring in the poor thing's brain just doesn't allow her to remember/make the connection/perform the same every time. Or, the 10 year old who can't tell you her last name every time you ask, no matter how often you work on it. One time in 20, she will get it right, but ten minutes later, nope, no clue.

My point, totally separate from dogs, is that, yes, disabled children do not follow the same learning patterns, depending on the depth of their (dis)abiltity.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

cookieface said:


> My apologies. I mistyped - interrupting the behavior is a form of negative punishment in the sense that you are removing something desirable.
> 
> I didn't say that interruption and management were textbook examples of negative punishment and extinction. It's murky because in the example of chewing wires the behavior is the reinforcer. It may have been better to say they were "similar to" or "possibly worked in a similar manner to." They are, however, concepts Ice222 might want to explore in her / his quest for greater understanding.
> 
> We don't tend to agree on operant conditioning classifications, but I always enjoy reading your posts. I've learned a great deal about dogs from you.


Thank you! In my mind a number of things fall outside the realm of operant conditioning, and I'm willing to just accept that and not try to fit them into a category. And even things that DO fit into the categories can be quirky and various people who do have some understanding can still split hairs about where things fall. And often they are a combination of more than one quadrant.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Roloni said:


> “Hello, ladies, look at your dog, now back to mine, now back at your dog, now back to mine.
> Sadly, your dog isn’t like my dog....
> I dont give treats or punish ...I just use strong verbal commands reinforced with praise....and wear Old Spice


Why would it be sad that my double CDX, RE, multiple herding titles, multiple freestyle titles dog isn't like your dog? I use treats in addition to praise and cues instead of strong verbal commands. Our results are a combination of wonderful reliable pet skills and things that go far beyond what many pets learn. I think Old Spice would make us both sneeze.


----------

