"what is wrong with clicker training"

Houndsoflove, you did hit something on the head there. The saying I love is "Clicker training is simple. That doesn't mean it's easy". What that means is that in principle, the concepts behind it are quite simple, but learning about it, and learning to implement it, are not always so easy.
 
There's no question that it does take a bit of commitment and learning to discover all clicker training has to offer. But over the years, I've come to realize that like any other aspect of dogs, it's really no different. Often the "good" things are the things that take the most research to discover, as we find that what we thought we knew wasn't what we knew, and what we had been taught for many years is not necessarily most efficient. Things like vaccine schedules (or lack of), appropriate diets for dogs, and yes, training - often the "easiest" methods to follow (annual vaccines, kibble-feeding, and forcing a dog to do as you ask) are not the most efficient methods, nor are they often the methods best for the dog's wellbeing. The things I have discovered are most important to my dogs are the things that took the most time and effort to learn, and they are also the things that have made the largest difference to them.
 
It's so very easy to "correct" your dog for doing something you don't want it to do (I say "correct", and not punish, as most corrections dealt to dogs do not serve as punishers). It really is. It's a tad harder to properly punish behaviour than it is to correct. And it's hardest of all to get your dog to WANT to do what you want it to do, rather than coercing it into doing what you want it to do. The fact lies in that even punishment-based trainers and correction trainers are using operant conditioning in every interaction with their dog, however they do not realize they are because they have not learned the terminology. Rather their basis comes from things like "alpha" and "dominance" and "make the dog respect you", things much easier to understand when talking human-to-human, less obviously understood by dogs (and ironically, most have been proven false and invalid when put to the test), as if dogs need to be forced into a submissive position on the ladder. Very little of what those trainers do comes from any sort of research, but rather a  "whatever works" attitude, in that they'll do whatever it takes to get the behaviour THEY want, rather than understanding the underlying concepts that cause the dog to do what it does.

There is no question that learning to do clicker training properly, it takes effort, time, and learning on the human's part. But you know, I would do it all over again, twice over, just to see the results that I have seen. Perhaps I would have done things differently to enhance my learning, but it has been one of THE best, by far, experiences in my life, and continues to be with each dog I work with, every time I work with them. Because I have literally been blown away by what I have learned, and not only how I incorporate it into my training but how I incorporate the principles of operant conditioning into my life in general.
 
The 'easiest' solution is not always the best solution, and good things truly do come to those who put forth the effort to find those things out.
 
Kim MacMillan

ORIGINAL: Trevell

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

I am sorry but you can't equate an aggressive GSD with a shark.  It's LAUGHABLE.

I think you miss his point.  The reason he brought this up is because the argument that you can suposedly clicker train a massive whale, therefore you MUST be able to clicker train a dog, is ALWAYS brought up by positive, clicker extremists.  I also don't think this guy is totally dismissing operant conditioning, he's just pointing out that it's flawed to think it's the only way.

The reason that argument is brought up is not that if you can train a dolphin, you can train a dog.  It's brought up as a way to illustrate that  because  a whale or dolphin cannot be physically forced to comply, the trainer must find a method that is hands-off.  That does not imply that either all dolphins or all dogs are trainable, just that if you expect to train an animal, you need not use physical domination to do so.

I like clicker training due to the NILIF  aspects.

Why get one sit from a dog for a dish of food,  when you can get all kinds of work  from them for a handful of food.

It is "will work for food" at it's finest.

Some folks will curse clicker training , yet praise NILIF in the same breath.

It doesn't make sense.  They call NILIF "leadership" but clicker trainers "treat dispensers".

You also have to do some serious learning of how to fade the clicker and treats, how to properly apply the cue, and how to get stimulus control. Again, these are not easy concepts to grasp at first and another problem with clicker training is you have to learn this stuff or it simply doesn't work.

Part of me feels that it's sad, in a way, that some feel you have to know so much to communicate with your dog... I really, really believe now that the concepts of classical conditioning are.. em, obvious. It's not foreign to us - humans can be conditioned just like dogs! I have to admit, I felt like slapping J.Donaldson when I read her book - she was full of good ideas, I could tell, but also, so full of technical blather, it wasn't for me.

NILIF is operant conditioning. The dog is learning to preform to get what it wants. Does it learn Social implications also during this? Of course they do. That is what makes dog training fluid and not concrete. The whole behaviorism movement, was based on that animals perform to get what they want, and avoid repeating behaviors that do not produce or have a bad association, solely. But dogs are social, they do have feelings and thoughts. So sometimes things happen happen out of context. But needless to say. They all are routed in some form of operant and classicl condtioning. The best trainers in the world all understand that thier are social implications, and reactions based out of emotions. That somewhere were learned. How? through operant and classical conditioning. The clicker of course is just one tool. But I think that in the last 30 years, it is the best tool found. Dogs trained based solely on social structures, are mediocre at best. I think that Social implications of training are a very small percentage of what dogs are looking to get. a large percentage is very much based on the simple fact of just wanting things. we are social creatures, some people are very obessed with social status, others are not. same is true with dogs. I find most dogs are like people they care about it, mildly. But are not doing every behavior in order to climb a ladder. And then also it;s fluid. In different situations it becomes more or less. like at work. the whole management system is based on gaining more power. but at home, it is not. Social instincts are not to cause conflict but rather harmony.
 
Jean Donald is not the best autor though I like her ideals. I read books on canine learning theory that make that one look like a dick and jane book. Then again I compete. So, knowledge is half of it, and applying it better. And dogs do not have much verbal communication, and they do not have languge. at least in the form of words and defintions. So the barrier of communicating is the greatest one. I found trying to study it more and more, has enriched me and my dogs life ten fold.

I have to add, I don't have any feelings against clicker training - that's how I taught my dog commands.
I am starting to feel that people who are on a look out for 'what's wrong with clicker-training' have conflicting ideas of what is actually being communicated with clickers. I lot of these folks feel that there should be something... something beyond plain conditioning, beyond a clicker that holds this bond between dogs and us, humans. I suspect, these are the people that often ask: "How would a clicker trainer handle an aggressive dog?" Well, that's not what clickers are for. It's a fact that a lot of clicker trainers choose not to handle aggressive dogs. I can imagine the resistance this method receives.

Now, you can't build trust with your dog by using clickers ONLY, even though the tool is harmless and idiot proof. At the same time, you can cause some damage to your dog and yourself parroting somebody else's tricks with anger, stupidity, etc. ...
Some would then say:
"If you don't use positive training you must be using force?!"
No. We don't have to divide everything in to black and white like that. The best teachers/trainers are those who are flexible. Being flexible, at times, means giving up your way and trying something different, and by different I don't mean slamming your dog into an alpha roll. We need more labels for the kinds of training methods that there are around.

I wish dog owners where taught how to listen to their dogs as much as they were taught what luring or shaping is.

I just don't see why everything has to be so extreme, and I'm talking on BOTH sides, in dog training.  My goal is to be able to train my dogs in a balenced and effective manner to be good family dogs.  I've tried different things--some work-others don't.  I use clicker training to teach commands and mentally stimulate my dogs.  Sally ESPECIALLY enjoys it.  She learns more complicated commands much faster using the clicker. 

ORIGINAL: TinaK

You also have to do some serious learning of how to fade the clicker and treats, how to properly apply the cue, and how to get stimulus control. Again, these are not easy concepts to grasp at first and another problem with clicker training is you have to learn this stuff or it simply doesn't work.

Part of me feels that it's sad, in a way, that some feel you have to know so much to communicate with your dog... I really, really believe now that the concepts of classical conditioning are.. em, obvious. It's not foreign to us - humans can be conditioned just like dogs! I have to admit, I felt like slapping J.Donaldson when I read her book - she was full of good ideas, I could tell, but also, so full of technical blather, it wasn't for me.

Some people want to learn the "technical blather" as you put it, because they do want to know the reasons behind what is being suggested as a training method.  If you want simple, and uncluttered, Peggy Tillman's "Clicking With Your Dog" is a bit less pretentious along those lines, and still gives a great step by step training system based on those principles. 
The communication issue is difficult, not because we have so much to learn, but because we humans have so much to UN-learn. []

Yeah, I think with a lot of us, it has also become about mental stimulation.

 I have come to the conclusion that mental stimulation is one of, if not the most important thing for a dog.

Any behaviors that I have "taught" mine while using the clicker, they have  come up with on their own.  They offer me a behavior, if I want to keep it, I click it. If they want another piece of food, they will do it again.

I think it is more about the dog.  Not so much about the owner.

 

ORIGINAL: sillysally

I just don't see why everything has to be so extreme, and I'm talking on BOTH sides, in dog training.  My goal is to be able to train my dogs in a balenced and effective manner to be good family dogs.  I've tried different things--some work-others don't.  I use clicker training to teach commands and mentally stimulate my dogs.  Sally ESPECIALLY enjoys it.  She learns more complicated commands much faster using the clicker. 

Some people want to learn the "technical blather" as you put it, because they do want to know the reasons behind what is being suggested as a training method.

Fair enough, professionals in all areas enjoy technical blather - programmers, professors, etc... Writers do need to keep their audience in mind though. But enough about J. Donaldson.

The communication issue is difficult, not because we have so much to learn, but because we humans have so much to UN-learn.

Yes!
To answer the original question posted: "what is wring with clicker training"... From what I have seen and from talking with other dog owners, most clicker trainers unfortunately bypass this important fact - this difficult aspect of dog-to-human communication. It's all about what humans want... if you know what I mean.
I am sure there are excellent clicker trainers out there, but that's the impression that I get.

I've actually found that clicker-training is all about dog-to-human communication. It's a mutual language that both dog and human can understand and communicate in. I know it looks like the human is doing all the talking, but that has not been my experience with it at all.

When I was in China, I lived in a dorm of international students from all over the world. Because we all spoke different languages, we had to communicate with one another in Chinese, a foriegn language to all of us, but one that we all had in common. I see clicker training as that common foriegn language that both animals and humans can learn to speak fluently.

To answer the original question posted: "what is wring with clicker training"... From what I have seen and from talking with other dog owners, most clicker trainers unfortunately bypass this important fact - this difficult aspect of dog-to-human communication. It's all about what humans want... if you know what I mean.
I am sure there are excellent clicker trainers out there, but that's the impression that I get.

 
I completely disagree. I take your earlier point, which if you don't mind me paraphrasing you was that training commands is not the whole of dog stewardship. But I actually do think that clicker training helps people bond with their dogs... because suddenly the pathways of communication open up, and when you can communicate with another being you can trust them more. CT devotees often describe perceiving something like "relief" in their dogs when they begin CTing... suddenly we realize that it was just as confusing and muddy for our dogs to learn by trial & error & guesswork as it was for us to teach that way.
 
On the contrary, CT is not all about what humans want, it's all about handing some power and control back to the dog, telling them, "here, be creative, show me what you got, and I'll pick out the things I like best." This is two-way communication, rather than the simple "place dog's body, reward for compliance" style of training.

I've actually found that clicker-training is all about dog-to-human communication. It's a mutual language that both dog and human can understand and communicate in. I know it looks like the human is doing all the talking, but that has not been my experience with it at all.

When I was in China, I lived in a dorm of international students from all over the world. Because we all spoke different languages, we had to communicate with one another in Chinese, a foriegn language to all of us, but one that we all had in common. I see clicker training as that common foriegn language that both animals and humans can learn to speak fluently.

Well, *ideally* that's how communication should happen.
However, even though you didn't speak the same language and couldn't communicate with each other verbally, we and our international friends share way more in common than us and dogs - we are both same species. We all have similar basic needs and we intuitively understand what they are. We know how to interpret nonverbal cues, we know how to express: "My leg hurts, I won't run a marathon with your today", we know that the strongest and the pushiest doesn't get to be first at a cashier. If one breaks these rules, we have all the right to take things personally...

I completely disagree. I take your earlier point, which if you don't mind me paraphrasing you was that training commands is not the whole of dog stewardship. But I actually do think that clicker training helps people bond with their dogs...

I agree 100% - it does! Both points are not mutually exclusive.

I thought the article was laughable too, for a different reason; this trainer sees, much as alot of others do, only in the extremes.  White or Black.  Hot or Cold.  On or Off. 
 
Life isn't like that.  Dog training isn't necessarily like that.  Dogs are sentient creatures and they will respond to stimuli in their environment.  Using a clicker doesn't mean being permissive.  Just as using a choke collar doesn't mean a person hates their dog.   
 
And then his point of using only "the most social" of sea mammals.  Well aren't dogs social animals? 
 
Sorry Sam, the amount of time you spent on this article-bashing clicker training and operant conditioning was wasted.

And then his point of using only "the most social" of sea mammals. Well aren't dogs social animals?

I had that same thought. Even an aggressive dog is still canis familiaris... a social animal. What an odd point, he must have lost the thread there....