The Dog Whisperer??

ORIGINAL: Ixas_girl

I'd love to see that South Park episode, it sounds hilarious! The version of it on Youtube is sped up too fast to comprehend. What season/episode was it? I suppose netflix will have it?

Tsst Episode Number: 146    Season Num: 10    First Aired: Wednesday May 3, 2006
http://www.tv.com/south-park/tsst/episode/690939/summary.html

You can catch some clips at aol video:

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/id/1459271053

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/id/1236597316

If you think you like CM's techniques I suggest you read Mark Rashid's book "horses never lie". Yeah, it's about horses, but it very clearly explains the difference between being a bullying alpha, and being a true leader.

Could you give a brief explanation?  This is a distinction I've been thinking about lately.  I'd love to hear some POV's.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

If you think you like CM's techniques I suggest you read Mark Rashid's book "horses never lie". Yeah, it's about horses, but it very clearly explains the difference between being a bullying alpha, and being a true leader.

If you think you like CM's techniques I suggest you read Mark Rashid's book "horses never lie". Yeah, it's about horses, but it very clearly explains the difference between being a bullying alpha, and being a true leader.

I've got that book and just read it again recently. All of Mark Rashid's books are amazing. While I was reading the book, I was thinking about the parallels in dog training. In essence - Mark says that there are two different types of leaders in a horse herd. The bully who physically dominates so horses follow out of fear, and the quiet, consistent horses that horses follow because they are naturally drawn to calmness and predictability. He calls them the Passive Leaders. At first, it is easy to put CM in the bully category because we want to automatically assume any physical interation is the same as aggression. But after reading more and seeing how much Mark emphasized calmness and predictability I think I tend to group CM more into the Passive Leader category. That conclusion is entirely based on Mark's observations of how much inconsistency and unpredictability affects animals (and ourselves). The most humane training methods can be cruel if we are inconsistent in our communication. Mark doesn't punish per se, but does apply pressure to get a response and removes the pressure to reward. Timing and "finding the try" are critical. CM often uses physical techniques, but his timing and consistency are excellent. It's more redirection than punishment. Similar to how Mark will increase the pressure on a horse to encourage a behavior, then release to pressure to reward and signal that the horse go tthe answer right. Thee pressure isn't to punish, it's to elicit a response. When the correct response is offered, the pressure is removed.

Mark's last book, "Life Lessons From a Ranch Horse" is even better. The part where he realized he needed to be as consistant and patient with people as he was with horses if he ever wanted to move to the next level was an eye-opener.

I agree with some of what CM does however if he did some of the stuff he does to people's dogs to MY dog I would probably be pretty upset.  The best trainers don't stick to on technique they use a number of different techniques (depending on the problem and the dog).  A couple of months ago I saw a trainer at Petco grab a dog's snout to make the dog look him in the eye.  The same trainer pushed on  GSD butt to make him sit.  Those are both very quick ways to get BITTEN and they are both older teaching techniques.  I personally know the trainer and I almost said something...but what do I know I didn't go to a "special" training school and have a paper on my wall that says so. []

the problem I have with CM is not that his techniques don't work, because sometimes they do (particularly when HE does them), but when they don't work they tend to backfire and cause spectacular damage to dog and/or owner. As an easily understood example of technique that may work but may also backfire spectacularly, consider "flooding" to cure fears-- locking a claustrophobic person in a coffin MAY cure their fears; but if it doesn't, you have a problem-- the person will be much more fearful and may suffer psychological damage.

Also my observation is that in the hands of the regular public CM's techniques tend to rapidly degenerate into "bullying alpha".  Whether or not dogs regard CM himself as a "bullying alpha" intead of a "leader" is a question open to debate-- I think they do consider him a bully.  Bullies can be consistent and calm. I have horrible memories of the consistent, calm bully who made our lives hell in elementary school.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

the problem I have with CM is not that his techniques don't work, because sometimes they do (particularly when HE does them), but when they don't work they tend to backfire and cause spectacular damage to dog and/or owner. As an easily understood example of technique that may work but may also backfire spectacularly, consider "flooding" to cure fears-- locking a claustrophobic person in a coffin MAY cure their fears; but if it doesn't, you have a problem-- the person will be much more fearful and may suffer psychological damage.

Also my observation is that in the hands of the regular public CM's techniques tend to rapidly degenerate into "bullying alpha".  Whether or not dogs regard CM himself as a "bullying alpha" intead of a "leader" is a question open to debate-- I think they do consider him a bully.  Bullies can be consistent and calm. I have horrible memories of the consistent, calm bully who made our lives hell in elementary school.

Ah the always present mistake of comparing humans with dogs

ORIGINAL: jenhuedepohl

That conclusion is entirely based on Mark's observations of how much inconsistency and unpredictability affects animals (and ourselves). The most humane training methods can be cruel if we are inconsistent in our communication..

I find this statement very thought provoking - for me anyways LOL. The reason being, I personally struggle with trying to limit the amount of reward (treats) I use with my dog. I have posted about this before and have been advised that +R done right, eventually eliminates or at least greatly reduce the amount of times you 'treat' for a desirable behaviour - and in fact +R done correctly is set up so your dog never knows, but is always hopful of receiving a reward for a requested behaviour. I do feel cruel if my dogs does something I ask and I don't reward him. He always looks so disappointed plus I can only fool him so many times and his reliablity drops right off. So maybe not limiting the treats is a good thing?

oops, didn't mean to post!

ORIGINAL: denise m

I find this statement very thought provoking - for me anyways LOL. The reason being, I personally struggle with trying to limit the amount of reward (treats) I use with my dog. I have posted about this before and have been advised that +R done right, eventually eliminates or at least greatly reduce the amount of times you 'treat' for a desirable behaviour - and in fact +R done correctly is set up so your dog never knows, but is always hopful of receiving a reward for a requested behaviour. I do feel cruel if my dogs does something I ask and I don't reward him. He always looks so disappointed plus I can only fool him so many times and his reliablity drops right off. So maybe not limiting the treats is a good thing?

 
Well, I'm pretty new to dog training, but as I have learned, there are ways to reward good behavior that don't involve treats. For training sessions, I always treat, but throughout the day as I ask for a behavior, the reward might be opening a door to let her outside, giving a toy for her to play with, putting down the dinner bowl, allowing access to my lap etc.. I do not let behavior that is offered upon my asking to go unrewarded.  It is too precious escpecially coming from a stubborn breed like the one I have.  Also, during training sessions, the way I've been getting around giving treats for every behavior is by asking for multiple behaviors in succession, like sit, down, sit,  stay for example, and when they are all carried out, then I treat. 

I find this statement very thought provoking - for me anyways LOL. The reason being, I personally struggle with trying to limit the amount of reward (treats) I use with my dog. I have posted about this before and have been advised that +R done right, eventually eliminates or at least greatly reduce the amount of times you 'treat' for a desirable behaviour - and in fact +R done correctly is set up so your dog never knows, but is always hopful of receiving a reward for a requested behaviour. I do feel cruel if my dogs does something I ask and I don't reward him. He always looks so disappointed plus I can only fool him so many times and his reliablity drops right off. So maybe not limiting the treats is a good thing?

I've also been a sucker and struggled with this with my cat that I'm clicker training.  He's performing for his dinner, so I feel bad withholding!  I know that dogs are dogs and humans are humans, but it made more sense to me to think of it in human terms - do your parents still praise you for brushing your teeth and going potty on the toilet?  []  Also, the nice thing with the clicker training is that either way, the dog performs the command.  It's not like you have to show him a treat, tell him a command, and then pull the treat away.  THAT is bribery and is not what clicker training and operant conditioning are about.

I think there are some good things to take away from the Dog Whisperer and sometimes things get a little lost in translation---I'd say that CM's concepts of "discipline" and "affection" are sometimes more broad and/or narrow than his clients or viewers understand them to be. 

But even the most ardent worshippers have to admit that sometimes---sometimes---CM is kinda "making it up on the fly."  He's working with some fairly broad philosophies and this makes it easy to fold every possible occurrence/situation into those concepts.  I used to be a practicing member of a particular profession (which shall remain nameless) where practioners would occasionally "jawbone" clients---convincing them that pitfalls, setbacks, etc., were all part of the bigger plan, strategy, or desired outcome. 

I see some of this at work with CM too---the most obvious example is when he uses the phrase "this is good" or "this is what we want" followed by some explanation "he's just releasing the last of his pent up rage" or "he's becoming calm submissive."  The phrases "this is good" or "this is what we want" are actually code for "holy s*#t I didn't see that coming, this dog easily twice as screwed up as I thought he was."  I may not be an expert on training or dog psychology, but I know a thing or two about slinging the BS and he can get it done.   

well, we all know animals are unpredictable [8|]
 
back to Rashid's concept of passive leadership, one example he gives is a horse that will not be caught. The "old man" gives the horse a choice-- he can not be caught and remain alone in the pasture, or he can be caught and go to a different pasture and re-join his herd. The horse chooses to comply with what the "old man" wants in order to get what he wants. Doesn't that sound suspiciously like NILIF?  Non-confrontational, non-physical, animal gets to freely choose, human carefully sets it up so the animal is likely to choose what the human wants the animal to do.
 
The "bullying alpha" approach would be to "walk down" the horse, i.e. irritate him by making him move until it's less effort to be caught than not be caught. Submissive compliance forced upon the horse vs. the horse being allowed to choose to comply.
 
Which approach sounds more like CM's approach?  Which approach would you prefer to have inflicted upon you?

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy


The "bullying alpha" approach would be to "walk down" the horse, i.e. irritate him by making him move until it's less effort to be caught than not be caught. Submissive compliance forced upon the horse vs. the horse being allowed to choose to comply.

Which approach sounds more like CM's approach?  Which approach would you prefer to have inflicted upon you?

 
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand horses are not dogs, different phsycology