Reaching for the Sledge Hammer to do a Caliper's Job

closed-mind·ed:

Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others.  Stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.

I was meaning as in the first sentence, not the second. I will not call out names, there is no reason to, if they cannot see it, it really doesn't matter for they never will.

And for the record, everyone is close minded at some point.

Is it "intolerant" if you tried what someone else did and it didn;t work so now you are "against" it?

Is being intolerant wrong anyway?  I am intolerant of some things.  We all have a line we draw: "I will not allow this.  THIS is as far as I go - no further".  Is it clsoe minded or intolerant to be definite about the line, in the interest of your dog and your own sense of self?  If someone draws that line EARLIER than someone else, does that make them closeminded?  Does it make the OTHER closeminded?  Or does it just make them different?

I dont like leash corrections.  Not "because they are ineffective", not "because they are cruel", not "because it will inhibit the dog".  But just because, I feel I have failed to teach the dog and guide him.  Any time I have done it, I question whether or not I really needed to.  Management and modifying my own actions to produce the desired response.... that would take longer.  But would it not be better in the finish?

Take potty training for instance.  I believe you should NEVER punish for incorrect toileting.  (I am in fact, totally intolerant of any suggestion that you can or should.  TOTALLY.)  Our dogs are incredibly clean in the house.  My ex's dog was too (thanks to me).  He did use force, corrections etc in addition to treats, games and praise with training his dog to sit, wait, come and heel.  He wanted his dog to be as reliable at doing other stuff as he was at being house trained... and yet house training was the one area where no punishments happened ever.  The dog was pretty useless in other areas actually.... but it was due to lack of training... or poor training.... not because he was defective in some way.

Chuffy

I'd be interested if you would share more about this period. 

OK.  Before I got Cara and Mia I read The Power of Positive Dog Training - by Pat Miller. I also read The Perfect Puppy - by Gwen Bailey and How to Raise a Puppy You Can Live With - by Clarice Rutherford and David H. Neil. I absorbed these books. And being the perfectionist that I am, decided to believe Pat Miller that any use of positive punishment was to be considered a failure on my part (p. 42).

There was great information in all the books, although some was contradictory and so I decided to take what felt right to me at the time, which was a purely positive approach. The quadrant information was fascinating and I love to learn, so in the next few months, I read as much as I could about it on the internet and I got clickers and started Cara and Mia on clicker training at about 4 months old. It worked great. For months, I trained them. Any new behavior I though was cute or required special intelligence, I clicked them into it. Mia was especially responsive even though Cara was the food hound. Mia loves praise.

And here's the part I haven't been willing to share before now. I started to feel incredibly guilty. I felt like I had brought these 2 beautiful, natural beings into my life and now I was training them to perform like little robots. Do this, do that, do the other thing. Perform. Oh, how cute! I felt demanding, controlling and selfish. When they looked at me, trying to figure out  what on earth I wanted next, when they tried various behaviors, waiting for the almighty click of approval... I couldn't do it any more. It seemed like their little lives revolved around desperately (almost neurotically) trying to figure out what I wanted and I didn't like that. I decided that they didn't need any more training than the very basic commands. They needed to be dogs, not toys for my entertainment. Not performers. It felt SO unnatural! So unlike an animal's existence. So I rethought my approach and started to look at other sources of information.

I read a book called The Animal Connection - by Judy Meyer (a one-time neighbor of mine), I also read about the Monks of New Skete and this was about the time Cesar's Show came on TV. The approaches of these people were so radically different than what I had learned up to that point, that I realized, Hey, there may be more than ONE ROAD. And more importantly, there may be a road that fits Carla, Cara and Mia that doesn't perfectly align with any prescribed method set forth by these other "experts". So I read and I watched and I listened most of all to Cara and Mia and I began to cut our own road right down the center! LOL We excavated our own freakin' road! And that provided the magical relationship that I had wanted all along. That provided the happiest, most well-balanced dogs that I have ever seen.

Recently, my pack has grown by 2. Two German Shepherds. The dynamic has changed. Once again, I feel a need for something different. Working with them using different approaches has led me to believe that a tweak is necessary for them to be the most fulfilled and well-balanced dogs they can be within our pack. And that is why I have gone back to the books and the Internet looking for information to forge a more inclusive road for them. Right now, I'm leaning toward the herding and tracking area along with more intensive training because they require more mental stimulation than Cara and Mia did.

Edit: I am not against clicker training. Or positive training. Not at all. I believe everyone should use what's right for them.

The thing about an actively thinking dog freely offering behaviors is that some dogs, not every dog but some dogs, that is the only way they are happy. Some dogs are just not cut out to be followers. That doesn't necessarily mean they want to be leaders either but they want to think. They behave best when it seems like the good behavior was their idea, not yours. Marlowe's mat training pretty much appears to him as if it's entirely his idea. As we're training if he gets up off the mat I just say "Okay!" and pick the mat up and put it away. Then he comes back to me like 'Hey lady, put that mat thing down so I can lay on it! The mat is awesome! If getting up off it makes it go away, well then, let me show you how much like glue I can be!" While training, this behavior as far as he's concerned is entirely under his control, it was his idea and he loves doing things that he thinks are his idea. It is a little bit of a double-cross because in reality I'm setting up his environment and applying motivators in a way such that only some of his ideas are rewarded, and I make it really easy for him to have the idea that I want him to have.

Trying to make this dog do things he doesn't want to do is pretty much off the table. Not because I'm necessarily opposed (though I kind of am) but because if you look up "stubborn" in the dictionary, you see his picture. So the key is to set things up so that the things he wants to do are also the things I want him to do.

But beyond that, I was really inspired by reading Karen Pryor's memoir of when she first began training dolphins, Lads Before the Wind.  The chapter on her "Creative Porpoise" experiments really lit some lightbulbs with me. We evaluate our dogs as "good enough" for us. We put good household obedience on them, and maybe we train them for a particular performance event, but we determine how much they're going to learn and we stop once we get to "good enough for me." But what about them? How do we let them make their own learning decisions? Maybe good enough for us is not anywhere near good enough for the dog. Maybe it is. But until we teach them how to learn in a way that allows them to take control of their learning and freely communicate to us whether or not they want to learn more, we'll only be speculating.

Edited: We were posting at the same time, Carla, but all of the above is why I have found that clicker training has brought me a better relationship. It isn't all sciency and cold. It's very much about communication. The fact of the matter is that no matter how much I study and read and practice, I will never speak fluent Dog. And no matter how much training he gets, Marlowe will never speak fluent English. But, we can both embrace a second language that helps us communicate. When I was living in China, many of the people I was living with were Japanese and Korean and did not speak much English. I speak no Japanese or Korean. But we were all studying Chinese and that was what we could communicate in. Without that second language we would have been pantomiming and mangling one another's languages and probably not really hanging out much. Teaching my dogs Clicker has helped us communicate and bridged our language gaps.

houndlove

we determine how much they're going to learn and we stop once we get to "good enough for me."

I don't know if your post was in response to mine, but I didn't "stop when they got good enough for me". Their performance being "good enough for me" had nothing to do with it.  

houndlove

But what about them?

That's what the last part of my post is about with Jaia and B'asia. What I did with Cara and Mia isn't good enough for them.  

houndlove

How do we let them make their own learning decisions?

I watch, observe, read, feel them. I know. I have honed my ability to read what's going on with them and they have let me know that they want something more than Cara and Mia have. That doesn't mean I will abandon what works beautifully with "the girls" (as we call them) I am simply adding to it.

houndlove

But until we teach them how to learn in a way that allows them to take control of their learning and freely communicate to us whether or not they want to learn more, we'll only be speculating.

I believe that you learned from your dogs in that way. I learned from my dogs in a different way, but I learned the same thing. They (the Shepherds) want to learn more. And I am actively addressing that.

houndlove

We were posting at the same time,

Ah! LOL 

houndlove

Teaching my dogs Clicker has helped us communicate and bridged our language gaps.

My dogs taught me the language of "energy" and it has done the same for us.

"Ixas, I'm sorry you think those of us who like operant conditioning are somehow soulless or lacking in spirit."

What I actually said was, "Operant Conditioning negates individual power and personality, it provides a level and clinical field (as it should, it's a tool of scientific analysis producing measurable results, that's what it was designed to do!)." Corvus, The fact that I prioritize the energetic stuff and you let it look after itself, isn't, in my mind, polemic. Why make it so?

I wonder, because I talk about energy, intuition, physical handling, and Millan, that when people read those words, they can't, also, in the same sentence read Operant Conditioning? It's as if some folks don't believe that one person could really practice all these approaches. I'm pressed to find another way to explain why I would be classified as somehow anti-OC, since I've stated many times that it's a large part of my practice. When I am evaluating behaviors and designing consequences using the OC tool of analysis, I make darn sure I'm being as objective and non-woowoo as possible ... woowoo and OC are 2 different spheres of knowledge and require different attitudes. Maybe some people find it scary or intimidating or unbelievable that some of us can change our subjectivity from clinically objective to a state of heightened consciousness at will. Maybe some people don't experience that, so they disbelieve it. (That's NOT a judgment, it's a query )

The only other explanation I can come up with is that unless I claim to be 100% OC, then some people feel it doesn't count. Like, being 40% or 60% or 80% is somehow faking it. Why else would some people be so insistent that mixing OC with other ideas is such a mark of deficiency? I can really, really dig thinking in OC 40% of the time, and practice other stuff the other 60% of the time, you know?! That I'm really digging that 40% fully is a good thing! It's not a mark of deficiency, or a lack of salvation. It's just my mix.

My point has been to simply discuss what I do, in the face of people implying (or condescending) what I SHOULD be doing. If I've been inelegant in expressing myself to the point of seeming condescending, I do apologize, that certainly isn't my intent. On the other hand, if persistently describing my view has been interpreted as attacking ... implying that simply being me is an attack, that can only mean that you (generic you) find difference to be offensive and threatening. Not my problem ... la-la-la-la!

What do I ask for? A little space ... to not be mischaracterized and shouted down when I choose to step forward here, and sing my song. To not have 100% OC shoved in my face as THE WAY. THE ONLY WAY. THE ONE TRUE WAY.

What do you ask for? 

ETA ... Carla, your posts came in when I was typing, will read them later as I'm heading out to work.

everyone uses 100% operant conditioning whether they admit it or not. Just cut to the chase and admit it. Describe in detail a behavioral modification method you think is NOT operant conditioning and I will explain how it actually is.

houndlove

The thing about an actively thinking dog freely offering behaviors is that some dogs, not every dog but some dogs, that is the only way they are happy. Some dogs are just not cut out to be followers. That doesn't necessarily mean they want to be leaders either but they want to think. They behave best when it seems like the good behavior was their idea, not yours. Marlowe's mat training pretty much appears to him as if it's entirely his idea. As we're training if he gets up off the mat I just say "Okay!" and pick the mat up and put it away. Then he comes back to me like 'Hey lady, put that mat thing down so I can lay on it! The mat is awesome! If getting up off it makes it go away, well then, let me show you how much like glue I can be!" While training, this behavior as far as he's concerned is entirely under his control, it was his idea and he loves doing things that he thinks are his idea. It is a little bit of a double-cross because in reality I'm setting up his environment and applying motivators in a way such that only some of his ideas are rewarded, and I make it really easy for him to have the idea that I want him to have.

Trying to make this dog do things he doesn't want to do is pretty much off the table. Not because I'm necessarily opposed (though I kind of am) but because if you look up "stubborn" in the dictionary, you see his picture. So the key is to set things up so that the things he wants to do are also the things I want him to do.

Why do you need to make your dog lay down on his mat?  Are you saying this is your way of teaching him to stop doing something?

My dog is VERY stubborn he is the most independant dog I have ever met.  And I taught him to stay on his bed using the words stay, walking away from him and rewarding him each time he stayed there longer and longer and longer and being consistant.  Now I tell him to go lay down, stay and he would rot there.  Is it his choice to lay there?  No it was mine.  Why does that make my realionship with River different than yours with Marlowe?  River is always laying down somewhere on his bed, in his crate of by the fire - all on his on accord.  Are you actually trying to teach Marlowe to use the Mat to stop another behavior?  What good is it that Marlowe wants to lay on the Mat?

Anwer this please, here is my question:  Why is Marlowe offering that behavior and you picking up a mat and placing it down 50 times better for Marlowe than my way of teaching River to go lay down on command?  Is it because Marlowe can't learn that command?  How did you teach stay or come?  I never forced River to stay, I just worked at teaching him to "stay" using treats and consistancy.  Why is Marlowe better off becasue he is offering that behavior than River is because I am asking him to comply to a command?  Do you think River dosen't like to lay by his bed next to fire without me asking him to?

I don't understand.  River goes and lays on his bed and loves it without me teaching him it is his choice, he has always had that choice. 

mudpuppy

everyone uses 100% operant conditioning whether they admit it or not. Just cut to the chase and admit it. Describe in detail a behavioral modification method you think is NOT operant conditioning and I will explain how it actually is.

That is one very valid way of looking at it.  I can also examine my relationship with my husband, my child, etc. in terms of the conditioning we do to each other.

I prefer not to.  I prefer to focus on the relationship, and bust out the OC so that life is livable for all.  I admit it - I train Sasha to a minimum standard. I want her to be a good dog to live with.  We do pseudo-agility and trick training because we both find it fun. Sasha is a thinker, and I love that about her.  Yes, that means she is sometimes a pain in the whatsit.  I'm not interested in a dog who is an obedience star (unless doing obedience was something the dog loved).

I don't like the word "energy" because it is ambiguous and a little out there, but I wonder if by energy people are getting at the subtleties of communication? 75% of my communication with Sasha is through body language.  I've made it a point to learn as much "dog" as possible, as she is exquisitely sensitive to body language.  It is the single most effective way to communicate with her.  I don't consider that "energy," but it *is* subtle and becomes organic with time. Non-word noises are next in line of helpfulness, and spoken words are the last in line.  

Dog_ma

I don't like the word "energy" because it is ambiguous and a little out there

People have described me with those very words. LOL  Obscure, inexplicable, "out there", strange, weird, a "hippie", new-agey, granola, what was it... "airy fairy". Yeah. That's me! LOL And it's possible that what I mean by the word "energy" fits a definition that only I fully understand (and perhaps the other "out there" people ... out there.)

And it is absolutely a form of communication. It's a "language". The physical part of it is indeed body language, but a minor part. Kind of like facial expression is the physical part of human language.

Dog_ma

Non-word noises are next in line of helpfulness, and spoken words are the last in line.

Same here.  

mudpuppy

everyone uses 100% operant conditioning whether they admit it or not. Just cut to the chase and admit it. Describe in detail a behavioral modification method you think is NOT operant conditioning and I will explain how it actually is.

FourIsCompany

People have described me with those very words. LOL  Obscure, inexplicable, "out there", strange, weird, a "hippie", new-agey, granola, what was it... "airy fairy".

KNIT YER OWN!!

I give my personal thanks to those of you sharing your own personal stories, Carla, Houndlove, Corvus, Swissy, Chuffy and others. It's wonderful to read about what you do with your dogs and why different things that you try do or don't work for you. Very inviting, generous, and informative, too. Thank you!

Mudpuppy, I misspoke ..."use" OC is the wrong grammar ... OC is a tool of analysis, not a "program" like military drills or pilates. So, accurately, none of us "use" OC, instead, we can choose to interpret behavioral responses through the lens of OC. OC isn't a thing, it's a means of analysis. ... Until we add values onto it and start preferring various parts of it. When we use parts of OC to match our value systems, it becomes a thing to use, but then it's not a scientific thing anymore. Because, in itself, it is amoral ... it makes no moral judgments, we do that! I know you know that already, I just thought it was worth saying.

Dog_ma

I wonder if by energy people are getting at the subtleties of communication? 75% of my communication with Sasha is through body language. 

Yeah, energy is an inadequate word, but it's the best one I've got at the moment! For me, energy includes body language (posture, gesture, movement, gaze, facial expression), touch, sound, and that other bit that's the tricky one to account for ... intention. We all can sense it when we see it ... when someone tells you that you look good in that dress but you know they are shining you on, that they don't mean what they say ... why can we perceive that? I don't mean to start a discussion about why we can "read" others, or be read by others, I just think that many ways we communicate are not part of our logical, rational frontal lobe processes ... and frankly, that's one of the biggest reasons I love to hang out with Ixa and other dogs ... to spend a little more time in my own dog and reptile brain, the wonderful parts of my brain that the everyday work-a-day world cannot really nurture well.

So, Dog_ma ... it may be that all the stuff I refer to as energy can be accounted for by unconscious sensory information, and contains nothing mystical at all. And, maybe MP's right, that it's 100% accountable via the mechanics of cognitive processing, like pattern recognition (Jeff Hawkin's "On Intelligence" is an easy read on that). While I'm ok with not really knowing, I do really enjoy exploring it, spending silent time eye gazing with a dog; or singing, yelping and howling with Ixa; or ... I could watch Ixa sniff stuff for hours, I love her expressions, her curiousity, her gestures, her thoroughness ... I quickly start to smell more stuff, too! I learned that if I scrinch up my right eye, just so, I can actually smell better ... I learned that from my dog!

One common thread I've noticed with dogs is that whatever activity I engage in with them, they can repeat it over and over and over ... wow, what repetetive staying power! I spent some time diving for rocks with a sweet pitbull in a little pool ... once he caught on to the game, he never never never wanted to stop! LOL! I think that, like Temple Grandin says, their smaller neocortexes stay out of their way and they can immerse in the world without getting distracted by to much "thought." What a fruitful "energy" to be around!