Segregated

Angelique, I agree with you. [] Knowing an animal certainly helps and does indeed differentiate between good trainers and mediocre trainers. The point I was making was that the very fundamentals of training any animal are pretty much the same. You don't need to know lion body language to train a lion, but you might want to make sure your health insurance is up to date and sufficient for a lengthy hospital stay. [] Knowing a lion's motivators would help, but most animals will work for food.

I also agree that it really helps your relationship with an animal if you can read them and they you. My boyfriend's parents are not very good at doing this, and consequently, they have an extremely anxious mini pin that is not a very happy dog. It makes me sad to see him.

WWD, a lot of people confuse offering treats as rewards with bribing. It's not the same thing. You can tell it's not the same because most trainers that use treats as rewards phase out the treats after a while so they don't have to carry them around and rely on having them to get their dog to do what it's told. To me, waving a treat in front of a dog's nose when it's lying on the couch to get it off because you can't move the dog with a sound or gesture is bribing. However, teaching it to get off the couch when you say so by bribing the first couple of times and then raising your expectations by not presenting the treat until the dog has got off the couch without the temptation of the treat, and then raising further by only offering verbal praise and a rub when the dog gets off on command... that's not bribing, it's operative conditioning. The dog learns to respond to your command because he's received good rewards from doing that in the past. You could neglect to give him a treat for a year and he'd still respond to your command because of that initial conditioning.

Bribing is not used in nature, but conditioning is. A wolf might learn how to hunt mice because of the reward of the mouse at the end of his efforts. He will also learn to refine his technique to improve his chances of catching a mouse.

As it happens, I have a wild hare living at home with me in my house. I'm pretty sure he would have died of stress if we hadn't managed to bond as strongly as we have. He knows me better than my 11 year old dog does. He's not very easy to train, but I still managed to teach him not to bite me when he's cross, and I taught him how to tell me when he had run out of water, and I taught him to 'beg' for treats, even. I did it all with conditioning, a little operant and a lot of classical. I've also got a domestic bunny that lives in my house with me and the hare and the dog. I taught her to beg as well, and I taught her to allow me to scratch her head, both with operant conditioning, one with clicker training. If I'd tried to 'correct' either of them, that would have been the end of the relationship as far as they would have been concerned.

I'm not really sure exactly what is the point you were trying to make, but it seems like you're saying the methods used by whale trainers aren't transferable to animals that live in your home with you and bond with you. I beg to differ. Trained and captive killer whales have been known to attack humans they don't know and therefore don't really trust. Trained elephants are also known for attacking new keepers they haven't met before. And my hare and my rabbit certainly bond, both to me, to each other, and in the hare's case, even to my dog. And that clicker training works is not big news to anyone. Anne's horse is also a social animal that both bonds and lives on her property and therefore has to fit in with her lifestyle.

ORIGINAL: wisewilddog

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.

This is not the place to argue this point, perhaps, but it is quite common for clicker training detractors to accuse proponents of "bribing" the dog, and is one of the most exasperating misconceptions to try to explain, and why we often tell you that you have an incomplete understanding of operant conditioning theory.  This is a key point of contention, since, properly applied, the method does not use "bribes" it uses reinforcers.  Bribes tend to come before the behavior is elicited.  Reinforcement comes after.  And, knowing the difference is critical, and one reason why the neophyte often fails at this method of training, just as the "leash jerker" type fails at correction-based training.  It's all about truly understanding the method, which, at this point, I think, unfortunately, you still do not. 
I've tried to say that nicely, but we often see that word "bribe" and equate it with the negative it is - but, which we do not do!!!!!

I have bribed though! When I was new to clicker training I was all thumbs and I couldn't figure out how to hide the clicker AND the treat and I got caught, at our "learning-to-heel" session holding the treat WHERE he could see it, right in front of his mouth, and holding the clicker like a remote and it kind of fell apart.
 
Luckily for me, a "falling-apart moment" wasn't a death sentence for that particular act and we got back on track in seconds. What a relief to know I won't screw up my dog because I am all thumbs. This wasn't the case when I was teaching the "let me pull your leash under my foot until you lay down" act. That was not only painful for me, it was painful for my dog and the dog didn't ever get it. It took probably 45 times for the dog to get that pulling his collar under my shoe meant he needed to go down. And then, if I moved away from him and gave him the command, the "darn dog" just sat there, staring, until I moved back toward him and started the shoe trick again.
 
I won't even tell you how long it took with clicker training. Won't bother you with that. Nor will I tell you what how consistently he goes down now. How shiny and happy his eyes are when he does.
 
Many people who aren't totally coordinated or are themselves learning often having a falling-apart moment but things turn around quickly on onward they go. Yeah, Murphy was being bribed because I couldn't figure out how to hide what should have been hidden. Bad me.
 
Spiritdogs is right--bribing is KNOWING and SEEING and practically touching what is right there while the dog is being conditioned. (Kind of like seeing a brownie waiting for you when you're done walking the dog.) Then yes, he's not doing it because he's being conditioned to do it--he's trying to physically get the treat and that's all. Bribing doesn't work long-term even though it seems to work in the moment and for those who are not working hard toward proper operant conditioning, this is the area where mistakes get made and people get discouraged and those who don't get it or even try to get it make less-than-accurate comments.
 
You have be coordinated and good to do clicker training. Better than me (of course). I'm learning and I'm loving what I'm learning. Things are SO easy now that I'm hands off. So easy.
 
The other day I was having an emergency with my post-op dog and I said to my male, "Go to your place" and I dragged my finger toward it (from across the room) and he watched my finger and lo and behold, that dog went to his place and laid down and didn't even get any reward for it but some praise.
 
Lovely. Absolutely bliss for me.

Can you help teach that to my DH.  Instead of having our dog do something and ehn rewarding he will say "River - want a cookie".  Frustrating.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
This is not the place to argue this point, perhaps, but it is quite common for clicker training detractors to accuse proponents of "bribing" the dog, and is one of the most exasperating misconceptions to try to explain, and why we often tell you that you have an incomplete understanding of operant conditioning theory.  This is a key point of contention, since, properly applied, the method does not use "bribes" it uses reinforcers.  Bribes tend to come before the behavior is elicited.  Reinforcement comes after.  And, knowing the difference is critical, and one reason why the neophyte often fails at this method of training, just as the "leash jerker" type fails at correction-based training.  It's all about truly understanding the method, which, at this point, I think, unfortunately, you still do not. 
I've tried to say that nicely, but we often see that word "bribe" and equate it with the negative it is - but, which we do not do!!!!!

Actually I understand it far better than you know. For one using a treat to get a dog to learn a command is called...luring, using a treat after the fact is still a bribe. If I call a dog to me and then give him a treat...he'll remember that, so the next time I call him he come to me expecting the treat, (which is...a bribe) perhaps even coming to me more so for the treat...than just wanting to come to me.

If you tell a child...I'll give you 5 bucks to clean your room, but only after you clean it...that's a bribe...plain and simple. If the dog knows a treat is coming for a task he is performing...it's a bribe.  What...dogs aren't smart enough to figure that out? Oh...and it was you who brought this subject up here.

Look, I'm not here to be drawn into an argument, but you clearly didn't understand what I said.  That's precisely why you don't tell the child *beforehand* that there's anything in it for them if they clean their room.  Of course, if they do it, and there happens to be a nice thank you, or they gain a privilege because you were pleased with their behavior, my guess is that they will be happier to clean their room the next time. 
Again, this is probably not the place for this argument.  If you want to debate whether bribing is part of the equation or not, it's best done on a training thread, not here.  Start one if you want to have a go at this topic.
 

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

Look, I'm not here to be drawn into an argument, but you clearly didn't understand what I said.  That's precisely why you don't tell the child *beforehand* that there's anything in it for them if they clean their room.  Of course, if they do it, and there happens to be a nice thank you, or they gain a privilege because you were pleased with their behavior, my guess is that they will be happier to clean their room the next time. 
Again, this is probably not the place for this argument.  If you want to debate whether bribing is part of the equation or not, it's best done on a training thread, not here.  Start one if you want to have a go at this topic.

But you brought it up here, so how am I drawing you into a arguement? And why is it a "arguement" and...not...a discussion? I understood what you said, let me repeat basically what I said...so you tell a child to clean their room...they do so...you give them five bucks. What...their not going to expect that every time from that point on? And one things for sure...give a dog a treat for doing something...and they...WILL...expect it every time. and that...is a bribe. I'm not saying it's a bad or a good thing...it just is what it is. If if walks and quacks like a duck...it's most likely...a duck.

Now...if you wish to start a tread in another area and discuss this further...fine. If and when I have the time I'll discuss it. Other wise I'll stay here...where...these dicussions are not suppose to be taking place. I think. I'll let the admins decide.

As to a couple of other posters. How are my post in any way...mean? I speak very matter of fact without the worry of  what everyones FEELINGS might be because that's impossible to do. I'm simply stating my point of view...it's not like you have to agree with or listen to it. No?

Oh dear, WWD. We've had these arguments before. Nothing new here. I've only been here for a few months and I saw the exact same argument a little while ago. What people like you fail to understand is that treats are PHASED OUT. I have already pointed this out in this very thread. How can you say a dog is simply doing something because you're bribing when the bribe never comes? Many of us phase out treats all together. I personally got into the habit of murmuring "good girl" whenever my dog did something I like and still do, even though she's 11 and has been quite reliable for many years now. Is that wrong somehow? I quite enjoy telling her she's good.

And really, when it comes down to it, who freaking cares why a dog is behaving as long as it's behaving? All dogs are selfish creatures; they only do things for themselves. A dog trained in a traditional fashion with corrections is NOT doing it "for you". It's doing it to avoid corrections. A dog that receives no treats as reinforces, but gets praise is still being positively reinforced.

And lastly, dogs have a different sense of time than we do. If you don't give a dog a treat for following a command for an entire day, it's pretty much the same to the dog as if you didn't give it a treat for following a command for a year. I know plenty of dogs that were trained with treats years ago that still do exactly what they're told even though they never get a treat anymore. Honestly, if you still think teaching a dog with treats is bribing, then I feel sorry for your dog and any subsequent dogs you own.

All I can say, wilddog, is that you should enroll in a class, drop the attitude, and see what happens.
 
I can't believe you even bolded that--that might be your perception but wow . . .
 
You need to try it wholeheartedly before you knock it. I've done the other method (the one I think you do right now) wholeheartedly before, for 2 years, before I switched.
 
 

ORIGINAL: wisewilddog

 I'm simply stating my point of view...it's not like you have to agree with or listen to it. No?

right you are. i went ahead and blocked you. as i dont feel you have anything constructive or worthwhile to say.

ORIGINAL: wisewilddog

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

Look, I'm not here to be drawn into an argument, but you clearly didn't understand what I said.  That's precisely why you don't tell the child *beforehand* that there's anything in it for them if they clean their room.  Of course, if they do it, and there happens to be a nice thank you, or they gain a privilege because you were pleased with their behavior, my guess is that they will be happier to clean their room the next time. 
Again, this is probably not the place for this argument.  If you want to debate whether bribing is part of the equation or not, it's best done on a training thread, not here.  Start one if you want to have a go at this topic.

But you brought it up here, so how am I drawing you into a arguement? And why is it a "arguement" and...not...a discussion? I understood what you said, let me repeat basically what I said...so you tell a child to clean their room...they do so...you give them five bucks. What...their not going to expect that every time from that point on? And one things for sure...give a dog a treat for doing something...and they...WILL...expect it every time. and that...is a bribe. I'm not saying it's a bad or a good thing...it just is what it is. If if walks and quacks like a duck...it's most likely...a duck.

Now...if you wish to start a tread in another area and discuss this further...fine. If and when I have the time I'll discuss it. Other wise I'll stay here...where...these dicussions are not suppose to be taking place. I think. I'll let the admins decide.

As to a couple of other posters. How are my post in any way...mean? I speak very matter of fact without the worry of  what everyones FEELINGS might be because that's impossible to do. I'm simply stating my point of view...it's not like you have to agree with or listen to it. No?

It's not appropriate here because this section is for people who want to discuss CM.
But, since you persist, I will just respond by saying you have absolutely no idea what positive reinforcement training is all about, or you wouldn't make such ridiculous assertions about it.  I don't know why you are so angry that my dogs don't need a treat every time to behave.  Jealous?  []

WWD you are very argumentitve with your bolds and your caps, its not you just stating your point of view.

And if I may add there is a huge difference in bribing and rewarding, I don't care how you slice it.  I have raised two children and have another young one and I DO know the difference.

Bribing is persuading to influnence behaving, like my DH does "want a cookie River?".  Rewarding is the return of something for performace of a desired behavior, positvie rienforcement.

I do like CM and do believe he is wonderful in his way and I also love other positive trainers as well and believer they are wonderful as well.  I like this section on CM but you make it hard to enjoy!!
 
PS:  Why don't you go check out Petshub those kids would love to argue with you all day.[]  It might be more suitable.

who freaking cares why a dog is behaving as long as it's behaving?

 
I actually think that's the real salient question here. I used to struggle training my dogs traditionally because if they disobeyed they were defying me and how dare they? I hated training them because it just a total was a battle of wills. I felt that they should behave just because I say so, sort of on a deep philosophical level. For me the definition of "dog" was "animal who obeys humans."
 
My dogs now behave because they know there's something in it for them. Maybe not this time, maybe not the next time, but at some point they will get something they want by behaving (treats will always have a place in my training, even if it's every 100th sit that gets rewarded). And I'm totally fine with that. I don't go to my job for my health--I do it because I get paid, and because what I do is self-rewarding on a level. I don't expect more from my dogs.
 
I do sometimes use lures for the first few trials of a new behavior. But rarely. And once I've gotten a few successful trials happening, the treats get put away. They'll still get a reinforcer, but it'll be in another room, or in my pocket, or in the fridge. That's the handy thing about a clicker. You can mark a successful performance without having the reward anywhere in evidence and use the click as a bridge between "YES! GOOD!" and the actual going and getting of a reward from somewhere else. And then the treats get faded until they're no longer needed to get that behavior. Though every now and then I'll surprise them with a goodie for a behavior they already have down.
 
No food or toy rewards of any kind are allowed during the CGC test. Marlowe has been positive trained since his first day in my house, yet he was able to pass that test with flying colors. How'd that happen if all I do is bribe?
 
Though honestly, why am I even taking this bait?

You're taking the bait because you have been set up.

Once again... a pretty reasonable thread made ugly by one person, who goads a big handful of people into straightening out some really inflammatory and ignorant language about positive reinforcement... and then turn around and claim that all of you are the aggressors and all he did was state his mind and ask questions. Inappropriate, manipulative behavior from one person who is more interested winning than learning. I smell a pattern.

Though honestly, why am I even taking this bait?

 
Because it's natural to get defensive. It's human nature. So is the drive for social dominance and position.
 
And I don't think we're accomplishing much if Wise wants to take each sentence out of context and slice and dice. Even though this thread has been about feeling segregated, we're still seing problems and it has nothing to do with CM. It has to do with our personalities. I don't have to win a debate or argument, especially if I'm discussing from a basis of scientific fact or observation. If it's there in black and white, such as the well-documented omnivorous activities of coyotes, no amount of rhetoric or fantasy hyperbole will change my opinion, though we are all welcome to opinions. And this is a forum for the layperson to have opinions. It's not a requirement to be a dog professional anything to be here.
 
I do think that professionals have more at stake. When someone disagrees with or questions the methods they use in their job, it's easy to rise to the defense. Just as picking a person's post apart, line by line, does not actually disprove the point made by a poster, nor does it prove the point of he or she who is doing the dissecting.
 
To me, what counts is results, scientific basis, applicability of a method to a species. Some things transfer across species. We all want to feel good. But that doesn't mean that a dog "working for a treat" is quite the same as how a human views it. That would be assuming a psychological process without necessarily the evidence to prove it. That being said, many have had good results with reward training, myself included. And I agree, eventually, the treats fade. I still reinforce training with treats. But, on a walk or in the store, I can command Shadow to sit in harness without a treat in my hand. He's not working for a treat, then. Subconciously, perhaps, there is a link that obeying will lead to something good, but it's not going to happen in that crucial 1.5 seconds following the sit. So, why did he sit, without a treat in my hand? That kind kills the bribery, though there are times I bribe him, so to speak. We sometimes have to "bribe" him to go outside if we're going to be gone. And I'm okay with that. He got a reward for doing what we commanded. Pragmatically, I agree with the "who cares?" in that instance. Functionally, though, there may be a time when he will do it without a treat. If not, fine, he'll get a treat. He still did what we wanted.
 
I as leader can choose what I use to lead. I can be a sneaky devil. Grab the ball, go outside, throw it far enough that he has to run to get it and get back in before he can. But it just hasn't been crucial enough to worry about it, either way. And, either way, I haven't "made him" do anything. I led him to it with a bit of steak or a flying ball.
 
I, too, wonder why we have to "argue" about it. Yes, this is a CM-supportive section, but I'm not going to bow and kiss the ring. I, for one, would like to see the discussions turn back to what advantages we get from CM's "Way". Or, if he were here, would he give us a collective Shhhh?