Dog Psychology or Pop Psychology?

operant conditioning using primarily (or only) positive reinforcement and negative punishment

In the simplest of terms, that's exactly what I mean when I practice "positive" methods.

I also train under the concept that controlling resources is ultimately what gets me what I want, not having to physically "correct" or dominate my dog.  In our relationship, there is no such thing as the "alpha".  The concept of dominance or hierarchy never really factors in.

and I guess this leads me back to my previous question directed to Spirit, what do you actually mean when you say "positve theory"?

The definition of "positve theory" is possibly the most crucial part of this discussion. If you mean one thing then we are debating in error if you mean another then the debate is valid so can you define what you mean when you say "positve theory"?

What I consider positive theory was stated very well by houndlove.

However I will illuminate further what it means to me.  To me positive theory means never having to poke, prod, administer collar pops or otherwise inflict any sort of corporal methods with a dog.  It means that I don't seek to dominate my dog, rather I lead my dogs and they can trust me in all things.  I don't use molding or any physical manipulation in any of my training techniques.

I use corrections-verbal and physical cues to provide negative stimulus-but I don't feel the need exists for me to ever physically correct my dog.  Granted I have a dog that learns at a frightening pace, but I think most dogs can do learn much faster than we humans give them credit for.

 

The acronym LIMA was suggested at one point as a better term: Least invasive, minimally aversive.

People need safe, effective methods they can use at home with their dog every day. Waiting until the dog turns into a nightmare and then calling in a professional who will apply potentially dangerous and difficult to perform acts is kind of silly.
 The beauty of operant conditioning, aka NILIF and clicker training, is that after a few minutes of instruction anyone can safely and effectively apply them to any dog. Me telling you to go "become your dogs leader" or to "radiate calm energy" or "walk with confidence" is pretty useless advice; how do you do that, exactly? 
But me telling you to not feed the dog unless he sits first is something anyone can do. Me telling you to click and treat when the dog isn't pulling on the leash is something anyone can do. And it works.
My dogs behavior dramatically improved the day I discarded all thoughts of "pack theory" from my interactions with them and switched to pure operant conditioning.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

Me telling you to go "become your dogs leader" or to "radiate calm energy" or "walk with confidence" is pretty useless advice; how do you do that, exactly? 

 
There are dozens of threads in this forum that tell you how, i dont know what do you mean by useless because that advice works every single time with every single dog that i walk so i think "useless" is the last word that comes to my mind 

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy
The beauty of operant conditioning, aka NILIF and clicker training, is that after a few minutes of instruction anyone can safely and effectively apply them to any dog.

I don't think anyone's arguing that. Are they? I think operant conditioning (or behavior and consequences) is a great way to train dogs. It is beautiful. But that doesn't make everything else bad or wrong.

Someone said earlier it's like comparing apples to oranges. Just because I choose an apple today doesn't mean I hate oranges or that they're bad. The two really can't be compared and shouldn't. If you want to use only operant conditioning and +R with your dogs, great! I think it's great.

But why is everything else wrong?

Me telling you to go "become your dogs leader" or to "radiate calm energy" or "walk with confidence" is pretty useless advice; how do you do that, exactly? 

He doesn't just tell someone to do that! He spends hours with them explaining what it means and how to do it. If you want to know how to do it, watch his show.

But me telling you to not feed the dog unless he sits first is something anyone can do. Me telling you to click and treat when the dog isn't pulling on the leash is something anyone can do. And it works.

Yes, it's easy to explain and it works. There's no arguing that, providing the person you talk to knows what "click and treat" means... Providing the clicker has been charged with the dog and he knows what it means. It's not as simple as saying "click and treat", you have to explain what that means. But it DOES work.
 

My dogs behavior dramatically improved the day I discarded all thoughts of "pack theory" from my interactions with them and switched to pure operant conditioning.

That's great! That's your experience. My dogs respond well to the methods I've been using over the years, too! Apples and oranges... []

The 4pawuniversity is actually in downtown Sacramento and I've thought so many times that I should sign up for one of their classes.  I love the links on their website too.

Thanks for providing the link, Spiritdogs. It was very enlightening, including the links to other reading.

Now, let's see if I can tick off some other people and finally get some red ink.

CM is basing his technique on a 60 year old study that has been proven to be misguided, false, and arbitrary, including the tone set forth by the initial investigators into dog behavior.

Secondly, his techniques can increase aggression. And they are based on the false presumption that the dog considers a human family as a pack. First, dogs do not act exactly like wolves. Secondly, acting like we're pack leaders means we are following the dogs' rules, not ours. Third, most of us do not have the speed, strength, and split second powers of observation to truly correct as another dog would.

Also, I break several rules of traditional training. Shadow sleeps on the bed. Sits on the couch. Enters or exits doors before I do. And does what I say when I say it.

As for exercise being so all important, most of us can't walk fast enough for a dog to get good exercise. I can walk pretty fast. But Shadow's exercise would be better suited at 20 to 30 minutes of pulling me on skates or a sled or cart, than an hour of walking, per his breed.

Also, an "alpha" does not have to resort to physical domination at every turn to get others to follow. Constantly physically trying to dominate lowers your status to beta. A true "alpha" should be able to just command and get obedience without the laying on of hands.

And my favorite thing - learning theory (OC) accomplish so much more so much faster and more securely.

So, anyone can take their best shot. I cannot deny or sugar-coat what I know and have learned. If I see something as wrong or inaccurate, I have a tendency to say so, even if it brings me some heat.

Wow, Ron, get out of my brain! [sm=crazy.gif] []

And my favorite thing - learning theory (OC) accomplish so much more so much faster and more securely.

This has been my experience as well.

I remember that. And one thing people seem to forget are the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of dogs who were on their way to the "gas chamber" and Cesar either taught their people or influenced his TV audience that there was another way. He encourages people to get a behaviorist in their area instead of taking that tragic step. He rarely gets the credit he deserves for that!

the whole underlying theme of the show is that dogs should never get to this state of being in the first place.

his message is that if people become PROACTIVE with their dogs from day 1, then we would not have even 90% (figure of speech here) of the dog behavior problems we have today.

what he stresses and tries to conver in his show is that dogs need exercise first, then discipline (mental activity if you wish) and the affection.

that, to me, is his strongest and most vital message he wants people here in the united states (and elsewhere with mass dog behavior problems) to understand.

he said in his book that when he came to the united states (illegally mind you) that he was in a state of culture shock; he had never ever seen so many dog behavior problems in comparison to the dogs in mexico which included rural farm dogs as well as dogs that lived in the city.

the problem here in the good ol' us-of-a, for the most part, are the owners... and lazy pampering ones at that.

hi ron,

how come ceasars pack of 40 dogs is so stable, if his methods are so archaic?

i mean, all of his dogs were basically saved from euthanasia at shelters and many considered to be red zone casses... many being pitt bulls are rotties early on.

Third, most of us do not have the speed, strength, and split second powers of observation to truly correct as another dog would.

this is very true. that is why they (n.geo.) put the disclaimer into each of the episodes and ask people, if they are having problems, to seek out help from a qualified behaviorist.

ORIGINAL: ron2

Thanks for providing the link, Spiritdogs. It was very enlightening, including the links to other reading.

Now, let's see if I can tick off some other people and finally get some red ink.

CM is basing his technique on a 60 year old study that has been proven to be misguided, false, and arbitrary, including the tone set forth by the initial investigators into dog behavior.

Secondly, his techniques can increase aggression. And they are based on the false presumption that the dog considers a human family as a pack. First, dogs do not act exactly like wolves. Secondly, acting like we're pack leaders means we are following the dogs' rules, not ours. Third, most of us do not have the speed, strength, and split second powers of observation to truly correct as another dog would.

Also, I break several rules of traditional training. Shadow sleeps on the bed. Sits on the couch. Enters or exits doors before I do. And does what I say when I say it.

As for exercise being so all important, most of us can't walk fast enough for a dog to get good exercise. I can walk pretty fast. But Shadow's exercise would be better suited at 20 to 30 minutes of pulling me on skates or a sled or cart, than an hour of walking, per his breed.

Also, an "alpha" does not have to resort to physical domination at every turn to get others to follow. Constantly physically trying to dominate lowers your status to beta. A true "alpha" should be able to just command and get obedience without the laying on of hands.

And my favorite thing - learning theory (OC) accomplish so much more so much faster and more securely.

So, anyone can take their best shot. I cannot deny or sugar-coat what I know and have learned. If I see something as wrong or inaccurate, I have a tendency to say so, even if it brings me some heat.

Don't worry, ron, I started the darn thread, and I find your answers to be on topic and relevant, so I hope that others do as well.  You are simply stating science versus hypotheses that have proven untrue, and the heart of the debate that I wanted to point out is over what is scientifically accurate and what is not.

I'm beginning to think that Cesar's fans have a complex - how did this thread get to be about him alone?  It was not intended that way.  Does anyone have any other examples of someone who purports to train or rehabilitate dogs and is using "pop psychology" to explain it?

how come ceasars pack of 40 dogs is so stable, if his methods are so archaic?

Do you think he would publicize it if there were ever a fight in his "pack?"  That's probably not "Cesar's Way" of dealing with the issue.

I don't know why anyone would be ticked off at your response, ron. I agree it's totally on topic. You don't agree with CM either, just as the OP site. That's cool.

I  don't know how people know what dogs are thinking about humans being pack members, but if you do, that's pretty cool, too. As has been said, it's amazing how people think we know what dogs are thinking. []

One thing I'd like to point out is that just because a dog sleeps on the bed, uses the furniture, etc. doesn't mean he's going to be a problem dog. That's not at all what CM is suggesting. But I'm not going to go into what he is saying because I'm pretty sure it would fall on deaf ears. And that's ok. I have nothing to prove. I have proven it to myself and that's really all I'm concerned with. And I don't need to defend Cesar.

I do agree with some of what you said. We can't walk fast enough to exercise a big dog. That's not what the walking a dog is about. But again, I won't go into it here unless someone is curious about it.

As regards resorting to physical domination at every turn... Have you seen the show? LOL I'm a woman and Jaia is already stronger then me at one year old. There's very little chance I could physically dominate him if he set his mind on other things. I don't have to use physical domination. Where do you pick up that Cesar advocates constant physical attempts to dominate? This seems like a case of taking a few instances where he DID apply physical means and suggesting it's something he does with every case (which it's certainly not) or something that he teaches people to constantly do... Which is FAR from the truth...

Again, I feel like you're watching a different show. [sm=asking03.gif]

Xerxes, show me a pack of 40 Pits, GSDs, Rotties, etc that were once aggressive or borderline aggressive that have never had a fight and then you might have a good point. By the way, I have seen them have little fights ON THE SHOW!

debate that I wanted to point out is over what is scientifically accurate and what is not.

The thing of it is that the linked articles are from people with scientific backgrounds with the very best that science has to offer, including objective observation and not personal paradigms. If dog behavior were all about dominance/submission, how could I let Shadow sleep on the bed, sit on the couch, enter/exit doors before I do (physical result of using a harness) and still have him obey me?

If a dog is truly dominant, why isn't it exhibiting "calm/assertive energy" instead of what it is actually exhibiting, which is usually fear response to an unknown scene, where it is throwing these behaviors out to "test the waters"? That is, the diagnosis of the dog as being dominant is wrong. And to treat the problem with even more dominance is also wrong. Basic logic, it's both a gift and a curse for me.

What's more important is to understand the signals of the dog and do what it takes to bring about the calming signals. And rather than call a treatment desensitization, I would rather approach from the perspective that we are re-assigning the meaning of the stimulus. And the way to do that is with reward. Reward is good thing. Connected with calmness in the presence (albeit controlled, at first) of a previously unsettling stimulus, changes the meaning of that stimulus. A dog does not want to be unnerved and will go through all sorts of behaviors until a balance has been achieved. So, I lead towards the balance, which is a place of great reward.

ETA: I forgot to answer the other question as to others using "traditional" training theories based on "alpha wolf dominance," which is, itself, inaccurate, if not wholly wrong.

Everyone's heard of Koehler and his hanging dog theory. Go too far and you've got a dead dog.
 
ETA 2:
To answer Coyote's question, the dogs correct each other all the time. It is very subtle and does not involve physical domination. And there are times when a new dog brought in intact, started causing problems. So, CM had the dog neutered, which solved a large part of the problem.