Clicker = training???

I would think that would be more of "in a state of awe".  At least that is what I am picking up when I read posts in here.

I guess the proof would be in the pudding.  Shadow is really responding to Ron's modification of "click to calm".  His version is more along the lines of "click when calm"... 

So in that regard, the point may be that the dogs are responding really well.

There is a possibility that some of us do pine for "wasted time".  I know I do. I really wish that I had found the clicker ways a long time ago.

To quote nfowler:  when you know better, you do better.

ORIGINAL: DPU

I don 't know if that is a fair question to ask a cross-over.  Afterall they all seem to be in a state of penitent.

ORIGINAL: stardog85

Well actually punishment and correction ARE the same in my world - assuming the correction is an aversive and decreases behavior then it fits the definition of "punishment" perfectly. Remember I think of "punishment" in the strict "behaviorist" definition: punishment is anything which decreases the behavior.

I know when my mom shushed me I found it aversive
 

 
When your mom was shushing you then was she correcting you or punishing you?

ORIGINAL: stardog85

PLease do tell me how the dog learns all this from two corrections for different behavior?! Unless your corrections/punishments are strong enough to supress the behavior on the first attempt and your dog is an exceptional generalizer (which most dogs are not) he hasn't learned anything other than "jumping = unpredictable owner" and "growling = bad things continue to happen" (= possible fear and escalation).

 
Again, dogs are not mentally retarded:
 
jumping = correction = jumping on a guest is bad
growling = correction = growling to a guest is bad
stay quiet (waiting for the owner to see what he wants then, if you would like to think that way) = no correction = staying quiet is good
 
You need to really understand dog psychology to understand that a correction wont make the owner "unpredictable" as long as is calm
 

ORIGINAL: Kim_MacMillan

Okay, but that still doesn't answer my question of how you teach your child what the appropriate behaviour IS (which is talking quietly). It appears that even with the child you seek to suppress the behaviour, not show the child what an allowable alternative is.

 
Yes it did answer your question (see example avobe for reference too)
 
You dont need to shush the kid AND tell him what to do next, they are not robots (as well as the dogs) that need to be told what to do next or they will be confused from now on, no, kid making noise = correction = kid gets quiet = no correction = be quiet is the desire behavior
 
As easy as that and even a kid can figue it out

what most of us have found is that if you use a lot of corrections to "tell a dog what not to do" is you end up with a dog who is "afraid to do anything unless specifically instructed to do it". Even with "mild" corrections. After all, the dog never knows if this behavior or that behavior is the next one that is going to be "corrected" away, so best not to try anything and wait to be told what to do. And unfortunately these "repressed" dogs are what many people consider to be well-behaved lovely dogs-- they truly want a dog that doesn't do much of anything.
 
Until you meet a truly operant dog you may never realize the incredible difference. Ask houndlove to tell her story again.

as to using a clicker to stop "jumping up on people", you don't have to click for a specific behavior. The click tells the dog "you did good", so you could click for anything the dog did EXCEPT for "jumping up on people".   Dog would probably learn a lot faster if clicked for a specific behavior, but you could do that. It's a common misconception that you have to put a cue on the behavior you are clicking for, but you don't.
We do pre-emptive "no counter surfing" training in our household doing this- the dog is clicked for "anything but counter surfing", the behavior is never put on cue, and eventually we just fade the clicker once the dog gets in the habit of "not counter surfing".

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

what most of us have found is that if you use a lot of corrections to "tell a dog what not to do" is you end up with a dog who is "afraid to do anything unless specifically instructed to do it". Even with "mild" corrections. After all, the dog never knows if this behavior or that behavior is the next one that is going to be "corrected" away, so best not to try anything and wait to be told what to do. And unfortunately these "repressed" dogs are what many people consider to be well-behaved lovely dogs-- they truly want a dog that doesn't do much of anything.

 
If you correct second after second (move right paw, correction, look to the right, correction) then maybe, BUT since that does not happen then the dog knows that there are behaviors that are not allowed and behaviors that are, and allowed behaviors are way more than the ones that are not
 
A dog wont be "afraid" to move because if you understand dog phsycology you would know that a correction wont scare the dog, just like i was not afraid of my mother when she was telling me to be quiet with a calm attitude (just like corrections should be)

A dog wont be "afraid" to move because if you understand dog phsycology you would know that a correction wont scare the dog, just like i was not afraid of my mother when she was telling me to be quiet with a calm attitude (just like corrections should be)

 
um espencer, it is pretty clear you have very limited experience with truly operant dogs. I'd bet a small fortune you've never met a dog that isn't "shut down".

When your mom was shushing you then was she correcting you or punishing you?

 
espence, stardogs explained that in her posts, corrcetion and punishment mean the same.  The behavioural definition of punishment is (here we go again) something that decreases the likelihood that the behaviour will be offered again. 
 
espence have you tried clicker training?  Have you met a clicker trained dog and a cross over dog and compared the two?  If not, if I were you I would reserve judgement until you have.... the difference is truly astonishing. 
 
I didn't think my old dog was scared, I didn't think that the corrections he got did him any harm... trust me, I wasn't "abusive".  I just "set limits" and offered what I considered to be fair corrections when he overstepped the mark.  Well, then I tried clicker training him.  And also tried clicker training a dog that was almost totally green, training-wise.  And I tell you what, I could have cried, I really could.  The difference was so apparent, and so heartbreaking.  The day the old man got creative on me and spontaneously just TRIED something was a really good day for me. 

ORIGINAL: espencer

ORIGINAL: Kim_MacMillan

So if your child was talking loudly in a library, would you repeatedly smack her (or Pssst! her, your choice) every time she did it,just to "stop what you don't want"? Or would you show her what the appropriate voice level was to speak at in the library?

First of all smacking is not even remotely close to "ssshh", second i would tell the kid to stop and thats it, the kid then can look around, stay seated, read a book, etc THATS letting him make his own decisions

Yes, lets not forget that we have language... That's how *we* communicate. The analogy of smacking a kid is using dog psychology on humans, just as bad a using human psychology on dogs.

ORIGINAL: Kim_MacMillan
Okay, but that still doesn't answer my question of how you teach your child what the appropriate behaviour IS (which is talking quietly). It appears that even with the child you seek to suppress the behaviour, not show the child what an allowable alternative is.

This argument might carry some weight if it were a feral child, freshly recovered from the woods with no history of 24/7 socializing in the human world. But let's assume we're talking about a civilized child, or dog, even. Then, as you are aware, there are systems of feedback loops with the adult that guides the child/dog.

Clicker training is certainly a very focused feedback loop. We also know it's not the only communication that guides a dog's behavior and choices. The cool thing about complex structures (like mammals) is that their input and output are based on dynamic systems.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy
Until you meet a truly operant dog you may never realize the incredible difference.

I don't understand this comment. A dog who is trained using only R+ is as "operant" as a dog trained using only P+. The term "operant condiitioning" only a describes sets of stimulus-response packages, it doesn't ascribe value. The "positive" and "negative" have nothing to do with being positive-minded or "good", or being negative-minded or "bad", they simply describe whether the stimulus is added (+) or removed (-).

The laws of physics, cell mutation, tectonics, and behavior are amoral, they do not involve questions of right or wrong. It is our subjective overlay that adds such questions.

ORIGINAL: ron2
Dogs do not have the level of abstract thought that we do. They are doers. They will decide something if it is not clear to them what to do.

I wasn#%92t clear, but I think the original question in this thread is "Does the R+/P- (rewards based) training protocol enhance my dogs intelligence and creativity more than an all quadrant (balanced) training protocol?

Read any of Brookcove's or Buster the show dog's recent posts, and you'll get very clear descriptions about why balanced training protocols promote higher cognitive processing by the dog.

Now, if you believe that dogs are not capable of higher cognitive processing, and you believe that any use of P+/R- will produce “shut down” of what little there is, then you advocate for the clicker as the means to control low intelligence. That line of thinking leads to: individuals with more intelligence require less external motivation to produce outcomes. But, I ask you then, how much difference do you see between your dog and a lab rat?

A dog who is trained using only R+ is as "operant" as a dog trained using only P+. The term "operant condiitioning" only a describes sets of stimulus-response packages, it doesn't ascribe value.

 
well, perhaps the terminology isn't correct, but that is what people call a dog who has learned to freely offer behaviors until he hits the one you want to reinforce today. Dogs who have experienced any kind of +P simply don't do this, they have been strongly discouraged from freely behaving. You can take a truly operant dog and within minutes rapidly train extremely complex behaviors, because you and the dog have established a system of "perfect" communication. Most doggy misbehavior problems are due entirely to miscommunication across species. I agree that dogs who have been taught a "not correct" marker learn faster than dogs that have only been taught a "yes" marker; however, you have to be careful that the dog doesn't feel the "not correct" marker is aversive, just information. It's best to not introduce a "not correct" marker until the dog has established a strong history of freely offering behaviors. Some very soft dogs can't ever handle a "not correct" marker; and puppies can rarely handle a "not correct" marker.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy
Most doggy misbehavior problems are due entirely to miscommunication across species. I agree that dogs who have been taught a "not correct" marker learn faster than dogs that have only been taught a "yes" marker; however, you have to be careful that the dog doesn't feel the "not correct" marker is aversive, just information.

Some have suggested that newbies ought to stick to rewards-based training, since timing is so critical in communication. I'm inclined to agree, although I also agree with buster's comment that goofed up R+ can result in grandma getting knocked over.

Do you think that P+/R- is, of and by itself, inherently destructive, if so, can you explain why? Is there an explainable behavioral operation to account for it? If a correction is P+, then how do corrections "shut down" a dog?

Or, do you agree that if a "shut down" would occur, it would be due to handler's errors such as emotionality, poor timing, response that is out of proportion? For examples, correcting with anger, punishing after the fact, or laying a dog on his side for simply losing "heel".

What can be counted as a "not correct" marker: "eh-eh", bump with the leash, a frown, a finger tap on the rump? Is a "not correct" marker a correction, and therefore P+? What's the difference between P+ and "aversive"?

I don't think negative reinforcement R(-) creates "shut down"; I think it makes dogs feel empowered (as long as the aversive isn't overwhelming)-- like positive reinforcement, they are in control, their behavior immediately "turns off" the aversive or "turns on" the reward. It's punishment +P you have to be careful with. The dog can't do anything to stop or lessen the aversive except choose to not-do-that again in future. Which is not empowering. Or effective.
If you don't want your dog to jump up on you, you can kick the dog when he jumps up on you (punishment), give him a treat when he doesn't jump up on you (+R), or withhold attention when he jumps up on you (-R).  He immediately gets attention when his feet hit the ground. A beautiful example of negative reinforcement-- being ignored (mild aversive) goes away when he stops the behavior. Very effective, doesn't lead at all to "shutdown".

What can be counted as a "not correct" marker: "eh-eh", bump with the leash, a frown, a finger tap on the rump? Is a "not correct" marker a correction, and therefore P+? What's the difference between P+ and "aversive"?

A "not correct" marker is just the converse of a clicker-- when a naive dog hears a clicker, for most it's a completely meaningless sound. It has no reward or aversive connotations. You have to teach the dog that a click or verbal marker means "you did it right". Same with a no-reward marker, it's highly neutral, and you have to teach the dog what it means-- try again with a different behavior, not stop acting, but offer a different behavior than the last behavior you tried. This is a pretty sophisticated concept and difficult to teach, which is why you should wait until you have a dog who happily offers MANY different behaviors before attempting to teach it. 
All of the examples you cite are +P-- their intent is to stop a behavior and hopefully reduce the frequency of that behavior in future in all contexts. Issuing a "no reward" marker will not reduce the frequency of the marked behavior except in one context.
Example: my dog offers a long string of behavior when he doesn't know what I want. One such behavior is lifting his front paw up. I want to shape him to back up to and put his hind feet up on a step. So we go stand near the step, and he starts offering behaviors. I start out by "no reward" marking anything he does with his front paws and click and reward anything he does with his hind paws.
Two hours later I want to shape him to turn on the light with his front paw. Since the "no reward" marker isn't +P, he happily offers front paw behaviors at our next session, so I can quickly shape him to do so.
If the no reward marker was aversive, +P, a single use of it may have permanently impaired his "offering" of front paw behaviors, and now I'm going to have trouble training him to do anything with his front paws. And you see the slipperly slope I'm heading down, if I go around using a lot of +P eventually he'll have no more behaviors to offer and you get "shut down" dog.

ORIGINAL: Ixas_girl

What can be counted as a "not correct" marker: "eh-eh", bump with the leash, a frown, a finger tap on the rump? Is a "not correct" marker a correction, and therefore P+? What's the difference between P+ and "aversive"?

ORIGINAL: Mudpuppy

All of the examples you cite are +P-- their intent is to stop a behavior and hopefully reduce the frequency of that behavior in future in all contexts. Issuing a "no reward" marker will not reduce the frequency of the marked behavior except in one context.

Who says that the intent of the "eh-eh", bump with the leash, frown or finger tap is "to stop a behavior and hopefully reduce the frequency of that behavior in future in all contexts"? (emphasis mine). When I tell my dog to heel, and he sniffs on the ground, I may say "eh-eh" or tap his rump or pop the leash enough that he hears the chain start to slide in his martingale collar. Is that a no reward marker or a P+ ? Is my intent that my dog never sniff again in any future context? Will my dog now be afraid to ever sniff again in any future context? How is it that if I say "heyyyy" as I see my rambunctious puppy about to jump on a guest that that is a P+ that is intended, I guess, to prevent my puppy from ever lifting both his front paws off the ground at the same moment in any future context, but if you issue a "no reward marker" when your puppy lifts up one front paw, he somehow knows that he is still allowed to move his front paw in other contexts?