question about Cesar Milan

While Don't Shoot the Dog is considered a seminal book on positive dog training, it isn't actually about dogs, despite the title. All of the examples given in the book are applied to several different animals, including humans of varying ages, dogs, birds, cats and marine mammals. Why? Because the fundamental ways that animals learn, and the cirucmstances under which learning is faster and more effective, are pretty much the same from species to species. Dogs have some unique characteristics that make them easy for us to get along with: they and we are both highly social animals, we share a lot of emotional body language, they have been selectively bred to pay very close attention to our faces and hands. But other than that, I don't think you need to throw out the entire body of work on animal learning theory when it comes to dogs. They are simply not that special.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

ORIGINAL: Trevell

I might be way off base here, but I don't think espencer is saying that you can't train a dog or gorilla or chicken or rat with a clicker.  I think he's just saying that it's silly to compare training a whale or gorilla with training a dog.  If dogs out weighed us by 200 pounds, we'd have a totally different relationship with them.  I doubt he would of ever have become Man's Best Friend.

Sure, some techniques and theories do cross over and can apply to all animal training, but like he said, we don't live with those other animals in our homes. They're not held up to the same social expectaions as dogs are with humans.  They are contained in cages or pools.  They aren't let out in public crowds, even on a leash.  They can't jump up on our furniture, chase after cats, bite kids, steal food or attack strangers and other dogs.  Some behaviors can't be ignored that easily.

Can these behaviors be helped with a clicker?  Sure.  Will it work with every dog?  In my limited expirence it probably depends on the dogs drive and temperment, but I'm always trying to learn.  

You absolutely can compare.  Basically, all we are talking about is learning theory, and why it works with *any* organism that has a brain capable of operant learning, which applies to humans, gorillas, marine mammals, chickens, rats, horses and *dogs*, among others.  If you think not, you simply don't understand the scientific body of knowledge on this subject, and nothing I say will probably convince any of you.  [8|] 

Use the glasses on your rolley-eyes smiley and re-read my post, I never said learning theory didn't apply to any organism.  I said that training theories and techniques cross over with all animals.  I just don't think you would train a gorilla or chicken exactly the same as a dog that is living with you.  Just as you wouldn't train any 2 dogs exactly the same way. 

ORIGINAL: jenhuedepohl

I think we get carried away with the idea that all physical training equals abuse and punishment. If physical training was crual and abusive, you wouldn't be able to train riding horses this way. If you hurt a horse, they get fearful and horse are extremely dangerous when fearful. Horses tend to react most positively to the same things dogs do - good leadership and clear, well-timed cues. I've used positive reinforcement for good ground manners - like for picking up their feet for the farrier, but most training from the saddle was done with the use of well-timed pressure and release.

Sorry, I don't know much about horses, but I've been 'training' my wild hare like I would a small and very nervy hoofed animal. There's no way in hell I could ever teach him anything useful using pressure, even. It's got to be very hands off because he doesn't like being touched. So my thought is, if I can teach a wild hare things and never touch him to do so, then why can't I do the same with a dog or any other animal? It seems to me that pressure training in horses is specific to the purpose a horse is going to be worked for. What's the use of pressure if you're never going to ride the horse, for example? I will admit that what I can achieve with a wild hare is limited, and partially because I can't touch him. His behaviour wouldn't be acceptable in a domestic dog because a domestic dog is larger, more dangerous and, most importantly, has been bred to be good company and a pleasant member of human society. All animals have their limits when it comes to training.

I've got some pretty surprising results from my hands-off approach with the hare, and my next dog will be as hands off as I can possibly manage. For curiosity if nothing else. The collar and leash will be there strictly for emergencies involving kangaroos dashing across the path and onto the road.

I think it's silly to compare the behaviour and how modifiable it is of wild animals and domestic animals. Not because they learn in different ways, but because they are worlds apart. You just can't treat a wild animal like you would a domestic pet. HOWEVER, if you want to train them, your best bet is +R because it's universal. A comparison between wild and domestic animals based strictly on training method is not at all silly.

I'm not communicating this very well, so I'm going to sum up by saying I think it's silly to have the same expectations of a wild animal as you do for a domestic animal, regardless of the context. This discussion and the silverback aspect of it are annoying because you'd be kinda twisted IMO if you wanted a silverback to live with you and obey human rules anyway. To me, any animal you take into your life should be allowed to express as much of their natural behaviour as your can possibly provide safe outlets for. What would even be the point of having a wild animal living with you if you wanted it to, in effect, cease to be wild?

Sorry, I don't know much about horses, but I've been 'training' my wild hare like I would a small and very nervy hoofed animal. There's no way in hell I could ever teach him anything useful using pressure, even. It's got to be very hands off because he doesn't like being touched. So my thought is, if I can teach a wild hare things and never touch him to do so, then why can't I do the same with a dog or any other animal? It seems to me that pressure training in horses is specific to the purpose a horse is going to be worked for. What's the use of pressure if you're never going to ride the horse, for example?

With round pen training for horses, there is no physical pressure, but mental pressure. Pressure is applied to the horse through body language and sometimes by swinging a lead rope. When you face the horse, you are applying pressure, and he moves away. When he stops to face you, you turn away from him and teach him that by facing you the pressure will be removed. With very skittish horses, body language as subtle as just looking at the handler willl cause the handler to remove the pressure. Eventually, the horse will "join up" and follow the handler. Whenever the horse displays the inappropriate response, the pressure is reapplied. It is fairly species specific, because as a herd animal, being chased away from the herd is the "punishment" and the horse is only allowed to rejoin when the other horses allow it. This is a pretty simplistic description for a very complex training method but I think it gets the main point across.

ORIGINAL: Trevell

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

ORIGINAL: Trevell

I might be way off base here, but I don't think espencer is saying that you can't train a dog or gorilla or chicken or rat with a clicker.  I think he's just saying that it's silly to compare training a whale or gorilla with training a dog.  If dogs out weighed us by 200 pounds, we'd have a totally different relationship with them.  I doubt he would of ever have become Man's Best Friend.

Sure, some techniques and theories do cross over and can apply to all animal training, but like he said, we don't live with those other animals in our homes. They're not held up to the same social expectaions as dogs are with humans.  They are contained in cages or pools.  They aren't let out in public crowds, even on a leash.  They can't jump up on our furniture, chase after cats, bite kids, steal food or attack strangers and other dogs.  Some behaviors can't be ignored that easily.

Can these behaviors be helped with a clicker?  Sure.  Will it work with every dog?  In my limited expirence it probably depends on the dogs drive and temperment, but I'm always trying to learn.  

You absolutely can compare.  Basically, all we are talking about is learning theory, and why it works with *any* organism that has a brain capable of operant learning, which applies to humans, gorillas, marine mammals, chickens, rats, horses and *dogs*, among others.  If you think not, you simply don't understand the scientific body of knowledge on this subject, and nothing I say will probably convince any of you.  [8|] 

Use the glasses on your rolley-eyes smiley and re-read my post, I never said learning theory didn't apply to any organism.  I said that training theories and techniques cross over with all animals.  I just don't think you would train a gorilla or chicken exactly the same as a dog that is living with you.  Just as you wouldn't train any 2 dogs exactly the same way. 

(FYI, some folks do not regard that particular emoticon as "eye rolling" - some people simply think of it as a way to suggest that someone thinks they are an expert when they actually are not, so let's play nice in the sandbox. [])
You can train any sentient organism with operant conditioning.  That's because the brain works pretty much the same way in terms of reward pathways, and what keeps an animal repeating behavior that works.  Your argument just doesn't hold water.  It isn't how we train dogs that is so different from how we train other species, it's what we train them to do that is different.
BTW, I know you were boldfacing for emphasis, but it might be nicer to use italics or asterisks, lest some members think you are trying to scream to make your point. []

I know what the eye rolling emoticon means and your explanation is exactly how I took it.  Maybe you should refrain from using it so much, lest some members might think of you as pompus and rude know it all. Who said or implied they were an expert here? 

I wasn't really trying to start an argument with this, I was just giving my interpretation of what I thought espencer was getting at.  Maybe I'm not using the right words and phrasing to make my point clear, but I don't think I'm really saying anything that totally goes against what you're saying anyway. 

If it's not how you train, but what you train fine.  It's the what that makes training a pet dog different from training a chicken.  That's all I was trying to say.      

ORIGINAL: Trevell

Sure, some techniques and theories do cross over and can apply to all animal training, but like he said, we don't live with those other animals in our homes. They're not held up to the same social expectaions as dogs are with humans.  They are contained in cages or pools.  They aren't let out in public crowds, even on a leash.  They can't jump up on our furniture, chase after cats, bite kids, steal food or attack strangers and other dogs.  Some behaviors can't be ignored that easily.

 
Thats exactly what i mean []

ORIGINAL: espencer

ORIGINAL: Trevell

Sure, some techniques and theories do cross over and can apply to all animal training, but like he said, we don't live with those other animals in our homes. They're not held up to the same social expectaions as dogs are with humans.  They are contained in cages or pools.  They aren't let out in public crowds, even on a leash.  They can't jump up on our furniture, chase after cats, bite kids, steal food or attack strangers and other dogs.  Some behaviors can't be ignored that easily.

Thats exactly what i mean []

My problem with this is that you don't hold wild animals to the same expectations as you do a domestic dog BECAUSE they're wild. It's got nothing to do with training methods. It's just their basic nature. Just like I don't have an expectation that my domestic bunny will learn to be cool with being picked up by the scruff of the neck. Some uncommon bunnies do, but mine won't because it goes against her nature. Wild animals are not excused from the expectations we have for domestic dogs because they live in cages and don't live in our homes, they're excused because they're wild and are where they are today through thousands of years of selective pressure driving their evolution towards something that is wiley and curious, but wary and dangerous when frightened. Domestic dogs have, for the most part, had natural selection removed from them to be replaced by selection by humans. That makes for a very different animal.

ORIGINAL: Trevell
Maybe you should refrain from using it so much, lest some members might think of you as pompus and rude know it all.

That's as close to a personal attack as you are likely to get without attracting attention from the moderator.  And, so we're clear, I took it as such.

Use the glasses on your rolley-eyes smiley and re-read my post,

 
No offense to anyone but this was really funny to me and made me laugh in an otherwise crappy holiday weekend.  Thanks.

ORIGINAL: DPU

Use the glasses on your rolley-eyes smiley and re-read my post,

No offense to anyone but this was really funny to me and made me laugh in an otherwise crappy holiday weekend.  Thanks.

So glad to have made your day. [sm=crazy.gif]

I just saw a special on a woman in India who has been training elephants w/ all positive reinforcement and how she is revolutionizing training in the region, and when I goggled it I found this whole article that is relevant to the topic and very interesting
[linkhttp://www.naturalencounters.com/aav2.html]http://www.naturalencounters.com/aav2.html[/link]

ORIGINAL: debv53

I just saw a special on a woman in India who has been training elephants w/ all positive reinforcement and how she is revolutionizing training in the region, and when I goggled it I found this whole article that is relevant to the topic and very interesting
[linkhttp://www.naturalencounters.com/aav2.html]http://www.naturalencounters.com/aav2.html[/link]

I thought the webpage was about elephants since you were talking about them hehe

Well if you want to train elephants you have to deal with "musth" which is way dangerous and during this period the elephant is extremly aggressive with almost everything in front of him, some people just chain the elephant and wait for the "musth" period to pass because their hormons (according to people that own elephants) make them go crazy and irrational, i saw an episode in National Geographic about it and here is a webpage of what exactly it is, as you can see, if you want to live with animals, you HAVE to deal with other aspects of their social life too

[linkhttp://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2002/Havard/MS.html]http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2002/Havard/MS.html[/link]

It is about elephants, you need to scroll down, it is a scientific study on most animals and the rewards of positive reinforcement

espencer, while that may be true, don't believe everything you see on NGC. [sm=devil.gif]

Just kidding - couldn't resist.


Fascinating article, Deb.  Thanks for posting it.