Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit on NDT philosophy

Kevin Behan

 Whoa, sorry. I only mentioned my books in lieu of bullet pointing ad infinitum because I'm making an argument not a power point. (And you may rest assured I'm not counting on any support from these quarters.) You think I'm attacking you because I'm pointing out the logical inconsistencies with the mainstream interpretation of the evidence which apparently folks are supposed to accept without question or analysis. The point is that it's a one way street with the argument for thinking (i.e. the comparison of one moment or point of view to another) in dogs; Range says dogs can think about inequity and yet the logical extension that leads to guilt you don't want to deal with and the average owner and trainer is just supposed to accept that inherent contradiction out of deference to authority figures.

 

Oh Kevin

 Oh don't think you are attacking me at all. I don't think people should accept any thing without analysis including your what ever it is. It is just a good idea to learn what you are actually saying or writing before you say or write it. You seem incapable of getting the facts of a paper or research straight, and thefore it becomes pretty boring to deal with you.

At the end of the day, i don't care what you say or think if your praxis is up to scratch. I guess that there are trainers out there that think  cookies are the equivalent of pink elephants. As long as they use them, good luck to them  You aren't the worst out there by any shot, there are some mean nasty ratbags spouting and doing some self serving poisionous crap. But it is derivative and sloppy. I for one never train a dog with a pinch or correction collar on without very good reason. That is hardly ever. There are many dogs that fear the noise of the chain let alone anything that it might do including quite a few dobes.

The" Authority figures" arguement is  one  that every rump political , religious and training group hides behind. used it myself in some sports settings, work settings.Good wayto get a team to gel .Take some responsibilty Kevin. It is your lack of education that is causing these difficulites, your inability to get facts straight. Nothing else.

Whoa, sorry. I only mentioned my books in lieu of bullet pointing ad infinitum because I'm making an argument not a power point. (And you may rest assured I'm not counting on any support from these quarters.)

Either you or Sean are incapable of identifying the key features of NDT that distinguish it from what is already available elsewhere, or you are unwilling to do so in this forum for marketing reasons or whatever.

I can visualize the former being the case for Kevin, but not Sean.  If the latter be the case, state so and let’s end this thread.

 

  All behavior is a function of attraction. This is the fundamental point of distinction.This means that dogs are social by nature, not by instinct and not by learning. Next time you see two dogs meet and greet, if you set your thoughts aside, you can see the principles of emotion playing out before your eyes.

Also, because we're talking two different languages, it's not that I can't articulate the fundamental distinctions, it's just there isn't any point yet until one recognizes a need for a new model. (For example, the first step would be to hash out the critique that with attraction/intention I'm presenting a false dichotomy,) I started out a dominance dog trainer and it stopped making sense. Then I pursued German drive theory and it made sense to a point, and the OC never made sense given what I had by then come to understand about emotion and the Drive to Make Contact (the fundamental purpose of stress). Were you to read my books (a book is a different form of consciousness, if done properly and I'm not claiming to have the gift, the reader is able to retrace someone's process of discovery, temporarily suspending their own perspective long enough to entertain the author's point of view and thus more objectively assess what they're saying as they try it on for size in their own experiences.

Kevin Behan

 You want me to boil it down to 5,000 bullet points? 

 

LOL, ten salient ones that make some kind of scientific sense, contrasted with an equal number of bullet points from other training methods, would probably suffice.  I doubt you can do it.  You seem too interested in the convoluted language of smoke and mirrors.  Even if you attempted this in lay terms instead of obfuscation people might have more respect for your arguments.

spiritdogs

LOL, ten salient ones that make some kind of scientific sense, contrasted with an equal number of bullet points from other training methods, would probably suffice.  I doubt you can do it.  You seem too interested in the convoluted language of smoke and mirrors.  Even if you attempted this in lay terms instead of obfuscation people might have more respect for your arguments.

 

I have to agree.

Many of us have been through similar journeys to Kevin. Originally i thought Koehler had all the answers, but when my Lab got to the point that he didn't like retrieving i gave that bozzo the biff. I looked up clicker training on the web and have used that as a major part of my training ever since. Cadbury was very food orientated. The answer to any training issue was more food. Simple OC was a real winner with him. i I also used strong elements of drive theory. To this day i share Abrante's view that drive theory and behavourism are not neccessarily in conflict.

Enter Luci. OMG. A poodle. Wouldn't shift 6 inches for a treat. So complex and contrary. Her thing is play in all it's variants. Play as we understand it is a reinforcer but much more than a reinforcer in it's emotional and physiological make up. Enter Panksepp with some dam good answers.My poodle doesn't play like a GSD or a Lab or a BC or or even like my male poodle. I hate doing things with dogs that i don't know what the consequences are, and for that Panksepp helps to give some of the answers. Sure it is a new world but it is working, my dog is happy and we are having fun.

Kevin's stuff is obscure, imitative inconsistent and an inadequate framework for training a dog. End of story. And he proves it  over and over again. It ain't about the moose, it is being a goose.

 

Kevin Behan

All behavior is a function of attraction.

This is nonsense. It's also laughable that you keep repeating it, given that you can't even give us an operational definition of "attraction"

Let's pretend is not garbage; you should be able to come up with an testable scheme to demonstrate this essential principle of NDT.  

 So once again Behan, can you come up with such an experiment? 

TheMilkyWay

Kevin Behan

All behavior is a function of attraction.

This is nonsense. It's also laughable that you keep repeating it, given that you can't even give us an operational definition of "attraction"

Let's pretend is not garbage; you should be able to come up with an testable scheme to demonstrate this essential principle of NDT.  

 So once again Behan, can you come up with such an experiment? 

Once again we will have the smoke and mirrors and word redefinitions and complictions and .. he won't answer the dam question!!!

 

 

you act as if the last 28 pages haven't been dedicated to answering your questions.

a bulleted list of sound bytes for you


1) no puppy training and or forced socialization (emphasis on building an emotional bond with owner in safe environment for puppy from the start)
2) "be the moose" essentially, using body language to communicate w/ your dog through either the predator/prey modalities
3) no overstimulating (horse play) w/ dog indoors & no sleeping on the bed. env. is important and a dog feels naturally compressed in the "den." don't exacerbate this natural tension in a compressed space.
4) no clicker training i.e., meaningless associations that have no "real" value. instead, ndt understands that the bite is the ultimate reward for dogs. teach dog what, when and where to bite, which will align the dog w/ owner as the hunt is the organizing principle behind social behavior.
5) correct the correction. the only time to administer a correction (depending on the training regime) is when the dog is doing it right - (i fully expect this to blow your mind)

some ndt training methods and or games
1) eye contact exercise - negative is access to the positive
2) pushing - strengthen bond w/ dog/overcome object of resistance w/ owner
3) box training - objectify the problem of sit/stay/down
4) two toy tug and always let the dog win
5) teach speak on command during stressful situations

Either you or Sean are incapable of identifying the key features of NDT that distinguish it from what is already available elsewhere, or you are unwilling to do so in this forum for marketing reasons or whatever.

i'd have to say that this forum thread would be the worst ROI ever. so i think you can rule out the clever marketing strategy angle from kbehan.

i think bullet points are only valuable if you already are on board with the concepts. in general they are used to surmise already agreed upon information -not useful to support an argument.

failure to provide such a list doesn't prove you're correct. just as providing such a list doesn't prove ndt correct. the details are what matter.

i provided a list of things that run counter or not considered significant by conventional training standards. for instance, no puppy training/socialization, no sleeping on the bed, no clicker/meaningless association making/shaping/training, no play indoors, etc.

unless you already understand the ndt philosophy, these things will carry little weight/meaning.

i have to mention that ndt really excels w/ rehabbing aggressive dogs. and ndt methods don't produce aggressive dogs in the first place. whereas other methods, dominance, does. i don't think that +R creates aggressive dogs either, i just think it gets them a little disoriented. why should any grown dog be interested in the sound of a click? it's a little diminutive of them, don't you think?

 Since all behavior is a function of attraction, all these experiments are likewise a function of attraction. You'll note that the dog is always attracted to something, i.e. an object or a person. So what is being revealed by the dog's behavior is emotional intelligence, not intellectual intelligence. In other words, in the case of Chaser, through the process of training its attraction to its owner is inflected by subtleties of objects that the trainer arbitrarily has associated with inflections of speech. The dog synchronizes its actions to the nuance of an object associated with inflection of speech not because it understands the concept of said nuance, but because this more complex behavior represents an inflection of how it feels for its owner. This heightened emotional capacity is derivative of how wolves hunt, synchronizing as a group according to nuance of how its prey feels and thereby deports itself. This heightened emotional capacity which confers adaptive intelligence, is why the domestic dog is singular in this regard (because domestication amplified the capacity it did not "tame" the wolf by eliminating group hunting impulse), and now makes the object of intense scientific scrutiny. Follow the research, apply the template of attraction, and the interpretation of results will make sense.

Either you or Sean are incapable of identifying the key features of NDT that distinguish it from what is already available elsewhere, or you are unwilling to do so in this forum for marketing reasons or whatever.

 However, I went on to add that you could do it, and so you have.  Thank you very much.

 i'd have to say that this forum thread would be the worst ROI ever. so i think you can rule out the clever marketing strategy angle from kbehan.

I believe this thread could've been more pointed, brief, and less argumentative if we had an agreed upon set of premises within which to contain our posts.  Both sides were argumentative, but I will agree you and Kevin kept your cool and demeanor in light of some rough attacks.  (Though l submit Kevin is not innocent of provoking frustration of excruciating intensity.) 

i think bullet points are only valuable if you already are on board with the concepts. in general they are used to surmise already agreed upon information -not useful to support an argument.

I totally disagree.  Consider the role of an executive summary in a report, or the introduction and table of contents of a book.   The direction spelled out first, then if intrigued, one looks deeper for finer arguments.

failure to provide such a list doesn't prove you're correct. just as providing such a list doesn't prove ndt correct. the details are what matter.

Of course.  But a key points list tells others what it is that has resulted from your experience that you want to tell others.  

Your list of 'sound bytes' is really not that existentially radical.  There are going to be some who agree with all, some who don't, and some who say maybe, depending on... The only thing that really strikes me as unexpected is the absence of physics terminology, especially energy, but including: batteries, quantum collapse, electrical polarity, everything is circular, etc.  Instead, I detect an underlying focus on the importance of emotional aspects of dog life - I am on board with that

 I did not ask for a list of 'sound bytes' - points to use as sticks to fight with.  Given the controversy one sees within the dog community on many issues, I do not see much in your list that hasn't been thoroughly argued elsewhere.

 1) eye contact exercise - negative is access to the positive

In my view each one of these requires a new paradigm. For example, in the eye contact it becomes clear that nature isn't random, and the dog's learning always fits this template, and this is in contravention to current theories of learning that maintains that variables are construed together and attain value first and foremost by reinforcement consequences.

 

corgidog

1) no puppy training and or forced socialization (emphasis on building an emotional bond with owner in safe environment for puppy from the start)

"Forced socialization"? Is that even possible? Like trying to force someone to like you.  And who recommends this?  Certainly no proponent of PR would ever suggest "force". 

 

2) "be the moose" essentially, using body language to communicate w/ your dog through either the predator/prey modalities

Nothing new here either.  Whether you read Rugaas, Donaldson, Dunbar, Pryor or any one else, they are all aware of the value of body language.  Luckily, they don't subscribe to such binary limitations.

3) no overstimulating (horse play) w/ dog indoors & no sleeping on the bed. env. is important and a dog feels naturally compressed in the "den." don't exacerbate this natural tension in a compressed space.

I've never read any book or article that recommends ''overstimulating'' a dog. The sleeping arrangements seems to be a personal preference, and again not an exclusive aspect of NDT.  

Though we should point out that even though the NDT advocates keep telling us about the dog's 'wolfiness', they conveniently ignore that wolves do not sleep in dens but outdoors. 

4) no clicker training i.e., meaningless associations that have no "real" value. instead, ndt understands that the bite is the ultimate reward for dogs. teach dog what, when and where to bite, which will align the dog w/ owner as the hunt is the organizing principle behind social behavior.

This is another example of NDT not knowing what they are talking about. We know from experimental evidence that the click is not meaningless. 

Trainers have been using bite work, tug as reinforcement along with clicker. And most people understand that there is no such thing as ''ultimate'' since rewards are context-specific.

5) correct the correction. the only time to administer a correction (depending on the training regime) is when the dog is doing it right - (i fully expect this to blow your mind)

Correction= Punishment or aversive. Depending on how poorly they use it.

some ndt training methods and or games
1) eye contact exercise -
2) pushing -
3) box training -
4) two toy tug and always let the dog win
5) teach speak on command during stressful situations

 

1-5, without the woo is all basic stuff that people have been doing for ages.  And nothing mentioned goes against or disproves the mainstream view.

corgidog

why should any grown dog be interested in the sound of a click? it's a little diminutive of them, don't you think?

 I'll leave it to you to explore why. But decades of research proves that they are.