Who is a Positive Trainer?

    • Gold Top Dog

    Hi Corvus

    If you read Lindsay, he suggests that Punishment should be used as a last resort. He is very rigourous in his books about how and when it should be used and isn't hugely more liberal with it's use than i am. I am not that liberal :)) Suprising where some people who try and hold on to his star get to. It ain't anything like what i have read. :)

    A wake up for me was listening to Ian Dunbar say that All punishment causes damage, that you need to sort out how you are going to repair the damage. It doesn't matter what kind of punishment you use, it causes damage. I am a little less pretty than many with my language. If i use my voice to stop my dog doing something , it is P+ and it doesn't hugely worry me. I don't use very much of it at all, and I don't call it something pretty like a disruptor to feel better.

    I now have two poodles. My older gir is a real bitch in many senses of the word. She is stunning , beautiful, a fast worker, quite reliable, but a Bitch. She is getting high scores now in UD. Anything physical or verbal is pretty much end of the world and it takes too long to fix the damage so i don't use it. A couple of short time outs does the trick. You can imagine that our bond is pretty close. She won't work at all if i am upset.

     My newer boy has SA. Time outs are nearly irrepearable and are not used. A short verbal works to cause behaviour to cease. He listens, and doesn't fall over. He is pyhsically very very tough, and i have no need to go down that road at all so why bother? I hardly ever use verbals though.

    All of this works becuase for both of them there is a strong upside. Theu like being with me. There are activities that they can do that are rewarding and satisfying. We can repair the damage.

    I am very uneasy with the over use of crates, isolation, etc. Notice over use. Sure, at a trial my dogs aren't going to be free running but they can have some quality time with me without a crate.

    Will  i use physical corrections? Well the answer is yes. It is a hardly ever scenario. It won't happen without a huge number of ticks in the right boxes including discussing the situation with a couple of very experienced trainers that i trust. I think that punishment is in the eye of the beholder, Skinner definitely thought so, and if the punisher isn't working, you can't get rewards to work, and there is safety or serious lifestyle issues invloved for the dog then you need to act.  It is certainly not the tool that i pull out first. :((

    Well would i reccomend P+ or R- to joe blog as a training tool??? You must be joking I have seen it abused by so many trainers that it sickens me. The greater majority of dogs can be very well trained without stepping outside of what we know is "posiitve " trianing.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    • Gold Top Dog

    griffinej5
    He can be anti-behaviorism all he wants, it doesn't mean the principles aren't operating on him, his dogs, and everyone else he knows.

     

    I don't think he doubts it in the least. He just doesn't like the operant conditioning paradigm very much, like a lot of people don't. And for the same reasons a lot of people don't: it doesn't account for the emotion driving behaviour in the first place. I appreciate his perspective, and I think his explanations are more useful on the whole than the quadrants are on their own. Doesn't mean the quadrants are irrelevant in the slightest and no one has suggested it.

    • Gold Top Dog

    corvus

    griffinej5
    He can be anti-behaviorism all he wants, it doesn't mean the principles aren't operating on him, his dogs, and everyone else he knows.

     

    I don't think he doubts it in the least. He just doesn't like the operant conditioning paradigm very much, like a lot of people don't. And for the same reasons a lot of people don't: it doesn't account for the emotion driving behaviour in the first place. I appreciate his perspective, and I think his explanations are more useful on the whole than the quadrants are on their own. Doesn't mean the quadrants are irrelevant in the slightest and no one has suggested it.

     

    I certainly am veering towards a Affective (or Emotional) understanding on  many canine behaviours. I am not alone. I see it as an extension rather than an extinguishment of learning theory. I certainly work through this stuff with people i care for in the doggy world.

    As such it doesn't make me a non positive trainer. If anything there is more compelling evidence to be careful with applying punishment, and some really great stuff on how to reward your dog even better.

    The reason for behavourism was the percieved complexity of how behaviour was formed, so behaviour was studied as a back box system  It sure is complex, but i am certainly sure that that degree of abstraction is no longer neccessary. Again these thoughts should not throw me off the "positve " trainer wood pile.

    • Gold Top Dog

    griffinej5

     He can be anti-behaviorism all he wants, it doesn't mean the principles aren't operating on him, his dogs, and everyone else he knows. Sort of a snide way of putting this I know, but I bet he takes a pay check. It makes little difference whether the reinforcer was the expected one or not. If you, the dog, whoever wanted it, you learn to repeat that action more in the future when you want that thing. If he gets something better than expected, he learns that the better than expected consequence is also available, and the action can be repeated and sometimes earn the better thing.

    Ahhhmen, with angels in heaven singing in chorus. Well phrased.

     

    • Gold Top Dog

    ron2

    griffinej5

     He can be anti-behaviorism all he wants, it doesn't mean the principles aren't operating on him, his dogs, and everyone else he knows. Sort of a snide way of putting this I know, but I bet he takes a pay check. It makes little difference whether the reinforcer was the expected one or not. If you, the dog, whoever wanted it, you learn to repeat that action more in the future when you want that thing. If he gets something better than expected, he learns that the better than expected consequence is also available, and the action can be repeated and sometimes earn the better thing.

    Ahhhmen, with angels in heaven singing in chorus. Well phrased.

     

     

    Thanks Ron. 

    You're not often dealing with just a three term contingency, and these people certainly can make up whatever name they want for things. Of course, if they're not interested in things that are observable and measurable, that can work out just fine. It probably sells better to lay persons as well when fluff words are used as opposed to the terms from behavior analysis.

    • Gold Top Dog

    griffinej5
    You're not often dealing with just a three term contingency, and these people certainly can make up whatever name they want for things. Of course, if they're not interested in things that are observable and measurable, that can work out just fine. It probably sells better to lay persons as well when fluff words are used as opposed to the terms from behavior analysis.

     

     

    Somewhere here, I am observing and measuring the hackles going right up the back of my neck. :) I am seeing the same old mistakes with changes in knowledge in dog training that the old yank and crank trainers did when reward based training came on the scene. There is no room for mud slinging, but a whole lot of room for some very careful consideration if we want to train our dogs better faster and smarter.

    The terms that many are starting to use aren't friendly or fluffy and are well rooted in science. They are based on measaurements that have come from Neuro Science, Anatomy, technology changes that allow observation of the brains function and some hard stuff like the EEG signatures that brains give.beahvourism is a higher level of abstraction, and like many schemes that abstract detail can be lost.

    In any case, many of the darlings of the positive training movement are quoting some of these people. (I mean darlings in a very positive sense). Karen Pyror, Temple Grandin etc. Of course Trich McDonnel has been talking about dogs emotions for longer than Adam was a Cowboy.

    These measurements would tend to confirm that there is a part of the brain that is suspectable to classical conditioning. We know that dogs have several modes, so do humans . These modes are dam intersting and illuminate things that we may do to work with our dogs. I could fill a page long of anomailes that are uncomfortable to explain using behavourism or drive theories. They have existed since a certain paper on "instincive drift" if memory suits me right and go right up to a testy letter from Skinner to Panksep .

    So lets get it right. Beahvourism relies heavily of the statistics of behaviour. on generalising , using trials to make sane sensible statements about behaviours that are measurebale. All great stuff. Huge leap forward.

    Much of the newer stuff that Lindsay et al are quoting says, for example, when we offer a reward to a dog, these chemicals flow in the dogs sysrem (fact). We have found that we can confirm the appettive and consumptive phases of a reward. (fact). We have found that often the  consumptive phase is slighly depressive (fact). All based on mesaurement and observation but at a diferent level of abstraction. Not worng, just complementary.

    It is a bit like telling the car designer that he was totally wrong because the transmission mechanic doesn't like using green coloured oil. :)

     

     

     

    • Gold Top Dog

     Sorry to hijack, but I would hate green oil - I'd probably assume it was antifreeze, and that would be a freakin' disaster, now wouldn't it? Stick out tongue

    • Gold Top Dog

    And allow me to be the nitpicking twerp. In a transmission, one doesn't use oil or antifreeze. One uses hydraulic fluid with a specific viscosity that gets traction from the turbines. I also happen to think the simile is a bit misplaced.

    The original point is that there are many things that happen or that we do that, in behavioral terms, are a punishment. The event or thing causes an interruption or decrease in the undesired behavior. What separates the "positive" trainer from the "balanced" trainer is that the positive trainer, while not against punishment, isn't going to use it just to be "balanced" or as a first resort.

    To use my metaphor of tools I should mention that I have a 16 oz claw hammer. I also have a 15 lb sledge hammer. And I will use neither to install a switch cover plate, which requires a trim (small flat blade) screwdriver. And I don't have to justify the occasional need to drive in a ground rod to have the 15 lb "heavy artillery." Nor am I ashamed of having that big a hammer. It's there for just such the odd times when it is needed and only for the short time that it is needed. Otherwise, it sits in the garage, while I carry the precision tools in my normal tool bag.

    I do believe some dogs require more of a phyical touch. I also happen to think that when a human is using a "correction" on the dog, it's more of a cue to the dog than a punishment. By original definition, if the punishment is needed more than a few times, it is not punishing or stopping anything and if the dog responds to its use every time, it is a cue to the dog. No matter how macho we think we are.

    A dog does what it does because it is rewarding to the dog. If dropping a behavior in lieu of something more rewarding (+R, with a side dish of extinction) happens, that will happen. If doing a new behavior is accompanied by the cessation of nuisance (-R), then so be it.

    In the same breath, a physical barrier is not always a punishment. Such as dogs that are escape artists. Or dogs that finally get away from an owner who is gung ho for collar pops and other physical means.

    Also, I will venture to say that it is possible that some use of punishment might be similar in frequency to reward. To stop a behavior with punishment in one scenario might be successful. It doesn't mean that the punishment has been generalized. The dog may misbehave in a new setting just as easily as the first. So, using punishment to stop a dog from jumping on people might work at the house, behind closed doors, but that doesn't mean that the dog knows not to jump on people in public around other rambunctious dogs. That is a whole new world and a new set of behavior to learn or unlearn for the dog. Dogs don't always generalize the same way that humans do.

    I trained "off" with treats. And Shadow will off, regardless of circumstance, and I have rewarded with highly valued rewards in various levels of engagement. Does that make the use of that command a correction, since I am "stopping" a behavior? Or does it mean that disengaging from whatever is more rewarding than continuing the behavior? I tend to think the latter. The "rules of engagement" are that breaking off and listening to me is always more rewarding than anything else, ever, amen.

    Whether we rely heavily on corrections or rewards, we are always having to compete with the dog's environment. That's just a fact of life and if it's too much to bear, perhaps a person is better off owning fish.

    That being said, a correction can be used effectively if timed with offense as it is happening and if the dog sees it as a punishment. If Shadow is barking at something I can bump his hindquarters or fingerpoke his neck and it doesn't hurt him and doesn't stop anything. It's a minor distraction and could lead to an accidental tooth graze. When a dog is keyed up, physical intervention is often not the way to go and not because we are afraid of the dog or that such "corrections" are "bad or unethical" but simply because they are ineffective. Getting the dog to an emotional state of everything being okay and in order is what will work. For many of us, the surest way to do that is to lead them with the rewards that they value most.

    We also have to be in charge of their environment, to some extent. From the beginning. That is why Dunbar stresses training from the earliest moment possible. If all the dog has ever known is listening to you is always better than anything else, much of these problems can be avoided, such as never allowing the dog to think he has to guard you. Otherwise, he will guard for you. But if the dog was raised with the laws of the universe, the sun rises, the sun sets, the seasons change, and listening to Ron is the gateway to Heaven (or the dog equivalent) on Earth, then chances are likely that is what will happen.

    Which requires diligence on the part of the human. Does that make us control freaks? Sure. And I'm really tall, too. And blonde and blue-eyed. So what? Certainly not anymore control freakish than someone who thinks that dogs are always attempting social dominance and view it as a never ending political contest. I think the difference is that a positive trainer is a control freak by getting the dog to follow them because it's in the dog's best personal interest to do so, as opposed to a dog following us to avoid pain, physical or emotional.

    • Gold Top Dog

    griffinej5
    Yup... people, we really don't bite. It's safe to post here. We're even friendly sometimes.

     

    I doubt that's why most don't post on these threads.   I strongly dislike labels and I also dislike being shoved into a box with a label that says "positive" or the other box that says "traditional".  I don't happen to fit in either box perfectly. 

    I did like the article, Anne.  

     

    • Gold Top Dog

    JackieG
    I doubt that's why most don't post on these threads.   I strongly dislike labels and I also dislike being shoved into a box with a label that says "positive" or the other box that says "traditional".  I don't happen to fit in either box perfectly. 

     

     

    I think that i share your concern about labelling. There are "positive" trainers out there that do things to dogs that i find very hard to tolerate. They would include high levels of social isolation, excessive crating to get focus, for what?  Another dam ribbon?  It is a fallacy to believe that classical conditioning can overcome a dog's need for social connection. Another one that i find hard is that often dogs inherent modes are suppressed with cookies rather than bought out channelled and used. Another is hugely frustrated dogs who have no idea of what to do because boundaries have never been put in place. So they have no idea of how to get the good things consistently. And then there is the distance between what people say they do and what they do. .... But ranting wont fix any of this. Usually a quiet word and a bit of gentle help does. BTW what do i do wuth ny dog at a trial? Well she stays with my younger dog in the car or under a Gazebo. With about 20 minutes to go she comes with me and sits on my knee. She has been known ot fall asleep. My warm up is 6-8 steps and believe you me she is hot to trot.

    There are trad trainers out there who have the right dog and really aren't that trad at all. I remember just lately talking to a new triallist about her dog. She said that she was into correction and verbal praise. B*****t.  She was playing really well with her dog, and was really connected to it. The dog  was happy with her. They worked together. So "And then there is the distance between what people say they do and what they do."

     

     

     

    • Gold Top Dog

    I'm not afraid of labels. Call me a "positive trainer." And mean it in a bad way, if one must. And then what are you (in general) going to do? Call me some more names? In fact, go ahead and have a problem with it and then try do something with me about it. Hey, I'm an old guy. Try your luck. Until I'm in the grave, I will be cursed with a penchant for logic and science, no matter that it can make me the bane of polite and genteel society.

     Granted, some have created or hold a wrong impression of positive trainers. So, I'm suppose to cater to ignorance? I think not. I'm going to follow the positive path, not because it's popular, not because it's unpopular so that I can be contrarian, not because I'm afraid of dogs (I'm not), not because I'm "jealous" of some tv personality's success, not to "take sides," not because I'm wishy-washy (Oh Lordy, don't get me started on politics, as others here can tell you.) I follow positive training because it works and takes all aspects into account. Has the side of science, math, and logic. "Positive" training is the judicious use of all quadrants. And that includes not using a quadrant because it's not effective at that point in time. I'm not afraid to not use +P. Call me whatever name in the book that can be thought of.

    • Gold Top Dog

     I think this is a very fitting label, if I every wanted one

    http://dogstardaily.com/blogs/purely-positive-balanced-another-perspective

    • Gold Top Dog

    Ron, your post is a perfect example of why I dislike labels. 

     

     

    • Gold Top Dog

    I'm afraid I go along the lines of Jackie in this one. I don't call myself an "anything" trainer. I love to discuss the pro's and con's of any method, I love discussing philosophy, and heck knows I love discussing the science of it (!!!), but I don't like classifying people into neat little boxes, because frankly I wouldn't fit into any of them, so I wouldn't normally assume another person would either. It's why I hadn't found a purpose to posting here up until now.

    • Gold Top Dog

    ron2

    "Positive" training is the judicious use of all quadrants.

     

    Yup, and it's hard to use anything judiciously if you do not understand it, which is why I have such a problem with smoke and mirrors.

    I like the LIMA principle, too, but I still reserve the right to criticize bunk.  Political correctness be darned.