The language of dominance and submission

ORIGINAL: nfowler

Quick response before bed--what's the difference before offering a behavior before getting a reward (treat, hug, pet, etc) and offering a behavior before getting a reward? That's all I do with my clicker.

The clicker isn't only about tricks--it's about habits, about working together, about trust, consistency, etc. Again--they get nada if they do nada behavior.

I feel like I have more control over my dog than I ever have before.

My only point is that people are going to do whatever works for them, theory or no theory. It seems to me that leadership is more about theory than actions and so if the average reader can't *see* any benefit to to staring at a dog or standing up tall when giving a command to the dog, then they're not going to be figuring out if he/she is a good leader. That's the last thing they'll be thinking. Most likely, they're thinking, "Oh, I hate it when blasts through me out the door," not, "I hope he recognizes my dominance here."

C'mon--we're talking about people like me here.

 
 
This is an open board with a wide variety of participants. 
 
We are also talking about people at various stages of the learning curve and those with different philosophical studies and areas of expertise.
 
There is a good diverse group here.
 
I see this as a "good" thing. []

The thread's fine and I'm glad everyone is having fun reading it and responding, etc. I'm just not convinced that it will cause anyone to be born again one way or the other.

Those who could be reading it probably aren't, of course, one way or the other.
 
I'm not popping leashes and hoping my own doesn't get popped. Just thinking this is thread is what it is--a ramble. (Which works.)

Clicker training seems like a good way to teach desired behavior by clicking to mark the behavior and throw the treat And they make a couple of pavlovian connections. The click is good, and it equals something good. So, I'll keep doing whatever it was I was doing to keep that click going. But it does not corrections. That is, for unwanted behavior, like running off even after you have clicked and treated, you have to wait for that to extinguish. For a food-driven dog, that may extinguish fairly quickly. For others, it may be more difficult or require a combo. Never use the clicker in advance of a correction. But, like any other time, when you use a correction, follow that with a command or move toward what you wanted.
 
IMHO, certain breeds are more biddable than others and may respond more rapidly  or consistently to clicker training. The value of clicker training I can see is that you can mark accurately the behavior that you want and that you can phase it out and decrease your physical signal to a twitch of the finger. To others, it would, indeed, look like the dog is reading your mind.

ORIGINAL: ron2

Clicker training seems like a good way to teach desired behavior by clicking to mark the behavior and throw the treat And they make a couple of pavlovian connections. The click is good, and it equals something good. So, I'll keep doing whatever it was I was doing to keep that click going. But it does not corrections. That is, for unwanted behavior, like running off even after you have clicked and treated, you have to wait for that to extinguish. For a food-driven dog, that may extinguish fairly quickly. For others, it may be more difficult or require a combo. Never use the clicker in advance of a correction. But, like any other time, when you use a correction, follow that with a command or move toward what you wanted.

IMHO, certain breeds are more biddable than others and may respond more rapidly  or consistently to clicker training. The value of clicker training I can see is that you can mark accurately the behavior that you want and that you can phase it out and decrease your physical signal to a twitch of the finger. To others, it would, indeed, look like the dog is reading your mind.

I still think people are missing the point about clicker training.  The object of all training is communication.  We want to communicate to the dog what we would like him to do (action) and not do (inaction), and how to behave (perfection?).  At any rate, if we can accomplich NILIF faster, and with less stress, because we have found a means of communicating that the dog understands, why would we not?  So, to us, the clicker is that basis of communication.  In fact, if you've read much Karen Pryor, you would realize that it has a use in terms of teaching paired behaviors.  Example: dog barks, you click/treat (yup, you rewarded the bark [sm=eek.gif]) - then, you put up a hand signal fast, right in front of his little mug (you CM fans will like that - it feels like a body block - you just can't say "tsst") to quickly quiet the dog and click/treat the "quiet".  Soon, you can turn him on and off like a switch.  Bark/quiet, bark/quiet.  You have not punished him, you have simply put each behavior on a cue, and they are incompatible behaviors.  You can do the same thing with "come forward", "back up".

ORIGINAL: ron2

Clicker training seems like a good way to teach desired behavior by clicking to mark the behavior and throw the treat And they make a couple of pavlovian connections. The click is good, and it equals something good. So, I'll keep doing whatever it was I was doing to keep that click going. But it does not corrections. That is, for unwanted behavior, like running off even after you have clicked and treated, you have to wait for that to extinguish. For a food-driven dog, that may extinguish fairly quickly. For others, it may be more difficult or require a combo. Never use the clicker in advance of a correction. But, like any other time, when you use a correction, follow that with a command or move toward what you wanted.

IMHO, certain breeds are more biddable than others and may respond more rapidly  or consistently to clicker training. The value of clicker training I can see is that you can mark accurately the behavior that you want and that you can phase it out and decrease your physical signal to a twitch of the finger. To others, it would, indeed, look like the dog is reading your mind.

I still think people are missing the point about clicker training.  It's a means to the same end that you all seek.  The object of all training is communication.  We want to communicate to the dog what we would like him to do (action) and not do (inaction), and how to behave (perfection?).  At any rate, if we can accomplish NILIF faster, and with less stress, because we have found a means of communicating that the dog understands, why would we not?  The clicker is just a basis of communication that is unemotional, unlike our voices, which can change and sound different to the dog (Ever call your dog when you really thought he was headed for the road and oncoming traffic? did you sound calm at that moment?  That's why whistle training can help you have a good emergency recall.).  In fact, if you've read much Karen Pryor, you would realize that it has a use in terms of teaching paired behaviors.  Example: dog barks, you click/treat (yup, you rewarded the bark [sm=eek.gif]) - then, you put up a hand signal fast, right in front of his little mug (you CM fans will like that - it feels like a body block - you just can't say "tsst") to quickly quiet the dog and click/treat the "quiet".  Soon, you can turn him on and off like a switch.  Bark/quiet, bark/quiet.  You have not punished him, you have simply put each behavior on a cue, and they are incompatible behaviors.  You can do the same thing with "come forward", "back up".

The less biddable dog is still trainable, and you can still train with positive methods.  The key is to find the reward that your particular dog is willing to work for, and make it exciting. 

I am wondering if it isn't one and the same.

Think of humans...don't we consider our teachers/mentors as leaders?

Usually if the teacher/menor involves us in the learning process rather than just laying down the law of what is required, a certain relationship and mutual respect is had.

I'm thinking that one requires thought and interaction, the other requires obediance and memorization.

ORIGINAL: willowchow

I'm just confused reading all this.  I understand clicker training is a very nice positive way to teach commands and good behavior.  But, it's not exactly what I would consider the method for teaching leadership or whatever you want to call it.  I used NILIF for that.   It just seems like some people don't separate teaching commands and teaching leadership.  Does that make sense?

I agree with Anne. The difference that clicker training has made for me has been to provide a mutual language that both I and my dogs understand and can fluently communicate in. It removes the major barrier that we all have in living with our dogs: They dont' speak English and we don't speak dog. Once both you and the animal understand its basic principles, clicker training (or whathaveyou--I think there needs to be a better name because lots of "clicker trainers" don't use a clicker and as we've already asserted the term "training" is limiting and doesn't cover it all) provides a mutual second language for both dog and human. And being able to communicate with your dog is useful for a lot more than just training tricks.

I think this is why in the clicker training community people say there's "clicker training" and then just "training with a clicker." Clicker training is a holistic method of dog behavior training and management that focuses on opening up a cooperative line of communication between dog and handler. While "clicker classes" at your local obedience club focus on "tricks", if you fully embrace the methodology it becomes a lot more than that.

I am also beginning to question the supposed superiority of humans over dogs.

There is little doubt that my dog has helped me become a better human being. He has taught me the importance of love, understanding, empathy, and mutual respect.

So, really...who is teaching whom here?

I think we may get a surprise when arriving to the 'other side', for there is a possibility when meeting up with our dogs, we will be greeted with a loving smile and a voice that we understand is surely the voice of god....

"Within every dog, I deposited a piece of myself...  to help you to become a spiritual being. "

I really don't consider myself a religious person, but I feel something good and pure  when I am with Zeus.

I have been lurking in this thread for a while without posting... one reason being a sense of futility (no one ever converts to PR/clickers until they try it), and another being that I find the whole "language of dominance" business ever so vague and, really, irrelevant to life with a dog.
 
Nancy, I think you hit the nail right on the head when you said that it's clear communication that creates the right relationship between the human and dog - call it leadership, call it alphahood if you really want to. But my perception of clicker training's initial effect on my dog was a palpable sense of relief on his part, and I've heard a lot of other people say that as well. The "stubborn," "dominant," or "stupid" dog suddenly becomes obedient, willing, and clever. My dog always comes to me and no one else when he needs something, not (I believe) because I'm a very dominant person nor a sucker, but because he knows I'll understand what he's asking. We have that open line between us. I like how Cressida called it a holistic approach... it is about communication in general and not about tricks or commands.
 
But I just don't think people can understand clicker training until they try it themselves. I didn't. Though I was in favor of PR training before, I steadfastly refused to believe clicker training could be the miracle worker it was touted to be (because I'm a stubborn and perhaps stupid doggie[]). The only reason I tried it was because I literally found a discarded clicker in the dirt at the park and took it home.

I understand the goodness of the clicker and I've only used positive methods in all my training of Willow. 

As far as me thinking I'm superior to her.  That's not what my goal has been, it's always been to make sure she doesn't think she's more superior to me.  Why??  Because when she thinks that she can become quite unpredictable and scary. 

So. . .you take a clicker, tell Willow to sit, click, treat. . .everythings great.  30 seconds later, when she realizes you're out of treats, she growls at you.  This has happened with a trainer who for the life of her couldn't figure this out.  And, she didn't really want to work with such an unpredictable dog. 

Now what? 

See, people keep saying that once you start working on training that the dog will naturally fall into place as far as "dominance" or whatever word you prefer. And, for MOST dogs I think that is true. 

But, I know that to not be the case with all dogs.  []

The superior post wasn't directed at you.  It just seems to be a general concensus that humans are superior to dogs.

ORIGINAL: willowchow

I understand the goodness of the clicker and I've only used positive methods in all my training of Willow. 

As far as me thinking I'm superior to her.  That's not what my goal has been, it's always been to make sure she doesn't think she's more superior to me.  Why??  Because when she thinks that she can become quite unpredictable and scary. 

So. . .you take a clicker, tell Willow to sit, click, treat. . .everythings great.  30 seconds later, when she realizes you're out of treats, she growls at you.  This has happened with a trainer who for the life of her couldn't figure this out.  And, she didn't really want to work with such an unpredictable dog. 

Now what? 

See, people keep saying that once you start working on training that the dog will naturally fall into place as far as "dominance" or whatever word you prefer. And, for MOST dogs I think that is true. 

But, I know that to not be the case with all dogs.  []

I think in a lot of ways they are superior to us, especially some physical areas. 

ORIGINAL: willowchow

I understand the goodness of the clicker and I've only used positive methods in all my training of Willow. 

As far as me thinking I'm superior to her.  That's not what my goal has been, it's always been to make sure she doesn't think she's more superior to me.  Why??  Because when she thinks that she can become quite unpredictable and scary. 

So. . .you take a clicker, tell Willow to sit, click, treat. . .everythings great.  30 seconds later, when she realizes you're out of treats, she growls at you.  This has happened with a trainer who for the life of her couldn't figure this out.  And, she didn't really want to work with such an unpredictable dog. 

Now what? 

See, people keep saying that once you start working on training that the dog will naturally fall into place as far as "dominance" or whatever word you prefer. And, for MOST dogs I think that is true. 

But, I know that to not be the case with all dogs.  []

It is NOT natural that he will "fall into place".  But, what is natural, and to your advantage, is that you can now communicate, via the clicker and your NRM (no reward marker), which behavior is or is not acceptable to you - without needing to resort to physical coercion to elicit behavior, or physical correction to inhibit behavior.  The fact is that some dogs are simply more difficult to stay on top of than others.  They rely on their default behaviors (those that have worked for them in the past) because the majority of humans respond in the way the dog wants.  (Hmmm, if I growl, I can get them toA,B,or C...you choose the response.)

As to the superiority of humans over any animal, I don't buy it.  Humans themselves have created that disparity, which I don't share.  I might kill a cow to eat, or a lion might kill me to eat, but I think we all have an equal right to inhabit the planet.  To put ourselves up on the superiority pedestal means that we tip the balance of the ecosystem to reflect that.  Thus, we eradicate diseases that could have maintained a less overpopulated planet.  We think we need more than a wigwam to live in, so we rip down the trees that protected us against the greenhouse gases that we also created. 
When native people say "we are all related" they know what they are talking about.  If we make ourselves superior to another species' detriment, the balance may be temporarily in our favor, but it won't last...

without needing to resort to physical coercion to elicit behavior,

OK, OK, I see what you're saying. 

BUT, say you tell the dog to "sit" and she doesn't.  She knows sit just is deciding she doesn't want to regardless of what you have.  Do you continue to repeat "sit", or what?? 

I already know you don't like this but I do put her into a sit or whatever my thing is at the time if she doesn't do it.  I don't  like to have to repeat myself because we could be there all day with that.  And, don't you think it just teaches her she can just ignore me and I'll keep asking??  It's not a hurtfull thing, I take two fingers and touch her back, not much pressure at all really. I don't slam her butt to the ground or anything like that that's been suggested by others.  And, she'll go into the sit.  Now, that's for times when she's being really stubborn but for the most part she will do what you ask her to. 

PS--ANNE--If you have time you might want to go to Spiritual Circle and read about the most recent Willow success.  THANK YOU AGAIN for the part you've played in that over the years.  []