I don't understand this training vs behaviour thing

I can't remember if it was you or Spiritdogs who pointed out that there is some behaviorist theory in training and some training effect in behavioral modification and that the two are not so easily separated and I agree with that to a large extent. I'm not exactly sure of the difference between dog behaviorist and dog behavior specialist. Spiritdogs thought the difference was merely slippery semantics and she could be right.
 
Certainly the methods such as clicker training are about learning theory and how operant conditioning can apply to any living creature, though I think that each species has a psychology peculiar to itself. But the other side of conditioning is pain or aversion avoidance, as well as reward seeking. Such as eating a plant that causes stomach upset. One dog may learn after one bout not to eat that again. Another may not make that connection. So, you may be right, as well, that any training method used is based on some behavioral model.

ORIGINAL: corvus

Someone clear this up for me....

How is being a trainer and being a behaviourist or "dog behaviour specialist" as it may be (Ron?) two seperate things? Where is this line between training and modifying behaviour? Isn't one the other? Or am I missing something and is there no behaviour modification in training, or no training in behaviour modification, or no behaviour modification in what CM does?

There are two learning theories, IMO. One is basic learning theory, which exists inside the box. The second is social learning theory, which exists outside of the box. There is also fulfillment by design, which cannot be ignored. The resulting behaviors are based on the understanding of all three.
 
Most trainers only focus on basic learning theory. Cesar focuses on social learning theory and fulfillment by design.

ORIGINAL: corvus

In my mind, the best trainers are going to know as much about behaviour as a behaviourist, and the best behaviourists are going to know as much about training as a great trainer. You can bet that if I ever needed a behaviourist I would be getting one that was also a superb trainer, because knowing why something works opens so many more doors than just knowing that something sometimes works.
 

 
All three areas (I listed above) should be understood and used. Trainers who choose to also work on social and behavioral problems, should incorporate more than basic learning theory alone.
 

ORIGINAL: corvus

Also in my mind, teaching good manners is still training, teaching important life skills is training, and setting boundaries is training. What isn't training when we work with our dogs?

 
Training is basic learning theory. Manners are social learning theory. Training alone works fine inside the box. But dogs do not live alone inside of a box and would become psychologically unstable and fail to thrive, if forced to do so.
 

I can't remember if it was you or Spiritdogs who pointed out that there is some behaviorist theory in training and some training effect in behavioral modification and that the two are not so easily separated and I agree with that to a large extent. I'm not exactly sure of the difference between dog behaviorist and dog behavior specialist. Spiritdogs thought the difference was merely slippery semantics and she could be right.

 
I agree with this. Where do you draw the line between the 'categories' of working with your dog?

A behaviorist usually has a degree in disciplines associated with psychology, zoology, etc.  Behaviorists look at the  behavior and the impact of genetics, learning theories, etc.  In most cases, behaviorists are specialists.  Trainers tend to be more generalists.  They are more focused on the end point (the terminal behavior) and the development of a pattern specifically related to a "command" and an "outcome".  Trainers do not need advanced training.  I would propose there is considerable variability in how a trainer becomes a trainer and a behaviorist becomes a behaviorist.  Although both have organizations for certification and anyone can attach the title to their name,  the behaviorist titles are more likely to require a rigerous training protocal to be eligible for certification than training organizations.
 
My opinion of  course. 

The line is blurry for me too.  I think if you are a behaviourist, you have a more holistic approach.... you look at everything, rather than just the key behaviour that you want to change or develop.  

I want generally calm, good, well mannered behaviour.  I don't do this by asking for a "sit" before the dog jumps up.  I wait until the dog is calm so I can reward the sit and the calmness.  The dog's mind state to me, is as important, if not more so than the correct behaviour.  I think this is a more "behaviourist" approach than a trainer approach, but you are right, it's still training.  I'm still reinforcing behaviour I want to continue using operant conditioning.

It's a toughie to explain.  A good idea for a thread.  Where does CM come into it?  Is it that he believes the two are entirely seperate and he is a B not a T?

While I see your points, mrv, since we are in the CM section I will bring up CM. He is called a behavioral specialist (I think?), yet what you said about the training and education to become a behaviorist does not apply to him. That doesn't mean he's unqualified, I think it just means that education is not an all-encompassing way to view the role of 'behaviorist'.
 
I still think it's just labels. I would feel pretty ripped off if our dog trainer had done nothing but teach us how to train 'sit' without looking at the behavior/psychology behind training. Even in simple, "end result" type training, many of us still use behavior and dog psychology to some extent when identifying how to motivate the dog, reinforce behavior, etc.. It seems like the 2 'fields' crossover constantly. Fear issues, which are 'behavior', can be dealt with in some cases through shaping, confidence building exercises, etc. I.E. training.
 
I don't know. I'm no expert at this stuff but I don't see any hard and fast division between the two. All I do is work with my dog to make her a happy, well adjusted member of our household. In doing so, I may introduce 'end behaviors' (training) that either suits the situation or perhaps is incompatible with an undesired behavior. I consider what I feel is the logical doggy thought process, and how I can work with that. It's all just a mish-mash of theory, practice, and results to me.

It's a toughie to explain. A good idea for a thread. Where does CM come into it? Is it that he believes the two are entirely seperate and he is a B not a T?

 
I don't know what he personally says about it, but most of the CM fans on here often bring up that he is a behavior expert, not a trainer.

I should have clarified,,, certification is more common in those that call themselves behaviorists or those with advanced degrees in the fields.  Trainers often do not have any organization recognized association.  If you make your living working with dogs I would say you are professional.  I do have a problem calling someone certain titles since that implies a level of training that may/should be present (counselor, therapist, etc.)  I believe animal behaviorists fit in that catagory.
 
I do accept that Cesar is a professional.  I just would not call him a behaviorist as readily as I would call him a trainer... Granted that is not what he calls himself.

ORIGINAL: Scout in Canada

While I see your points, mrv, since we are in the CM section I will bring up CM. He is called a behavioral specialist (I think?), yet what you said about the training and education to become a behaviorist does not apply to him. That doesn't mean he's unqualified, I think it just means that education is not an all-encompassing way to view the role of 'behaviorist'.

That is correct, CM refers to himself as a behavior specialist. And the rest of that statement is right on the mark.

I don't know. I'm no expert at this stuff but I don't see any hard and fast division between the two.

IMPO there is a huge difference. you would be surprised if you knew how many dogs I work with that have good OBT but badddd mannaers (behavior). When I teach a dog to sit, find drugs, hold something in their mouth for me, carry something from one place to another, I'm teaching them a skill. When I teach a dog not to jump up, not to run out a open door, to be quiet when i say so, I use no OBT to do this. I always laugh when I work with someone who was told *we'll teach your dog to sit stay, when people come to the door, and that way the dog can't run out or jump up. Therefore we're modifying the dogs behavior.* Really??? What happens when the dog is finished sitting? That! sometimes depends on the dog. And sometimes it depends on the dog, the owners, and the people who come in. I believe a dog should understand, that because i open a door, that is not a invitation to run out the door. And that people coming in are not prizes to be won. Many "professionals" fail to understand the difference in OBT and the way a dog *naturally* learns. And the main way a dog learns is through *observation*. That's why dogs without humans, and without OBT can live and survive just fine. It's why all pack members know their place and their job. Sure, humans want to think they no more about dogs than dogs do, and that they know more about dogs than nature does. And that is why so many fail at actually helping dogs over come behavior issues.

I don't know what he personally says about it, but most of the CM fans on here often bring up that he is a behavior expert, not a trainer.

This is correct, CM is not a trainer. IMO the reason he's so successful where some "behaviorist" fail, is while they're busy over analyzing ***everything*** Cesar simple breaks it down to what the dog understands. And that! IMO is what drives some people so crazy. lol

 

All I do is work with my dog to make her a happy, well adjusted member of our household. In doing so, I may introduce 'end behaviors' (training) that either suits the situation or perhaps is incompatible with an undesired behavior. I consider what I feel is the logical doggy thought process, and how I can work with that. It's all just a mish-mash of theory, practice, and results to me.

That! is why I say no one but no one owns the *Dog Bible* and the only way, or the better way is their way. Just do what works for you.[]

ORIGINAL: mrv

I do accept that Cesar is a professional.  I just would not call him a behaviorist as readily as I would call him a trainer...

I'm sorry, but a "trainer" teaches OBT, and it's been made abundantly clear Cesar does not do OBT. So why would you call him that? Heck, why don't we call him a comic, a bird, no wait!, a plane, no, wait, wait, it's superman! that would be about as accurate as calling him a trainer.

Granted that is not what he calls himself.

Well then, there you go. Soooooo?

ORIGINAL: corvus

Someone clear this up for me....

How is being a trainer and being a behaviourist or "dog behaviour specialist" as it may be (Ron?) two seperate things? Where is this line between training and modifying behaviour? Isn't one the other? Or am I missing something and is there no behaviour modification in training, or no training in behaviour modification, or no behaviour modification in what CM does?

In my mind, the best trainers are going to know as much about behaviour as a behaviourist, and the best behaviourists are going to know as much about training as a great trainer. You can bet that if I ever needed a behaviourist I would be getting one that was also a superb trainer, because knowing why something works opens so many more doors than just knowing that something sometimes works.

Also in my mind, teaching good manners is still training, teaching important life skills is training, and setting boundaries is training. What isn't training when we work with our dogs?

Think about the difference between a coach and a psychologist

A coach can teach you to swim, play football, play tennins, play baseball, etc and thru playing the sport you learn about discipline, about team effort, about confidence, helps you to be healthy, etc.

But of course a coach may not be the best person to treat sychological problems right? for that you go to a psychologist. Or you dont go to a psychologist to improve your swimming technique
 
People that plays sports are more balanced mentally that people that do not but they still can have some "issues" to deal with in their life

When there is people that still would go to their coaches for support, he may not be someone else different that a normal person giving you a good advice, a psychologist not only can help you more but can see the roots of your psychological problem

Hey espencer, that is a great way to explain it! Totaly agree with ya.[sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif]

I  was surprised when CM said he was a "behaviourist" not a trainer.....  To a degree it must be in the eys of the beholder, because he seems like more a trainer to me.

How often do you see folks in a class with dogs "heeling" beautifully, and then they tug their owners all the way to the car?  Well, some would see that as the difference between training and behaviour - training has occurred inside the hall but has not cured the problem on the way to the car.  But as we all know, dogs don't generalise well.  They need to learn to walk well to the car as well as in the hall - that means that, for owner and dog, training should not end when they leave the hall, it should carry over so that the dog learns to apply the obedience skills learned in class to everyday situations.  To me, any time I am interacting with my dogs I am training them, because whether I like it or not, they are learning.  It doesn't have to be a "formal" training session.

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

I  was surprised when CM said he was a "behaviourist" not a trainer.....  To a degree it must be in the eys of the beholder, because he seems like more a trainer to me.

 
Oh yes you are right, thas why he always says "I rehabilitate dogs, i train people"  he is a "people trainer" []