OC, Clicker Training, Learning Theory

DPU, I would jump off at this point......remember, Target sale is over. purchase has been made......you get my meaning, don't you? LOL

snownose

DPU, I would jump off at this point......remember, Target sale is over. purchase has been made......you get my meaning, don't you? LOL

Very well.  Don't worry though, my schnozz is not out of joint. 

DPU

my schnozz is not out of joint. 

LOL......I got ya.....

DPU

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. 

First line, you may or may not be right, though I'm still not sure how you would see that as justifying the characterization of someone's attitude as uppity. Perhaps that is better suited for forum review.

Second line, you are always welcome to your opinion.

DPU

ORIGINAL: ron2

My knowledge and understanding of Operant Conditioning, Clicker Training, and Learning Theory is being called into question.

Be mindful that I have 1 dog, 1 cat, I am not a certified or mentor-trained dog trainer nor do I have a degree in psychology, behavioral or otherwise. I am an electrician and the largest part of my experience and education support that. We do have at least one person here with all the proper creds for dog training, including decades of experience with dogs of all natures.

Anyway, to the point of a particular point in a debate is the notion that satiation decreases learning and deprivation increases learning and that this is supposed to be a flaw in clicker training. Now, it may simply be that this disagreement is based on personality. But to truly debate it, there must be something somewhere that gives rise to this particular thought.

Once again the OP is referencing me and I must say that the man from the south is overly sensitive.  Instead of characterizing a simple discussion as an attack, being personal, or questioning one's comprehension...it should be view as maybe the understanding is not complete.

Anyway, we were simply discussing the values of the rewards.  I made the statement that highly prized rewards disminish over time in favor of another reward that is also present.  The OP stated it does not diminish.  We were just discussing.

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

I also can confirm if you google the phrase, you get nothing.  I tried to find my source.  I do recall I came across this phrase doing research on how to rehab an emaciated dog.  I accepted this as "common sense" in learning theory and it has helped me examine and understand training methods and which method would be best to apply to the dog in front of me.  That is why when I consider training methods like Clicker Training I see withholding a treat as deprivation and having an emotional effect on the dog such as repeated teasing.  So for a dog with true SA, a psychological disorder, the mechanics needs to be modified.  Same is true for a dog pulling, the treat or reward value gets satisfied and the dog will look for a higher value one and pull to get it.

I will continue to look for the source...but it seems such a common sense thing to me.

Back to the topic.  Restating the OP, I have accepted the above statement as an axiom in Learning Theory.  To me, I think it is common sense knowledge and serves to shape how I train my dogs and the way I assess training methods.  My impression from most others and I may be by myself in this,  is that it is totally rejected.  Why?

DPU

My impression from most others and I may be by myself in this,  is that it is totally rejected.  Why?

I think you may have missed my earlier post, per your wikipedia definition and that I accept there is satiation and some deprivation in clicker training, but I would like to add that it might also be in lure/reward. And in other training styles. Is there, for example, a satiation level in punishment. As the old saying goes, "you can only beat a dog so much." Although, for our current terms, we can substitute corrections for beatings. I am specifically not saying that anyone here beats their dog.

Also, I don't mind admitting satiation and that is why I will vary the rewards, like a slot machine. And sometimes vary the delivery of the reward (random), also like a slot machine. I have gotten obedience without a clicker or treat in my hand. But the next chance I get, I may do it. The fact that a great reward can happen at any time helps drive the "work ethic," so to speak.

Perhaps, I can ask you, if we accept satiation and deprivation in reward training, why it is you think it makes the system fail, in spite of evidence and science etc that shows it helps the system work. Maybe you have new evidence that we could consider. I am specifically not talking about human values, per se, but why it wouldn't work for a dog.

ron2

I think you may have missed my earlier post, per your wikipedia definition and that I accept there is satiation and some deprivation in clicker training...

Perhaps, I can ask you, if we accept satiation and deprivation in reward training, why it is you think it makes the system fail, in spite of evidence and science etc that shows it helps the system work. Maybe you have new evidence that we could consider. I am specifically not talking about human values, per se, but why it wouldn't work for a dog.

The highlights in your quote are by me.   In a previous post, I stated I am confused where you stand and your most recent post confirms that, its like "a sheet in the wind". 

In response to your question, I accept the axiom in Learning Theory.  The theories include "OC,Clicker Traininng".  I never said it makes the "system fail" or causes Clicker Training not to work.  It is a self evident truth that is never mentioned and I assume for promotion reasons.  And I wish I would have known that FACT before I started training a dog with a psychological disorder.  I repeat, I do Clicker Training as well as other training methods depending on my knowledge of the dog. 

DPU

In a previous post, I stated I am confused where you stand and your most recent post confirms that, its like "a sheet in the wind". 

You got that from Snownose, didn't you? Or maybe it was the other way around. Cute, regardless.

DPU

In response to your question, I accept the axiom in Learning Theory.  The theories include "OC,Clicker Traininng".  I never said it makes the "system fail" or causes Clicker Training not to work.  It is a self evident truth that is never mentioned and I assume for promotion reasons. 

So we both accept the axiom. Are you referring to most texts for laypersons on clicker training or marker training not mentioning the effects of satiation and deprivation? I haven't read every single book out there on it but I can stipulate that is missing just for the sake of your question. In what I have read, it would seem that the mechanics of marker training are set up to not make it a hindrance or to use it towards an advantage. If a moment, and I do mean a moment of deprivation of the treat gives a motivation for the dog to think or problem solve in order to get the treat, then the momentary deprivation has worked to an advantage. As for satiation, I have read that, if using food treats for training, one can adjust the size of the regular meal which is not, imo, additional deprivation. It's a matter of weight management, if the dog tends to binge. My dog doesn't binge, so I am very fortunate, I suppose. And he will cue me for more training. That is, he wants to work for the food. Even when it's just a regular meal time, he wants me to throw a kong or ball so that he can retrieve it before eating. I am not making that up. It requires me to know where the danged thing is before i set down the meal.

And you may certainly have a special case with the dog who was starved. And you do have your personal values that you have mentioned obliquely, from time to time. But the people that I know of who have used lure/reward or marker training haven't, that I know of, had a problem with satiation/deprivation. Maybe, and I'm just saying maybe, 9 times out of ten, it's not an issue.

Earlier, I saw a clip of MacDonaldson leading a class in how to create a down. It is not put on cue to start, as the behavior is still weak. It is not until after some successful repetitions that is put on cue. The dog downs once with the visual leading motion. And gets a reward. The second attempt, the dog does not down. And the reward is withheld. Third attempt, the dog downs. And gets a reward. So, there is momentary purposeful deprivation in lure/reward. In clicker training, some may use a no reward marker (NRM). It is not a punishment but it is not a reward, either. Using a clicker simply sharpens the definition of the completed behavior. By that, I mean training with a clicker, as opposed to clicker training, where a behavior is offered, then later on, shaped.

So, there we have the video evidence of deprivation, even momentary, in +R training. But, as Kim had pointed out, it will spur the dog to work or think in order to win the reward. And, I'm willing to bet such training methods have been used on dogs that were abandoned on a chain and picked up by AC and adopted out. That is, they went without food for a while but it did not hinder the use of food treats in +R training. And I don't think a momentary deprivation, at least for most dogs, is equal to starving for days or weeks.

Too bad there aren't some scientific studies, (or there may be that I haven't found yet) on starving dogs not responding later on, after plenty of food and change of scenery, to +R training.

As for stopping clicker training abruptly, I think it's flexible, especially since I do carry it with me at times. So, when did it end? At the Petsmart when we left? Or later in the evening after another training session? Which sometimes takes place on an hour after a regular meal? Or, while I am sitting and Shadow is chasing Jade and I call "off" and he offs and I get up and get a treat, since my treat-dispensing butler's pouch is in the washing machine? Usually, you can transition out of it being giving a jackpot, maybe even encouraging a satiation. Now the dog is full and feels like sleeping.

ETA:

Here's a link to people that use +R with dogs, including one lady who uses it with Marvin, a Blue Tick Coonhound who was found starving. Her article is about halfway down the page.

http://www.monadpets.org/classes-homepage.html

This is just my opinion as I try to rehab dogs that come to my home.  Deprivation is a motivator while Satiation moves the dog to something else.  The motivator can be used for good but it can do harm also depending on which need is being satisfied.

I always, always address a medical or behavior issue before training starts.  When a new foster dog comes to my home I observe the dog for a month as the dog gets acclimated to the new environment.  I immediately teach the dog the COME command and also work on housebreaking.  The housebreaking is fast, almost immediate because it is the very first social event the dog is exposed to. 

If the dog has a medical condition such as on the repair from a broken bone in the hind leg, I would not Clicker Train this dog to stand on its hind legs.  Sure, I could and get the behavior I want but I don’t want to interfere with dog’s natural preservation and coping behaviors.  Training can change that.  For a dog on the repair for a broken bone, the coping behavior would be to limp so to minimize the pain from applying pressure.  If I Clicker Train to stand on the hind legs, the dog will offer the behavior so long as the reward is greater than the pain the dog endures.  My prediction would be the dog would accept the pain with fewer tendencies to minimize the pain thus worsening the medical condition and upping the pain.  In future training sessions, the offer of standing on its hind leg would not be offered because of increased pain.  This is where the Clicker Trainer says up the reward, eventually worsening the condition more.  

The above example is analogous to an emaciated dog, SA dog, or any other disorder.  Obviously an emaciated dog is food driven and can most likely be motivated to offer any behavior easily.  But at what costs to the dog?  I believe you are changing the dog’s preservation, survival, and coping behaviors because the training is done when the dog is trying to satisfy its basic survival instinctual needs.  When at that need level, the dog needs to compete with other dogs for survival and that competition means the dogs has to be aggressive, quick on its paws, gluttonous, and a fast eater.  It would be a pitiful sight to see a dog fending for itself and competing with other dogs by offering a sit, twirl, putting toys away, down, etc…in order to get a share of food.    

I accept that dogs have a hierarchy of needs from which the behavior will change depending on which level, e.g. survival versus social.  I believe it is wrong to use food/reward as a motivator when a dog is in an emaciated state or click to calm when a SA dog is in panic state. 

DPU

In future training sessions, the offer of standing on its hind leg would not be offered because of increased pain.  This is where the Clicker Trainer says up the reward, eventually worsening the condition more.  

 

The above example is analogous to an emaciated dog, SA dog, or any other disorder.  Obviously an emaciated dog is food driven and can most likely be motivated to offer any behavior easily.  But at what costs to the dog?  I believe you are changing the dog’s preservation, survival, and coping behaviors because the training is done when the dog is trying to satisfy its basic survival instinctual needs.

I could be totally and completely wrong, but most fosters and some people, especially those truley aware of how the dog thinks, would not do such a thing, clicker or not. And I've seen a case on DW where the owner knew that the dog needed to walk some on a repaired leg to rehab it but couldn't slow the dog down. CM helped them in his way. But most people would actually baby the dog for a while and suspend some training goals for the duration that it takes to heal. Training a dog to stand on it's hind legs with a broken leg? I'm trying to picture what person of diminished  or absent morals would do that? All I'm coming up with is "Hannibal Lecter," a sociopath. "Hello, Clarice." And I don't for a minute, think that you would do such a thing, either. In which case, imo, that hypothetical is a straw boss.

As for an emaciated dog, certainly one might suspend or delay treat training while the dog rehabs and gains weight. But I don't see how having them work through obedience for a high value treat is cruel. Out in the big, bad world, unchained, they might have to work at the skill of knocking down trash cans and tracking for miles to the back door of a restaurant to find or earn food. But I would agree that each dog should be examined case by case. If for some, food is such an issue, long after they have been rescued and are no longer wanting for basic meals, then certainly another reward can be used in training. Maybe a hound would go nuts for tracking smelly retrieval decoys. My BIL has a Blue Merle Aussie that will run herself into the ground to herd and cut the ball "sheep" one more time. In fact, the only person who didn't know when to stop and let her rest is our 7 year old nephew, who doesn't yet understand much about dog training.

For a dog that was starved and emaciated for a while, will they have food issues for the rest of their life or do we assume that, since some humans can have an altered view for the rest of life based one event or time? Why, after a while of rehab, would a dog such as that not be empowered to learn that they can, indeed, control their access to food by working through behaviors? Also, would such a dog, after recently completing a meal, not desire even a tidbit of juicy roast beef? Do such dogs show signs of binge eating or eating after they should already be full? Are they still panicky as you take away the empty food bowl? At times, to quote CM, dogs live in the moment. But they do have memory.

But to also agree with you, flapping in the wind is my style, a dog can have a long-lasting effect from a trauma. I think Shadow fears kennels from his first few weeks of life. I also think, given enough time and treats, I could re-acclimate and change the meaning of the crates. But there is no need, really, as of yet. When I got him, he was fed out of a little bowl. I got him a bigger bowl. And it may have been a month or more before he realized that he could eat more than half a cup at a time. And I train with food treats. He cues me for more training. He knows he can earn treats, above and beyond the meal, doing this "work." Satiation moves him on to take a nap.

He also won't go into water. He will stand out in the snow and sometimes the rain but he will not go into water. And, right now, I don't have a need for us to go into water. I still think that may be a breed trait.

But I am also willing to get it that you and Marvin might be the one theoretical exception, which shouldn't prohibit others from using clicker training successfully, which they have. Such as the woman in the link I posted. She, too, is a foster person and has a hound dog named Marvin who was starved and she has used clicker training and he has suffered no ill effects. The main differences I can see is that you are a man in the upper midwest and she is a woman in New England.

I must confess that I am still missing the theoretical bridge of not using clicker training on an SA dog. Shadow used to be SA. Over time, it became evident that he got treats when we were leaving and when we returned and that we always return, though the interval may vary. Time seemed to have healed that.

In the absence of clicker training, are you saying that the other dogs train your Marvin and if so, how do they do it? I also think that, for at least once, a while ago, you were hinting that I should try and adopt Marvin as a playmate for Shadow. Would you be comfortable doing so, knowing that I am no stranger to the clicker?

I'll respond after you finishing editing.  Right now I have a home visit for one of my fosters about 50 miles away.

That's cool. And good luck.

I used the example of a dog on the mend as an exaggeration of how one could do the mechanics of Clicker Training, get positive results but be unaware of the effect of an underlying medical condition.  Tried to springboard off this example so my point of training an emaciated dog with food would be easier to understand.  The fact that you wrote a lengthy paragraph of 156 typewritten words shows the focus is still on the mechanics.

Look, I have rehabbed many emaciated dogs and there is no drive in these dogs for anythng.  Their only job is to eat and believe it or not I have to create appetite for them.  Do you know how difficult that is, to create appetite when none exist?  Training a dog in this state is the last thing anyone would want to do because it is impossible.  For an emaciated dog that still has its food drive and running on survival instinct, that is a big head start for me.  The entire focus of the dog is food and where the next meal is coming from.  The work is to control eating times and amounts and slowly build trust in the dog that the next meal will be coming on schedule and there will be no strings attached.  For a dog in this state, there is NO other highly valued prize…only food!  I would never train while a dog is in this state.  To use food as a motivator and withhold even for a millisecond to solicit a certain behavior is cruel because of the dog’s state of mind.  AND, not to mention you are retraining the dog instinct behaviors to survive.    

I have not observed a rehabbed emaciated dog beyond a year.  In that year and earlier on, the dog does regress to not eating at the slightest sign of distress.  I always intervene with 24 hours.  So again, training which use motivators to solicit behavior are out because the dog may get distress.  Once the dog’s survival need is diminish and the dog moves up to satisfying higher needs, then training can start.

Your reference to a link is a blurb and has no meaning to me.  Like the lady, I have successfully trained an emaciated dog using Clicker Training.  The link gives no timelines or details so I assume she followed what I do if it was successful.

Please, look up what true SA is.  Read the book ‘I’ll be coming home soon’ or I can send you a paper on CSA in pdf.  Reference Hounlove or my posts on the subject.  The key to managing true SA is to eliminate distress and the dog’s reaction to that stress….it is not only present when a dog is left alone. 

Once again, and I did read your post before you edited it…stop painting me as against Clicker Training.  I am seeking a full understanding and to do so I explore and then discuss.  Marvin is Clicker trained so I don’t understand the last paragraph.  And dogs communicate with each other and they do teach each other the rules of this house.  Best example is housebreaking. 

Okay, so you had a tough row to hoe with Marvin. And you have clicker trained him and point out that you are not against clicker training, even though you have busted my chops several times on it. You even counted my words, no doubt to give weight to the fact that you feel I was still on the wrong focus. So, are you looking for me to say that the system couldn't be used on your emaciated dog for a time? And, at what point could you use it or some kind of training that had to be positive in nature?

Or is it just me? Could I come in and say the same things that fans of CM say and you would still count my words, as I am a man from the south flapping in the wind like a sheet. For the last couple of posts, I have, as far as I can tell, agreed to debate with you, ignored attempts to characterize me in ways that would seem less than respectable, in order to bury the hatchet and come to an understanding. Only to find that you do understand it and use it, though you couldn't at first. So, you need me to say that it can't always be used with every dog all the time? That there are mitigating circumstances? Okay. Are you trying to prove that I don't know everything? Well, that won't take you long, especially as I am already aware of that fact. And even if I can concede some behaviors, such as down, are better lengthened without the clicker, by treating through the extended down, will that settle things down?

Let me flap in the wind some more. Even as we debate and I wonder where this is going and why it has to go that way, I do value your experience as a rescuer and foster of the forgotten and abandoned. I can appreciate that an emaciated dog may some issues, possibly for a good, long while. Issues that, in your situation, may have been easier to resolve by not using food as the motivator.

And I used to think that corrections were necessary. That I had to show some dominance when necessary. I have superior strength, reflexes, and the mental toughness. I have scruffed and pinned, something that only one or two other people here have done. Then I learned more. And found a better, more effective way of training a dog that didn't not involve that. A way that works better than the old way, which is my primary reason for using it. And, at first, you seemed glad to read about it and said so a few times (I lose count). Well, I won't stop recommending it (the positive way). And I'm not good at politics. I mean, if using and recommending +R and marker training puts me in the same "camp" as Spiritdogs, Kim, Houndlove, etc., so be it. That is, what might seem to be an Alliance or Cabal to some is nothing more than a few of us having the same thoughts or viewpoints on something, just as easily as there can be disparate viewpoints. And I still speak my mind, even if it gives the appearance to some that I am like a sheet flapping in the wind. And that apparent "sensitivity" on my part is actually a fearlessness to answer anything. Other times, I may simply ignore it (because the wind changed.)

So, you win this one with me, if it means that much. You have a dog that had perceived food issues for a time. And SA. My dog's predominant breed has a breed trait of SA. I've got neighbors that could hear him crying when we were gone to work and it came to their attention because it sounded like a human baby and they could see through the chainlinked fences to investigate. But yeah, what do I know about SA, right? My dog wouldn't eat the amount he needed to eat because of being conditioned to too small a bowl. So, I wouldn't know anything about food issues. Or, that he is shy with many strangers and has lunged at a few other dogs. Or that he is hand-shy in a world of strangers that still reach over his head. Which happened Sunday. And he didn't bite. He averted and turned his head. A response I jackpotted with the rest of the chicken I brought with me. He probably would not have bit but I like rewarding the calming behaviors.

I think, in all, you and I are after the same thing. A humane way to interact with and even train animals. But appearances show that we only debate theoretical points based on personal values.