The Blame Game - It's not my fault! Excuses, excuses, excuses...

Several months ago, I posted a thread here entitled "musings on expectations of behaviour" in which I put forth the theory that a dog is more likely to "behave" if the owner communicates through body language that the dog is simply expected to "behave". In fact, that might be the wrong word, since a dog is ALWAYS "behaving" - it is whether they are behaving LIKE A GOOD DOG according to human standards that is the question. Semantics notwithstanding, the more experienced I become at owning a dog, the more convinced I am that my original theory is true. Those of us who believe wholeheartedly that a dog is capable of learning and "behaving" are simply more likely to have "good dogs" because the manner in which we project ourselves to the dog makes it clear to the dog what is expected.

This being another case of that famous philosophy: The medium IS the message.

To me the problem lies in the question of just how far we should take the anthropomorphising of dogs. Yes, it is illogical and unreasonable to assume that a dog can think the way we do - but given the choice, would you rather have someone who takes it too far in thinking how much their dog understands, or doesn't take it far enough and believes that their dog is incapable of learning because they aren't human? Neither option is truly desireable, which means there is some magical grey area in between in which the most effective training takes place. "JQP" dog owners do not need to be "enlightened" - they need to see the world a little less in black and white. Put that way, the whole issue of training - and trainers - becomes less intimidating, since all of a sudden it isn't required for the owner to reach the emerald city - it's just needed for them to set their feet on those yellow bricks and walk, at a pace which suits them, in the city's general direction.

Converting someone to "the right way" of treating their dog is a little like someone attempting to convert you to their religion. What would you prefer? Someone hammering on your door at 9 am on a Sunday, or sitting down with a friend over coffee and debating theology? Both have the potential to make you see the other person's point of view, but one is an AWFUL lot more likely to make you see their side than the other.

I will agree with the idea that dogs can feed off our stresses or insecurities, but not that we are always the cause of them. Some dogs have issues. Some of those are issues created by humans, some of them are quirks of the dog and in both groups you have issues which are misidentified and thus are never properly addressed. Regardless, the division between "JQP" and "educated dog owner" occurs, in my mind, right there. ANYONE who seeks out a solution to a dog issue, regardless of cause, ceases to be "JPQ". Another grey area, yes, because people are educated to a greater or lesser extent, but the very beginning of education is at its heart a desire to learn.

In the end, the only owners I view as "JQP" (as used earlier in my post and in the thread in general) are those who don't give a damn, and that creates a problem in and of itself. If those of us who are perhaps more knowledgeable about dogs don't give the "average" owner any credit, what possible incentive do they have to live up to the expectations we'd like to place on them? As with training a dog (or any trainable animal, though I have thus far not succeeded in training my fish to do much), if we don't coddle them but DO create situations in which they can be "right" they are much more likely to learn.

Kate

I like your theory and I like this post, especially the part I put in bold.  I also agree w/ your distinction of JQP.

Dog training is no different than anything else in life, it's not going to happen overnight, so if people want to throw in the towel because they didn't get instant results as their "reward", then maybe there's not much help we can offer until we can convince them that they need to redefine what consitutes a result or an improvement.

... or maybe we need to put a reward system in effect that motivates them until the reward cycle of success begins?

I understand what you are talking about from your gymnastics background.  The thing about something like gymnastics or horse riding is that in the beginning the activity itself acts as a reward. When something goes right in either sport, it feels AMAZING.  So we get the intrinsic + activity reward combination, add in praise from a happy trainer and its a pretty heady combination. 

But alot of inexperienced dog owners don't want to be dog trainers, they just like dogs & want a dog that is nice to live with.  They don't understand that being a dog trainer (on some level) is part & parcel of having a dog that is nice to live with.  That's the reason why I see a need to bridge the reward gap 

But alot of inexperienced dog owners don't want to be dog trainers, they just like dogs & want a dog that is nice to live with. They don't understand that being a dog trainer (on some level) is part & parcel of having a dog that is nice to live with. That's the reason why I see a need ro bridge the reward gap

Yup...but I guess I'm not clear what kind of rewards you're refering to?  For me, just going to a training class and realizing everything I was previously missing out on was rewarding.  If that's not enough, I'm not sure how else to swing it so that they are being rewarded.  I suppose my attitude might cloud my judgment in this area because my attitude has always been that I'm in it for the dog, not for myself.  My reward is having a dog and having the opportunity to work with it in general.  If the entire experience wasn't rewarding in general, I wouldn't have adopted a dog in the first place.

What would act as rewards, I'm not sure really. 
 
What struck me is that much discussion of people follows similar patterns to the discussion of dogs by the inexperienced.  When I mentally followed that up with a comment I've heard repeatedly "Training classes are really more about training the person than the dog",  it just struck me that we tend to use the older training methodologies on people vs the newer methodologies on dogs.

ORIGINAL: Dunders

 it just struck me that we tend to use the older training methodologies on people vs the newer methodologies on dogs.

I think that is absolutely true. In the "old days" dogs were expected to know things automatically, or after 1 or 2 attempts at the command. Now, as we get more aware of the way dogs think, we know they don't generalise well and need many repetitions of a command, and that even then a sit in the living room doesn't necessarily mean they will sit in the backyard, or at a street crossing.

Anyone who thinks humans should be able to get something after telling them once or twice is MORE than welcome to come over to my house and train my DH to put the toilet seat down. Nevertheless, when he doesn't do it I don't yell at him...what earthly purpose would that serve?

Humans and dogs have one major thing in common: we are both creatures of habit. Training out those habits takes serious work.

What would act as rewards, I'm not sure really.

What struck me is that much discussion of people follows similar patterns to the discussion of dogs by the inexperienced. When I mentally followed that up with a comment I've heard repeatedly "Training classes are really more about training the person than the dog", it just struck me that we tend to use the older training methodologies on people vs the newer methodologies on dogs.

You know, I really think that's true and I wonder if it's good, bad, or neither.  I suppose it's worth considering that humans, unlike dogs, do possess the ability to rationalize and understand consequence.  For example, if I do something naughty as a kid and mom says "go to time out!"  I know exactly why I'm being sent to time out, even if I don't like it.  I think it leads to an on-going debate - whether those of us that use positive reinforcement don't use traditional methods because they are actually bad or because dogs don't understand these methods.  I could say what I think, but I'll refrain since it's sort of off-topic and we've already got some threads that have turned into traditional vs contemporary methods.

ORIGINAL: Dunders

Sorry, but if someone's "wish to learn" is killed by one or two negative comments, then they obviously didn't have that strong of a "wish" to begin with. I don't know if it is a society thing (most of the more "direct" horse people I've met online have been from the UK-thought that was interesting) or what but many, many people seem to have this notion that if a comment or idea doesn't make them feel warm and fuzzy inside, then it is counter productive. Functioning adults should not have to be spoon fed information like children. They want to learn it, or they don't.

This one has been bugging me since last night.  Its taken until this morning for the lightbulb to go off as to why.

Some of the comments in this vein have been coming from posters that I know are involve in 'positive' dog training.  Why are we not training people like dogs?  We don't look at a dog & say "if a couple jerks on a choke chain kills his will to learn, his will to learn wasn't that strong to begin with"  We don't expect the dog to figure it out until after tens if not hundreds of repetitions, yet we expect the person to pick it up after being shown once or twice. 
It is the exact same principle.

Actually, I am not an "all positive" trainer.  I do use corrections with my dogs on occasion. 

One of the things that does seperate dogs from people is the capacity for higher reasoning, the ability to read and research, and a sense of responsibility (which is after all, the point of this thread).  My mom is a teacher and once went to a seminar about learning around the world.  One of the differences between European and American schools that was pointed out that in general European students go to school GET an education while American students go to school to be GIVEN an education.  If someone goes to a training class will no intention of doing any work outside of the class with their dog, what exactly is the trainer to do?  Disrupt an entire class of paying students to "motivate" the guy who is clearly only there because his wife badgered him into going?  Should she take her own time to drive to his house and check up on him?  Give him a little gold star for every command the dog follows?  With a training class you generally get out of it what you put into it, so how exactly how far should a trainer (who likely has other classes, students and *gasp* a life of her own) go to ensure that this guy actually follows through?

Parts of this thread really remind me of a bit by comedian Chris Rock were he talks about guys who proudly brag that they "got a job" and "take care of their kids" and Rock's response is "Well, your SUPPOSED to have a job and take care of your kids."  Well, you are SUPPOSED to train your dog, if you chose to get one.  Unfortunately, most people see training the dog as something exta, when it is actually one of the dog's vital needs. 

I agree that it is important to show people why basic training is important, but this is not going to come from hand holding, but rather from showing the dog owner WHY it is in his best interest for his dog to sit on command.  Pretty much every indoor dog, whether he knows how to sit or not, is house broken.  Why?  Because having to clean up dog crap is a powerful motivator.  I have no problem with dog professionals pushing basic training from the get go to new dog owns (vets, groomers, shelters, breeders, pet stores), I have no problem with professionals recommending training facilities to new owners.  However, the fact remains that someone throws their hands up at the first failure and refuses to continue trying despite help from the trainer ( have taken several training classes with my dogs and EVERY instructor has been very positive and extremely helpful), or flat out does not care, what should the trainer do?  Beg?  Plead?  Drag the owner back kicking and screaming?

Actually, I am not an "all positive" trainer. I do use corrections with my dogs on occasion.

Never said that you were, just indicated the dominant tone of the training.  Would you be surprised to know that I'm not 'all positive' either
 
I'm just suggesting that we are potentially expecting too much sophistication in the inexperienced dog owner who, though an adult in many other ways, is a babe in the woods when it comes to animal work.

ORIGINAL: Benedict
I don't usually post here, but this thread is too fascinating not to jump in...

Several months ago, I posted a thread here entitled "musings on expectations of behaviour" in which I put forth the theory that a dog is more likely to "behave" if the owner communicates through body language that the dog is simply expected to "behave". In fact, that might be the wrong word, since a dog is ALWAYS "behaving" - it is whether they are behaving LIKE A GOOD DOG according to human standards that is the question. Semantics notwithstanding, the more experienced I become at owning a dog, the more convinced I am that my original theory is true. Those of us who believe wholeheartedly that a dog is capable of learning and "behaving" are simply more likely to have "good dogs" because the manner in which we project ourselves to the dog makes it clear to the dog what is expected.

Hi Kate,

Thanks for mentioning the thread. It's a really good read:http://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=139926&mpage=1&key=musings%2Cexpectations%2Cbeh𢊖

Was there a time when discussions on this forum were more like that one? More like "people talking about what they know and do" and less preaching of competing doctrines? (aka people taking responsibility vs people blaming other training protocols)

They happen occasionally, when we aren't fighting over the same bone.... []

ORIGINAL: Dunders

Actually, I am not an "all positive" trainer. I do use corrections with my dogs on occasion.

Never said that you were, just indicated the dominant tone of the training.  Would you be surprised to know that I'm not 'all positive' either

I'm just suggesting that we are potentially expecting too much sophistication in the inexperienced dog owner who, though an adult in many other ways, is a babe in the woods when it comes to animal work.

I don't know.  A little over 2 years ago I was a brand new dog owner.  Actually, I did not even plan on owning a dog, and one just sort of showed up in my life.  We couldn't find her owner, and I didn't want to take her to the shelter, so all of the sudden DH and I had on our hands an unhousebroken, shy one year old pit bull who had no leash manners, and who knew no commands at all, in a one bedroom apartment.  I hadn't had a dog since I was 6, and DH had never had (nor at the time did he want) a dog.  We made it work.  We bought books, spent hours online reading, joined dog boards[], took training classes.  Never have I been made to feel like an idiot in regards to dog training.  There have been ups and downs, yes, but overall it has been a good experience.

Now, if you want to talk confusing, let's discuss dog food.....[8D]

ORIGINAL: Ixas_girl

Was there a time when discussions on this forum were more like that one? More like "people talking about what they know and do" and less preaching of competing doctrines? (aka people taking responsibility vs people blaming other training protocols)

I'm not so much sure that there was a "time" when there were discussions like that here...I only joined the forum a year ago. I think by the law of averages there will be times when people don't just argue. Now whether that thread was peaceful because no one disgreed with me (and then with subsequent posters) or because those that did just couldn't be bothered to reply, I don't know.

This thread I think has been a very civil exchange of ideas. []

Sillysally, that makes you the exception, not the average by any means.  Oh, and I agree with you on the food issue wholeheartedly.
 
BTW, she's got an adorable face []

ORIGINAL: sillysally

Well, you are SUPPOSED to train your dog, if you chose to get one.  Unfortunately, most people see training the dog as something exta, when it is actually one of the dog's vital needs. 

...I have no problem with dog professionals pushing basic training from the get go to new dog owns (vets, groomers, shelters, breeders, pet stores), I have no problem with professionals recommending training facilities to new owners.  However, the fact remains that someone throws their hands up at the first failure and refuses to continue trying despite help from the trainer ( have taken several training classes with my dogs and EVERY instructor has been very positive and extremely helpful), or flat out does not care, what should the trainer do?  Beg?  Plead?  Drag the owner back kicking and screaming?

 
How come you don#%92t take into consideration my Petro who is not formally obedience trained.  He got it on his own to be a well-behaved, potty trained, nicely socialized, and a friendly dog to people.  So what if he doesn#%92t do all these behaviors when I command him to do so.   He is perfectly happy and content.
 
JQP is not asking the dog professional/trainer to hold their hand, prod, beg, plead, yell, talk down to, have parallel discussions, and most of all judge.  What JQP ask the dog professional/trainer is to be treated AS IF they are the perfect learning student.  Don#%92t forget planting a seed in someone#%92s mind will stay there until really needed.  So if JQP initially doesn#%92t get the priority of training and training early, when it is needed he will know what to do because of the this awareness as an option.   I think the comment that was stated in another thread, leading by example is the best form of influencing JQP.
 

ORIGINAL: sillysally

Well, you are SUPPOSED to train your dog, if you chose to get one.  Unfortunately, most people see training the dog as something exta, when it is actually one of the dog's vital needs. 

I completely agree with this. But I stand by my distinction between "JQP" and "educated dog owner" so my question is this:

It's relatively easy to teach people who WANT to learn how to train their dogs. How do we teach people who are at best utterly indifferent to the issue?

Kate