Spinoff from Pop Psychology thread

I'll start!
Q1: Scientific
Q2: R+
 
Ok, GO!

Q1: Scientific (I'm an atheist, born and raised)
Q2: LIMA: Least invasive, minimally aversive

Q1: I'm equally passionate about science and my religious beliefs.  This is not a problem, because the two are not at odds.

Q2: I don't have an answer.  I use tools, rather than systems.  I also see everything I do with my dog(s) in the context of relationship.  So while I may use training techniques, my goal is to live together happily rather than have a well-trained dog for the sake of having a well-trained dog.

difficult question
 
 
Q1: Do you lean more towards the scientific or the spiritual? 
 
  I consider both, I do not discount or disdain science, I think it useful but nor do I discount or disdain the spiritual and consider myself to be somewhat in the middle with perhaps a slight lean to the spiritual side. (I am assuming we are talking science as a whole here and not just dog specific)

Q2: Do you lean more towards R+ OR other methods of training that may involve some degree of physicality and/or social learning (pack theory etc)?
 
   Again I consider myself to be somewhat in the middle. I see and observe that dogs are social, that they do posses minds that are unique, I also know from experience that R+ works. I do not subscribe to the "traditional" pack methods 100%. My dogs sometimes exit a door ahead of me, this has not caused any social uprisings but yet I do make it clear that I am the leader, that all good things come from me and it is in their best interests to heed me in all things.I have never had cause to be physical with a dog. My description of physical would be something that causes the dog distress or pain. I do use touch, I do use the leash but it is more along the lines of how a rider would use the reins correctly to guide a horse. Reins on a horse are not bad, inproper use of the reins on a horse is. Pressure on a horse is not bad, it communicates, incorrect pressure can be bad.
 I do not see much use for an alpha roll and have not used it with my dogs, but then again both of my dogs have been taught to settle which mean laying quietly on their sides at my feet. I would not request that they do this in the presence of an aggressive dog or in a situation where they were nervous or fearful of a person or object, I just use it when they are leaping about the house like lunitics and I believe it helps them to have confidence in me as their leader that they are able to lie quietly at my feet.
 
 sorry to long of a post to anwser such a simple question, but I cannot place myself clearly on one side or the other.

Q1: Do you lean more towards the scientific or the spiritual?
Q2: Do you lean more towards R+ OR other methods of training that may involve some degree of physicality and/or social learning (pack theory etc)?

1.  I am religious but have never agreed with the assumptions that religion and science are mutually exclusive.  I would not participate in a religion that denounced science as seperate and un-spiritual.  So, in short, both. []  Actually, I describe myself as "theological".  I'm religious, but not very spiritual.  I like to examine religious issues as objectively as possible, using the same methodology each time.  I like theology b/c it involves my head, not my emotions.

2.  I lean considerably in favor of operant conditioning and lure/reward.  I believe that the best way to control a dog is to control the resources, not exert physical force.  However, like religion and science, I don't think that the different sides of the dog psychology debate are mutually exclusive.  They both have their own merits and truths, but I think that they have truths about different things.  Operant conditioning doesn't help us very much in understanding a whole pack of wild dogs or helping us deal with a truly human aggressive dog, while observing pack behavior in wild dogs isn't the best way to learn how to effectively train a domestic dog.  They are EACH relevant in their OWN areas.  Since I do not study wolf packs or deal with "red zone" dogs, I'm always going to use operant conditioning b/c that is the best method of training and reinforcing domestic dogs that don't have serious behavioral issues.  If I worked with wild dogs or red zone dogs, I'd probably need a method more drastic and more achaic than operant conditioning.

I would add that I do consider myself religious. I would also add that I do not consider science and religion to be mutually exclusive. I would also agree with Liesje in that my perception of my religion is more theological than emotional.

Q1: Do you lean more towards the scientific or the spiritual?
I know you want to hear one or the other, but I honestly can't choose one. It depends on which area of life you're talking about. I'm agnostic (leaning toward atheist), but also highly spiritual (I meditate, and believe in life after death - a spiritual realm). I have a scientific mind (particuarly mathematics, logic) and I'm an artist. I'm all over.

Q2: Do you lean more towards R+ OR other methods of training that may involve some degree of physicality and/or social learning (pack theory etc)?
I'm with Dog_ma on this (great answer!). I lean toward social learning, but not by any means exclusively. I don't really "train" my dogs. We live together.

q1 -  this depends on what i am doing. if looking at the world around me to see how things work or at my job function, then scientific. if i am creating some art, then i am in a spiritual (to me, i define spirit as a beings internal energy which projects out into the world as well as within ones mind) mode... and even when i am walking my dogs or just observing the graduer of nature while on a hike, then it's more about an unscientific connection - more about human feeling. it's interesting to note that being an agnostic (skewed towards atheism) does not mean that i am not a spiritual person - but i've already defined how i define spirit up above.
 
q2  - i'm not olarized (one method) - i use several methods depending upon what i am trying to accomplish.

Q1: Scientific.  I am not religious or spiritual and I believe that all phenomenom have a scientific explaination which does not negate my full involvement and pleasure of those phenomenom.

Q2: In training my dogs for agility and obedience and any other sport we participate in I almost exclusively use +R.  I do not think any other technique is fair in that setting although we have had to use -P to stop Selli from biting me in the butt during the runs (I took her off the course in the middle of the run).

I am a scientific person who has had spiritual experiences.

I lean toward science and use + OC.

[sm=bow2.gif]  SCIENCE

I need a virgin to sacrifice ...[]

Ron, will I do? [] [] []

Would just like to clarify - no, science and religion are not mutually exclusive or at least I don;t think they are.  I understand there is some overlap.  There is also a trend, (or so I think) with MOST people, to lean MORE towards one or the other.  And in training, the same - too long for Dick too short for Richard.  Nearly everyone I know will admit they are not one nor t'other, but rather cherry pick from different methods,... but again I suspect that with many, if not most, if not all, there is a TREND to lean more towards one method/idea than the rest. 
 
It LOOKS like, from reading other threads that the "more-scientific ppl" are more R+ - we relate better to things we can measure, analyse and quantify.  And the "more touchy feely folks" are more social learning, more P+, more hands on, stuff that is simple, intuitive, based on observation, anecdotal evicdence, etc.  I wanted to get everyone togther in one place for a show of hands to see if this is the case..... maybe create a little understanding and common ground....

This is surprisingly difficult.

Q1: Do you lean more towards the scientific or the spiritual?

See, for me, it's all tied up together in one big knot. I adore science, but part of why I love it is because it speaks to my spiritual side. When I'm out in the field and I see something beautiful or a natural system that seems perfect, I fall in love with science for allowing me to understand it, but I fall in love with it for just existing where someone like me can happen across it and really appreciate it. If I didn't have a scientific background, I'd still love what I found out there, but I don't think I'd get that double whammy of "Oh god, it's beautiful, oh god, evolution is magnificent." []

Q2: Do you lean more towards R+ OR other methods of training that may involve some degree of physicality and/or social learning (pack theory etc)?

I lean towards R+. That's not to say I don't appreciate that sometimes the best one to teach a dog something is another dog, but I embrace the difference between humans and dogs. I do my best to help my dog learn human because my dog lives in a human world and humans aren't very good at learning dog. My philosophy is to treat a dog like a mute toddler from a different culture who doesn't understand English. I think about how I would want to be taught if I was that mute toddler and that's how I teach dogs.

Incidentally, I found my brief stint in the academic world as someone who believes in God quite tough. There are a lot of academics out there that ridicule religion of any kind and it's really hard if you're trying to establish a career to keep your religious or spiritual beliefs completely out of your scientific life (as in out of sight, down the hall, around the corner, in a locked cabinet in a locked cupboard in a locked room). I think it's sad that a lot of academics think religion and science are mutually exclusive. There is this idea in certain fields that a scientist can't be wholly trusted if they believe in God, as if they'll be out to try to prove evolution doesn't exist or something. I guess fundamentalism doesn't have to have a basis in traditional religions.

Interesting results. And I think predictable as well.

After reading your last post and thinking about this, I'd have to say I lean 51%/49% toward the scientific and when I asked my husband, he said the same thing. Especially when dealing with the dogs. Because I deal in results. Observable, repeatable results. But in most other areas in life I'm down the middle.

I also don't think science and religion are exclusive. They're totally different things. I'm not in the least anti-religion, it's just not for me.

Ron, will I do?   

Only if it was a different Chuffy that posted the pregnancy countdown.......

Q1 - I don't think that it is only non-spiritual people who believe in science.  In my world, my spirituality travels with me wherever I am, and I consider science miraculous.  I also believe that there is another dimension on which we operate as trainers and behaviorists that does have to do with "gut feel" or "savvy" sometimes.  
Q2 - I am not a dog or a wolf and would be clumsy communicating the finer details of canine communication.  So, I prefer to use a form of "translation" that both I and the dogs can understand and that doesn't need to be unpleasant for either of us.  To me, it is absolutely important to treat any sentient being with respect.  Therefore, I am not consumed with the idea of 100% obedience (although my dogs pretty much do as I ask all the time), I am consumed with the idea of getting my dogs to understand and to choose to honor my requests, largely to keep them safe in a human-dominated world.  But, my dogs are my partners and my friends, not my slaves.  The idea of jerking them around, or using physical punishments is as distasteful to me as it would be to do to any other friend or family member.  I am very fortunate that I have attained a level of skill that makes it unnecessary to do that.