OC, Clicker Training, Learning Theory

ORIGINAL: Kim_MacMillan

Yes, and I never explore the edges either. That's why I've devoted my life to learning. [] If you decide that it's not a confidence booster,than I think you need to find some new edges and stop hanging out on the center dance floor. [] Because the literature on THAT is astounding.

You think it's not practical. I think it's extremely practical and would never do it any other way. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. []

Again, I think there is a fundatmental relationship issue the delves far further than anything to do with training.

Upfront I wish I was honestly told to watch out for weight gain in a dog because of so many treats. That is an important thing to know because it comes on so gradual and can go unobserved. I had a big fight with my organization over the weight gain.

Upfront I wish someone had told me about how other dogs in the house would react.

ORIGINAL: DPU

Luvmyswissy,

Great suggestions on the treats but as I stated I wish I was told upfront to watch out for this.  Since I had to find out for myself when the problem was created, I did reduce the calorie intake and also increased the exercise.

Great idea!  Giving the dog outside time while I work with one dog on the inside.  Never thought of that because I do not allow any activities indoors.  I'll give it a try.

Generally, and not specific to you Luvmyswissy, it is not fair to poke at the dogs.  They are all very well behaved and trained, most formally trained.  If they detect that I present, they just want to be with me and will bark loudly to let me know.  But that is an indication that they are anxious and I don't like to be the source.

Still trying to figure this new format out....lol. So bear with me. I can't figure out how to quote things yet.

 Again, that uppity attitude. 

No attitude at all! It was actually what you would call sarcasm, a common tactic used in dialogue when people become frustrated, because personally I'm getting fed up with the notion that because my ideas are different from yours, I can't possibly know what I talking about and I must be wrong. And I'm afraid I'm not the only one getting fed up with that ideology as well. You talk about "exploring the edges" as though I do not do so. Did you ever stop to consider that I got where I am today by exploring those edges too? That BECAUSE I explored the edges, I have come to what I understand today? How is it that just because I disagree with you (and can find literature to support it in most cases), you still have to be "right" or "better" or whatever term you want to use. If anybody is coming across as uppity, it certainly isn't I.

Did not respond to my question (the last sentence).  Need more time? 

 I'm sorry, I thought I did respond to it. Strange....anyhow the concepts of R- and P- are not "deprivation of a treat". Since I don't personally use R- I'll speak only on P- (But I can speak on R- because I am vell versed in how it works). The definition is basically that you are removing something from the environment that causes the probability of a particular behaviour occurring to decrease. When I use P- in all honesty I very, very very rarely ever use a treat for that. Because if I'm going to use P- I'm beyond clicker teaching and I use life rewards for various behaviours. Not many people will use P- while a dog is learning a new behaviour, so I'm not sure how you are attributing it to clicker teaching directly. Deprivation is simply not a factor in clicker teaching. Removing the opportunity for reward in one particular situation is not the same thing as deprivation. Not even remotely, in any shape or form. If you really feel that way, you either don't understand the concept at all, or you are reallllly grasping at trying to find something you can mark clicker teaching with a red flag. I'm not sure which it is, so I'll leave that up to you to decide.

If I'm eating MY dinner, and I don't give any of it to the dogs sitting around, am I "depriving" them of it? 

If I happen to have a bunch of treats in my pocket and don't give any of them to the dogs, am I "depriving" them of the treats?

By this logic unless I instantly deliver anything and everything a dog might want to the dog I am "depriving" the dog.

The only role "deprivation" plays in clicker training is some people choose to train with food treats when the dog is likely to be hungry, to increase the value of the reward. Yes, dogs can get "satiated" with rewards, particularly if you only use the same reward over and over again or engage in too-long training sessions.

I have seen dogs get frustrated during clicker-training sessions. Usually this is caused by a lack of skill on the trainer's part-- the trainer has poor timing or is making it too hard for the dog.  Many anxious or nervous dogs love clicker-training and develop a lot of confidence from it-- they learn how to communicate with their owner to get what they want. It's very empowering to dogs.

Several of my dogs would much rather earn their food than eat it out of a bowl. How boring.

In fact, one could say that feeding a dog out of a bowl instead of asking the dog to work for supper is depriving the dog of the chance to fulfill his natural instinct to work for food. Dogs are hard-wired to spend a lot of time looking for and working hard to get food. Plunk a bowl down, and well, that's not fully satisfying their needs.

DPU

ORIGINAL: DPU

Ron2, then I take it you reject the statement "deprivation increases learning and satiation decreases learning".

 
Ron2, I just can't tell what your answer is.  You seem to say yes deprivation and satiation exist in training but you have not observed it.  Is that correct.

I get what your asking and I have looked at the other material. Some of the first material I found was in relation to humans. One study was on the effects of advertising and the other had to do with criminal behavior.

I have yet to run into a satiation problem. As for the deprivation problem, say withholding a treat, I have found that if the time to wait for the behavior elongates, which results in a delay in click and treat, it is the human who is in error. That is, the goal must be segmented into smaller increments, so that for closer approximations to the goal, you can click and treat and keep the dog progressing forward.

You talk about wanting a written guarantee that clicker training will not adversely affect an SA dog. Is that how you put it in your emails to Karen Pryor? I'll write you a guarantee. I guarantee that clicker training will not adversely affect an SA dog. I think that they are two different things. An SA dog exhibits anxious behavior at the thought of being alone, which is different than receiving a reward after a click for the completed behavior. Again, if you're have to wait more than a second or so and the dog is confused or getting anxious or shutting down, it is because the segment of shapable behavior is to long a stretch and the intermediate goals must be shorter. As for the dog that was deprived or starved, she would make an excellent candidate for clicker training. Why? The method would be completely empowering to her. It would reduce anxiety. Why? Because now she knows how to always get food. If she even has food issues from the past. If she has fear of not getting food, this will get rid of that fear. If she doesn't, then the fear of food issues does not reside in her but somewhere else, which is unfair to pin on her.

 As for satiation, I thought I had already addressed that in stating that training sessions are short and fine, jackpot rewards change depending on what I cooked for dinner, and rewards in general may be different depending on the context of the moment. And, with Shadow, he still likes those same little treats I have been buying since I got him. I may have to train him to read so that he can understand satiation.

 I agree with Kim, (you know, the "uppity" one) that true deprivation is a life reward withheld. Such as ignoring the dog to stop mouthing or jumping. Clicker training is not about withholding. It is about marking and rewarding the desired behavior. Otherwise, I'm depriving the dog until I scoop food out of the bag which, you must admit, would be a stretch of the definition.

And I forgot to answer your question, DPU, in my last post.

 As defined by your wikipedia reference, yes, there can be a temporary satiation as the dog is now full and ready to nap, which is a biological process. And that a certain amount of time between meals introduces a functional deprivation. Once the dog is hungry again, they can work for food. Based on that description, yes, satiation and deprivation are both factors to consider in +R training involving food. But that simply makes deprivation a description of the time between meals. But none of us eats constantly through the day. Well, some people do and wind up with physical problems from it. Some dogs will continue to eat, as well. It is somewhat a folklore that Labs will clean the bowl and eat even more, which is not always good for them.

 But this does not, imo, decrease the efficacy of +R training, which can use other rewards, even within the same session. Or clicker training, which communicates clearly to the dog which way is desired.

I know it's been a few days since the "uppity" person on the board was one-upped by all the people here who seem to think her abilities are not so cool because her dogs don't weigh in like the GSD's and the Rotties.  Well, I'm here to one up all of you - my horse is clicker trained and he weighs about 1000 pounds.  But, so is my Yorkie who weighs 6 pounds.  And, there have been instances where people have clicker trained everything from dolphins to chickens to fish in a bowl.  It doesn't matter how big the organism is, it matters how the organism learns. 

It's always a popular way to disdain someone with education - call them "uppity".  But, it's disrespectful, and I daresay that a few weeks ago, it would have gotten some red ink.  I'm surprised that Kim had the decorum to simply respond in her usual educated and articulate manner, rather than making out a ticket.

spiritdogs

It doesn't matter how big the organism is, it matters how the organism learns. 

Truer words were never spoken.

spiritdogs

I know it's been a few days since the "uppity" person on the board was one-upped by all the people here who seem to think her abilities are not so cool because her dogs don't weigh in like the GSD's and the Rotties.  Well, I'm here to one up all of you - my horse is clicker trained and he weighs about 1000 pounds.  But, so is my Yorkie who weighs 6 pounds.  And, there have been instances where people have clicker trained everything from dolphins to chickens to fish in a bowl.  It doesn't matter how big the organism is, it matters how the organism learns. 

It's always a popular way to disdain someone with education - call them "uppity".  But, it's disrespectful, and I daresay that a few weeks ago, it would have gotten some red ink.  I'm surprised that Kim had the decorum to simply respond in her usual educated and articulate manner, rather than making out a ticket.

 

I think the words "Power Breeds " were brought up, too.......actually, your giant horse would be prey to bigger dogs if they weren't fed on a regular basis......see where I am going with this?

Uppity came about from numbers.  It was asserted that 14 dogs weighing about 200lbs topped 6 dogs weighing over 700lbs. 

DPU

Uppity came about from numbers.  It was asserted that 14 dogs weighing about 200lbs topped 6 dogs weighing over 700lbs. 

I don't recall seeing this explanation before. The "uppity" one was more than considerate and could have come back a lot harsher but took the high road of just sticking to facts and science. And hardly responded in order to avoid confrontation. I almost thought she left again. And she has considerable education and experience.

Here's how I view such a thing in my own field of expertise. 97 percent of the time, I am correct. I don't claim the last 3 percent because I am always learning. And I have the experience, education, and creds to back it up. On many things in that field, there are simply established facts. Debating them can be fun, though, at times just an exercise of debate. And if someone were to disagree with me and claim that my experience and knowledge makes me "uppity," I could only, at best, see that as a non-sequitur that does nothing to change what I know. That is, calling my attitude "uppity" in that hypothetical situation does nothing to diminish the science of what I know and experience. And would, in that particular situation, possibly cause me to wonder the motives behind calling my attitude uppity and what the characterization is supposed to accomplish. I've seen people who got a post deleted by a mod for much less harshness.

ron2, it seems your commentary would be better suited in the 'How are we doing' section.

In this thread, I think I established my experience as topping others.  I give recognition, high recognition to those that *get* the mechanics of OC and Clicker Training.  I choose to explore the edges, exaggerate the details so I get a comprehensive understanding and to serve as a springboard towards improvements.