Clicker Training and Permissiveness

Yeah. You do have to completely control what your dog wants and be extremely proactive.

When I had a dog that really needed an aversive-free environment, I got really used to looking at the world in terms of what the dog wants and what will get the dog in trouble. And I got a lot out of it. It heightened my awareness, made me see details that I would never have seen before. This is corny, but my life did get richer because I had to notice more.

I gladly did this because I had a really scary dog on my hands. It is much, much harder to get it up to do this for a dog that is not particularly driven, and is not so much in need of this kind of managment.

My current dog is very laid back, so I wind up doing more reacting and less pro-active management of his environment. But the mindset is still there, even if I can't always remember to pick up my socks the way I remembered to watch for other dogs on walks...

It's worth pointing out that being a "positive" in the way you train is analogue rather than digital.  Most of use here love dogs and use kind reward based techniques (such as clicker training) to a greater or lesser degree. 
 
To aim to be TOTALLY positive is very very hard and in some households just isn't practical or workable.  That's OK.  But (I'm going out on a limb here) the flip side of the coin is that the less able you are to read and manage the dog, the more aversives become necessary.  If in everyday situations an owner tips more towards the aversive side than the positive, I would suggest they don't have the time to manage a dog properly, or they are just plain lazy and/or ignorant and should either change their ways for the sake of the dog or let it go to a home where it will be valued and treated kindly.  In short, I am saying that not only is permissiveness directly counter productive in clicker training (or any positive method) it is also  a form of "cruelty" which is why it niggles me so much when positive trainers are labelled with it.

I think it is alot about basic mind-set. You do what you can to set your dog up for success. For some dogs, that's going to be some pretty basic management, but for others it's going to be some serious control of their environment. My guys are both laid-back and while we do manage their environment (we crate Conrad and Marlowe is confined to a room when we're gone, I make sure the dogs are present and accounted for at all times--meaning no loose dogs just wandering about the house while we're home, either they're in a room with us or they're in another room settled and sleeping, and I check in on them) it's not a super strict thing. It doesn't have to be. I can keep them out of the kitchen while I'm cooking (dropped food=self-rewarding activity++++) by simply telling them to go sit in the other room and looking stern if they try to come back in. I can call them off cat chasing with "ah-ah!" If I had a serious cat-chaser on my hands, things would be different and there would be a lot more management. When Marlowe was having inappropriate peeing issues, he had to be in the same room with us at all times, period.

But my attitude is always, if the dog messes up I first look at what I did to facilitate their screw-up. I left something out, I didn't make myself clear, I asked for a behavior that wasn't fully proofed yet, I didn't confine them. LIMA: Least invasive, minimally aversive. Notice there are no absolutes (this-only or that-only) in that, which I really like. You do your best with the understanding that it is your job to set your dog up for success and not failure. You open up a clear line of communication with the dog (the reward marker, or no reward marker if you're so inclined) and you manage your dog on a scaffolded basis, making it easy at first to succeed and gradually upping the ante so that aversives are as light and infrequent as possible. Doing otherwise is like handing a 6th grader a calculus test and then flunking them when they don't do well on it.

Doing otherwise is like handing a 6th grader a calculus test and then flunking them when they don't do well on it.

 
Boy I love this.  How many times have I said to people......
 
Me: "You have to set him up for success."
Them: "But he's got to learn!  How will he ever learn if I baby him every step of the way?"
Me:  "Look, you don't send a kid into school on his first day and expect him to do fractions."
 
Seriously, that happens a lot.  I've been saying that since I was about 12 years old and it's shocking the number of people many years older than me who still think it best to chuck the dog in at the deep end and then "yank and crank" him all the way to "success".

The very fact that it is hard to apply in everyday situations goes against it and some would say calls for a more balanced approach,

I don't understand how +R is hard to apply in everyday situations. Such as? 

I suppose the permissiveness myth stems from the aversive debate. So, I guess the biggest disagreement is what constitutes an aversive and when should an aversive be used - not whether they should be used at all.

For me, being permissive means never giving a dog boundaries. Clicker training is all about setting boundaries for acceptable behaviors. I think how you enforce those boundaries would depend on the dog and the behavior. Some behaviors need to have physical boundaries (gates, crates), some behaviors need a NRM or other marker that means "no" and other behaviors can be eliminated by a lack of reward, and most boundaies can be enforced by positive reinforcement. To me, it is not cruel to set a boundary and let a dog know what is expected. It is cruel to punish a dog who has not been taught to know what is expected. I don't punish my kids for not following a rule they didn't know but they will be warned and expected to follow the rule. We have a little routine every time we go shopping. Before we get out of the car I ask them what the rules are. They tell me "stay with mom, if mom says no we can't keep asking, and do what mom says." Then I ask them what happens if the rules are broken and they chant "we don't get to pick out a treat." Sounds like a cult brainwashing, I know. But life is SO much better if we just go over the rules first. Lucy didn't know not to run out the door when we got her, but after only being let out after calmly sitting and waiting for her leash she learned to wait at the door. If she won't sit calmly, the door won't open. If she rushes out before me, the door gets closed. There are behavioral boundaries at the door and there are consequences (no walkies) if she doesn't observe them.

I use NRM and body blocking aversives the same way my kids play "hot and cold." You know the game I'm talking about. When you hide something and say warmer as they get closer, colder as they get further and further. If Lucy is behaving the way I want, she gets praise, cookies, scratches, etc. If she is not she is ignored. If she's crossed the boundary of acceptable behavior, there's "Uh-uh!" with body blocking as a last resort for those really excitable times when her ears turn off. I do try to "catch" those over-excited times when I can, but I'm definitely not anywhere near 100%, so I do have to stop her after the fact every once in a while. If I see something that may set her off (like kids on the sidewalk) I try and distract her. But if she sees them while I'm in the kitchen I'll go out and do the "Uh-uh!" and ask for a down. She does seem to be reacting less and less, so I guess I'm on the right track.

Doesn't this:

Yeah. You do have to completely control what your dog wants and be extremely proactive.

contradict this:

When I had a dog that really needed an aversive-free environment, I got really used to looking at the world in terms of what the dog wants and what will get the dog in trouble. And I got a lot out of it.

One of the problems I have, is this presumption that we can always control the environment - I don't think we can!

I never aim to be 100% total positive in my daily communication with humans. And I am not a bad person. And, I'd go as far to say that it's natural not to be 100% positive. Beings learn by being told that what they did is right and told what they did is wrong. Hiding what triggers bad behavior won't raise our consciousness about them. We need to do the exercise and practice self control. This applies to us, kids and dogs, etc.

No, one does not contradict the other.

To look at the world in terms of what your dog wants is to manage your dog. It is not to give your dog what it wants.

Example:

If I anticipate that the garbage is very attractive to my dog, then I can put a lid on it so that he never learns how to rummage in it.

That's thinking in terms of what your dog wants. What dog does not have an interest in garbage?

Not thinking in terms of what the dog wants would be to be surprised when your dog has rummaged in the garbage, and then yell at the dog, or worse, claim he "knows better."

And FWIW, as someone who has successfully managed my dog's environment so that I reduced aversives to zero, I can say that it takes some getting used to but it's no less difficult, really, than dealing with a misbehaving dog.

One of the problems I have, is this presumption that we can always control the environment - I don't think we can!

 
No, but the more you try to control the environment of young puppies (leashes, crates, baby gates, puppy proofing, walking briskly away, avoiding certain environments) and the more time you spend "preparing" the puppy for out-of-control environments the better behaved your dog will be.  You don't have to control every detail of the environment for the dog's entire lifetime, just during the formative months. Experienced dog owners pre-emptively teach their dogs via +R to not resource guard, to not counter surf, to not get upset when kids race up to them and hug them, to come when called, to leave that food that just dropped on the ground alone, to not dart out the door without permission, to not chew the furniture, etc.
 
It's people who don't plan ahead and pro-actively manage and train the dog who end up with dogs that develop self-rewarding habitual bad behaviors, and these are the people who come to feel they have no choice but to deal with the behaviors by using aversives. I will never feel the need to punish my dog in some way for habitually raiding the garbage because I use +R and environmental management to keep the dog from ever discovering the joys of garbage raiding.  I agree, sometimes dogs who have developed self-rewarding behaviors may require some type of correction to get them to stop. But the fact that they were allowed to develop these behaviors in the first place is not a failure of +R, it's a failure of the implementation of +R.

I will never feel the need to punish my dog in some way for habitually raiding the garbage because I use +R and environmental management to keep the dog from ever discovering the joys of garbage raiding.  I agree, sometimes dogs who have developed self-rewarding behaviors may require some type of correction to get them to stop. But the fact that they were allowed to develop these behaviors in the first place is not a failure of +R, it's a failure of the implementation of +R.

I also do things like put garbage behind closed doors, keep counters cleared off and kennel when we are not home. So what do you recommend for situations you have no control over? Lucy likes to sound of Squirrel Alerts or Intruder Alarms at the front window when people walk by on the sidewalk. I can't ban pedestrians on my street so should I:
A. Get blinds to cover the window (and risk having destroyed window coverings)
B. Ignore the behavior
C. Keep her in a crate or on a leash at every moment.
D. Use a NRM or body block to stop the behavior then ask for a down. Reward the appropriate behavior.

I've been using option D. with great success. Lucy still lets me know when we have someone in the yard, but now comes to me and stops barking when I call her, which is the behavior I want. I rarely have to use the "uh-uh!" or body blocking any more. I guess leashing her to me might work, but I guess I don't understand how that trains her how to behave when she eventually comes off the leash. She's not a pup. She's a 3 year old we got from the shelter almost a year ago. I have know idea if this is a behavior she had in her previous home, and I really don't care. It's not a behavior allowed in our home.

One point I have not seen raised involves those individuals who are in a more traditional correction based training approach and have dogs who are out of control.. That is positive reinforcement, because the behavior is maintained or increased in frequency.  You can be just as permissive in the use of e collars, collar corrections, throw chains etc.  It is not all about the tools, but how you use them.  I still contend, permissiveness is more about personality traits than training approaches.  As stated  previously,  I would certainly not describe Susan Clothier or Patrica Mc'Connel ( have i got that right or has mental pause struck again), Leslie Nelson or Sandra Ladwig permissive, but they certainly are positive.

From the operant conditioning stand point, it is not about permissiveness.  It is about thinking about behavior differently.  It requires less reactive responses and more planning on the part of the handler/trainer.  During a learning curve of new behaviors, errors may (will occur) that result in unplanned outcomes.  So there may be an appearance of permissiveness.
 
The reality is the behavior chain A B C is a equation of equal parts.  The antecedent and the consequence can be manipulated to increase the chances the behavior will be closer to what the person desires.  You can increase distance from a distraction (antecednet) or increase the value of a consequence (liver verses kibble).  The benefit in training using positive reinforcement has to do with the fact the behavior is more likely to occur again.  Punishment reduces behavior likelihood (but in most cases only in the situation in which the punishment was applied).   So, the effectiveness you have on behavior is directly tied to your ability to appropriately manipulate those two variables. 
 
editing needed to deal with incoherence resulting from malinois puppy assists while composing and typing. []

I've read about many people in this forum that have gone from traditional correction based training to operant conditioning training, the funny thing is, I can't recall anyone that went the other way, I wonder why that is. Myself I can't say I'm 100% +R (or as close to 100% as you can get), but I find myself relying less and less on corrections and trying harder to outsmart my dog. As far as being permissive, maybe, but I was also permissive when I used more corrections so I don't think the training method itself has anything to do with it, at the end of the day, I like to spoil the big goofy freak every now and then.

I've read about many people in this forum that have gone from traditional correction based training to operant conditioning training, the funny thing is, I can't recall anyone that went the other way, I wonder why that is.

Well, I think that's where the "It's a cult, it's brainwashing, it's all lies, it's just makes you feel good, you're selfish" thing comes from. There has to be some explanation and if you can't admit that it works and is good for dogs, you have to come up with some other, possibily occult, reason.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

The very fact that it is hard to apply in everyday situations goes against it and some would say calls for a more balanced approach,

I don't understand how +R is hard to apply in everyday situations. Such as? 

 
Not R+.  TOTALLY R+. (or as near as dammit)  I personally find this too hard to apply.  I screw up too much.  I get lax in managing the environment.  I'm not quick enough on the uptake when an undesirable behaviour is about to start.  I'm not perfect at reading their body language.
 

One of the problems I have, is this presumption that we can always control the environment - I don't think we can!

 
Which is why "Positive Only" is a misnomer.  I don't believe we can either.  There are too many variables in your average busy family home and human beings are not perfect.  In addition, even trainers who claim to be Positive Only will use something to discourage a dog from repeating an undesirable behaviour - often something like negative punishment.  Say you train the dog to sit at the door and wait for permission to go out.  If his bum comes off the floor the door shuts.  This might not be in the same league as a prong collar, but its still an aversive of a sort.  Its discouraging the dog from getting up before you release him.  In fact, its a pretty strong aversive because it denies the dog the very thing he wants most unless he complies with what you want.