Clicker = training???

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions, mudpuppy. [] This is pretty tedious and complicated stuff.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy
I agree that dogs who have been taught a "not correct" marker learn faster than dogs that have only been taught a "yes" marker;

Because it offers them complementary stimuli in learning to make choices?

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy
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

If "uh-uh" is thought to be neutral enough to be taught as a typical "no reward marker", why can't "eh-eh", bump with the leash, a frown, or a finger tap on the rump? What do these gestures/sounds intrinsically mean to a dog that would discount them from being neutral?

On another thread it was suggested that pulling on the leash to correct a behavior is preferable to touching the dog because the leash in neutral, and the correction wouldn't be seen as coming from you. What is risked by the dog knowing that the human is the source of both rewards and punishments? I assume that it is not believed that stepping on the leash would be seen as likely to "shut down" a dog? Does this go back to the question about the ability of the handler to administer the P+ neutrally, rather than pointng out some intrisic operational value of punishment?

Wouldn't P+ have to be so inappropriate as to undermine the dog's trust in the handler for it to cause shut down?

mudpuppy's recent posts are so cogent here, that I need not add to them except to say that I wish you all would find out how pleasant it can be to work with an operant dog.  At least then, you would have something to compare.  BTW, those of you who are still using punishment and clickers should listen to Kathy Sdao's points about "poisoning a cue".  (From her seminar, "Know Way, Know How: The Art and Science of Clicker Training", which you can get on video at Tawzer Dog Videos, I believe)

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

mudpuppy's recent posts are so cogent here, that I need not add to them....

Well, you could answer some of the questions that I asked in response to Mudpuppy's interesting thought provoking posts. Or not.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
....... except to say that I wish you all would find out how pleasant it can be to work with an operant dog.  At least then, you would have something to compare.  BTW, those of you who are still using punishment and clickers should listen to Kathy Sdao's points about "poisoning a cue".  (From her seminar, "Know Way, Know How: The Art and Science of Clicker Training", which you can get on video at Tawzer Dog Videos, I believe)

And you know that I haven't worked with an operant dog because....? Your assumption seems to be that if one hasn't 100 % drunk the R+ only kool-aide that that can only be the result of ignorance/lack of experience. I've worked with some delightful operant dogs. I've also worked with some ill-mannered, disrespectful, fearful, neurotic operant dogs. The fearfulness and neuroses may be genetically based, and the ill manners and disrespectful attitude may be the result of poor skill in using R+. But, I've found in my experience, that some operant dogs, for whatever reason, learn all kinds of fun stuff to do to receive rewards, but don't learn not to perform self-rewarding but undesireable behaviors. They learn to sit very nicely, but they don't learn not to jump up first. They learn that heeling attentively earns them rewards, but then again, sniffing the ground is pretty rewarding too, so they choose whichever behavior seems most likely to be most rewarding at that instant. They learn that standing at the door earns them a reward, but then again, that's not nearly as rewarding as chasing the squirrel across the street that chatters just as the door is opened. Certain behaviors WILL have undesired consequences. Those consequences can be that we say "no" sharply, that we poke them, that we tighten the leash enough to cause the chain in the martingale collar to slide, or they can be that the dog knocks someone off her feet or ends up smushed on the road or the dog's freedom is more restricted than it would otherwise have to be in order to preserve safety. Our choice.

Oh, and I have read quite a bit about poisoned cues as well. In return, perhaps you could take a peek at Brookcove's interesting posts about training herding dogs over in "working dogs-cross over" thread in the "everything else" section.
I wish you all would find out how absolutely thrilling it can be to work with a talented herding dog that has inevitably experienced some aversives during his training.  At least then, you would have something to compare. 

Do you wish now that it had been different? Do you think you would have achieved more in life, or been happier in any way?

 
I can't see myself in that other life. I'm the dog that's been beat, had my nose rubbed in it, and constantly told no, told to figure it out for myself. Browbeaten and told how I could one day hope to be the dirt beneath a worm because, when I was 13, with no job or money, I wasn't able to buy our step-grandfather a birthday gift. My mother once said I might be handsome by the time I was 30. 30 came and went a long time ago and I forgot to look. Here's my experience with lure and reward. Some back history: I started playing guitar in October of 1974 with my mom's old acoustic. In my senior year, my grandparents said that if I could earn at least 5 A's, they would get me an electric guitar and amp. Well, I did it, 5 A's and a B+. Reward? No guitar or amp. I spent all of my lawn mowing savings and bought it myself. Mother's response? It should have been all A's. During summers, we would visit our granparents. One night in particular, Grandma started my brother and I to scrubbing their floors by hand with a brush. 8 hours later, at midnight, she announced that we had done a crappy job and would have to start over again. I have been whipped so hard with a belt that even through two layers of cotton, underwear and dungarees (navy-grade denim) I was black and blue and blistered and peeling and I could not sit down for a week. For playing in the dirt. I could go on further but you get the gist. And none of this is made up. It all happened in living technicolor.
 
I have made it where I am and attained what I have achieved even when others said I couldn't do it. I can give stubborn lessons to a mule. And no, my upbringing didn't specifically teach me anything. As was often the case, I would keep my mouth shut and look directly at whichever parent was chastising me. In many cases, I took their words to heart.
 
But I see the value of positive operant conditioning and wish I had more of it growing up. And yes, things would have been different. But I am a prime example of being held to a perfect standard and never achieving it. That is, even after the correction was administered and a lure with a promise of reward was offered, the reward was not there when I accomplished the task.
 
And maybe that's a lesson to be learned here for people who doubt the power of clicker training and the ositive operant conditioning. For someone like me, raised in Hell, to see and affect changes with this knowledge, which I have also used on co-workers and crews should show it's power and effectiveness. I had a stellar crew a few years ago that accomplished the impossible. Doing the work of a crew twice their size in half the time allotted for the job. All because I caught them doing good stuff and rewarded that instantly.

Your assumption seems to be that if one hasn't 100 % drunk the R+ only kool-aide that that can only be the result of ignorance/lack of experience

That's a bit harsh and, I think, inaccurate.

Anyway, thanks to drinking at least 80 proof +R kool-aide, Shadow and I were surrounded by a Husky/GSD  and a Beagle that were too rambunctious for their human and they were bounding around us. I called Shadow to sit and he sat. And I didn't have any treats on me at the time. But he knows I've always got good stuff. I can walk him in heel (which is getting better) and I've never used a collar correction for that because I don't walk him with a collar, I use a regular I-back harness. Why? Because I have good stuff, even when it wasn't in my hand at the moment.

As you point out in some of the cases you refer to, there may have been other conditions or factors that had nothing to do with the positive training we advocate here. In which case, arguing against it may have a weak basis without all the facts, such as genetics, misuse of training, breed trait, scenario as it appeared to the dog, etc.

You'll have to pardon me, just now. Shadow's signalling that he wants more clicker training and I'm not just saying that to be cheeky.
 
ETA:
 
Just came back from a walk here in our little town. There's 4 acre field next to a church that usually has mice living in it. Using the clicker and the "here" command, I broke Shadow off scent. Even though he's predominately Husky in temperment, he has the Lab ability to track anything in any conditions. On the second try, he responded, understood the click, but was still too excited to take a treat. Third try, he understood the click and took the treat. And I have never tried that scenario before. I have done it in pet stores and in other controlled conditions. But this was a new way of upping the stakes significantly and proofing in a new situation that he has yet to generalize. Interrupt the hunt when he almost had their burrow pin-pointed (and yes, he will stand on point)? Without a remote collar? Recalling to me is always rewarding. And I'm not relaying this as a way to be snarky or condescending or combative. In part, it's a brag. In part, it's to show the power of positive training with a clear marker for the desired behavior. And some patience. After all, it did take 3 tries in the space of 10 minutes. And Shadow is a cross-over dog. The conditions against him obeying is the excitement and reward of mouse-tracking in his favorite field, being on a walk, in front, like a sled dog.

That's nice, Ron2--both posts, actually. I guess my biggest issue is with the method choosing folks and nothing against anyone here, but after perusing a book that espouses both corrections AND clicker training, I couldn't be convinced that he was operating on a theory at all. He bashed the correction-based training and then he bashed the clicker-based training and then he tried to present his own theory and a bulb never went off for me.
 
Hmm. Not sure what to think now. I guess because I'm like Ron2 (Ron too), I don't care what everyone says or does--it works for me and that's that. Is it built off of "good stuff" and who has it? Is it built off trust? I don't know. But I do know that my dogs look to me to ensure that I won't be the one who hurts them so I don't want to fail them.

But I do know that my dogs look to me to ensure that I won't be the one who hurts them so I don't want to fail them

 
You and I, among others, have had the chance to see the effectiveness of both methods. We prefer the clicker training because a) it works. b) it's easy to use and you don't have to be a certified dog trainer to use it, though we can always benefit from their expertise. c) it's fun. d) the dog is ALWAYS motivated. Motivated to you.

But, I ask you then, how much difference do you see between your dog and a lab rat

 
I did not say that dogs don't have abstract reasoning. I said they don't have it to the level that we do, although I may have been more accurate to say that it may not be in the same way that we do. Yes, dogs are intelligent. They can choose to perform a behavior that you desire because doing so is more rewarding than doing what you don't want them to do. Eventually, the behaviors will become classical, with an occasional reinforcing treat. I see some abstract reasoning in free-shaping, considered the true clicker training, rather than training with a clicker, which is lure/reward with a marker. I've heard of some dogs responding better to the word "yes" than a clicker. Potayto, potahto. I've understood that some cattledogs respond to whistles.
 
What most people here are desiring is a dog that is well-behaved in public and responds to obedience commands for the general welfare of all. And having pets requires some management of the environment, too. Each pet is different. Shadow hasn't countersurfed. When he's been tempted, I command something else. Consequently, I have left a steak on top of the stove and he won't touch it. But he'll take a bite from my hand and a steak left within normal standing range could be open for debate.

ORIGINAL: ron2

Your assumption seems to be that if one hasn't 100 % drunk the R+ only kool-aide that that can only be the result of ignorance/lack of experience

That's a bit harsh and, I think, inaccurate.

In reponse to my posts that in some situations mild aversives may be a useful and legitimate tool in dog training without doing psychological and emotional harm to the dog, Spiritdogs wrote that she wishes "you all would find out how pleasant it can be to work with an operant dog. At least then, you would have something to compare." How else would you interpret that other than that she's assuming that anyone who doesn't use R+ exclusively is basing that on ignorance /lack of experience? Whether observing that she has made that assumption is harsh or not probably depends on your perspective.

ORIGINAL: ron2

As you point out in some of the cases you refer to, there may have been other conditions or factors that had nothing to do with the positive training we advocate here. In which case, arguing against it may have a weak basis without all the facts, such as genetics, misuse of training, breed trait, scenario as it appeared to the dog, etc.

BINGO! We have a winner! And, I'm sure that everyone here would agree that in the case of shut-down, fearful dogs in some cases there may have been other conditions or factors that had nothing to do with the use of well timed mild aversives that I defend here. In which case, arguing against it may have a weak basis without all the facts such as genetics, misuse of aversives, breed traits etc...

I'm not arguing against R+ training, nor am I denying its power. But I have seen situations where its exclusive use has not been successful, and sometimes that has unfortunate consequences for the dog and the people with whom the dog interacts. And, really, the people here who advocate exclusively R+ training have also seen these situations. Like me, they have then turned to using some well timed, fair, mild aversives. The difference is that they rename them as no reward markers or talk about how empowered the dog is when he learns to turn off the aversive while sort of glossing over who it was that applied the aversive to be turned off in the first place. That's fine. I just would like for those of us who don't avoid acknowledging our use of aversives by renaming them not to be equated with "smacking" children in the library, or accused of repressing our dogs' sentience and ability to make decisions on their own.

You'll have to pardon me, just now. Echo's signalling that it's time to bring in the sheep and he wants to help even though I have sometimes said "Lie down dammit" in a less than pleasant tone.

Oww--I think that was a correction, Buster. It felt like a leash pop to me . . . hmm, how to interpret . . .
 
Thanks for showing us how it's done. True enough--timing is everything--whether it's clicker or a "mild aversive."

Oh for pete's sake - us "clicker people" do our best to stay out of the CM debate (at least I do) and we try to explain things and yet we still get "leash pops" out the wazoo. I'm sorry but quite frankly I'm feeling rather frustrated and am quite conflicted. Guess I'll just go away!

(Goes off to find her copy of "Don't Shoot the Dog")

The hostility surrounding clicker training amazes me.

Great posts, Ron... Kool-aid indeed.

ORIGINAL: fisher6000

The hostility surrounding clicker training amazes me.

Great posts, Ron... Kool-aid indeed.

 
I don't see hostility but an attempt to explain each other's methodology with the accepted techniques despised by the other side.  Along with exaggerations, sarcasim is just as bad.  The dialogue has gotten too techniquely specific focusing on the tedious to be any value to learning.  Convincing each other is pointless and at the same time you loose your audience.  Deprivation increases learning while Satiation decreases.  Yes Stardog85, it is time to move on.

ORIGINAL: buster the show dog

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

mudpuppy's recent posts are so cogent here, that I need not add to them....

Well, you could answer some of the questions that I asked in response to Mudpuppy's interesting thought provoking posts. Or not.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
....... except to say that I wish you all would find out how pleasant it can be to work with an operant dog.  At least then, you would have something to compare.  BTW, those of you who are still using punishment and clickers should listen to Kathy Sdao's points about "poisoning a cue".  (From her seminar, "Know Way, Know How: The Art and Science of Clicker Training", which you can get on video at Tawzer Dog Videos, I believe)

And you know that I haven't worked with an operant dog because....? Your assumption seems to be that if one hasn't 100 % drunk the R+ only kool-aide that that can only be the result of ignorance/lack of experience. I've worked with some delightful operant dogs. I've also worked with some ill-mannered, disrespectful, fearful, neurotic operant dogs. The fearfulness and neuroses may be genetically based, and the ill manners and disrespectful attitude may be the result of poor skill in using R+. But, I've found in my experience, that some operant dogs, for whatever reason, learn all kinds of fun stuff to do to receive rewards, but don't learn not to perform self-rewarding but undesireable behaviors. They learn to sit very nicely, but they don't learn not to jump up first. They learn that heeling attentively earns them rewards, but then again, sniffing the ground is pretty rewarding too, so they choose whichever behavior seems most likely to be most rewarding at that instant. They learn that standing at the door earns them a reward, but then again, that's not nearly as rewarding as chasing the squirrel across the street that chatters just as the door is opened. Certain behaviors WILL have undesired consequences. Those consequences can be that we say "no" sharply, that we poke them, that we tighten the leash enough to cause the chain in the martingale collar to slide, or they can be that the dog knocks someone off her feet or ends up smushed on the road or the dog's freedom is more restricted than it would otherwise have to be in order to preserve safety. Our choice.

Oh, and I have read quite a bit about poisoned cues as well. In return, perhaps you could take a peek at Brookcove's interesting posts about training herding dogs over in "working dogs-cross over" thread in the "everything else" section.
I wish you all would find out how absolutely thrilling it can be to work with a talented herding dog that has inevitably experienced some aversives during his training.  At least then, you would have something to compare. 

buster, I think that your post was just a tad more sarcastic than it needed to be.  Since you don't have the attitude about mudpuppy that you seem to have about me, I think you would probably be more openminded to the material if it were not me posting.

What I will say is that most of the time, when a dog finds something extremely self-rewarding, extinction alone does not work.  But that is not equivalent to saying that you then automatically need an aversive to prevent the unwanted behavior.  The dog is the one who decides what is reinforcing.  So, what's necessary is to find something the dog finds more reinforcing, or at least just as reinforcing as the activity you want to eliminate.  People argue here all the time that you can't find something as stimulating as herding sheep or cattle.  But, for example, we have herding dogs who will find a frisbee very rewarding and can be taught not to chase cars, kids, etc. by using that as the reward for "leave it" "come".  And, we have folks who use the sheep as the reward for the dog obeying "that'll do" - just as one might teach a dog to sit and wait before going out a door - the desired activity is the reward for obedience.  And, we certainly can use sheep as a reward for not chasing horses.  If a Charley Bear treat is the most interesting thing in the environment, most dogs will work for that.  But, if not, you need to up the ante on the reinforcers, which could mean anything from tennis balls to filet mignon.  The key is to start small and make an orderly progression upward.  So, dog leaves a Cheerio, gets a Charley Bear.  Dog leaves the Charley Bear, gets a Snausage (not in my house LOL), dog leaves the Snausage, gets real turkey.  Dog leaves turkey, gets the f-r-i-s-b-e-e!!!!!!!  And, if you throw in an occasional high value reinforcer, that tends to increase the value of the less important reinforcers.
With regard to "leave it" for example, what the dog is learning with this kind of training is that the human always has something better than what he just left.  "Leave it" "Come" becomes rather automatic.  So, voila, if you have trained this properly from the start, you now have a dog that you can call off a flying bird, a cat, or other forbidden fruit.  Only after the entire course of training, in a controlled, then ever more distracting environment, would I consider using an aversive.  And, by then, at least you have a dog that is not going to totally shut down from the use of that aversive because he's so used to being reinforced and working by offering behavior, that one aversive is balanced by 100's of positives.  Starting with aversives shuts down the dog because he is faced with minimal positives and more negatives, so it becomes risky to move.

What I will say is that most of the time, when a dog finds something extremely self-rewarding, extinction alone does not work. But that is not equivalent to saying that you then automatically need an aversive to prevent the unwanted behavior. The dog is the one who decides what is reinforcing.

I guess we need a smiley for "that's it in a nutshell." A dog will do what is rewarding, in spite of adversives.

I have trained Shadow with lure/reward but I have also used the scruff. At some time during a visit with the parents-in-law, he would go after their ancient Lhasa Apso. She is used to being alpha and is the only pet in their house. I would scruff and pin him and that would work for that visit. Next visit, struggle again. He was trying to fit her into our rank and file and I didn't have anything more rewarding than that for him, at the time. Now, I do, but I also manage the environment better than I did before.

And I haven't used the scruff since I started clicker training and that's not because I was trying not to use it. I command an incompatible behavior, get it, and reward it. I may have some left-over steak, chicken, or pork, which for him, is a jackpot. Listening to me has become more rewarding that whatever he wanted to do. With corrections only, he is still wanting to do whatever, in spite of corrections, which may only be working for that moment.
 
ETA:
Some dogs may come up with their own behavior chains. Dog fights another dog, gets pinned, then released, commanded to sit, sits, gets treat. It's possible for the dog to think "pick a fight, accept the pin, get up and sit, ah, a treat. Let's see if I can do that again." As opposed to a recall, which always gets a treat and takes less effort.