Independent Thinking - CM revisited

To be an instructor, you need an education.

I disagree. Given the chance to study livestock handling from a newly minted PhD in Animal Sciences, and a practically illiterate third-generation farmer whose livestock are well-known for being well-managed and humanely cared-for, who would you choose?

I'm a city girl whose experience pretty much boils down to book-larnin', with the exception of the last nine years of farming and dog training. I am constantly humbled by the depth of knowlege demonstrated by those who grew up in dependence on the land, and animals. I'd trade my sixteen years of schooling for that in a heartbeat.

I'm not defending everything CM does. Of the exactly three shows I've seen, I agreed with about two thirds of what I could see overall. But I don't think a lack of academic background is reason to throw someone over as an expert in the field. It's surely possible to train animals without knowing science - if not, then most of the herding trainers I know, who are just sheep farmers with no time for psychology class (not to mention money!), are out to lunch. And I don't think that's true.

The thought is that degrees give one license to proper observation?

I don't think anyone is saying that - that's just what you are hearing.  However, I really am astonished that some members of the forum seem to have such disregard for higher education in the sciences, as if only a "whisperer" knows how to observe animal behavior.  But, maybe you all go to doctors who never went to medical school, just "get it" about human physiology. [8|]

Anne said:

I don't think anyone is saying that - that's just what you are hearing.

I quote Kim:

If you grow up making your own education as you go along, and you come to your "own" conclusions about the behaviour of organisms, you are going to forever believe things that might be totally incorrect.

and dogslife:

To be an instructor, you need an education.

Two statements, two different people, pretty unequivocally dismissing the role of experiential knowlege in training. Again, I just can't support that notion and would love to see someone qualify this.

But, maybe you all go to doctors who never went to medical school, just "get it" about human physiology.

I go to a doctor if I need care that requires a clinical level of training. If I'm pregnant and suddenly start bleeding out, I will call the obstetrician, and in fact I'll probably do it while I'm getting myself driven to the emergency room. If I'm pregnant and just had a weird but not very serious pain, I would probably call my mommy, my friend who had eight children, or my friend who is a nurse/midwife, depending on just how weird or serious the pain was.

If my child hurts while he's cutting his first teeth, I'll get advice from my mom or MIL, or again my every handy friends, one of which had eight children, and the other of which is a nurse/midwife. Please note, the one who had eight children is the one who told me that bananas are great for a child with diarrhea. My pediatrician, who had just got his Boards when my son was born, didn't know that. On the other hand, if my child starts spiking a 104 fever you bet I'll call the doc.

I have expertise on handling aggressive Border Collies (and other herding breeds). Where exactly do you go to school for that? Sure, a few classes on animal behavior would be great - I'd love to go sit under Patricia McConnell for a year or ten. I don't have the time, money, or energy. I barely have enough left over from all I do, to keep up on my reading.

I've saved five dogs from certain death this year and the year is young. I use a combination of positive methods and aversive type training that, yes, I learned by the seat of my pants. Not one dog trained here has ever, ever, ever come back for any reason, once placed permanently. They are not only well adjusted, but think clearly in formerly scary situations and have learned to evaluate, not react blindly. With regard to "Independent Thinking - CM Revisited" - I'm really not sure what else one could want from a rehabilited dog.

I apolgize if I have sounded grouchy here lately, but to be honest it's starting to rankle just a little, the implication that I have no business doing this, because I don't have the credit hours behind a desk in a classroom to support my methods. I thank God that I did get a chance during six years of college, to learn clear communication skills, critical thinking, and rigorous research methodology. But my time with the dogs is most important to me. As my mentor says, "The dogs are the most important teacher."

Geez, Becca, I never said that you have no business doing what you're doing, nor do I think it's only people who have great educations that are wonderful dog people.  I just find it strange that educated people aren't given any credit for having taken the time to get a scientific education, and their opinions are sometimes dismissed here because they aren't the "mommy, my friend who had eight children, or my friend who is a nurse/midwife" of dogdom, so to speak.  You may remember that I had quite a few threads where my qualifications were questioned.  Why? Because someone decided that I had (gasp) a degree in human psychology, not dog psychology.  So, what about Pavlov, operant conditioning, motivation and learning theory does someone with a BS in human psychology not learn about????  And, while they were bashing that, they completely ignored that I do have years of dog handling experience.  On both sides of this fence are people with lots of knowledge.  I think the problem is that some of the people here who have limited knowledge are on someone else's bandwagon, and don't even know why, truth be told.  I do not think you are one of them - I think that your theories are based on your experience with legitimate working dogs.  I don't always agree with everything you say, but I certainly respect that you know a lot, having worked with livestock in the real life scenario, not just at the herding clinic.  But, I also think that we could still have a rational discussion based on widely accepted terminology.  For some people, that seems impossible.  And, to be honest, I think that just because someone has an education does not mean they are a rube when it comes to being naturally dog savvy.  That's all I was trying to convey. 

Becca, you only quoted that one part of my post, which kind of takes what I said out of the context in which I meant for it to be conveyed. I was just trying answer what you asked before that...re. Kim's post...which I also agree was strongly worded.  But I will not back down on a the benefit of education...in addition to the love and natural ability of an individual in training and caring for dogs.
 
I am certainly not one to critcize the ability of a laborer in their own field of work.  Farmers, fishermen, - anyone that has a hard laboring job that knows everything in that specific work frame...well Yes, they are experts at that. (even further education in those fields can not hurt a person's abilities)
 
The discussion topic is about CM and his efforts at teaching the general public about dogs with bad behaviors.  Some dogs are dangerous and obviously in need of more in depth work - and mostly the humans that own them and need to learn how to deal with their own dog.  Obviously, they do not know how and they do need professional assistance. 
 
When people watch CM, they get some ideas out of it. However, there are activities that CM practices which are considered unsafe and deletarious to the dog: human relationships. So, "don't do that at home" becomes one of the most important things to recognize. 
 
He is on tv, behaving like a teacher, and is instructing the viewers and the owners of these dogs, but the show is incomplete and inadequate to do that.

The thought is that degrees give one license to proper observation?

 
No, that is not it at all, you totally misunderstood my message.
 
Anyone "can" make an observation. It's what you do WITH that observation that matters. And if you don't have an underlying understanding of WHAT you are observing, how can you ever hope to know that you are attributing a certain observation to what is actually going on?
 
One example:
Two dogs are in a room together. One dog has its ears back, is slightly lowered to the floor, and running away quickly with tail lowered slightly. The other dog is standing taller, more erect, with ears forward, tail being carried high, chasing the other dog quickly.
 
What is happening in this situation?
 
Well, it could be that the second dog is chasing the first dog to attack it.
 
Or, it could be a good game of "catch me if you can".
 
Or the second dog could be chasing the first away from something.
 
Without the underlying knowledge of WHAT those observations mean, does it really do you much good in the end if you make the wrong assumption anyhow? Now, if you KNOW what tail carriage, ear carriage, body position mean, you're going to be able to assess the situation a heck of a lot better if you have no idea what to look for. It's kind of along the lines of people observing two dogs playing roughly (read: most terriers), with teeth flashing, tackling, growling, etc, and another person seeing at as signs of aggression, because they don't understand dogs. This happens time and time again at the dog parks, when people don't understand what they are seeing.
 
Now, on the topic of the old illiterate farmer: I would not call that "just one old man". In fact, people who live in that lifestyle are not alone at all. Chances are 100% that he LEARNED what he knows from somebody else, not 'just' his own observations. He likely learned those things from where he got his dogs, fellow farmers, and his father if his father was a working dog man. His own observations probably instilled what he already knew, and he is likely very successful at what he does. What he knows is likely passed down from decades and decades of other people.
 
If you today, picked up your 6-year old child, moved out to a farm in the middle of nowhere, got yourself some sheep, cattle, and working dogs, would you have the same ability to work and be successful as that illiterate farmer will? Absolutely not. And your child won't either, even if she grows until senior-hood at that farm. Not on your own observations ALONE. That farmer might not have read a book about dog training, but he surely did learn what he knows from somebody else, along with experience.
 
You're also forgetting, though, in these lifestyles, that the dogs that "aren't working out" are often shot, drowned, and sometimes worse. It's NOT uncommon for a farmer to pick the top pup or two from a litter and "cull" (kill) the rest. Or the adolescent dog that doesn't seem to "get it", is shot behind the shed, and the next dog that can do the job properly is found. So while there is a lot that these people undoubtedly know about working dogs (far more than I do in some ways), I'm sure there is a heck of a lot they have no idea about either, in terms of dog behaviour and ways that might make training easier for them, or ways that might save that adolescent from the end of a shotgun barrel or a noose (when the farmer realizes that Border Collie won't herd because it got stepped on and injured as a pup..........).
 
There are indeed two sides to every story. Of course observation and your own experience are important! That's what makes all trainers unique and individual! I would certainly hope that the way I approach living with dogs would be unique compared to somebody else's. And I do indeed base a lot of what I do from observations and experience! But experience and observation alone are NOT enough to classify yourself as a dog trainer, or behaviourist. Those farmers out there are doing what works for them, in their very specific situation, to survive with their cattle and sheep (and other animals). They are not generalizing what they know to teach puppy classes and work with aggressive dogs, or fearful dogs, and when they get a dog they don't know what to do with, many (not all of course) will discard it and find the dog that fits what THEY know, that they know how to work with.
 
You might have learned by the seat of your pants, in the sense that you don't have a degree in Animal Sciences, but I doubt you learned everything you know by "just" trial and error, and what you saw in your own back yard. You know far too much of the formal terminology, different training methods, things you only learn by reading and talking with others about, to say that you learned solely on your own.
 
My only point in what you have quoted me for is that you can make all the observations in the world, and those observations can be wrong. But if you never find out they are wrong, or if you never proceed to try to determine if they are right, then the observation means very little to what you are trying to work towards.
 
Heck, that's how the entire "dominance myth" theory that the 60's and later years became so famous for, arose to begin with, and heaven knows that those who HAVE gone on to receive "extra" education, in studies, and research, and delving deeper into pack structure, fluidity, and what real wolf packs consist of, have learned otherwise. If everyone had just stuck with the observations that they had at the time (and that some people still stick to like glue), there never would have developed things like we know today, right?
 
 

Excellent post and I agree with it entirely. Plus, I'd like to point out that Karen Pryor has been dealing specifically with marker training since at least the 1970's. And she has the degrees, the published papers, and the direct observational experience to put behind what she says. That is, she has it all. The direct experience, the credentials, the very career built on exactly the very thing that interests us. And, to boot, presented in a way that the average citizen can learn from and implement. Spiritdogs condenses it even further. Dogs do what works.
 
 
We've had a debate before about credentials. I have a Texas State Master Electrician License. I got it the hard way. Decades of experience, studying on my own, and passing exams that are considered the hardest ones to pass. A former employer, who got his master license from Dallas, Texas back in the early 80's told me that the ICC exams are harder than what he had to take and even he doubts that he could pass it on the first try. I passed on my second try. That being said, I've run into crappy work from other people with licenses, though they may have grandfathered in an existing obtained before the state standards took effect. I grandfathered mine but the ICC exams are the state standard so, I would have had the license anyway. So, there is a range of ability and competence that ranges from no license and tons of practical experience to a big license and still being a bumbling idiot.
 
And we judge for ourselves what we think is best, though I would like to think that there are scientific standards and evaluations that can show that a method has a better chance of success in regards to dog training.

If so, how come more people on the CM side of things don't listen when he speaks?

Well, honestly Anne I'm surprised your such a fan of PAC.  In some of his posts he's given a pretty clear picture of the rigid life his dogs lead.  Frankly, he seems more militant than CM. 
 
It makes me wonder, if CM  had some sort of degree if that would change your opinion of him.
 
Lori

So while there is a lot that these people undoubtedly know about working dogs (far more than I do in some ways), I'm sure there is a heck of a lot they have no idea about either, in terms of dog behaviour and ways that might make training easier for them, or ways that might save that adolescent from the end of a shotgun barrel or a noose (when the farmer realizes that Border Collie won't herd because it got stepped on and injured as a pup..........).

It's very gracious of you to admit that these people might know more about working dogs than you do in some ways.[]

I've seen these people I admire in action. You have not. You'll have to trust me when I say they know quite a bit about dogs, training them, and what makes them tick - ie, the bits and bobs in a dog's history that make up the "big picture" when they settle down to actually introducing the dog to stock. A stockdog is worth too much to say, "Oh, dagnabit, this dog don't hunt - jes' shoot 'im and buy a new 'un, I guess." And wait another year until pup is ready to START training, and meanwhile that pup's been ruined or had a little issue that Mr. Clueless Sheepdog Trainer has no idea what to do about, and so on and so on. You could get old waiting for a dog that comes out of the whelping box perfect and ready to train to work.

Not to mention spoiled students' dogs that come and have to be taught to work around other dogs, ignore the farm chickens, and be handled by strangers at a moment's notice (ever been to a sheepdog trial? guaranteed ten minutes before a person's run, he feels the urge to use the porta-jon - you may be handed the leash of three or four dogs in a row if you happen to wander too near the "jon").

It's no longer common practice among the respected in this world, to euthanize routinely. I only know of two breeders who have admited to culling, publicly, and it's pretty controversial. One's a show breeder, by the way. People who admit that they shoot failed dogs in the old way are not well liked. And it's a highly open culture, because of all the trialing, traveling, intense training, and trafficing in dogs that goes on. It's a very small world.

Added to public pressure is the fact that the price and demand for goose control dogs has skyrocketed in recent years. There's a premium on "failed" sheepdogs - so there's strong motivation to a trainer to deal with quirks and problems as they emerge, even on a dog that's showing less promise. So dumping of dog out of ignorance of how to deal with issues, isn't any more common among us than among any other subset of professional trainers. Maybe less so, actually.

These folks don't know the terminology but you'd certainly recognize their methods. A pat on the head for a dog that lays quietly and waits his turn to work - positive reinforcement. Taking away freedom with a bit of twine until the dog learns to keep his place at hand, is negative reinforcement. Slamming the kennel gate in the dog's face when it comes barging out like a house afire is positive punishment. Standing and waiting with the food bowl out of reach, until the dog stops jumping like a kangaroo is negative punishment. Someone who makes two dogs acting aggressively, sit at the trainer's feet and look at the handler and not each other is using incompatible behavior to short circuit the stupid behavior.

I can tell you that pretty much universally in this culture, aggressive behavior is squashed like a bug. No, they don't call the behaviorist and no, the dogs don't learn to fight back, escalate, get more aggressive, or walk around like a ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Pretty much they say, "Oh. That sucked. I think I won't do that again." And don't. For the rest of their lives.

These trainers have gentler methods at their disposal too. You haven't lived until you've seen Jack Knox convince a dog to come to his side and stay there, with a series of vocalizations ranging from honey sweet to thunder. It's like a game of "warmer"/"colder" - but of course you'd say technically he was using reinforcers (the name called nicely), no reward markers, and ouright corrections.

He doesn't know any of that, though - he calls it "making what's right easy and what's wrong difficult." The advantage of that kind of language - or something like my old trainer used to say - giving the dog freedom to be right - is that people can understand it pretty quickly, watching what's going on, without a glossary.

That may be part of the attraction of CM, come to think of it.

ORIGINAL: willowchow

If so, how come more people on the CM side of things don't listen when he speaks?

Well, honestly Anne I'm surprised your such a fan of PAC.  In some of his posts he's given a pretty clear picture of the rigid life his dogs lead.  Frankly, he seems more militant than CM. 

It makes me wonder, if CM  had some sort of degree if that would change your opinion of him.

Lori

Actually, I think that if someone is going to walk around strongly implying that he or she is a behaviorist rather then a trainer (I don't think that a trainer needs to necessarily have a huge formal education, just a training philosophy that I agree with, good referances and LOTS of experience), then yes, they need to have some sort of formal education (that is if they are going to work with one of *my* animals, be they canine, equine, or feline).  

I wouldn't have my horse trimmed by a "hoof expert" who had never been to farrier school, I wouldn't go to a  "veterinary expert" who had not gone to vet school, nor would I send my child to a self proclaimed "human behavioral expert" that had never had any formal education in the field of human behavior.  Therefore it would stand to reason that I wouldn't send my dog to a "behavioral expert" if what I felt he really needed was a "behaviorist."  But that's just me.

I thought that was the difference between a behavorist and a trainer.  One went to college, one didn't. You can't call yourself a behavorist unless you have the education, can you?

I do love this thread and it is soo appropiate titled "Independent Thinking".
 
Brookcove, for me, by far, the best post I have ever read on this forum.

ORIGINAL: willowchow

If so, how come more people on the CM side of things don't listen when he speaks?

Well, honestly Anne I'm surprised your such a fan of PAC.  In some of his posts he's given a pretty clear picture of the rigid life his dogs lead.  Frankly, he seems more militant than CM. 

It makes me wonder, if CM  had some sort of degree if that would change your opinion of him.

Lori

Mic is "rigid" in the sense that he does follow some practices that I don't necessarily follow, but they are primarily non-physical in nature.  I do similar things, such as insisting that my dogs sit and wait at the door for permission to go out.  What I was getting at is not so much that I am anyone's "fan", but that others completely dismiss people who have the education (and often, the experience, too), to blindly follow the "guru" who doesn't.  (If that weren't the case, would they need a section where his views cannot be scrutinized, or criticized?) Not that it would be bad to emulate him if the "guru" was all that.  But, frankly, in this case, I don't see that he is.  In my opinion, he is just another in a long line of folks who believe in an outdated dominance theory, and attribute almost all canine problems to it.  DPU made a big deal out of that school being so la di da in order to challenge someone else's point, yet he often disagrees with someone who was educated there in order to support CM's views.  That was my only point.

DPU made a big deal out of that school being so la di da in order to challenge someone else's point, yet he often disagrees with someone who was educated there in order to support CM's views.

 
Willowchow, you need to read Stardog85#%92s and my dialogue in the two threads.  It was an exchange of ideas, thoughts and hopefully mutual education, more me than Stardog85.  There was no “big deal”, “la did a”, challenge, or disagreement, no negative tone at all.  My last post on the education was in reference to me.  I grew up and aged with dogs in my life without the knowledge of textbook education.  I have been doing crash course studying since coming to the forum in August and I am not going to limit my studies because of the advocacy of single thought minded posters. 
 
There is a group on this forum that I call the Cabal Three who advocates ignore, basically trying to suppress opposing opinions.  The poster that responded to yours is not part of this group but I can only guess the purpose of the comments was to diminish the importance of my point of view.
 

It's very gracious of you to admit that these people might know more about working dogs than you do in some ways.[]

 
Yep, it is gracious. And true. These people very much probably can train a herding dog better than I could ever dream to do. But that's a herding dog. One type of dog.
 
I also bet you most of them couldn't train a protection dog to save their soul. Some would have no idea where to start in training a dog for service dog needs. How about teaching a retriever to do a formal retrieve? Or to hunt? Can they reform an already aggressive dog (rather than 'preventing' aggression in the first place)? Can they teach a dog that is fearful of people to begin to trust them again?
 
Yes, the people are very knowledgable - at what they do. I never said that they weren't. But they aren't the be all and end all either, and I think it's a little much to believe that. Yes, there are things that I likely know, that they have no clue about, and that they could not do with what they know now. That's simply because nobody can know it all, it's absolutely impossible.
 
And what they know is specialized to their needs - herding. What I know, while not specialized to herding specifically, or retrieving, or even hunting, adapts me to be able to work with many many types of dogs, and help dogs in a lot of ways in which those farmers are not able to. It's not a case of who knows more, that's silly if you're trying to lead that way.
 
What I said was in no manner a put-down to those farmers. Not whatsoever, and I hope you aren't turning it into that. I respect fully that they have a LOT of knowledge on how to train dogs to herd. More than I could ever hope to right now, and likely more than I ever will, as herding is not something I'd be interested in doing full-time. [] 
 
Anyhow, the point of this thread is not to discuss farmers. It's about CM's show and what he knows. And my point about observations sticks, especially in reference to his work, which I've already explained. How he explains behaviour, just happens to contradict what an entire school of literature has already established in regards to canine behaviour. So unless he is the next coming of Dogness, the point has been made that his lack of education in overall dog behaviour and canid communication, shows in the work he does with dogs. His observations might be great, but his understanding of those observations and the definitions he gives to them, are not.