Training vs. Psychology

i'm in the camp that believes that unbalanved behavior needs to be addressed with physical corrections and not rewards. more importantly, are addressing what a dog really needs - exercise first and foremost (this is what dogs have in their blood, in nature) and affection comes last.

for me, rewards come into play with training and also, affection (which is also a reward) comes when the dog is being calm and centered - never in a boisterous state of mind.

for me, prsonally, i would much rather have a well balanced dog over a dog that knows all the tricks in the book.

now i do make a point to teach every dog i have the "speak" command and i do not use the word, "speak"... i simply hold out the food nibbles (it is the physical gesture of holding out the food that gets them to bark) and for the fun of it, i say "what do ya say?" []

with the kind of dogs i have, physical gestures seem to work far better than human verbage... but i often use the two simultaneously (such as sit/stay/no)

walk your dogs every day for at least 45 minutes - preferably a few hours. you'll see a difference within a few weeks (i hope) but you must dicipline unwanted behavior AT THE MOMENT IT OCCURS because the dogs attention span lives in the present moment. you can't come in 10 or 20 seconds later and correct - the dog has already moved on.


just my opinions here
(there are dozens more depending who you speak with - ultimately, it's all about what works best (positive results) for you and your dogs.

-coyote

You shouldn't be rewarding dog-aggression with treats. You should be moving to as far from the other dogs as it takes for your dogs to settle and then rewarding calm, settled behavior. Once your dogs start to act out, it's too late to reward them, you have to back way up.


ETA: Training using any kind of classical or operant conditioning (which pretty much covers all of what anyone does with dogs, including Cesar Millan) is a sub-discipline of psychology. They aren't two seperate things. Which is kind of why having them as two seperate areas on this forum has always kind of irked me. You can't successfully train without at least a basic working knowledge of some key princicples of the psychology of learning.

You said it yourself, they are 2 different things, you dont go to a psychologist to teach you how to play tennis, and you dont go to your coach to help you with your obsessions, traumas, fears, etc []

I am speaking from my own experience.......get dogs acclimated to the environment, and then provide them with a stable environment, you as the confident leader, if you own multiple dogs a positive pack environment is important.
Then you can be on the training trail......training can only be successful if the dog is a balanced dog.

Hi Sera,

This is how I personally think about it:

I think of "behavioral psychology" when I want to unravel a set of issues, to understand how to approach them. I think of "training" when I have identified particular behaviors I want to work on.

I would hire a professional behaviorist to help me analyze what's going on with my dog if I'm having problems. When I read Patricia McConnell or Cesar Millan, it's to learn about what's under the hood in my dogs psycho-emotional world. If I want to learn how to acheive specific behaviors, like in obedience, agility, or herding, however, I'd go to a trainer. That's when I get out my clicker and other training books.

I think that with your question, starting from the psychology, learning what you can is a great way to start. Your job of working the problem can then be broken down into teaching specific behaviors (training) and leadership/environmental relationships (psychology) that make sense for you and your dogs.

The problem occurs because the terms do not have common meaning.  What CM says when he says training and psychologist is different than when a person has advanced training in psychology with a certification and a degree associated with it; and to some extent it is the same with most people discussing the terms.

The reason "training" is not cutting it has to do with the application of the strategies.  More often than not, people make mistakes asking for too much, too soon, without adequate management and reinforcement.  Based on my training it is all about applied behavior analysis and learning theory, you need to throw in some "neuropsychology" to (the brain behavior link) and developmental psychology when talking puppies.

The method most effective in my experience to address your problem is task analysis.  What skills do you need to accomplish the end goal.  If you would like to start approaching that, I would be happy to comply (I love this stuff).  We can do it here or do it privately if you would prefer.

I haven't read the other responses yet, but I was just talking about this with my husband this morning!

There's no reason to pick one over the other. Training is important for well-behaved and bonded dogs. Psychology is important for a happy, well-adjusted dog and pack. I do both! The pro- and con-Cesar mindset I've seen here cracks me up! It's like democrats and republicans! [sm=rofl.gif]

I humanize my "babies" to a certain extent and I TOTALLY believe in animal communication because I've done it with my dogs and cats. But I also use a LOT of Cesar's techniques because they work to keep my kids in line and HAPPY. I'll brag all day about what a stable pack I have and it's mostly due to Cesar's way.

Now I'll go and read the thread and more than likely, I'll have more to say. Maybe a lot more. [sm=biggrin.gif]

ORIGINAL: Sera_J
When the girls are together they are TERRIBLY Dog Agressive and it's making me crazy.

Just a few questions to see if I can act like I have some advice. []

Under what circumstances are they aggressive? Food? Always?
Are they aggressive with each other or just to other dogs? In dog parks or what?
Were they socialized as puppies?
Have they always been like this?

have you noted any artifacts of humanizing your "babies" to a certain extent?
 
that is, will they do things like be protective of you when people come over to your house, for example
?
 

Two are German Shepherds. It's in their blood to protect me and our property. So that happens naturally. I honestly believe that humanizing them is at least 80% for my benefit. But I also believe it helps in the bond AND communication between us. The bond I have with them is CRAZY sweet.

I think it also helps in the pack dynamics. We're like a family AND a pack. And when I said it's mostly due to Cesar's way, the rest of it is due to our "love bond". I can sit down and take a dog's chin in my hand and talk calmly about why she must stop doing something and she stares into my eyes and she "gets it". She gets the picture. I can't see Cesar doing this.

Someone else (I think the animal communicator in the Ogre thread) mentioned that dogs have souls and emotions. They can love and be hurt and so on. I tend to believe this. There's a difference between a dog and a plant. My dogs love me, I have NO doubt. I'm not just the leader, I'm their mom. And of course, I can't define the whole relationship because I don't have the vantage point of a dog, don't speak the language very well and I'm not formally educated in animal husbandry. So, I'm operating my side of the relationship the best I can with what I have.

I don't know if that answers your question and I know many people think it's silly to act that way with dogs, but that's not my problem.   I look at the results.

ORIGINAL: mrv
The method most effective in my experience to address your problem is task analysis. What skills do you need to accomplish the end goal. If you would like to start approaching that, I would be happy to comply (I love this stuff). We can do it here or do it privately if you would prefer.

I, personally, would be grateful if you'd share that approach. []

I would love to hear it, too, mrv.  

Two are German Shepherds. It's in their blood to protect me and our property. So that happens naturally. I honestly believe that humanizing them is at least 80% for my benefit. But I also believe it helps in the bond AND communication between us. The bond I have with them is CRAZY sweet.

i wasn't inferring that this was a bad thing - i was just noting that a lot of the stuff i see on CM's Dog Whisperer show revolves around dogs that get a lot of affection - and that always seems to result in the dog exibiting some form of agression.

i tend to deviate from his "be a pack leader 24/7" because i do want our dogs to guard our property. and so if that is a result of my giving our dogs too much afrfection, then so be it - however... i do have my limits: i will not let our dogs charge the door if the gate buzzer or doorbell rings.  so yeah, i do tend to believe a lot of this behavior is the result of a lot of affection - where the dog simply sees a void to be filled and becomes protective of their masters.... but like i said, much of it is okay in my opinion.

I think it also helps in the pack dynamics. We're like a family AND a pack. And when I said it's mostly due to Cesar's way, the rest of it is due to our "love bond". I can sit down and take a dog's chin in my hand and talk calmly about why she must stop doing something and she stares into my eyes and she "gets it". She gets the picture. I can't see Cesar doing this.

well, ceasar is quite macho too ( a cultural thing) - lol - but i do think he gives affection when its time. 

Someone else (I think the animal communicator in the Ogre thread) mentioned that dogs have souls and emotions. They can love and be hurt and so on. I tend to believe this.

oh absolutly on the emotions. as far as soul goes, that depends upon how one defines the term, soul - cuz that sorta get's into a gray area depending upon where one is coming from. if you mean, the way one expresses oneself (akin to spirit but refined in the sense of the quality one puts into their outward expression), then yes. i'm not much into the standard religious definitions of what a soul is tho

I don't know if that answers your question and I know many people think it's silly to act that way with dogs, but that's not my problem. I look at the results.

yep - twas just wondering what behavior manifests from the affection you give your dogs.

i am a firm believer in cause & effect - so for every action, there is also a reaction (tho sometimes, people don't always hook the two together - lol)

ORIGINAL: lostcoyote
i wasn't inferring that this was a bad thing - i was just noting that a lot of the stuff i see on CM's Dog Whisperer show revolves around dogs that get a lot of affection - and that always seems to result in the dog exibiting some form of agression.

I didn't think you were inferring anything bad.

1). My dogs get loads of affection, but they also get their exercise and discipline, FIRST. I'm on 5 acres and we walk leashed and unleashed all around. They aren't allowed on the bed or furniture (except for "their" couch). They don't cross the threshold to our bedrooms. There are boundaries and limitations that are strictly enforced. From what I've noticed, most of the problems on TDW are with dogs that get affection ONLY or very little exercise and discipline to balance it out.

2) The only "aggression" (and I hesitate to call it that) that goes on here now is between our alpha (Cara) and our newest dominant girl (B'asia). At 6 months, B'asia is applying for the position of alpha and Cara's not happy with it. But they're working it out. I have every confidence that while B'asia matures, she'll naturally take the position and Cara will (with a struggle) accede to her. My dogs eat, sleep, ride and are left alone together. none are ever crated (since puppyhood).

i tend to deviate from his "be a pack leader 24/7" because i do want our dogs to guard our property.

Have you considered a guard dog? Seriously. That's why we got Shepherds. Cara and Mia were good "watch dogs" (to alert) but they would lick a stranger to death before biting them. Does your breed have natural guarding tendencies?

well, ceasar is quite macho too - lol - but i do think he gives affection when its time.

Yeah, but I bet he doesn't share his popsicle with them... []

i'm not much into the standard religious definitions of what a soul is tho

Me, neither.