Dog Psychology or Pop Psychology?

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy
I've done it all, and my experience is that "the pack model" does work to train dogs, but operant conditioning works a lot better. And is a lot safer for the human, and much easier for the average human to apply.

Emphasis mine.

Can you entertain the idea that it might be easier and more effective for me (and some people) to use the techniques we do? Why is it assumed that no one else has tried the various methods? Why arent the experiences of others as valid?  It's my experience that  a combination of the pack model and operant conditioning and a few other things works best for me and my dogs. But I'm not about to suggest that because my experience is thus, that everyone's experience be the same or else they're wrong! LOL I'm not about to assume that what works best for me and my dogs, will automatically work best for everyone else and their dogs. [sm=happy.gif]

I'm not asking people to become Cesar converts or to discount other methods, I'm just asking for a little bit more of an open mind as far as individual circumstances and needs warrant. I don't know how many dogs you all have, but for me, having a pack requires something in the way of a conglomeration of techniques and methods. And the pack mentality makes complete sense to me. Not only that, it feels like a pack here. For me to turn away from pack behavior would be against my better intuitive judgment.

I can't agree that pack model doesn't play a role in our household because I SEE it. And I don't train my dogs. They aren't "trained". We all just work together. If I want to train Jaia to get me a beer from the frig, I'll use operant conditioning. I'll grab my clicker and a treat bag. But if I want him to refrain from pulling me down the road on the end of a leash, I'm going to assert my position and let him know that's NOT acceptable behavior.

And when we go into the vet and I"m sitting there with 2 perfectly behaved German Shepherds, it's not because I "trained" them to do that. It's because they're following my lead and my energy to know how to behave. Call it whatever you want, but it works for me.

This is what works for us. []

I really can't believe anyone in this day and age would ever propose to alpha-roll a dog, and BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. To me, anyone who talks about using alpha rolls is revealing their ignorance of how dogs actually behave.

There's so much more to CM than alpha rolls, though. Why is his name synonymous with that? I know he does it in extreme cases, but why is that the only thing people see? I find that curious. Most of us don't have the problem dogs he has on his show and most of the dogs on his show require nothing more than a little change of behavior on the owner's part. Alpha rolling is like .1% of what he does. Why discount the other 99.9% and label those who use some of his methods as worshippers and such?

I'm sorry, I just can't get behind the big divide mindset of "you're either with us or against us" that I see happening here.

But that's ok. I still like and respect y'all. [sm=happy.gif]

ORIGINAL: ron2

Power of the pack, dominant and aggressive, dominance and submission, all part of CM's terminology, all based on the studies from the 40's that were so flawed.

 
That terminology exsited waaaaaay before those studies, lets say that indeed belongs to them, arent we allowed to use those words anymore? we should not use the word "aggressive" in this forum because that belongs to a flawed study?

ORIGINAL: ron2

and the once or twice he did something he called positive reinforcement betrayed a lack of experience and understanding of that aspect of operant conditioning. For all those who talk of balance, why can't he balance out with some understanding and use of +R? Why must it be always +P?

 
Now THIS was funny indeed, and i'm not being sarcastic at all, that "once or twice" he used positive reinforcement, he ACTUALLY recommended +R trainers, one of them performed CLICKER training in one of those episodes
 
Like lostcoyote said, and is very funny because i also said it before (but for some really weird reason it seems that was written in chinese because nobody says anything about it) Ian Dumbar agrees that if you combine both methods you have better chances to be succesfull that with only +R

I totally agree that scientifically tested training methods work. Who can argue with that? But I cannot dismiss some methods because we can't completely prove or explain them using the scientific process. Heck - we didn't even figure out how aspirin worked until 1982! There are millions of mysteries in the universe that can't be explained, but we know they exist. Everything from cancer to tetraneurons keeps scientists up at night, pondering. And that's in the "hard" sciences. Phsychology is a "soft" science. The rules just aren't as hard and fast simply because of the unpredictability of the subject matter.

I *need* to know how things work. It's in my nature. I have to know the whys and hows and what-ifs whether I'm cooking or using the computer. But I have learned to accept that just because I don't know exactly how something works, that doesn't mean that it doesn't. Take the placebo effect. For years we just assumed that it was "all in our heads". But studies are showing a definite link between the brain and body biochemistry. But they still don't know how and when it works.

So if being "calm and assertive" can't be proven scientifically and has been based on "seriously flawed" studies I don't care. Because it gets positive results, even if there is no way to prove precisely how those results were achieved.

Can you entertain the idea that it might be easier and more effective for me (and some people) to use the techniques we do? Why is it assumed that no one else has tried the various methods? Why arent the experiences of others as valid? It's my experience that a combination of the pack model and operant conditioning and a few other things works best for me and my dogs. But I'm not about to suggest that because my experience is thus, that everyone's experience be the same or else they're wrong! LOL I'm not about to assume that what works best for me and my dogs, will automatically work best for everyone else and their dogs.

Well said, FourIsCompany. I have one dog. But I also have a job, two kids and a hubby who works away from home most of the week. I do use operant conditioning and NILIF as much as possible. But when you have boys and all the chaos that goes with it, the clicker can be quite cumbersome.

I would never consider telling my coworker - with no kids - that she is training her Belgians wrong because she doesn't body block when they run to the door! But when I tried clicker training to get my dog to sit at the door it was not a productive experience. Asked the kids to ring the door bell while I clicked/treated proper response. Worked great - until there was a change of scenario. Neighbor kids come over, barge in the door before Lucy can down/stay. Lucy hasn't yet learned to generalize my kids at the door to anybody at the door. Finally get dog into place and c/t. Find out the kids fed all the treats I had placed conveniently near the door to the dog when they "trained" her to pull the cushions off the couch while I fixed lunch. (Gotta love the creativity - but now I have to retrain the dog not to pull cushions off the couch in search of cheese.). Go to the kitchen to find more cheese. Another neighbor kid rings then barges in and dog come out of down stay. Thank kids for at least ringing bell, then ask them *again* to wait until I open door to come in. Practice with my kids a couple more times. Start all over with the process 20 minutes later. Consider new lock for screen door. Or moving.

Next day, I gave up and did the "woo-woo" Cesar "own the space" body-block thing at the doorway. Lucy goes and lays down on the couch. After about 3-4 repetitions, Lucy learns her job is to bark and let me know that nasty little neighbor-monsters have arrived then go back to her nap or playtime. Now I can concentrate on training the neighbor kids to wait until I open the door instead of concentrating on when the exact moment to click/treat is. Lucy knew exactly what I was trying to tell her to do and was less confused about her door duties because that means of communication is more effective for *me*. I know the clicker works. I use it when I can. But I have an extremely hard time working it in to everyday scenarios because I don't always have an ideal training environment.

I know there are certain members on this board who have tried to bash CM on other boards on the internet and literally had their bells rung....then came back here and continued the CM hate fest........I just don't understand the hate or dislike for the man....the man tries to turn around out of control dogs...rescues dogs and gives dog owners a whole new way of looking at things like...get your butt up and exercise your dog....... I know folks who's dogs know how to do tricks for a piece of hotdog...but are otherwise out of control.
 
There are many methods that can be applied......

There's so much more to CM than alpha rolls, though. Why is his name synonymous with that? I know he does it in extreme cases, but why is that the only thing people see? I find that curious.

one would need to study herd dynamics. a group of people often find one thing that stands out in the opposition and gives it energy of thought. then when new members join in the group, they often assimilate the group mentality & thus, the emphasis remains on attaching alpha rolls with the name CM because the originating emphasis was just that. the same can be seen in political party agendas.... or any group for that matter. word of mouth spreads, in this case, and often becomes a groups literal truth.


here is an analogy:

i fly radio controlled model airplanes. i use high performance YS engines which have 3 tuning knobs instead of the usual 2 knobs - this makes it a little bit harder to tune up the engine UNLESS you understand how this more complicated engine works.

now then, there are A LOT of people that buy these engines and don't understand how to tune them. frustrated that their engines keep quitting on them, they give up and just say "these things are hard to tune."

then they tell their friends that these engines are real "touchy" and to stay away from them because they're a pain in the butt to get working properly.

and so as of to date, i hear it all the time from others that say the YS engines suk because of this and that. i know it's not true and that the real issue is that they simply did not take the time to understand how they work and receive help from people who actually know how to get them running correctly.

and so we have a label that has been attached to the YS engine.


same sort of word-of-mouth applies to why the name, CM is associated with alpha rolls.... and it will continue to press on and on with those who wish to find fault.

like you said, there is SO much more going on than just alpha rolls and CM is evolving and learning as he continues to work as well. he even states that on his show.

heh, probably in a few years, he'll be showing clickers ) and there was an episode where he used an e-collar to keep a dog from running out in front of the farmers tractor.

I can't agree that pack model doesn't play a role in our household because I SEE it. And I don't train my dogs. They aren't "trained". We all just work together. If I want to train Jaia to get me a beer from the frig, I'll use operant conditioning. I'll grab my clicker and a treat bag. But if I want him to refrain from pulling me down the road on the end of a leash, I'm going to assert my position and let him know that's NOT acceptable behavior.

we observe the same thing in out "pack" of 3 dogs and 3 humans.

so am i using pop psychology, dog psychology, or a hybrid (what works for me and my clan)?

"That terminology exsited waaaaaay before those studies, lets say that indeed belongs to them, arent we allowed to use those words anymore? we should not use the word "aggressive" in this forum because that belongs to a flawed study? "
 
The english language and those concepts certainly existed before the studies. That doesn't mean that those concepts were used properly in the studies. Also, define true aggression, then. Can you tell the difference between true aggression and a reactive display? Dunbar notes that much that is diagnosed as aggression is not true aggression. Some is reactivity to the situation, some is just a doggy hello. And reactivity to a situation can be addressed by changing the meaning of the situation from one of stress to one of rewards and calmness.
 
 
"Now THIS was funny indeed, and i'm not being sarcastic at all, that "once or twice" he used positive reinforcement, he ACTUALLY recommended +R trainers"
 
So, why can't he use it in rehab. Ian Dunbar does.
 
" Ian Dumbar agrees that if you combine both methods you have better chances to be succesfull that with only +R"
 
To what extent and do you believe that Ian Dunbar is actually speaking to using physical corrections, rather than environmental management and No Reward Markers? And if Dunbar can, as you say, combine methods, why can't CM or other people do so? Why does "balanced" seem to always refer to the use of corrections?

ORIGINAL: ron2
Why does "balanced" seem to always refer to the use of corrections?

I don't know why you think it does...

did einstein have a mentor when he came up with relativity or could it be just as valid to say that "the nature of things" was his most valuable mentor along with his own intuition?

 
Einstein hardly attended the classes he was registered. Too many facts to remember. He'd rather come up with "thought experiments" (aka day dream). He was so poor at math that the math in his theories came from others. On top of that, he was wrong and admitted to having problems with his own Special Theory in his autobiographical notes, which I have read in English and the original German. Just thought you might want to avoid a connection between CM and Einstein.
 

And none of the recent exchanges have disproved the science, or disproved the summation that the science of learning is a better way. We simply have an exchange of apologetics.
 
I used to scruff Shadow and he would lower and roll himself. For him, it was attention, even if it did stop the behavior at that instant. Since it "worked" for me at the time, does that mean it will work for every dog and that I should try it all the time? Another individual dog might not care for it and I could wind up with a deep bite. As opposed to a +OC that works with any animal because it gives them the path to reward. +R does not mean permissive. But it does represent communication and path the balance. And yes, I have made mistakes in lure/rward and with the clicker. And it was not the fault of the method but my use of it. Nor am I going to browbeat a person because they use a collar pop or make like a tree. In the same breath, I can get Shadow to mind without walking for 6 hours. And in the summer, we're lucky to walk for 30 minutes at a time. He really is made for cold weather. What's more important than loads of exercise is consistent proper training, i.e., loose leashing walking is more important than covering 20 miles in an hour.

ORIGINAL: ron2

"Now THIS was funny indeed, and i'm not being sarcastic at all, that "once or twice" he used positive reinforcement, he ACTUALLY recommended +R trainers"

So, why can't he use it in rehab. Ian Dunbar does.

What do you think was the purposse of recommending those trainers? for rehabilitation of course, now if you ask why cant HE do it himself, maybe because is not his area of expertise

He uses rewards indeed, a good walk, affection at the right moment, not everything is about food

ORIGINAL: ron2

why can't CM or other people do so? Why does "balanced" seem to always refer to the use of corrections?

Because thats what you want to see,  in some of the cases the dog only needs to do more exercise to be balanced, in another is a fearful dog that just needs guidance, he takes some others to meet his pack so the dog can relate to them, no corrections at all for them, i remember an episode where the dog was waiting for the food to be served to him, he toke it home and worked some kind of NILIF, is not always about corrections but again thats what you want to see

This site is very representative of what you see on most of the anti-CM sites. It is filled with a lot of emotional arguements by a certain faction within the dog training community.

It's important to understand their views are not those of the entire community of canine professionals.

The International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP) doesn't seem to share their views:

[linkhttp://www.dogpro.org/]www.dogpro.org/[/link]

Roger Hild, founding member of the Canadian Association of Professional Pet Dog Trainers (CAPPDT), and member of the IACP has also written many articles regarding the "science" which is referred to on that site.

His articles also "explore the controversial issues" and help "separate fact" from "emotional marketing".

I encourage everyone to read his articles for the other side of this story, and make up their own minds.

"Behaviorism vs Intelligent Choice" by Roger Hild:

[linkhttp://www3.sympatico.ca/tsuro/_articles/behaviorism.html]http://www3.sympatico.ca/tsuro/_articles/behaviorism.html[/link]

If you hit the "BACK" button at the bottom of this article, it will take you to the rest of the articles on his site.

Enjoy! []

Einstein hardly attended the classes he was registered. Too many facts to remember. He'd rather come up with "thought experiments" (aka day dream). He was so poor at math that the math in his theories came from others. On top of that, he was wrong and admitted to having problems with his own Special Theory in his autobiographical notes, which I have read in English and the original German. Just thought you might want to avoid a connection between CM and Einstein.

 
 
Wow ....your german is that good ?

ORIGINAL: Angelique

This site is very representative of what you see on most of the anti-CM sites. It is filled with a lot of emotional arguements by a certain faction within the dog training community.

It's important to understand their views are not those of the entire community of canine professionals.

The International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP) doesn't seem to share their views:

[linkhttp://www.dopro.org/]www.dopro.org/[/link]

Roger Hild, founding member of the Canadian Association of Professional Pet Dog Trainers (CAPPDT), and member of the IACP has also written many articles regarding the "science" which is referred to on that site.

His articles also "explore the controversial issues" and help "separate fact" from "emotional marketing'.

I encourage everyone to read his articles for the other side of this story, and make up their own minds.

"Behaviorism vs Intelligent Choice" by Roger Hild:

[linkhttp://www3.sympatico.ca/tsuro/_articles/bahaviorism.html]http://www3.sympatico.ca/tsuro/_articles/bahaviorism.html[/link]

If you hit the "BACK" button at the bottom of this article, it will take you to the rest of the articles on his site.

Enjoy! []

the links are not working for me (edit ok it is working, guess I have to be logged in) Great articles, turns out I already have one of these book marked.

pretty much says it all far better than I can.
[linkhttp://www.puppywishes.com/1601-puppies/Cesar%20Millan%20Vs%20Jean%20Donaldson.html]http://www.puppywishes.com/1601-puppies/Cesar%20Millan%20Vs%20Jean%20Donaldson.html[/link]
 
Here is a short quote found on this link:
 
[font=arial][size=2]Cesar Millan and Jean Donaldson are in the same ship. They both want to do what is best for dogs. The problem is that there can only be one captain on that ship.
Jean Donadson (pictured far right) writes, "The force-free movement gains momentum every year." She writes this as if the gaining of momentum indicates that her training philosophies must be right. However, for a great number of years the "positive-only" dog trainers have used allegations of abuse to quash those who stand in their way. Rather than simply teaching what they believe, they often resort to political gorilla tactics to wipe out the competition. We should point out, we have yet to see Cesar Millan slamming his competition, by name, on the internet.
Dog trainers feuding over dog training methods may very well be as old as wives feuding with lazy husbands. The problem with public dog training feuds is that it undermines the credibility of the entire dog training profession. While we fully recognize the value of civilized debate, when the debate shifts from training methods onto the imagined character of any given person, we feel that the end result cannot be anything but negative.
Sam Basso, of [linkhttp://www.samthedogtrainer.com/index.html]SamTheDogTrainer.com[/link] writes, "There is a philosophical war going on about how to train animals and humans. Cesar Millan#%92s primary critics are generally from the “all positive” folks, who have become extremists, and thus hate what Cesar Millan is doing. The clicker folks and veterinary behaviorists really have their hair in a knot. To them, dominance and aggression have become discredited as concepts, only their credentials are valid, stress is considered abnormal and insurmountable, any kind of correction is considered abusive, and operant conditioning has become the bible of all things behavioral."[/size][/font]