Toward a Unified Dog Theory: Understanding Pattern Recognition

Hi Lee,

I don't post much in the dog forums these days, but I do read through a variety of sites and this thread caught my eye.

There are already the components for a "Unified Dog Theory" being used by a lot of "eclectic" trainers, they just don't define it as such. The problem is that these trainers or behavior experts comprise a small percentage of the canine professional community and are mostly independant thinkers who can shift gears depending upon what they are trying to achieve with a given dog within a given moment (and overall). These folks are rare in a world of "one trick ponies" who can't step beyond grasping a single square concept and are forever trying to pound it into that round reality hole.

There is value in marker training, drive training, and in understanding the dog's social structure. There is value in understanding that Classical Conditioning, Operant Conditioning, and Social Learning are all happening at the same time. But very few people can think in "3D". Very few people can set their egos aside and become true open minded explorers or scientists. And, far too many folks simply get self-rewarded by dividing themselves into "I am right and you are wrong" and "it's us vs them" crusades in order to justify attacks on other human beings.

Yep, it's that nasty old human nature, fear, and ego that will trip us up every time.

So, do you really want to discuss and explore? I'm game, just a few things I want to mention up front... I have read many of your comments regarding Cesar Millan on a lot of different platforms, so your bias against him is clear. I have also read your comments on this board regarding "behaviorism", so that bias is also clear. I've read a bit about what you embrace and I've read your blog on the psychology site...and please don't refer to your blog entries as "articles", as it is misleading.

Lee, what is an actual "Unified Dog Theory", in your own words? Which learning theories would it involve?

Angelique, it's good to see you in this thread.  I look forward to watching the dialogue from here...

Hi Angelique,

Thanks for your comment. You bring up some interesting points.

Angelique

There are already the components for a "Unified Dog Theory" being used by a lot of "eclectic" trainers, they just don't define it as such.

I know. I'm very aware of that. And what I'm proposing isn't eclecticism, or an amalgalm of techniques, but an underlying theoretical basis for all dog training, based on the latest science from multiple disciplines and multiple sources. This includes the possibility (as presented in my first two articles) that dogs don't learn through the consequences of their behaviors, but through recognizing salient changes in their environment. This may be important new data for all of us.

We all know that behavioral science is widely accepted, and that, as a model for learning, it works pretty well most of the time. Some in the field have taken the clinical, laboratory-based version of its effectiveness and turned it into a kind of all-or-nothing ideology in dog training. I have no illusions that many of the die-hard ideologues will cotton to the idea that behavioral science is a flawed model, but I do hope that some owners and trainers, particularly those who've witnessed firsthand its (behavioral science's) limitations, will be open to what I'm saying. These are people who are already aware on some level (maybe they're just hoping) that there may, in fact, be some evidence, some new science to back up what they've learned for themselves about the limitations of the behaviorist model.

However, it's not helpful to those people, or to the ideologues, to just say "this is flawed," or "this doesn't work," and let be the end of it. What is helpful, or might be, is to say, "I understand what you're saying, but there may be something else going on as well..."

So I'm not proposing that we have to throw the baby out with the bath water. Let's just be realistic.

Angelique

Very few people can set their egos aside and become true open minded explorers or scientists. And, far too many folks simply get self-rewarded by dividing themselves into "I am right and you are wrong" and "it's us vs them" crusades in order to justify attacks on other human beings.

I agree. That's one reason I began this new series of articles for PsychologyToday.com: to be more inclusive and less divisive.

Angelique

I want to mention up front... I have read many of your comments regarding Cesar Millan on a lot of different platforms, so your bias against him is clear. I have also read your comments on this board regarding "behaviorism", so that bias is also clear.

In terms of what I've written in the past, that stuff is still out there, but it's not necessarily reflective of what I'm proposing now. If you, personally, aren't willing to let the past be the past, I understand that. But thanks, in part, to SpiritDogs, these new articles reflect a sea change in my approach. I still cringe when I hear Millan say something like the following (as he did on CBS Sunday Morning this week), when a new dog (Lesley Stahl's) came into his "dog psychology" center, and, was surrounded by three much bigger dogs. Stahl's dog immediately flipped over on his back, and Millan said he was doing it because "He knows if he wants to be accepted into the pack, he has to surrender."

However, I don't see much value in tearing Millan down or attacking him personally. I do see some value in saying, "That's interesting. But, you know, I'm seeing something completely different going on..."

If I were to have such a conversation, I think that would be a better starting point than, "You're an idiot." or "That's ridiculous." or "You don't know what you're talking about." (The latter probably would've been my choice up until recently.)

Angelique

please don't refer to your blog entries as "articles", as it is misleading.

Yes, that thought had crossed my mind, but since my editor at Psychology Today also usually refers to them as articles (when she gives me feedback), I hope you don't mind if I take her position over yours (or mine) on this.

Angelique

Lee, what is an actual "Unified Dog Theory", in your own words? Which learning theories would it involve?

Well, I don't think I'll be spelling it all out here.  Sorry. That's what my blog at PsychologyToday.com is for.

But please keep reading my "articles!"

LCK

Well Lee, we could chat on your blog, but I didn't see an area for comments there so here is fine.

Some of my observations on this subject come from my background in being a people trainer for a corporation. Over the years I discovered that our new employees had two basic skill sets, technical skills and social skills. Most folks were either strong in one area or the other, very few were "naturals" in both areas. The technical skills were easier to teach than the social skills. People with poor social skills caused far more problems within the workplace than those with poor technical skills. This ranged from disrupting the harmony of the team effort behind the scenes to customer complaints on the front line. The managers (leaders) who had poor social skills often had very unhappy team members who would leave their departments or the company all together in favor of a paycheck elsewhere that provided group harmony, teamwork, and positive social feedback on the work they were doing. There were also folks who would simply suck-it-up and deal with it for the paycheck alone, but they were far from "happy" in their jobs and did little more than go through the motions.

I believe dogs also have two sets of skills and I approach things differently when I teach tasks, tricks, and specific behaviors than when I'm teaching what is and is not appropriate social behavior. Although the two areas do overlap a bit, that's how I break that one down. Positive reinforcement based marker training works very well for teaching tasks, tricks, and specific behaviors. Karen Pryor excells in this area and I can certainly appreciate her work without drinking the Koolaid and embracing her total belief system. For teaching appropriate social skills, I tend to use a philosophy that is more in line with Cesar Millan and Suzanne Clothier, but again, I don't embrace everything they say or do either.

Part of this switching gears includes whether or not I want a dog's drive "up" for a performance activity or "calm" in a social setting. I don't use treats or toys in most social learning situations when I'm working on manners and teaching social boundaries, unless the dog has fear issues and needs to associate something good when they are feeling afraid or unsure.

Another area I break things down is how the three main learning theories Operant Conditioning, Classical Conditioning, and Social Learning are impacting a dog's behavior all at the same time. You can remove Social Learning by isolating an animal in a Skinner type box, but I've not found any way to remove OC and CC from Social Learning. Instinct will also play a part in learning and can cause conditioning failures (see Breland and Breland "The Misbehavior of Organisms";).

Personally, even though I'm aware of how all three forms of learning are impacting my dog's frame of mind and behavior simultaniously, my approach tends to be Social Learning, Classical Conditioning, and Operant Conditioning, in that order. This may seem backwards to some who approach things primarily from an OC first viewpoint. Yet, this is natural for me.

Regarding certain aspects of behaviorism and what has been taken from "in the box" experiments, I have specific issues with the fact that the animals are alone in the box. Great for studying "pure" OC & CC, and coming up with a simple formula of how individual animals learn from their environment, though limited without the complex social variables which exist in the "real" world. I also take issue with certain conclusions which have been made regarding "what" animals associate with "what" when it comes to OC and CC. An example of this is the belief that if you correct a dog for anti-social behavior towards another dog, they will associate the correction with the other dog and not with the handler or their own behavior. Don't know who came up with that one, but it makes no sense to me.

Another personal Classical Conditioning pet peeve of mine is when folks "socialize their dog like crazy" and then wonder why the dog ends up as "reactive" when on leash. Well, the dog was conditioned to expect to meet and greet other dogs and people. So many dogs these days are being misdiagnosed as "reactive", when most of what I see going on is just plain old boundary frustration due to this constant "meet-and-greet" conditioning. This is one reason I teach the dog to ignore and keep moving most of the time and to not expect a greeting or social interaction every time we encounter another dog or person. This isn't to say I never meet and greet, I just limit how much I do it and with whom.

So, enough of my ramblings...what do you think?

Oddly enough, Angelique, I can agree with you on something. I don't need Shadow to meet and greet every single animal and person we meet. I prefer a calmer demeanor, for the same reason. Not to make every outing a high intensity situation.

 To me, socialization should result in the dog being calm in social situations. That being said, Shadow will not necessarily get along with every dog he meets and I don't think dogs have union cards and secret handshakes that help them all get along (the movie, "Marmaduke" notwithstanding.)

There are days when we greet a few people and other days where we greet almost no one. And if I think a situation might be too much to handle, I steer us away from it. "Working it out" doesn't always have the results we might like to see. Same with humans. "Working it out" has few divergent outcomes, n'est pas?

Just the same, I have used OC trained behavior to create trust and calm in previously stressful situations. Call me a control freak but listening to me because it is the most rewarding thing in the universe, forever, amen, has its advantages.

I know some view OC as limited, myopic, polyannish but everyone, including Milan, is using it or some part of it. Even social conditioning works because it is rewarding to the dog, even from the non-linear dog theory perspective of maintaining an emotional equilibrium.

Classical conditioning, which might also expressed in training terms as "never allow what you don't want." Such as a dog on the couch. Let's say that you start when the dog is a puppy. And you remove them from the couch. Maybe later, or once in a while, you reward for staying off the couch or going to their sleeping crate. The point being, the dog being on the couch can never go on unadressed. Let's say you buy a comfy dog bed. Eventually, even without food rewards, the dog will learn that that couch is off limits but the soft dog bed is just fine, which is certainly rewarding. The dog will do what it wants in the confines of the rules. Our friend, B, had a Great Pyrenees that she never allowed on the couch. Simply because, as a puppy, it would have been cute. But she had already seen the dam that gave birth to her. Full grown, Lilli, the GP, has become 34 or 35 inches to the shoulder and 140 lbs. And will not get on a couch, leaving room for humans. In addition to that, Lilli now lives on a sheep ranch as a livestock guardian dog and she doesn't even go in the house for much, preferring to sleep on the porch or with the flock, if they are out grazing. She gets to do her job, which, to quote LCK, might provide some tension-release. Maybe, sometimes, reward is the absence of not-reward. "Well, I can't sleep on the couch but I can run off the coyotes and nudge the sheep away from the fence."

From what I have seen, a number of people who have supported or taught the OC approach also have degrees in related fields, such as psychology, to back it up. Including our primary proponent of OC in this forum. She has a degree, with honors, in psychology.

I am also aware of the ground-up social structure. For example, where a dog is on the ground on his back and the other dog is over him. Standard "alpha" theory says that the standing dog is assuming social dominance over the prone dog. Bottom-up socialogy states that the prone dog is actually in the superior position, having access to the underside of the dog. More importantly, as was noted by L. David Mech, many a canid lowers itself as a sign of respect to the other, rather than the other forcing the "subordinate" down. There is some credence to bottom up social structure. Creatures allow themselves to be governed. IOW, you only lead because others follow.

Have you ever stood up to a bully? I have. The bully expects everyone to follow because of their shear force of "will." Until they met me. And I can't be intimidated. Therefore, with me, they have no followers and lead nothing. The same thing might also be said of dogs. Also, in nature, if two creatures can't get along, such as two canids, given enough time and room, they will separate and stake out their own "territory." Which is a retreat from confrontation.

I guess I have rambled, too.

ron2

Have you ever stood up to a bully? I have. The bully expects everyone to follow because of their shear force of "will." Until they met me. And I can't be intimidated. Therefore, with me, they have no followers and lead nothing. The same thing might also be said of dogs. Also, in nature, if two creatures can't get along, such as two canids, given enough time and room, they will separate and stake out their own "territory." Which is a retreat from confrontation.

Another fact of life, a bully can't bully if you aren't there to be bullied.

poodleOwned

I  Something about bullies that really gets me going. There are many marvellous ways to see the tail end of them.. I had the pleasure of listening to an Engiish comedian Stephen Fry  who is a very eccentric gay gentleman. He had never seen a bully do anything other than go when he said " I wouldn't touch me, i will get aroused""....

Another fact of life, a bully can't bully if you aren't there to be bullied.

We've seen him in a number of performances, including the movie about Oscar Wilde. Most recently, we saw him playing as an employee psychologist for the FBI on the show, "Bones." After agent Booth shot a mechanical clown on an ice cream vending truck, he had to undergo evaluation.

Well, there are your typical schoolyard bullies and then there are those who clothe themselves in self-righteous garb in order to beat up on people intellectually and verbally under guise of a worthy cause. The PETA leaders and followers are a prime example of this. You will often see this behavior in politics, religion, dog training, child rearing, etc...anywhere folks can take up a cause outside of themselves in order to abuse other human beings in the name of that cause. Poor social skills and the need to be "right" are a bad combination, IMO.

A quote from my favorite psychologist says it best:

Angelique

Well, there are your typical schoolyard bullies and then there are those who clothe themselves in self-righteous garb in order to beat up on people intellectually and verbally under guise of a worthy cause. The PETA leaders and followers are a prime example of this. You will often see this behavior in politics, religion, dog training, child rearing, etc...anywhere folks can take up a cause outside of themselves in order to abuse other human beings in the name of that cause. Poor social skills and the need to be "right" are a bad combination, IMO.

I have often pondered the evolutionary place of bullying.

As a dog trianer you may assume that i am definitely one of those clicker wearing, foodie and toy throwing types. I am not perimssive though, and in general support the responsible right of trainers to train their dogs in the manner that best suits them provided that the dog's welfare is not comprimised. 

One thing i have seen of late is the imposition of  my way or the highway type training methods from instructors  using so called positive methods. Thought that that stuff went out a decade ago. When i was using yank and crank the methods used on a BC just didn't work on my Lab. And i can tell you that the methods that i would use on a Lab would get you half a ring length's worth with my poodles. Now as for tracking, dogs can't even agree how to track and attempts to shoe horn them in to one style nearly always meet with failure. That last sentence of yours is right on the money.

 Talk of bullies and those bullied has more neutral analogues in the behaviors of dominant and submissive. It seems like an individual dog or human can behave anywhere on the spectrum from one to the other, and their mode of behavior can change with each experience (sometimes dominant, sometimes submissive...). 

  Whatever temperament one has can help explain how they behave/react to a given set of circumstances.  Maybe we could give dogs a Myers-Briggs test to get their Jungian brand of temperament.  Even so, one's temperament varies with time.

  A friend has a theory from some psychologist that deep-down, humans who thrive on power over others, and those who need to feel controlled by externals, are each reflecting sadism and masochism, respectively.

 I was kidding about Myers-Briggs, but it sounded reasonable to me the more I thought, so I Googled it...Guess what...

http://www.bookofjoe.com/2005/02/meyerbriggs_for.html

 Website for U of Texas researcher, Gosling 

Darn it, Burl, I was going to link in a rimshot but, oh well. Ba doomp, tsh.

 Angelique, you have nearly said what I have said and most don't take kindly to me saying it. When a person "corrects" a dog, it is not always a punishment. Technically speaking, a punishment is effective on the first application, second one at most. Otherwise, it's not correcting or punishing anything. Therefore, some dogs, due to their specific neurologies, feel what most might think is a correction as a cue, a communication, meaning to disengage and look at me. Or behave in a calm manner. Whatever the cue was meant to do. I know you may not have meant that, but this is how I see it, which of course, can offend those that often use corrections.

And yeah, I'm a control freak. When I want Shadow to disengage, it's not always up to him to do whatever he wants unless I forbid it. I view that as the "blind hog finds an acorn once in a while" thing. Wherein a dog is constantly "corrected" until they stumble upon the desired behavior that is not corrected. It could be confusing. Which behavior is prohibited? The growl? The jump? Looking back at the human? What?

It is also said that a being can learn much faster with a combination of correction and reward. That is, after correcting whatever it is that is undesired, then reward what is desired. So you say no and give a leash pop. Then say watch me, or sit, or goosenfrabe and the dog does whichever one of those and you give a reward. Nothing like appreciating some heaven after a little hell. But it seems like a number of people can't seem to balance apprpopriateness.

One friend is so proud of herself that she doesn't train with treats. Most of her training consists of "no." Then, there could be others that are afraid to hold a leash steady and play "tree." But see, I don't use any more physical corrections on Shadow because, for one thing, he is rugged and is used to playing rough and all the physical "corrections" don't mean jack diddly squat to him. So, I have to show him what I want and reward that. Now, if he ignores a command, I will deal with that, usually by turning my head. That bothers him more than anything. That and a specific tone of voice I can use. He will cower at a certain tone. So, I haevn't used it very often.

So, there you go, I use corrections and it has nothing to do with a leash or any physical touch. The registering of displeasure is worse than anything I could do to him physically. In the meantime, when he does what I want, I reward that. The path to harmony is clear.

ron2

t is also said that a being can learn much faster with a combination of correction and reward. That is, after correcting whatever it is that is undesired, then reward what is desired. So you say no and give a leash pop. Then say watch me, or sit, or goosenfrabe and the dog does whichever one of those and you give a reward. Nothing like appreciating some heaven after a little hell. But it seems like a number of people can't seem to balance apprpopriateness.

I am nver quite certain about this at all.I keep on looking for studies, and can't find much of  a conclusion. My own experience is that dogs that are even constantly verbally corrected start to be  less pro active .I mush sooner operate on reward or no reward.

I think that the problem is the human. I am not anti much at all in training, but very pro getting it right. You can assume two things about Luci if i am trialling succesfully in UD here

1) She well knows what reward is

2) She knows what a boundary is. 

She can be quite a hard dog, but is quite chastised by time outs. She gets them where neccessary. Here is our nightmare exercise as far as control is concerned. Our rings are 45 m x 15 m . The first exercise we heel out and do a pattern, and somewhere in that pattern an article is placed that the dog must find. The dog is not called off unless it is not working and may well go into the next ring or out of the ring. Well madam poodle figured that she would go an say hello to some other poodles once. I just followed her out, grabbed the lead withdrew,and tethered her to a pole. The look of shock on her face was pricless! i haven't had a repeat of that issue

Sam is so willing to work, but so hard physically. I can strand on his toes, and he heels within 5 secodns of that happening. Corrections just won't cut it. Any kind of disproval affects him badly. You have to be careful and thougtful with him. 

Well, the actual problem, which is the elephant in the room, is that most people have lousy timing and physical reflexes. And their timing truly stinks on corrections. It's usually easier to reward in the correct timing than in it is to correct. For one thing, a marker, such as a clicker, whistle, or flashlight can be connected to the expectation of a reward and can instantly, as it is happening, mark what is right. You cannot effect a correction across the room if that correction is physical, such as a collar pop or tap on the nose, or pinch of the ear, whatever the magical move is. By the time you have gotten over there, the dog's thoughts have moved on and you are now punishing them for whatever state of mind they have now. And that's even if the dog sees it as a punishment. I like saying this because it hurts so many feelings. A dog decides what is punishing, or rewarding. So, the best thing you can hope a correction becomes is a cue. But people feel a loss of control when I point out that the punishment only works if the dog thinks it's a punishment and links it to the behavior to be stopped and finds the punishment to be enough of a deterrant. Well, that interferes with the machismo of "I am the pack leader" and what most people think of in that phrase.

And frankly, and this is where LCK raises a good point, social organization in dogs is similar to that in humans in this regard. I.E., bottom up. You lead because others follow. It wouldn't matter how macho or mellow you are, if no one is following, you are leading only yourself.

Myself is an excellent case in point. I have a master electrician license. I have done electrical work since 1983. I have been a project superintendant successfully. And nowadays, I'm lucky to have a job through a temp service, where I am under the direction of people with junior licenses and maybe not as experience and I have done some of what they do better. But I absolutely keep my mouth shut. And do what it is they ask in the fashion that they want it. They lead because I am following.

ron2

Well, the actual problem, which is the elephant in the room, is that most people have lousy timing and physical reflexes. And their timing truly stinks on corrections. It's usually easier to reward in the correct timing than in it is to correct. For one thing, a marker, such as a clicker, whistle, or flashlight can be connected to the expectation of a reward and can instantly, as it is happening, mark what is right. You cannot effect a correction across the room if that correction is physical, such as a collar pop or tap on the nose, or pinch of the ear, whatever the magical move is. By the time you have gotten over there, the dog's thoughts have moved on and you are now punishing them for whatever state of mind they have now. And that's even if the dog sees it as a punishment. I like saying this because it hurts so many feelings. A dog decides what is punishing, or rewarding. So, the best thing you can hope a correction becomes is a cue. But people feel a loss of control when I point out that the punishment only works if the dog thinks it's a punishment and links it to the behavior to be stopped and finds the punishment to be enough of a deterrant. Well, that interferes with the machismo of "I am the pack leader" and what most people think of in that phrase.

I actually agree with everything that you say in the above. I guess that i just don't say it. And of course my relfexes are fantasitc and my timing just so (And i hope like hell you understand that i am being a tad humerous..)

ron2

Myself is an excellent case in point. I have a master electrician license. I have done electrical work since 1983. I have been a project superintendant successfully. And nowadays, I'm lucky to have a job through a temp service, where I am under the direction of people with junior licenses and maybe not as experience and I have done some of what they do better. But I absolutely keep my mouth shut. And do what it is they ask in the fashion that they want it. They lead because I am following.

That is so sad. We have been lucky here as the GFC has had hardly any impact. I started out as a tech, have my Electricians Registration, moved on to being  a Engineer in Electronics. I am lucky that i work as a leader and can use methods and ways that suit me. I have  a few runs on the board  but leadership is only there on a daily basis. I am only as good as the last hole that i got us out of.

I can not handle following. Allergic to it. I would hate to be in your situation, but that is where i would be with just a couple of bits of bad luck.

Hope it gets better for you.I really feel for you. My guess is that we are similar ages..