Segregated

Where you run into problems most often in these conversations is when someone can't separate the different fields of study and knowing where to use training, social interaction, behavior, and the specific psychology of the animal in question.

Someone who studies and works with animals from a social dynamic of how they naturally interact with each other for years in the field, will have a different viewpoint than someone who is involved with shaping, manipulating, and conditioning an animal to get a specific response, teach a specific task, or to perform a "trick" within a controlled environment.

Jane Goodall's study and interactions with chimps is one good example. She is the leading authority on chimp social dynamics, psychology, and natural behavior...yet, she has never "trained" a chimp.

Both Cesar and Jane have extensive years of personal study and observation of how their subjects naturally and socially interact, and neither one of them focuses on "training" the animals which they are experts on, to perform "tricks".

Jane Goodall does have a scholastic background and credentials which she promptly set on it's ear through her own personal studies. She redefined tool use, humans, chimps, and other animals in general through her years of personal study.
 
IMO, there is a huge difference between "book learnin" and years of research in the field, although both have their merits depending upon what you are trying to achieve with the animal in question.

Where you run into problems most often in these conversations is when someone can't separate the different fields of study and knowing where to use training, social interaction, behavior, and the specific psychology of the animal in question.

Someone who studies and works with animals from a social dynamic of how they naturally interact with each other for years in the field, will have a different viewpoint than someone who is involved with shaping, manipulating, and conditioning an animal to get a specific response, teach a specific task, or to perform a "trick" within a controlled environment.

Jane Goodall's study and interactions with chimps is one good example. She is the leading authority on chimp social dynamics, psychology, and natural behavior...yet, she has never "trained" a chimp.

Both Cesar and Jane have extensive years of personal study and observation of how their subjects naturally and socially interact, and neither one of them focuses on "training" the animals which they are experts on, to perform "tricks".

Jane Goodall does have a scholastic background and credentials which she promptly set on it's ear through her own personal studies. She redefined tool use, humans, chimps, and other animals in general through her years of personal study.

IMO, there is a huge difference between "book learnin" and years of research in the field, although both have their merits depending upon what you are trying to achieve with the animal in question.

 
You made some good points here.
 
For instance Jane Goodall did study the animals close up. That's just it...she studied their behavior, and yes,I can't think of too many people who know more than her in that field.
 
For training you can go to Ringling Brothers, heck, they train anything, even elephants. Does that make the trainers specialists of elephants?    
 
I don't know, maybe people on here can answer that.

The way I see it, all animals learn the same basic way. Therefore, someone who specialises in training a particular animal might be especially good at finding that animal's motivations and knowing how far they can be pushed and their limitations, but when it comes to the actual training methods, their methods are applicable to all animals.

ORIGINAL: corvus

The way I see it, all animals learn the same basic way. Therefore, someone who specialises in training a particular animal might be especially good at finding that animal's motivations and knowing how far they can be pushed and their limitations, but when it comes to the actual training methods, their methods are applicable to all animals.

 
Clicker training started with marine mammal trainers, who had to find a way to communicate with animals that they could not manipulate physically.  In recent years, it has translated very nicely into work with dogs, and other species.  I clicker trained my horse to wait at the stall door so that he doesn't charge out in front of me.  So, you are right about the key being to find out what motivates the animal.  That is your reinforcer.

ORIGINAL: corvus

The way I see it, all animals learn the same basic way. Therefore, someone who specialises in training a particular animal might be especially good at finding that animal's motivations and knowing how far they can be pushed and their limitations, but when it comes to the actual training methods, their methods are applicable to all animals.

 
True. Learning theory and operant conditioning works pretty much the same across the board with most animals to teach a task, skill, trick, and certain specific behaviors through reinforcement methods.
 
The problems arise when we live with an animal as a family member within our human homes and incorporate them into a human society where they also interact with other animals and people both inside and outside of their family unit and territory.
 
I've worked with humans, horses, and dogs. They all respond equally well to learning theory and a reward system. However, they all have their own forms of communication, body language, and psychology, which is unique to each species.
 
All three of these species are also social animals which respond well to leadership and need social skills to cooperate productively and thrive within a social group.
 
These are separate fields of study which each have their own merits depending upon what you are trying  to achieve with a particular animal at a particular moment.

But so far that's all people who have disagreed with him have done. Attack him, his methods, and then not back up one single thing they say. If that's wrong show me where.

That is not true. I often disagree with Cesar Millan's training methods, and so I go out of my way to do three things when I write about this topic:

1. I work very hard to use factual, nonprovocative language.
2. I try to be extremely specific, and stick to exactly what about the technique in question I disagree with and why.
3. And I don't personally attack CM or people who use his techniques.

I do this for a specific reason: I learn a lot from debates with people who disagree with me. Often, they change my mind at least a little bit. And when they don't, my opinion is strengthened by having to articulate it clearly for someone else--someone who doesn't agree with me.

You are free to search for my name and find every single post I have ever written about Cesar Millan. While I have often voiced strong opinions about this topic, I do think that I have established a pattern of thoughtful, well-reasoned and complete posts that are not the unsubstantiated attacks you describe.

I can also say that I am not the only one. I have noticed that there are many posters who disagree with Cesar Millan's techniques using nonprovocative language and complete, well-reasoned and complete logic that explains why they disagree. These posters have a tendency to leave the discussion when things get ugly, along with the "CM supporters" who are similarly well-reasoned and insightful, and they are smart to do so. But their immediate absence makes it easy for someone like you to come in and basically do what you are accusing everyone else of doing to Cesar Millan. You are very good at just attacking people for being attacking without backing up any of your extremely generalized attacks. You just played a very silly game with Houndlove, for instance, who was trying to make a thoughtful point that was not attacking at all.

Mr. Pot... meet Mr. Kettle.

Someone who studies and works with animals from a social dynamic of how they naturally interact with each other for years in the field, will have a different viewpoint than someone who is involved with shaping, manipulating, and conditioning an animal to get a specific response, teach a specific task, or to perform a "trick" within a controlled environment.

Acutally, I studied with a trainer who uses clicker training and specializes in behavioral problems, not tricks in a controlled environment. I used these techniques to get an amazing amount of work done with a dog that was *extremely* undersocialized and reactive, and couldn't do anything like walk down the street or come when called, and I did it on the wild streets of Brooklyn, which is one of the most uncontrolled environments known to humankind.

This work involved controlling my dog's access to specific aspects of this environment and basically leveraging what she *wanted* in order to get her to handle what she *hated*. It was difficult, but it worked really well once I got used to the idea that I do actually have a lot of control over all these variables.

ORIGINAL: Angelique

I've worked with humans, horses, and dogs. They all respond equally well to learning theory and a reward system. However, they all have their own forms of communication, body language, and psychology, which is unique to each species.

These are separate fields of study which each have their own merits depending upon what you are trying  to achieve with a particular animal at a particular moment.

Yes, but knowing an animal's body language and other forms of communication is not really essential to training them. And species psychology boils down to what does this animal want and why? Which is simply motivation.

Knowing these things as they relate to a specific species is helpful when you want to train that species, but not, IMO essential. Knowing just that an animal will try to do things that reward it is enough to start training anything, I think. And if you spend anytime training an animal, you'll inevitably learn a lot of the species specific behaviour and psychology, as you say, anyway, and THEN you will likely become better at picking good rewards and will know where to head with advanced training. You wouldn't want to try training a big cat without any bit cat knowledge, but someone must have been the first to do it, and I doubt they had the benefit of a lot of writing on big cat behaviour to help them.

ORIGINAL: corvus
Yes, but knowing an animal's body language and other forms of communication is not really essential to training them.

 
Sure it is, if you want to define a mediocre trainer from a good one. You're at a great disadvantage if you can't "read" the animal you are trying to train, and also how you are being "read" by the animal you are training, according to their specific psychology and body language. 
 

ORIGINAL: corvus
And species psychology boils down to what does this animal want and why? Which is simply motivation.

 
If we are talking about the reward of stability and security in knowing their place within a social group when dogs live with us as a family member vs a treat or toy reward for performing a trick or task, we are talking about two different things.
 
I find dogs to be highly socially motivated to find their place within their group. Their reward is security and stability.

ORIGINAL: Corvus
Knowing these things as they relate to a specific species is helpful when you want to train that species, but not, IMO essential.

 
Maybe not essential in "training". But very essential when living together in a social group.
 

ORIGINAL: Corvus
Knowing just that an animal will try to do things that reward it is enough to start training anything, I think.

 
Yes, this works very well in "training". I simply believe that training alone does not address the social dynamic better than direct communication.
 
Training, behavior, and social interactions are three different perspectives, which work best when combined, IMO.
 
I just approach living and interacting with a social animal from a social perspective, first. Training is secondary...but that's just me.
 
 

ORIGINAL: fisher6000


That is not true. I often disagree with Cesar Millan's training methods, and so I go out of my way to do three things when I write about this topic:
1. I work very hard to use factual, nonprovocative language.
2. I try to be extremely specific, and stick to exactly what about the technique in question I disagree with and why.
3. And I don't personally attack CM or people who use his techniques.

Ok...I'll look at your post and see what you mean.

I do this for a specific reason: I learn a lot from debates with people who disagree with me. Often, they change my mind at least a little bit. And when they don't, my opinion is strengthened by having to articulate it clearly for someone else--someone who doesn't agree with me.

So far In the post post I've...seen...(not yours)  I've not noticed  construtive debates about Cesar, but then again i don't have time to read them all, i'm going by what I have seen.

You are free to search for my name and find every single post I have ever written about Cesar Millan. While I have often voiced strong opinions about this topic, I do think that I have established a pattern of thoughtful, well-reasoned and complete posts that are not the unsubstantiated attacks you describe.

I'll take a look.

I can also say that I am not the only one. I have noticed that there are many posters who disagree with Cesar Millan's techniques using nonprovocative language and complete, well-reasoned and complete logic that explains why they disagree. These posters have a tendency to leave the discussion when things get ugly, along with the "CM supporters" who are similarly well-reasoned and insightful, and they are smart to do so.

Sorry...but if your trying to claim that the flaming is started by those who like Cesar...that's not what I've seen going on here. And I go by what I see.

But their immediate absence makes it easy for someone like you to come in and basically do what you are accusing everyone else of doing to Cesar Millan. You are very good at just attacking people for being attacking without backing up any of your extremely generalized attacks. You just played a very silly game with Houndlove, for instance, who was trying to make a thoughtful point that was not attacking at all.

I challenge you to show me where I attacked anyone. my statements are very clear.  you simply don't like them.  IMO. 

Mr. Pot... meet Mr. Kettle.

Ditto.

ORIGINAL: wisewilddog
Sorry...but if your trying to claim that the flaming is started by those who like Cesar...that's not what I've seen going on here. And I go by what I see.

then you just havent been around long enough. []

i have seen it started by both sides, but more so by the praisers than the detractors.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

ORIGINAL: corvus

The way I see it, all animals learn the same basic way. Therefore, someone who specialises in training a particular animal might be especially good at finding that animal's motivations and knowing how far they can be pushed and their limitations, but when it comes to the actual training methods, their methods are applicable to all animals.

Clicker training started with marine mammal trainers, who had to find a way to communicate with animals that they could not manipulate physically.  In recent years, it has translated very nicely into work with dogs, and other species.  I clicker trained my horse to wait at the stall door so that he doesn't charge out in front of me.  So, you are right about the key being to find out what motivates the animal.  That is your reinforcer.

There's one HUGE difference here. Sure you can get most animals to *perform* for food...but bribing is just that...bribing. Notice how it's not used or needed in nature...it used only by humans. the difference in mammals and and  canines is...killer whales perform tricks for treats, theres no  pack bond taking place...and!...killer whales...can not be corrected for not folling a...command. they also don't come home with you and live in your home. NOW...I'm not saying...that luring isn't a a good training tool for OBT, but OBT and manners (behavior) are not...the same. Children are taught manners (hopefully) before they go to school and learn a skill.

Yes, but knowing an animal's body language and other forms of communication is not really essential to training them.

I wouldn't say knowing body language is essential, but I do believe that it will really improve the trainers ability. I know one instance of a girl who brought her horse to the stable where I was taking hunter-jumper lessons. She said the trainer she was at before wasn't helping her when it came to getting her horse to stop running out on fences (that's when they go around the jump instead of over for non-horsey people). I was watching and saw her try a take a few fences. Normally, my trainer would always put the blame on the rider when a horse ran out. If you are keep a strong leg on the horse and get the mindset that you WILL take that jump the horse will go along with you. If you think he'll run out or don't keep your cues firm and consistent, he will run out on you. Then my trainer would let YOU know what YOU did wrong - she never blamed the horse, and never let her riders get away with blaming the horse.

Anyway, I was waiting for this girl to get the lecture we usually got, but the trainer just told her to put the horse away. She noticed right away by the horse's body language that the horse had a bad back that the girl's old trainer and vet had missed. A new vet was out and after a few weeks that gelding was the most willing jumper on the farm.

If the trainer hadn't been able to read that horse's body language so well, they would have ruined that poor horse or just given up like the previous trainer. My trainer was excellent and determining if a horse (or rider!) was lazy, in pain, or just didn't understand what was being asked of him. And she was great at teaching the riders how to read their horses. She knew too many riders who could only ride one horse and didn't want any of her students like that. Some students didn't like being told that they were being lazy, but the ones that stuck around and learned (like me!) really improved.

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000


then you just havent been around long enough. []

Your right...I'm just going by what i've seen in threads I've read. Why is it i'm seeing just the opposite?

i have seen it started by both sides, but more so by the praisers than the detractors.

Agian...just going by what I've seen.

normally what i see is a person simply stating that they think the methods he uses are incorrect in certain instances (maybe even giving a counter method) and then that person is jumped on by many others.

and i have to say that most of your posts seem mean spirited. maybe it isnt meant that way, but it is the way it comes across most of the time.