Do you train with a clicker, or are you a clicker trainer?

FourIsCompany

houndlove

Clicker training is a holistic approach to living and working with dogs

Interesting. I see it as just the opposite. For me, it doesn't serve the "whole" of the dog, at all. It seems rather to be limiting one's self to one single approach or tool when there are so many out there. Kind of like using aspirin regardless of the illness or using a knife to eat whatever is for dinner (I wouldn't take aspirin for a thyroid problem or a stuffy nose or use a knife for peas or soup).

I think this perception is the result of the unfortunate fact that this style of working with dogs is named after one tool that may or may not be used. If I said I was a LIMA trainer (least aversive, minimally invasive) then I'd probably not be so open to the criticism of using a "limiting" methodology, though really I mean the same thing--clicker, LIMA, rewards-based, positive.  The clicker is just a symbol for a much broader attitude and training methodology. You don't have to agree with it, but it's hardly limiting.

I have a huge array of approaches available to me that compliment any work I do with an actual clicker or marker word. I've got negative punishment, I've got extinction, I've got redirection, I've got classical and counter-conditioning, I've got desensitization, and I've got relationship-building. What is off the table for me in all but the most extreme life-or-death situations are positive punishment and negative reinforcement (I am not a "balanced" trainer), using fear and pain as consequences with my dogs, using training devices that cause discomfort or pain, as well as using bribery, spoiling and being permissive, and to a great extent I try to avoid both luring and molding in my training. I think Suzanne Clothier is an excellent example of someone who uses "clicker training" or "rewards-based training" or whatever we want to call it as a springboard towards a holistic philosophy of working and living with dogs. I actually have no idea if she uses a clicker or not, but the fact of that little plastic object is really immaterial.

Maybe to some people clicker training is just a verb. What are you doing right now? Oh I am clicker training my dog. But to me, it is more than just a verb that describes what I may spend at the most an hour a week doing with my dogs.  It's like the Force , it surrounds and penetrates everything I do with my dogs.

Janet808

since you said your an amateur, I'm figuring you may have just started

You ask great questions, most of which would probably be in another thread. When I say amateur, that means I'm not a professional trainer who gets paid to do it. I have no certifications in dog training. I'm just an ordinary, average guy training his dog. I started using the clicker methodology in February. But the question here was, assuming you use a clicker, which definition describes you. In my case, it has to do with Shadow's abilities.

houndlove

I think this perception is the result of the unfortunate fact that this style of working with dogs is named after one tool that may or may not be used. If I said I was a LIMA trainer (least aversive, minimally invasive) then I'd probably not be so open to the criticism of using a "limiting" methodology, though really I mean the same thing--clicker, LIMA, rewards-based, positive.  The clicker is just a symbol for a much broader attitude and training methodology.

 

Thank you for this explanation. I do have a clearer picture of what people mean when they use the term "clicker training" because of you. I have tried to get discussions going about this very point so I could fully understand, but I haven't been successful. I think it would be great if those of us who don't clicker train could hear more about the entire philosophy - the whole picture - so we could explore those thoughts of limitations that we have. But I'm not going to try to start it again. But I really do appreciate your efforts. I can totally relate to the Force. LOL

Well, I think this thread is as good as any to have that conversation. The topic is whether you are a clicker trainer, ie embrace the entire scope of the clicker training modality, or if you just sometimes train with a clicker in one way or another---and I think that's kind of the crux of the biscuit as it were. I think there are a few really basic assumptions that I make (assumptions based on the evidence that I've seen and experienced in my life, I'm not just pulling these out of air) that reinforce my embrace of clicker training that may be a source of the difference between someone who is a clicker trainer and someone who is not (even if they may sometimes use a clicker to train).  I'll try to get these assumptions out there first and then maybe we can (nicely) talk about them....

• Canis lupus familiaris, the domestic dog, is an animal like any other animal.
  
• A behavior is a behavior is a behavior. It's all behavior. Behavior can be learned and modified.
  
• Dogs, like the vast majority of animals on planet Earth, do what works to get them what they want. Dogs are not altruistic.
  

Now, once upon a time, I held a pretty different point of view. I've changed my feelings a lot about dogs in the past few years. Previously I actually didn't think that deeply about them at all but there are a lot of memes floating around out there about what Jean Donaldson calls the "Walt Disney view of dogs" and I'd absorbed all of those. I think what a lot of people have a hard time wrapping their minds around is how a "Disney-fied" view of dogs while on the surface sounding so warm and fuzzy can really potentially have a very dark side to it, while a more "clinical" scientific approach can really truly lead to a very deep, caring, warm, profound relationship with one's dog. I see it less as being "cold and scientific" and more as accepting my dogs as they truly are, not as I think they should be or want them to be or have been told they should be. The most I can ask of anyone I care about is that they accept me as I truly am, not as they think I should be.

houndlove

I see it less as being "cold and scientific" and more as accepting my dogs as they truly are, not as I think they should be or want them to be or have been told they should be. The most I can ask of anyone I care about is that they accept me as I truly am, not as they think I should be.

Elegant and eloquent. Why couldn't I have said that?

And I'm not implying that others here are not possessing the same desire to truly connect with their dog. But, like you, I do see the understanding of how an organism learns as paramount to me understanding them and affecting behavior mod.

 

houndlove

Well, I think this thread is as good as any to have that conversation.

 

I really appreciate your willingness to discuss this topic. And it probably would be perfectly acceptable for you to have that discussion in this thread. However, I am not as confident that it's acceptable for me to join in the discussion as my viewpoint differs from yours in several key areas and undoubtedly, I would be admonished for being off topic or argumentative, for, well, disagreeing and arguing with you and the other clicker trainers here.

Based on past results, it's not in my best interest to join this discussion or to start a thread about it myself. So, unless there is a public "go-ahead" from the moderation team, or a thread is started and approved of by same, I will just read what you and others have to say and keep my point of view to myself. Thank you.

houndlove

• Canis lupus familiaris, the domestic dog, is an animal like any other animal.
  
• A behavior is a behavior is a behavior. It's all behavior. Behavior can be learned and modified.
  
• Dogs, like the vast majority of animals on planet Earth, do what works to get them what they want. Dogs are not altruistic. 
  

 

 

I agree with the above, and LIMA is the best descriptor of my style. I don't think LIMA is necessarily the same as "clicker training" based on the articles posted to this thread.

The thing about the list above is that you can substitute "human" for "dog" and it still remains true. Dogs have different needs than humans, and the Disneyfication process forgets this, but dogs and humans share a basic mammalian being-ness.

I use behavioral modification techniques with my daughter, and to an extent my husband :) but I do not see my relationship with them in terms of behavior modification.  They aren't things.  Neither are my dogs.  (I am not saying you think of dogs as things, houndlove). I'm guessing here, but I think part of what Four is sometimes bothered by is the thought that certain training methods assume thingness.  I don't think they always do, but it can sound that way, you know?

The thing about marine animals and the origin of clicker training is that we don't live with marine animals in the same way we live with our pets.  The language of performance and response makes perfect sense in regard to marine animals learning tricks or tasks, but it doesn't fully address the experience of living with dogs. 

Once again, I value social learning theories, but only as one theoretical construct among many. I change hats frequently. I'm an eclectic trainer. 

I'll go back and re-read the definition of clicker training and examine it more carefully. 

Based upon reading those articles, I would be defined as a "clicker trainer".

However, I don't call myself that, nor refer to myself as one in discussions. And it's not that important to me that I am.

I used a clicker for teaching a lot of desired behaviours. I use a clicker to teach a heck of a lot of behaviours actually. I have found it's the most effective, clear communication, as well as the quickest way to teach a behaviour that you want (wouldn't you know, that clicker-savvy dogs catch on to things VERY quickly......). So that's what I use to teach most behaviours. However, since I don't have a clicker around my neck and have pockets full of treats 24/7, I don't use a clicker for everything I teach. I consider every moment with my dogs a learning opportunity. I am always learning from them, and they are always learning from me. So there are lots of things I teach my dogs without use of clicker or treats. I have used the occupation of space in teaching. I use quite a bit of classical (aka respondent) conditioning. I use the Premack principle for quite a few behaviours. I take advantage of what dogs want, what motivates them naturally, including drives, as teaching aids. So using a clicker to teach is only one facet of my teaching toolkit, so to speak.

Some people think that a clicker limits your abilities to work with animals. I would argue that a clicker is only one part of any person's teaching repertoire, and I would argue that a clicker in fact very much broadens your ability to work with animals, in so many ways, and the effects of using a reward marker in teaching does a lot more than aid in learning, it promotes relationship building, it builds trust through clear communication, and deep down there IS a classical association going on with it as well. So I feel that it very much broadens one horizons in the ability to work with animals, especially when we discuss animals that you can't push around or use force on, or animals that don't care for punishments, or that be as happy to eat you as it would to lean in for a needle poke. I think people limit themselves when they think of the clicker in the context of dogs, because it's so easy to do whatever we want to dogs, and we do do whatever we want to dogs.

But the difference for ME, in a philosophy (and the point of differentiating between a "clicker trainer" and "training with a clicker" is that one is a philosophy, and one is not) and teaching method, appears glaringly once you start talking about other species of animals. Animals that don't tolerate collar pops, that don't wear a collar, that you can't lead around or scruff shake, or alpha roll, or even physically move in any way. Animals that don't tolerate loud voices and harsh treatment. To know that your overall philosophy will work, regardless of the animal you are working with, has great implications. I think if people who work with dogs began working with other species, whether pet, feral, or wild, it would become a lot more clear.

And this is not meant to do the "well it works for all species" just because, it's that I think the philosophy as a whole, is better understood in the context of other species because we have too much invested in being able to control dogs through so many ways. If we step back and look at it in terms of working with a parrot, or an eagle, or a lynx, perhaps if people looked at it in a different context, it would allow them to develop a better understanding of the concepts and that philosophy.

 I train with a clicker.  I actually like to use a variety of different methods and even approach training with the clicker differently with each dog.  When I do a clicker session with Sally I actually use the clicker, but with Jack I use a marker word.  He seems more motivated by hearing my voice marking the good behavior than the clicker...