Clicker = training???

The reason I use a clicker and mostly +R has everything to do with the idea that I don't see any reason to use +P if +R works just as well and with fewer side effects. That's truly the reason I do what I do - it has nothing to do with the scientific side and nothing to do with my personality or a "cult" mentality as has been implied. It has everything to do with seeing the results I want without worrying about my dog's psyche - remember most of us in the clicker side of things have "been there, done that" with other methods and have found them to be flawed for various dogs we've worked with. We aren't unfamiliar with "traditional" methods by any means.

 
Another bingo,  plus I do like the scientific stuff, 'cause I'm a science and math geek.
 

Apparently I offended some people with my use of the expression "drinking the kool-aide".

 
Actually, though I mentioned that phrasing was a bit harsh, I was having fun with it. You may also call me a treat-dispensing butler and I won't be offended.[]
 
As for behavior chains, I prefer the sit-get treat chain to the fight, get pinned, sit, get treat chain.
 
And I certainly appreciate the discussions here and everyone has acted in a civilized manner. And I hope that others can appreciate that we can take on opposing views here and answer them as best we can.
 

ORIGINAL: ron2
And I certainly appreciate the discussions here and everyone has acted in a civilized manner. And I hope that others can appreciate that we can take on opposing views here and answer them as best we can.

Another bingo! []

Now IF i showed her what to do instead (just like you suggest) isnt that actually avoiding the dog to make her own decisions???

 
That's not exactly what I suggest.  I suggest teaching a default behavior.  And then the dog has to think a few steps ahead.  It's kind of like teaching a child: finish your dinner and you can have your dessert.
 
Dog wants to greet guests-instead of jumping up the dog performs a "sit" behavior in front of the guest.  Guest says hello and gives the dog a scratch on the chin.  Dog gets what he wants, human gets what he wants.
 
The difference is that the dog had to think a step or two ahead- good ol' delayed gratification.  And besides that it's a super easy thing to teach-dogs can actually think two or three steps ahead, some can think several steps ahead. 
 
So if I say the equivalent of "no don't do that" using whatever word, sound, command or signal- and let the dog do "anything else" then where's the impetus for the dog to actually think?

So if I say the equivalent of "no don't do that" using whatever word, sound, command or signal- and let the dog do "anything else" then where's the impetus for the dog to actually think

 
Which reminds of the question I cheekily asked someone else who thought that the practice of training and commanding a behavior incompatible to the one that you don't want wasn't allowing the dog to think. My question was, does that mean that +R and/or clicker training provide more control of the dog's behavior than traditional methods? Dogs will follow. They are good at that. They are also good at taking the lead if someone doesn't lead. I'm not able to see what makes commanding an obedience more deleterious to the dog's psyche than a correction. Like you, I think, doesn't the command offer the dog a chance to think and say, yes, I will do this and be rewarded? Rather than just a correction with no idea what to do, unless sit has been linked as a follow-up move to the correction. Then the dog would sit whenever corrected, regardless of correction or desires of the owner. A shut-down, so to speak. Also, there is a difference between leashing a dog and scruffing and pinning, IMHO. Or even a negative marker.
 
In the world of dogs, a correction does not equal sit or down. It equals the superior dog has asserted authority. Once released, the dog may try to assert authority, or run off, or do nothing but go belly up, looking for approval and reward. To me, that scenario does not equal free-thinking. It equals confusion. If I can't do that, what can I do? Isn't it better to have positively trained responses that the dog is motivated to complete? Responses that put everyone at ease and allow the dog to remain in company?
 

It equals the superior dog has asserted authority.

I don't agree there, let me share the "why."

Example:  Xerxes met a Border Collie (BC) a few weeks ago.  The BC let Xerxes sniff to his heart's delight.  When it came time for the BC to sniff, Xerxes, using his little sense of humor and off hand way of asserting his dominance, would jump and spin 90 degrees, thus denying the BC the chance to sniff.  Then X would stand still and the BC would move into sniff position and X would jump and spin again.  The BC got very irritated with him, and offered a growly air snap.  Xerxes walked away with his tail held high. 

How did Xerxes remain dominant when the other dog offered a correction to him?  Because Xerxes not only caused that reaction, but he denied that BC the opportunity to a resource, the resource being the "butt sniff." 

So corrections are not always administered by the dominant dog.  Sometimes they are administered by a dog to assert his/her space, offer instruction (do not jump in my face) or to indicate frustration (stand still so I can sniff your butt, you jokester!)

ORIGINAL: Xerxes
Dog wants to greet guests-instead of jumping up the dog performs a "sit" behavior in front of the guest. Guest says hello and gives the dog a scratch on the chin. Dog gets what he wants, human gets what he wants.

That's assuming the dog wanted a scratch on the chin. Some dogs might want to smell your "muzzle," and not be pet at all. When my BF comes over and we embrace, my dog becomes excited and wants to ... separate us/get some lovin'/protect me/I dunno.

Instead of guessing what she "wants", all we ask for is calm and no jumping. A little "aaoorOOoo!" is fine, standing there is fine, flopping on her back is fine, pacing while waiting for attention is fine, picking up her chew toy is fine, going to her bed is fine ... This way, we're (all 3 of us) free to sort out how we'd like to interact - sometimes a group hug, sometimes a tussle on the floor, sometimes nothing for a little while, sometimes a sit down and belly rub, or a game of "look, look at my kong! Did you see my kong?" If I insisted on a sit/stay, we wouldn't be free to "freely interact."

ORIGINAL: Xerxes
The BC got very irritated with him, and offered a growly air snap. ...

Xerxes, how is that a "correction"?

It sounds like a simple frustration response to me. (And we all know that corrections are offered to motivate, not express emotion [])

ORIGINAL: Ixas_girl

ORIGINAL: Xerxes
The BC got very irritated with him, and offered a growly air snap. ...

Xerxes, how is that a "correction"?

It sounds like a simple frustration response to me. (And we all know that corrections are offered to motivate, not express emotion [])

[linkhttp://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html]Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)[/link] - [linkhttp://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=correction&ia=luna]Cite This Source[/link] cor·rec·tion      /kəˈrɛkʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-rek-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.something that is substituted or proposed for what is wrong or inaccurate; emendation. 2.the act of correcting. 3.punishment intended to reform, improve, or rehabilitate; chastisement; reproof.

The BC was communicating a correction, telling Xerxes that this behavior was inappropriate.  Maybe corrections on a human-dog level are offered to motivate, and in fact you could say that this correction was intended as "settle down and let me sniff."  Thus it would be a motivation to follow proper greeting protocol.

Actually, by the repeated motion, I would have probably interpreted the growl and snap as a reaction to the motion. I have three dogs in my kennel who all had a death sentence put on them because they have that reaction to children if they run back and forth.

So I wouldn't say it had anything to do with a correction per se, though I didn't see the incident to tell for sure. I just had a notion, visualizing what you described and knowing my snappish little breed.[]

Now, an interesting question comes up here. I've got to teach those dogs not to snap at kids, but teaching an incompatible behavior's not going to be cool, because I don't want them to learn to do some arbitray thing EVERY time they need to use their teeth. Sometimes, working stock, they will need that show of force. A snarl, a growl, an air snap, maybe even a hard bite.

So, yes, the answer has to be, just say NO, and leave it. The dog's got to work out what was inappropriate about the behavior. Later we'll work on stock, and there may be some hesitation, yes, to repeat the behavhior they were fussed at before, but if they've been trained to think through that "No", and experimentation is OK, instinct will win out.

IMO, you could command only the incompatible behavior when the dog is around children. For jumping, I say "off." I also have the jump on cue, "up, up." Shadow has rules for different scenarios. When playing with the cat indoors, he is gentle. In the yard, the play is a little tougher. So, sometimes, dogs can understand different contexts.

"why a behavior HAS to be a behavior only if i tell her exactly what to do? "
 
It doesn't have to be seen as such. However, a calm, assertive leader has no problem commanding an obedience. And, given enough time for the response to become classical, it will become the default behavior for greeting guests.

"Isnt she making her OWN decisions by doing whatever she wants but being rude?"
 
Is she? What can she offer that she knows will be rewarded and not corrected or punished? She has two options. Execute another behavior and possibly get corrected again or execute a behavior, even though there is possibly no reward or incentive for doing so. Or, shut down and do nothing, which may be the desired response, but is not rewarded. She is not human. Yes dogs are capable of thinking and linking processes, especially in free-shaping. In fact, it's amazing. It's also highly motivating because it is rewarding.

"Now IF i showed her what to do instead (just like you suggest) isnt that actually avoiding the dog to make her own decisions?"
 
But you will want her "decision" to be a behavior that you want, not necessarily what her first idea was. Don't assume a dog has human sensibilities. For her, jumping and licking and butt sniffing is a perfectly fine greeting. For humans, direct eye contact, baring teeth, and close proximity is a perfect greeting. But dogs see that differently. A leader makes the decisions. Where we differ is how we implement decisions.
 

ORIGINAL: ron2
What can she offer that she knows will be rewarded and not corrected or punished? She has two options. Execute another behavior and possibly get corrected again or execute a behavior, even though there is possibly no reward or incentive for doing so. Or, shut down and do nothing, which may be the desired response, but is not rewarded.

JMNSHO:
Unless the "correction" is mean or abusive, there's no point to assume the dog would be afraid to "possibly get corrected again". We know dogs aren't human, why think that they'd take stuff personally the way we do? If/when your dog is "soft", adjust accordingly.

A dog has incentive and reward every moment he lives under our roof - and this motivates him to be in harmony with us! Dogs aren't "mischeivous" unless properly entertained - they are not out to get us. When we practice consistent house rules and fair treatment, our dogs can focus their constant motivation to fulfill their role in the house - ya just gotta teach 'em what that role is!

Also, good leaders don't micromanage! They set their followers up for success and let them go, do, be.

Unless the "correction" is mean or abusive, there's no point to assume the dog would be afraid to "possibly get corrected again". We know dogs aren't human, why think that they'd take stuff personally the way we do? If/when your dog is "soft", adjust accordingly.

my experience is otherwise. Even a "hard" dog will stop freely offering many behaviors if trained with a lot of corrections, even with very mild corrections. I don't think "afraid" is the right word. Inhibited is perhaps a better word.


One of the big problems with using corrections is it's very hard for the dog to figure what, exactly, he did that caused the correction to occur. Example: owner perspective: dog lunges sideways, pulling on leash; owner gives a mild collar pop to correct the pulling on leash. Dog perspective: I was smelling cat scent, I was wagging my tail, I had my front feet on grass and my back feet on pavement, the leash was taut, I got a pop.
The only way the dog can figure out which of the six behaviors he was engaged in at the time of the correction was the "bad" one is to experiment and see which one(s) earn him collar pops. When you're using +R to "show a dog what to do" that is exactly what dogs do-- they experiment to see what, exactly, it is that they are doing to get the reward. Dogs really aren't very motivated to "experiment" with corrections, and most likely will just stop doing any and all things they thought might have gotten them the correction. You deliver a lot of corrections you end up with a behaviorally inhibited dog. Unfortunately that is exactly what a lot of people want.

I also don't see why you can't just re-train the kid-snapping dogs to offer an incompatible behavior whenever they see children running around.
My neighbor's dog was biting and grabbing the snow shovel, so we taught him to run off and find a ball whenever he sees a snow shovel moving. Wasn't hard. Cured problem.