How would a....???

well, I'm not defending anyone here, but I have to agree, I watched closely the jindo episode everyone is so flustered about, and while I have yet to understand (insert comment about my ignorance here) why they didn't try something else before going straight for the roll, I didn't see any hanging perse, I'm pretty sure that the dog was actually "jumping" and standing on two legs trying to get to CM, and he was only lifting the leash to maintain some sort of control, but not pulling perse. Agreed on some of the shots it does look like the dog is hanging, but again, I think that was the dog on it's way down after getting on two legs.

....and to answer the original question, I think Frawley would teach the bow just like everybody else, by forming, the question is, what would happen once the dog doesn't bow?.

the question is, what would happen once the dog doesn't bow?.

 
Hanging?.....Sorry, I know, bad joke[8D]

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

Ed....much as I hate to say it,
 
"adhere" and "FOLLOWERS", implies that one doesn't do anything other than what is recommended by one group or person. I do not think the people who like CM should be pigeonholed in that manner. I think that because as has already been pointed out...people in this area also use other forms/methods of training.
 
I would hazard to say that if this question were to take into account that people that watch CM use other methods for more run of the mill issues like OB and Tricks...than it would go something like "how do you train a dog to bow..." which really...would fit in nicely in the regular training area.
 
Not trying to make you feel bad because if you say you aren't trying to bait then I completely believe you, that's not you []...only trying to give perspective on how it "looks"...you know?

Well, frankly, I think that Ed would not be so much in a quandary about how CM's followers would teach a behavior (and a behavior can be either a trick or an obedience move, simple or complex), if they weren't always peppering each training and behavior thread with the advice of only one or two people, namely CM and Leerburg.  They never seem to do anything but generalize, and they rarely get specific about how they use what they have learned from these people to teach their own dogs a behavior, or correct a specific problem.  We have people who post on this section who claim to be able to manage dogs, yet they need someone to defend them for not being able to describe how to teach a simple "bow", the most elementary of "tricks" (odd that tricks seem to be demeaned, when they are just behaviors like any other).
There are several ways to teach bows, but I am not a CM or Leerburg devotee, so if anyone wants to know how I do it, start a thread in the other section, and I'm happy to oblige.

...and to answer the original question, I think Frawley would teach the bow just like everybody else, by forming, the question is, what would happen once the dog doesn't bow?.

Forming (molding, positioning) isn't the only option when teaching a trick like this. Capturing or shaping are some other options.

jjsmom06


Again, that highway runs both directions.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

Those who follow operant conditioning don't have their own section but would "they" consider it baiting if I asked the same question?

I would not consider that baiting.  But, the minute you identify yourself as positive, the CM'ers will assume that's what you are doing.  Hopefully, they won't drive you off the forum completely, since I so love your hound stories...

I think the OP kicked off a discussion that had the potential to be very informative and explain to people who aren't keen on aversives (like me) more about the style, technique and philosophy that goes with this kind of training....does that make any sense?  Why assume it's baiting?  The Pro Positive People have been asked "how would you treat an aggressive dog with a clicker?" and I don't see that as baiting either.  Just a chance to share information and ideas.  We know we're not all going to agree before we start, can't we discuss it hypothetically anyway for the sake of interest?  Bearing in mind (as Xerxes said) that we all have the same goal in mind and hang in for grim death to that common ground?  I think jjsmom06 has got it bang on.  Shocking behaviour people!  Tssst!  Play nice!
 
Seriously I think that's a good question eley has brought up..... do those kind of trainers carry over that style to "trick" type stuff?  Because lets face it, it doesn't matter if the dog gets it wrong or doesn't comply.... right?  And what is the result?  Is the dog less reliable?  Or is non compliance just a big no-no because it encourages sloppy responses and non-reliable obedience in general?  If  they needed to "correct" an incorrect bow or a "non-bow", how would they go about it?
 
I'm interested because seeing the difference in how my 1st dog performed "tricks" (that were taught with more positive methods and the emphasis was on fun, because hey it didn't really matter.... generally more chilled out attitude) and the more formal stuff.... With the more formal stuff I was very conscious that it was more important and I was really keen on getting the dog to get exactly right and always obey first time immediately every time, particularly in challenging situations (he was dog aggressive)... he was waaaaay better at tricks and seemed happier in his responses too.  Its one of the reasons I left one method and philosophy behind and came to a new way of thinking.

I have to agree with this part.

Some may have "perceived" it as baiting, but I would bet the bank that it was an honest inquiry.

 

ORIGINAL: jjsmom06

  Instead you chose to attack the OP, who btw if you ever really bothered to get to know you would find that the things you are accusing him of are totally NOT in his character. 

Wow, is this the "WWF"?, seems like the tag-team has arrived.....[8D]

ORIGINAL: JM

I have to agree with this part.

Some may have "perceived" it as baiting, but I would bet the bank that it was an honest inquiry.

ORIGINAL: jjsmom06

Instead you chose to attack the OP, who btw if you ever really bothered to get to know you would find that the things you are accusing him of are totally NOT in his character. 

My previous post was a bit angry, but this is why.  I have had the pleasure of chatting with Ed via PM, and I really think that he is just a particularly concerned dog owner with a desire for knowledge and an ability to share what he has learned thus far in that quest.  He isn't a jerk.

ORIGINAL: snownose

Wow, is this the "WWF"?, seems like the tag-team has arrived.....[8D]

 
Yeah, I agree.  Where was any support in the CM and Fear thread.  Ah, I don't belong to a camp, thats the difference.  (Jones and Corvus excluded)
 
BTW, I would never teach a dog to bow, it makes no sense to me and serves no purpose at all.

But it is soooo cute.

ORIGINAL: DPU



BTW, I would never teach a dog to bow, it makes no sense to me and serves no purpose at all.

ORIGINAL: DPU

BTW, I would never teach a dog to bow, it makes no sense to me and serves no purpose at all.

 
Then you are missing out.  The very teaching of any cue strengthens your bond with the dog and increases his capacity to learn new things as well as mentally stimulating him.  I've taught my dog loads of useless stuff just for the fun of it - because they enjoy it and so do I and we'd run out of "formal" and useful things to teach....  But I'm probably a complete weirdo and on my own there.

Having a load of dogs....lol....I teach what needs to happen....and trying to sort out problems from the rescues....sorry, teaching bows are out......does that make me any less capable?
 
I think not...............