Dropping the Labels - Long (Caution!)

Very impressive, Kim! Thanks so much for sharing your very generous thoughts. I'll definately be re-reading your post, because it is so rich and deep. []

I hope, and try to live in such a way, that I don't use labels, but have goals. My own personal goal right now is to be able to be more dog-focused in my training. Not, "What should I do here? Is X technique right?" but rather, "What does my dog need right now?"

Maggie is perfect. []
Cord needs to learn that corrections are information, not punishment.
Ben needs more time just feeling out the sheep, while driving.
Rocky needs to learn to "give" to the sheep while going to the heads. He's perfect otherwise. []
Ted needs to learn that a soft word is something to be listened to, also.
Gus needs to learn Patrick's "language."
Doug's retiring this year. He just needs to learn to settle down in the house.
Zhi needs to learn that all root beer does not automatically belong to her.

I know all the above mentally. My problem is remembering to keep it in mind when I'm interacting moment by moment. The dogs are communicating their needs constantly, but what I'm trying to learn now is processing those signals and giving back what they need, whenever possible.

I'm sure no one has noticed, but I'm a very eclectic trainer.[] I'd prefer this term to "balanced", as it reflects the truth about my training experience - Jack of all Trades, Master of None!

By the way, I have to disagree that "not balanced" in the sense you are using it, implies the dictionary sense of "unbalanced." Perhaps people who apply this label to themselves, do wish to claim that connotation, but once you've applied a technical meaning to a word, as a label for a group, the "non-term" for that group would simply be the set of people who aren't in that set. In other words, trainers who are not "balanced" trainers - including snake charmers, elephant riders, cowboys, and Afgani bos kashi riders.

I don't see your post as "wild ramblings" at all - it makes perfect sense to me (to the point that I was wondering if you are my "good twin" LOL).  The problem is that we are so used to being concise in the new Age of Information, that we forget adjectives and nuance, quite frequently.  Also, when you are trying to convey to someone new to dogs that you would like them to try training without inflicting pain on their dogs, you find yourself giving them something to Google on, which is, almost invariably, a label.  Truth be told, I hate labels, too, but sometimes I use them for simplicity (though they really aren't simple, are they? [])  At any rate, I found your post well thought out and pretty much right on the money.

I have always had a problem with the "balanced trainers" myself.  To me, it means using punishments such as leash pops and such...(traditional methods)...along with positive reinforcement such as clicker work.

I don't do that. So therefore I felt like my techniques were unbalanced.  But seeing your definition....I am soooo totally balanced when dealing with my dogs.

balanced: mental steadiness or emotional stability; habit of calm behavior, judgment, etc."

I look at my gran and remember how she lived with her dogs until her 80s -- German Shepherds, Spaniels, strays, etc. It was easy. She never used leashes with any of our dogs (talk about reliability off leash), she never talked about "training" or thought about it in terms of "my methodology is...", or had the background to define her philosophy as "X-based" or "Y-based". It made sense to me, and the more I learn about dogs, the more attracted I am to her way. It was, like Becca said - goal oriented.
She wasn't from a generation to experience a clicker, but I imagine giving it to her and watching what she'd do. She would start communicating. Like a kid who wants something but has no language to describe it. She wouldn't know when during that communication she was being a "clicker trainer' or a 'trainer with a clicker'. She would just be one who listens, and all of her proceeding actions will be based on the previous reaction of the dog, not on a pre-defined "method".

I am all about dropping labels. I am tired of science vs. tradition debate, "clicker trainer vs. trainer with a clicker". I have nothing to add, Becca said it all.

I was going to make a silly comment about you being a non-comformist, which is another label but actually, you do have some good points worth discussion, aside from whether or not the problems you see are simply your mental images of the words in question.
 
I still think of the word alpha in its original greek-based meaning. Prime, predominant, first. Many others associate it with Koehler style training, holding, pinning, or trying to emulate the "alpha" of a wolf pack. OTOH, I found leader to be a better description for what I do with obedience commands. Some people are very hung up on labels, including (at other websites) clicker trainers. They draw a very sharp distinction, with some chagrin, between clicker training and training with a clicker. Clicker training being free-shaping that leads to a new "self-taught" behavior. But at some point during the free-shaping, the human decides to "shape" in the direction of goal, a particular trick or obedience. At that point, has the training shift from total free-shaping to guided training with a clicker? And, like you, I would question, does that distinction really matter, at least in that segment of the training. We are then leading, or teaching, if you will, by way of the clicker, communicating to the dog when they are changing their response by offering a behavior more attuned to what we desire. At some time, maybe after the 3rd click, we have taken over the control of the shaping from purely dog-offered behavior to something we can put on cue, which makes us somewhat of a leader. Just as a teacher wants her students to desire to learn, she must also steer the course of their learning to some extent to achieve a certain level of competency in a subject.
 
There will always be some need for labels, if only to distinguish from a trainer that primarily uses rewards to one that primarily uses physical contact or force.

I appreciate your resolve to address situations and methods on their merit, rather than on what label one gives to those who use that particular method. Interestingly, in one of the other threads a poster was criticized for focusing on "methods" rather than "methodology" which as best I could decipher was a criticism of focusing ones interest on particular specific training issues rather than the entire belief system that accompanied it. So, if you are hoping to avoid acrimony, well, let me know how that works out for you :-}

Realistically though, it is impossible to avoid labels. Labels aren't the only component of language, but they are an essential component. Alas, language is imperfect, but until we master psychic communication, we're stuck with it. Saying, for example, that you are going to refer to yourself as a teacher rather than a trainer certainly isn't avoiding labels. It's just changing the label to something that you hope more accurately conveys what you do.

I don't think that the existance and use of labels is the fundamental problem. But I see at least two misuses of labels used in the debates on dog training. These are not problems unique to this debate by any means, as any five minutes of talk radio will nauseatingly demonstrate. But we should be aware that the debates on training certainly aren't immune to these problems.

Problem #1: Labels can carry emmotional connotations that aren't necessarily appropriate. The labels we choose for certain actions, methods, methologies, outlooks, philosophies yada, yada, yada often are words that have other meanings, often with attached emotional baggage, in other contexts. You have already described how the use of your definition of the label "balanced" carries with it insulting connotations for anyone who doesn't fit within that label. Another case in point is the term "punishment". Within the context of the operant conditioning quadrats, punishment simply means anything that has the effect of reducing the frequency of a particular behavior. It could be the use of the the sound "uh, uh", the use of the sound "eh, eh", the use of the sound "nooooo", or the sound "NO!". It could be the sound of a chain on a martingale collar sliding a link tighter. It could be a quick leash pop. It could be taking a step toward a dog that is about to jump on you, or moving toward the sheep or flapping a plastic bag when a stock dog has punctured the bubble. It could be lots of things. But the label "punishment" evokes an emotional response in most people such that as soon as the word is used it raises images of yelling, spankings (or smacking), wrestling dogs to the ground, and pain-based. I know it wasn't the people on this board who chose the word punishment as the label for the use of any actions that reduce the frequency of a particular behavior. But, we're stuck with it now. The best we can do is to try not to succumb to the inappropriate emotional connotations and focus on the technical meaning of the label.

Problem #2: Labels are used to polarize debate. When we rope off some territory of belief many many many people succumb to the temptation to label anyone who strays outside the narrow boundaries of that territory as only fitting in one other (highly repugnant) equally narrow enemy territory. Here's a little test: Everybody who has ever questioned any foreign policy decisions made by an elected official currently occupying high office, raise your hand. Also raise your hand if you were at all squicked out at the thought of getting to "know" an intern in the Biblical sense in the Oval Office. Now keep your hand up if you "support the terrorists" and/or are an intolerant bigot. Everybody here who opposes cutting the eyelids off rabbits so they can't blink and then squirting new chemicals in their eyes to test the suitability of these chemicals to manufacter better cosmetics raise you hand. Now keep your hand up if you are an animal rights activist who considers owning companion animals to be a form of slavery. See how annoying it is to have a disagreement with some aspect of some group distorted beyond all recognition. See how frustrating it is to admit to some sliver of common ground with some group and immediately be labeled as subscribing to the most extreme views and actions of that group?

A few people on this board admit (and how stupid is it that we have to "admit" as if there is some attachment of guilt) that we don't train exclusively with +R. The problem isn't that there is a label for those who use only rewards (Eg, Clicker Trainers), or that there is a label for those who use only severe and painful punishments (Eg, abusers). The problem is the failure to recognize or acknowledge that there might be other territories outside the boundaries of those two labels. I don't think I'm the only one who don't fall under the Clicker Trainer label who is frustrated/disgusted with labels like pain based training, smack, wrestle, instill pain and fear, hang, yank & spank, zap being offered as the only conceivable alternatives. There is a vast territory outside the confines of those two extremes. If people choose not to explore that territory, that is certainly a valid choice. But it would be far less punitive to those of us who live in that territory if it's existance wasn't constantly being denied by the polarizing labels attached to it.

Balanced: "taking account of all sides on their merit without prejudice or favoritism" "containing different elements in suitable quantities ... to produce a satisfying and effective whole."

ORIGINAL: buster the show dog

I don't think that the existance and use of labels is the fundamental problem. But I see at least two misuses of labels used in the debates on dog training. These are not problems unique to this debate by any means, as any five minutes of talk radio will nauseatingly demonstrate. But we should be aware that the debates on training certainly aren't immune to these problems.

Problem #1: Labels can carry emmotional connotations that aren't necessarily appropriate.

Problem #2: Labels are used to polarize debate.

Excellent points!

Ugggg, I just wrote out a long reply and it got timed out. [:@]
 
Anyhow, I'll shorten it up a bit.
 
I don't see the terms trainer or teacher as labels. Just as I don't see astronaut, vet, or electrician as labels. They are simply defining what a person DOES, not how they do it, or what belief systems are behind it. I don't mind either term, "teacher" is just a preferable word for me to use.
 
Just as punishment is not a label. Punishment is a term, with an established definition. Just as reinforcement is, or operant conditioning.
 
Buster, your approach and bringing up these problems is one of the key reasons I wish to get rid of the use of these labels, or terms.
 
Ron brought up a good point, in saying:

  There will always be some need for labels, if only to distinguish from a trainer that primarily uses rewards to one that primarily uses physical contact or force.

 
But will there be? Can we not just discuss the fact that a person primarily uses rewards, or primarily uses force? From the following statements, which would you get more information from?
 
1. I am a positive trainer that believes in only using positive techniques via a clicker.
 
2. I believe in using positive reinforcement, negative punishment, and extinction in teaching dogs. I do not believe in purposely using positive punishment, nor negative reinforcement. I believe that dogs do need structure, they do need to realize there are consequences for their actions, they do need guidelines and house rules.
 
I do believe in showing my dogs what I think appropriate behaviour is, so that they know what I expect of them, and I don't believe using punishments for behaviours that are not already very well understood. If I find I am using punishments (negative punishment) often, I go back and look at my teaching, because obviously something has gone awry, something was not as well understood as I thought it was.
 
Most of all, I want my dogs to trust that I will show them the way, let them be dogs, not be afraid to "mess up", that I will protect them, that I will be fair, that I will do no harm.
 
Now, I don't know about you, but even though the second one takes a little longer to type, I would far prefer that somebody took the time to say that, than the first one. [] I would certainly learn a heck of a lot more about a person and their beliefs on living with animals.
 
That is sort of what I'm getting at with the discussion of labels.

That is sort of what I'm getting at with the discussion of labels.

 
Perhaps, too, you wish to decrease the use of labels to decrease the amount of acrimony that can arise from people's feelings about these words.
 
I, OTOH, take on the label and make it mine. In some cases, I simply fail to see it as an insult. Last year, a loose dog was trying to fight with Shadow and her owners, rather than gather her up or call her back were arguing with me over my use of a curseword. They accused Shadow of wanting to eat their dog and I informed them, while still keeping the dogs separated as best I could that dogs have a way of acting with each other, regardless of size. They called me "Dog Freak," meant as an insult.  But it was not an insult. I said, "Yes, I am." And I didn't say that to take away their thunder or defuse the power of their insult or to gain advantage in the argument. Just the same, it did make them falter. (In my head, I'm singing "I'm a dog freak, yes I am" to the tune of "Punk Rocker" by Iggy Pop.[]) So, I take the label and own it and take its power.
 
You're right, though. Labels are often hurled in a derisive manner, such as the initial use of  "treat-dispensing butler." My reaction is to take it and add it. I'm a treat dispensing-butler and I'm really tall. It has a disarming effect.
 
And, until recently, I wasn't really interested in debating the difference between a traditional method, ala CM, and what I've found with clicker training. Rather than sling labels back and forth, or reply to a post and seem contentious when that's not my desire, I would prefer to start a thread approaching a problem from the +R perspective. But the debates have come here. And stayed.
 
Debates can be entertaining and even informative. But I can be stuck in my ways. If I know something to be true empirically from my own experience, such as the results I have found with the training I do, or from a basis of scientific proof, I can't be swayed. A debator will tell you the sun is blue and expect to win by shear force of will and mastery of semantics. My response is fine, but the sun is not blue, which I know can tick some people off.

Ugggg, I just wrote out a long reply and it got timed out.

Side note on this: if this happens to you, just right click (I think that's right, I've got a Mac - whatever the "other" mouse button is) and select "back" and your reply window will magically reappear, and should still have your content, too. At that point, copy the text, paste it somewhere safe, log back in, get to a new reply window, and paste your text back in. Click/treat!

A couple of years ago I was driving home from a sheepdog training clinic and it hit me what my trainer had been trying to tell me all weekend. I'm wishy-washy and get hung up during training because I'm thinking about what I should be doing. I was being self-centered instead of dog-centered. That was a difficult realization and I actually spent about twenty miles crying my eyes out as a result.

Since then I really try not to think too much about whether what I'm doing makes me a "this" trainer or "that" trainer, but rather judge methods based on results - what it produces in the dog. NOT, mind you, whether it "makes" the dog conform to what I think is "right", but whether it helps us communicate better and reach our goals together.

(In my head, I'm singing "I'm a dog freak, yes I am" to the tune of "Punk Rocker" by Iggy Pop.)

 
I couldn't resist.
 
Here's "I'm a Punk Rocker" by the Teddy Bears with Iggy Pop. Now, you can see what's in my head.
[linkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIiP-aAaupA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIiP-aAaupA[/link]
 
 

Now, you can see what's in my head.

I believe that would be one of those locations referenced in the old saw, "Fools rush in, where angels . . ." []

ORIGINAL: ron2

That is sort of what I'm getting at with the discussion of labels.

And, until recently, I wasn't really interested in debating the difference between a traditional method, ala CM, and what I've found with clicker training.

As I've said before, I've never watched a second of CM, so I can't really comment on him or his techniques. My question though is whether you see a "traditional method, ala CM" as the only alternative to what you've found with clicker training?

For example, in another thread, I described a common problem I encounter with students who have tried Clicker Training (with a capital C and capital T) under the guidance of an extremely skilled and highly regarded instructor. The scenario was that many dogs seem to learn that a great way to get rewards when a person approaches is to jump up and then nicely sit. They chain the jump and the sit together. As long as there are no unpleasant consequences for jumping, the jump followed by the sit followed by the reward chain persists in some dogs. Your response was you prefer a sit - reward chain, to a wrestle your dog to the ground-suppressed shut down dog chain. With all due respect, "well, duh". That's a pretty boring dichotomy to discuss, because you've set it up so that there is clearly only one reasonable choice. First, you conveniently avoided addressing the jump up part of the chain when describing your preferred scenario, and then you offered only an extremely undesireable alternative. I'm seriously curious if these are the only two alternatives that you can conceive of.

If I know something to be true empirically from my own experience, such as the results I have found with the training I do, or from a basis of scientific proof, I can't be swayed.

Funny thing about science though.... A scientific approach has to ALWAYS allow for the possibility of rejecting a previously held belief in the light of new evidence, and one always has to be open to the possiblility of that new evidence existing. One always has to consider the possibilty that one's empirical observations under a given set of circumstances may not apply once one starts altering some of the specific circumstances under which the observations were made. The sun isn't blue - as filtered through our existing atmosphere on our planet at this time, and as sensed by our distribution of photoreceptors in our retinas. Generalizing from those specific circumstance to deny the possibility of a blue color from any perspective or under any circumstances using any sort of photosensor is not a scientific approach; it is the antithesis of scientific investigation. It is even less scientific to declare that anyone who doesn't see the sun as yellow must therefore see it as blue.

You have obviously had what you consider to be great success training your dog to your great satisfaction using a particular training approach. Many others have also found that they have been able to train their dog to their great satisfaction using the same approach. But there is nothing scientific about declaring that therefore this approach will achieve satisfactory results for all trainers with all dogs. It is even less scientific to declare that anyone who doesn't use that approach must therefore be using only one other possible alternative approach.