question about Cesar Milan

Sorry but applied behavior analysis is at work in the learning of all animals regardless of family (mammal, fish, avian, etc).  The apples and oranges and califlower and mushroom comparisions are just that, statements of facts about relationships that do not exist.
 
All behavior is the result of a relationship between what happens first (antecedent) the behavior that occurs and what happens next (consequence).  The environment in which the organism is existing is part of the antecedent (all the wild animals in captivity, dogs in the house, hounds in an area to find ascent, sled dogs  pulling against restraint,  herding dogs with animals moving in the visual field) and the biology of the individual animal.  The behavior is part instinct and part learned, the consequence increases the probability the behavior will happen again.
 
So it is perfectly reasonable to compare the learning of multiple species and make inferences regarding applied behavior analysis.  However, research has shown time and again, positive reinforcements (those things that result in the behavior happening again) are the most effective to establish and maintain a behavior with the single exception of one trial learning with an aversive that can be interpreted as life threatening by the organism. 

Thats why your example of training other animals with +R does not apply, because we dont live with those animals in their enviroment as we do it with our dogs

espencer, I am just curious...how do you feel dogs should be trained... do you believe with force based training and the cowboy alpha ideas?  

I know with all the multi dog house holds we've had all our dogs (except Athena at first) were all trained without any clue about alpha training...we didn't use any force...we just showed them what we wanted.  Redirected things we didn't want them to do etc.  It was just a natural way to train back then and no one really "thought" about it.  Our dogs were always better socialized than most dogs today and they were never leashed or tied and always got tons of exercise.

Which brings up another thought.  When I was growing up dogs were so much better back then.  We always had packs of dogs hanging around with us kids.  They were always well behaved and social.  No one went to obedience classes and puppies were brought home at about 5-6 weeks and lived as active members of the family...all the things you hear are taboo now a day[]  You never heard of seperation anxiety etc.  I often think that the reason our dogs were so great back when I was growing up was they had a chance to be dogs and didn't have silly owners parading around pretending to be alpha wolf leaders lol  They were socialized during the critical period and all of them were Mongrels so had normal motor patterns instead of enhanced like most urebreds.  Just my thinking...and I'm probably off.    

ORIGINAL: mrv

Sorry but applied behavior analysis is at work in the learning of all animals regardless of family (mammal, fish, avian, etc).  The apples and oranges and califlower and mushroom comparisions are just that, statements of facts about relationships that do not exist.

All behavior is the result of a relationship between what happens first (antecedent) the behavior that occurs and what happens next (consequence).  The environment in which the organism is existing is part of the antecedent (all the wild animals in captivity, dogs in the house, hounds in an area to find ascent, sled dogs  pulling against restraint,  herding dogs with animals moving in the visual field) and the biology of the individual animal.  The behavior is part instinct and part learned, the consequence increases the probability the behavior will happen again.

So it is perfectly reasonable to compare the learning of multiple species and make inferences regarding applied behavior analysis.  However, research has shown time and again, positive reinforcements (those things that result in the behavior happening again) are the most effective to establish and maintain a behavior with the single exception of one trial learning with an aversive that can be interpreted as life threatening by the organism. 

Any of you who don't "get this" should study applied animal behavior, or at least take a course in learning theory.  I'm surprised at the level of misunderstanding of elementary behavioral science.

espencer, do you really believe your own posts, or are you just posting to refute whatever we say???
 [sm=rotfl.gif]

I grew up with packs of dogs hanging around as well. The community was kind of rural and everyone had dogs. Some were hunting dogs and others were house pets. The kids and the dogs were let out (or untied) in the morning and co-existed peacfully all day. None of these dogs had any classes and I know for a fact nobody had any books on training to reference.
If I had to put a lable on the way these dogs were trained, I would have to say it was more in keeping with CM. They certainly were not trained with treats. I can't remember even seeing a dog treat when I was a kid. They did get lots of praise for doing their jobs (hunting) and were not mistreated or abused. When they had to be corrected, the discipline was very firm either verbally or physically. The dogs knew their place in our social structure for sure - somewhere above the horse and below anything that walked on 2 legs. One big difference for those dogs was the fact that there was little if any change in their world. They didn't jump in the car and go visiting. They never went into a place of business. They rarely encountered strangers. Strange dogs did not come in and out of their territory with any frequencey. I think they were just content. They always knew what to expect.

You are probably correct, but in a lot of cases, those are also the dogs who were simply shot if they chased chickens, or were routinely dumped if they didn't work, or were often hit by cars because they simply ambled around wherever they wanted.  It's easy to assume that dogs that lived primarily in barns or outdoors were somehow better mannered than the dogs many of us live with now, and for sure, some were more social with others of their own kind.  But, it is a "rose colored glasses" mentality to think that those dogs had it great.  They avoided confrontation, perhaps, because humans could get nasty.  Doing "nothing" (which is what some humans perceive as a good dog) is often how dogs deal with uncertain human behavior.  They only do what they have been taught, and they avoid any other random behavior that could get them into trouble.  Their attitude is, "I'd better not try anything, I might get punished." (and we aren't necessarily saying that the punishment has to be harsh, just that the dog will try to avoid it).  That, however, is different from the dog who confidently offers behavior in an "Is this what you want?" kind of way, hoping that this will be the time the human pops out a reward.  

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

espencer, do you really believe your own posts, or are you just posting to refute whatever we say???
[sm=rotfl.gif]

That is a good question, it got all messed up at some point []

Then many of the behaviors the dogs exhibited after puppyhood were learned via positive reinforcement; because  the behavior continued.  Now it is not possible in this situation to determine what the positive reinforcement was in place.  There was likely negative reinforcement as well.  Doing a specific behavior stopped something from happening; same result reinforcement.  Reinforcement means the behavior will be more likely to occur.  Punishment stops behavior.  So if a behavior never occurs again, or seldom in a similar situation it was likely punished.  Now if a behavior started to observed, and disappeared there is a chance extinction occurred.  The behavior did not get any specific needs met and therefore had no value to the organism.
 
 

ORIGINAL: espencer

Ok again:

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

If zoo personnel can train a gorilla (they do outweigh us) to present their genitalia at the bars of the cage for an examination, and if marine mammal trainers can train whales and dolphins to move about as directed, then why on earth can't we train dogs (who are social and cooperative by nature anyway) without physical restraint? 

Because it is NOT the same to have a gorilla, a dolphin or a whale in a cage or a pool that ACTUALLY living in the same space 24/7

You can NOT ask why it works with those big animals and we cant do the same with just dogs, it is not the same just going out with a friend that actually having that same friend as roomate, you may have to put up with more stuff that you would not because you dont live together, get it?

Thats why your example of training other animals with +R does not apply, because we dont live with those animals in their enviroment as we do it with our dogs

Dude, it can and does apply. Like Xerxes said, you can't train birds by force because they don't respond to it. You can't put a leash on them and force them to follow you around, and if you could, they'd hate you and they'd never learn from it. Same thing with rabbits. I live with a rabbit and a wild hare in the house with me, 24/7, part of my family (see my sig!). Small animals, but with the capacity to be extremely destructive. I've lost 4 phone chargers, my ipod charger, 1 set of speakers, a dvd power cord, a patch of carpet, 3 curtains and had some damage to skirting boards thanks to my lagomorph friends. Anyway, they're surprisingly smart animals, but they don't respond to force very well. Rabbits get offended very easily and hold grudges. If you don't handle them sensitively, they find ways to get back at you that usually involve biting you or doing something they know you normally shout at them for. I've been given the cold shoulder for 2 days straight for upsetting my hare. You HAVE to use +R if you want to teach them to repeat any kind of behaviour. Clicker training taught my rabbit to accept being touched when nothing else was working. If you try to force a rabbit to do something, they get peeved and rebellious and deliberately set out to cause trouble.

And cats are the same. If you want to train a cat, you have to use +R. What about horses? People train horses, and while the horses don't live in the house, they live nearby and are handled everyday. Again, +R is the way it's done these days, because force took a long time and produced mean horses.

Whether we live with the animals we train or not has nothing to do with why positive training works well and the fact that it works on every animal. And talking about having wild animals living with you as part of your family is pointless because wild animals are not domesticated. Domesticated animals have been BRED to work well with people.

How would you train a silver back gorilla to not consider you his female? +R?

How would you train a silver back gorilla to not consider you his female? +R?

 
Get him a mate of his own species?  LOL
 

I discipline my dogs like I disciplined my BF's kids.
I say what I mean.
I mean what I say.
 
I just do not think the dogs understand what Ceasar is saying. The dogs get so sick of getting man handled or "corrected" they give up. They are not learning that Ceasar does not want certain behaviors, They just give up doing everything because they are not sure what is being said, what is being corrected, What Ceasar wants. They understand if they are not animated. They are not getting corrected.
 
The problem I find with Ceasar, and his fan club. Is many people are in Aww of what he can accomplish in a short amount of time, The quickly disgard how fast the training wears off. And when it does Ceasar does not change tactics he just applies more of it, more often. His methods are not communication, He basis everything off a pack order. Now we are capable of social strcutures of hierarchy. When our child steals a cookie, or hits someone. Is it always because they want status? almost never. In fact very few people are concerned (adults included) about moving up the totem pole. when you get a promotion, what is more exciting. the raise or the status. for me the raise...The reward.
 
Also all this man handling of an animal is not changing what is going on inside. it just erases behavior. not cause. So if I correct a dog for growling or biting. And they stop, the still are aggressive. They do not become social, through "knowing thier role".
 
And trust me, I did Ceasars methods, I believed in them as do so many others. till I tried to do something, I questioned it. and tried other things. I have had great success.
 
So Ceasar's methods, if they do work are still not appropriate. because thier is a better way.
 
And trust me, I am not a bleeding heart. I came to this understanding. not because I cared if the dog was feeling pain or not. I came to this conclusion becuase I wanted my dogs to score more points on the field. My motives were entirley selfish. Now that I have seen the flip side of the coin. I do feel remorse. I see what I was I causing.
 
Also, Exercise, discpline, aff. IS crazy. I do it exactly the opposite. I get my dogs, and all I do is love them up. I let them get away with just about everything. And I try to keep thier energy pent up inside them. And when we do play. it's short and intense. So they always remeber playing with me is fun and exciting. Now I have a dog that trusts me, becuase I never hurt them. They are free, and offer a pleathra of behaviors, because I have never scolded them for offering them. And a dog that loves to be around me. Now I have a dog I can train. A dog that will not avoid me, and will do anything I ask, So I will start the game. I have never had an aggression problem or a dog try to "get rank".
 
then At a year, I start OB. With this happy, wild dog. Because for me. I train dogs...I grow puppies. Theres a difference.

In fact very few people are concerned (adults included) about moving up the totem pole. when you get a promotion,

 
Cow patties.
 
I have seen it on both construction and non-construction jobs. People get off on power. They can't wait until they are in charge of a crew and can stand around and tell others what to do. Otherwise, they could just work on a crew and get a raise every year. Only one person I know went that route. My old friend, Lee. He was a job boss for a long time. He finally got tired of the stress and turned down offers to run jobs. He'd rather be in charge of a helper or two on specific tasks. But all the young-un's can't wait to get in power.
 
Also, this section of the forum was designed for CM fans to discuss things without a bunch of CM bashing and your post is not helping. If you wish to discuss the advantages of other training methods that you prefer better, you may do so in the regular training thread. I use more +R than anything else, though I find value in some of CMs philopshy and observations.
 
And I know you will say "that's not fair." Sorry about your luck.

I use more +R than anything else, though I find value in some of CMs philopshy and observations.

Me too, and I don't understand why it's such a difficult thing for some people to understand.  I'm not a CM follower or groupie or anything like that.  But, I can make use of his philosophies (to use Ron's word) without using even one method.  

Can we not at least agree that some of what CM says is correct and useful??? 

  In fact very few people are concerned (adults included) about moving up the totem pole.

They are too.  When our boss is gone suddenly everyone thinks they are now in charge. 

If Willow was left to her own devices for any length of time, she'd be jumping right up on the furniture and beds, acting out, growling, pulling on leash, guarding her food.  Whenever we try to give her an inch, she tries to take a mile.  So, even dogs try to move on up.  They don't ALL do it, but the ones that tend to be very confident and dominant do. 

ORIGINAL: the_gunny

So Ceasar's methods, if they do work are still not appropriate. because thier is a better way.

I think you forgot to add ".....for me" at the end of that sentence, if not then that is not an accurate statement or even a respectful one for some people that does not see the things the same way you do

Sorry, made a mistake, I did not read the rules. I should have. Continue on.