Clicker = training???

No, I think what's going on in their heads is not, "I'm jumping" but "I'm getting in your face." I believe dogs do understand basic concepts of space and so forth - and they don't invade my space by accident, or without a sense of potential conflict. We talk about how important interwhelping socialization is for bite inhibition - there's some other things that are instilled during that period also.

I absolutely agree! Social animals understand the concept of personal space - "Not now. Thank you." Be wherever you want to be. It's understood and respected. And of course, jumping is just one of the examples...
Sometimes, there is just no need to dissect dog's behavior into a series of disjoint actions, where you're aware of the motif that is guiding these actions. Address the motive, and the dog will not insist on a different way to invade your space. But if you wrap every dog's move into a separate "baggy", you might need to train a puppeteer how to pull the strings...

Also, I am puzzled why people bring up their mathematical background in these threads... We don't do it when chatting about our kids, why when talking about living with our dogs? I might as well bring up that I have two degrees - Computer Science and Art... And that makes me what kind of an owner? [sm=biggrin.gif]

People or person?  Are you referring to Ron's quote?

"Though, yesterday, in public, someone thought I was as I was showing what Shadow could do and how I accomplished and how to use a clicker. Granted, I do have a science and math background but others here don't and accomplish the same goals in about as much time. "

I don't think that statement was so much about what kind of owner he is, but more about what kind of training he does.

Also, I am puzzled why people bring up their mathematical background in these threads... We don't do it when chatting about our kids, why when talking about living with our dogs? I might as well bring up that I have two degrees - Computer Science and Art... And that makes me what kind of an owner? [sm=biggrin.gif]

I agree with on our needs for our dogs. There are times when I need my dog to obey and that's the fact, Jack. And I've used -R. Shadow jumps and I turn away.

Yes, this works really well. It's -P, not -R.

Yes, this works really well. It's -P, not -R

My bad. The execution of a behavior on my part that is designed to extinguish or stop behavior on Shadow's part. I thought it was -R because I do not reward that move in that situation.

Tina, take your best shot. [] I must be doing pretty good if all you can find fault with is that I mentioned having a science and math background which was to qualify that I might have an easier time reading Karen Pryor's professional papers than maybe some others, which does not imply ignorance on the part of others. I'll put it simply that the proof is in the pudding.

It's confusing. I called it -R and got corrected on this forum myself.

Party on, Ron... you Science-Headed Clicker Extremist Mo-Fo!

: )

Party on, Ron... you Science-Headed Clicker Extremist Mo-Fo!

 
I should get me a t-shirt that says that.
[]

-P is shutting off the flow of good stuff. -R is a constant flow of bad stuff that the right (reinforced) behavior will shut off.

An example of -R would be like a loud siren that keeps going and going until you touch your nose or whatever.

-P is shutting off the flow of good stuff. -R is a constant flow of bad stuff that the right (reinforced) behavior will shut off.

An example of -R would be like a loud siren that keeps going and going until you touch your nose or whatever

 
So, +R is the addition of reward for desired behavior, and -R is the removal of something irritating, such as a siren, when the desired behavior is executed. Or, -R is stimulus removed to reinforce desired behavior. So, is it -R as long as the stimulus doesn't physically impact the dog, though a loud siren might hurt their ears unless they are used to it? K-9 dogs have to be used to sirens. Gundogs get used to gunfire.
 
+P would be the application of physical force or punishment, ranging from a physical redirection or mild leash pop up to scruff and pin and beyond, right? A stimulus added to stop a behavior. And -P, a removal of reward, which can include affection, in order to stop a behavior, correct?
 

Courtesy Wikipedia:

Positive reinforcement occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a favorable stimulus (commonly seen as pleasant) that increases the frequency of that behavior. In the Skinner box experiment, a stimulus such as food or sugar solution can be delivered when the rat engages in a target behavior, such as pressing a lever.

Negative reinforcement occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of an aversive stimulus (commonly seen as unpleasant) thereby increasing that behavior's frequency. In the Skinner box experiment, negative reinforcement can be a loud noise continuously sounding inside the rat's cage until it engages in the target behavior, such as pressing a lever, upon which the loud noise is removed.

Positive punishment (also called "Punishment by contingent stimulation") occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by an aversive stimulus, such as introducing a shock or loud noise, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.

Negative punishment (also called "Punishment by contingent withdrawal") occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of a favorable stimulus, such as taking away a child's toy following an undesired behavior, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.

...and I'll sell you that T-shirt for $22.95!

That actually did help. So, the old turn and ignore for jumping is -R. Then, I command "off", which is rewarded, +R.
 
And, BTW, the jumping up has decreased over time. If there's not enough time or my hands are full of groceries, I simply command off, which is incompatible with jumping. But again, it's not the problem it was a year and a half ago, or more.
 

That actually did help. So, the old turn and ignore for jumping is -R. Then, I command "off", which is rewarded, +R.

No! It's -P!

If you were *constantly* ignoring the dog and turned around and offered attention the minute he performed "off" (or any other target behavior)... that would be -R.

You are withholding what Shadow desires. It's -P.

This is what I use to keep it straight:

end something is -
apply something is +
behavior increases is R (for reinforced bahavior - the behvior is raised, not the subject!)
Behavior decreases is P (for punished behavior - the behvior is diminished, not the subject!)

apply something good, behavior increases = R+ (i.e, reward, praise)
apply something bad, behavior decreases = P+ (i.e, correction, aversive)
end something good, behavior decreases = P- (i.e, take away toy, ignore)
end something bad, behavior increases = R- (i.e, release of pressure on prong collar)

The P- and R- are confusing, and I keep reversing them, too. You'd think P- would mean "subtract punishment", but since P means "decreases behavior", and minus means "end something", P- simply means "end something (good) to decrease behavior.

There's lots of good info here:http://www.wagntrain.com/OC/
Also, Buster explained it very well here:http://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=331616&mpage=1&key=񑟑

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy
Brookcove, what you are talking about is Self control, where the dog learns to control himself in exciting situations in order to Get what he wants-- in your case, to work sheep.

I agree! ... impulse control (controlling instincts) is at the core of dog training!

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy
I suspect most of your "corrections" are perceived by the dogs as just information, not corrections.

Yes! This much argued distinction appears, time and time again, to be most subjective and highly contextual.

I don#%92t agree that you have to have decades of farm experience with a working dog to prove that corrections will not produce a shutdown dog. I have only half a year of dog experience, yet my dog responds neutrally to the corrections I give her, and she moves on to find a better solution (she lives in the moment). She is both responsive and intuitive (aka is free to act on her impulses with self control). I give her boundaries to keep her safe and productive, and she blossoms within them. How beautiful!
[sm=floating.gif]

I will concede that I am an unusually diligent newbie, but diligence is easy to inspire in others, you just have to be diligent yourself about *your message.* Good teaching isn't about knowing good stuff, it's about doing good stuff!

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy
Many people mistake the Inhibited dog for a calm, self-controlled dog, because he's behaviorally inhibited.

Many other people prefer the smiling yapping bouncing "happy" pupper, and misinterpret the calm dog as being "shutdown." But, honestly, this is one of my major questions regarding Millan's theories: while I agree that revving up the "happy" dog is a source of many "behavior issues," I still haven't reconciled the desireability of constant "calm submission" either. I've wondered if my desire for a "creative dog" blinds me to the truth of what a dog is. That's one reason why the recent discussions about working dogs (and energy/drive) have been so useful to me, and this thread, too.

The thing about teaching incompatible behaviors, is that you are essentially writing a new impulse (or default) for your dog. How is the dog to learn to control his own impulses if you are constantly supplying him with new ones? What if, instead, you taught your dog how to work with you to manage his impulses rather than just give him the answers?

misinterpret the calm dog as being "shutdown."

Maybe, but I would guess that there are more people who think an obedient dog is happy. It ain't necessarily so.  He may be, as mudpuppy puts it, simply "inhibited".  I do not equate "joie de vivre" with being out of control, or "revved up".  Quiet, calm, and self controlled does not equate with shut down, but a distinct inability to offer behavior as part of problem solving would make me suspect it.   The dog that just sits in front of you waiting for a command is usually the lured dog (or a crossover dog that hasn't quite gotten used to his good fortune yet), or a dog that was correction trained.  You just don't see it all that much in a clicker dog. Their eyes look different, and they are "up" for the training session as if to say "great, she's got that clicker thing - now how can I make her click me today?"

Yes, Ixas_Girl, I would call you a newbie **Content Removed - Personal Attack**

Ixas_Girl: I will concede that I am an unusually diligent newbie, but diligence is easy to inspire in others, you just have to be diligent yourself about *your message.* Good teaching isn't about knowing good stuff, it's about doing good stuff! 

There is a difference between trying a click to teach a dog a "trick," and changing your life around that "way of being," if you will.

I ran out of bottled water and zipped to the store quickly and saw a family of four walking to their car. Everything seemed normal enough and then I heard, as I turned a corner, a couple of sharp slaps. I stopped cold and said, "Is everything OK?" and they ignored me. The dad had slapped his kid (somewhere) and then proceeded to tell him what a brat he'd been in the store. Now, that's extreme, I know, and I know that nobody here is that extreme, but it made me think about how my thinking about working positively to get to the end result has has totally changed in the past 12 months.

Yep, I like who I am now and I like the way I get things done now and like Ron, I KNOW, with my own two eyes, what it can do. Heck, it works for 2 (!) dogs now--not just Shadow (sorry Ron, but I had to do it), and it even works on my nephews, too.

So much more effective than the old way that ran my life before . . .