Spin-off: what makes a positive trainer a positive trainer?

houndlove

I'm finding this turn in the conversation interesting (what is this thread about again? )

I loved your post and I agree entirely! Imagine being an atheist who believes in spirit, soul and an afterlife... I have made a few explanations about that a time or two...

More later.
 

i don't think anyone should *need* to "justify and defend" their training methods.

I think everyone should be required to justify and defend their training methods. To themselves, to their dogs, to their friends, and to hostile strangers. Just because you think what you are currently doing "is working" doesn't mean it's the best or even the easiest way. How would the average dog owner know anyway? unless you've had experience with hundreds of dogs of different breeds and experience with a wide range of different training techniques, you simply can't. How many of you people promoting your "methods" can say that?  I can't. I can however suggest you read this link: http://www.clickersolutions.com/interviews/bailey.htm  this man has trained thousands of animals to perform many complex behaviors; I suspect he knows what he is talking about.

*content removed*

i really liked the slogan i saw the other day- it went sorta like this:

you're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggonit, people like you.... and so be it, my dogs be done with formal training!

I read the Bailey interview and I find it interesting that another very accomplished trainer cites the importance of timing.  Timing is the one thing that experienced trainers have and newbies often lack, which is why no one should be surprised that a dog may be learning something other than what you are trying to teach if you are consistently early or late in marking the desired behavior.  And, Bailey also says that "you get what you reinforce", which I have found gets newbies in trouble all the time.  After all, if you tell them to ignore a jumping dog and remain silent, they can often do that, but not without making eye contact with the dog, which may have just reinforced the jump unwittingly;-)

This interview with Attila also mentions timing - in reference to Karen Pryor.  This is a man who has taught some very complex behaviors to his dog sufficient that she was never defeated. http://www.clickertraining.com/node/884  He's a poster child for positive training, too. 

spiritdogs

I read the Bailey interview and I find it interesting that another very accomplished trainer cites the importance of timing.  Timing is the one thing that experienced trainers have and newbies often lack, which is why no one should be surprised that a dog may be learning something other than what you are trying to teach if you are consistently early or late in marking the desired behavior.  And, Bailey also says that "you get what you reinforce", which I have found gets newbies in trouble all the time.  After all, if you tell them to ignore a jumping dog and remain silent, they can often do that, but not without making eye contact with the dog, which may have just reinforced the jump unwittingly;-)

This interview with Attila also mentions timing - in reference to Karen Pryor.  This is a man who has taught some very complex behaviors to his dog sufficient that she was never defeated. http://www.clickertraining.com/node/884  He's a poster child for positive training, too. 

Moderator speaking.

This thread will remain on topic and on a subject that is appropriate to the overall topic of this forum area...dog behavior. I have removed a few off topic posts to encourage that...I have left the one pointing the way to another thread where off topic discussion can be continued.

Thanks.

houndlove

I've found that can really throw a lot of people for a loop and their assumptions are often that my world is a very cold, sterile, joyless place and that my relationships are shallow and that I am therefore selfish (and many also assume that I must be filled with anger or rage for some reason--that one I never quite got)*. But what gives my world meaning is just different from what gives a theist or a spiritualist's world it's meaning.

Human beings do assume far too much, I think. There IS wonder, beauty, art in science. Especially at the cellular level. Fractiles, for example, are pure art. Snowflakes? Give me a break! It's art and science as one.

And, houndlove, I really do hear what you're saying. I agree with you that it's all science, really, it's just that in the context in which we've been basing our discussions, there's a clear science vs. spiritual friction. And that's what I'm referring to in my previous posts. But I agree with this post of yours very strongly, It's like two parts of the whole arguing whether one is valid or not. It's like light and dark arguing about which contributes most to time, or something weird like that. We're all talking about the same thing. As coyote said -

spirit = energy

(we attach the labels)

I love that!  

houndlove

One thing I do love about living with dogs is that I am constantly having to think scientifically, in the "verb" sense of the term. I am always trying to discover things about them, why they do this or that, how we can communicate better, what they might be thinking or feeling.

I know what you mean. It's like I'm reaching out to them, saying, "Where are you -- that I can come to you in a way that you'll understand and I'll have a better understanding of you"? It's wonder-ful. Full of wonder. And that's what drives science, anyway! LOL I wonder...

The very first time I left puppies Cara and Mia with my husband (to go to the store), I told them, "I'm going to the store. You guys be good. Take a nap. I'll be back soon. Thank you for being so good. I love you. Goodbye." EVERY TIME I have left the house, for the past 5 1/2 years, I have told the dogs that, with slight variations. I tell them I'm going, I give them something to do. I thank them for being so wonderful and tell them I love them and goodbye.

This morning as I left to go to the store, I did an "experiment". Instead of giving the normal spiel to the dogs on my way out, I said totally nonsensical phrases, but in the same tone and with the same intent that I usually do when leaving for the store. I pictured myself driving to the store as I said things like, "Bacon apple pie. The seam goes up the middle. I appreciate all things. Shama-lama-ding dong." and my husband called out to me, "Shaka loo-la. Cree"!

LOL

The dogs behaved exactly the same as they do when I'm leaving for the store. The forlorn looks on their faces and the resignation to the fact that they wouldn't be going with me.

It was just to prove to myself that my intent and tone are what are important, not the words I say. Just thought that was interesting. Hope I'm not the only one...

 

I think another quality of what makes a trainer a positive trainer is that, aside from eschewing positive punishment unless there is no other recourse, the main gist of their techniques and methods are ones that they absolutely can encourage people to do at home. I think a positive trainer is also hesitant to assume that every behavior is a move for dominance on the part of the dog. They will read and determine if it is true aggression or if it is an axiety or fear. Or, given a number of other factors, determine that the problem might be medical or genetic and refer the client to a vet. You can take everything I have seen on "Good Dog U." or "It's Me or the Dog" and apply them at home, though I will admit that you should have a trained person teach you how to use equipment that you and the dog are not familiar with.

lostcoyote

*content removed*

You are not doing so good in this thread.  Though, I can't really make out a pattern.

ron2

..absolutely can encourage people to do at home. I think a positive trainer is also hesitant to assume that every behavior is a move for dominance on the part of the dog. They will read and determine if it is true aggression or if it is an axiety or fear.

Sorry I have not witnessed this at all.  Its right away go right into clicker training before being assured that the dog's basic and social needs are met.  From my own experience here, I was encouraged to go right into clicker training on a SA dog, not knowing that while I was trying to reduced or eliminate the anxious behavior of the dog, I was actually encouraging it.  Too bad I had to find this out on my own.  But I am glad there has been admission of -P in clicker training and some other minuses depending on the dog.  I am also recognizing that positive reinforcement training using food is not always in the best interest of the dog.  Why use one of the dog's basic survival needs to create an excited or frenzied state.  There are other gentler motivators, such as affection. 

DPU

Why use one of the dog's basic survival needs to create an excited or frenzied state.

Aside from the fact that my dog lacks for nothing in food, using resource control works. I find it fits in with the natural behavior of a dog and is, dare I say it, more effective and, at times, more humane than punishment. My dog is loving and affectionate. And a bit independent, so to speak. Recalling for just an ear scratch doesn't always get it. But recalling for a treat does. And there are times he will have eaten. And 30 minutes later, he's ready for some training to get treats.

DPU

Its right away go right into clicker training before being assured that the dog's basic and social needs are met.

I can't speak for every trainer that might be considering teaching an emaciated dog fresh from a rescue and being fostered before the local shelter or ASPCA has fed the dog back up to its correct weight. I think most trainers are dealing with dogs that are just problematic or untrained, as opposed to having come from drastic, life-threatening situations. But I would do so. If I were to go to the shelter and find a dog to adopt, by the time we get to leave the visiting pen, that dog will know what click means. "If I had a hammer, I'd hammer in the morning. I'd hammer in the evening, all over this land..."

For me, it hasn't been a hindrance that Shadow seems excited in training. He may have energy, but he is also focused.

Also, I'd have to say my general statement still stands. That is, positive trainers can and do recommend doing this stuff at home, your special experience with some of your fosters aside. Please note that I am not discounting your experience but I fail to see how it denies what I have posted. Are some dogs better off not starting with the clicker yet? I suppose so. But a positive trainer with some good skills is going to find another positive way to train and their methods will be ones that you can use at home.

*content deleted*

Less than an decade ago, I trained my two danes using our relationship, emotions, and touch.  I was forced to go this route because the dogs were not food treat driven during formal trainingsessions.  No food treats during formal training meant no food treats during home informal training.  As they matured and grew old, they became a rock of stability so much so that when I brought in a 3rd dane, the dog learned everything he needed to know from them.  Foster after foster benefit from being part of their pack and I believe they learn more about good behavior from the dogs than what I can teach or train.

Since coming here I have forgotten this training in favor for food treats.  Yes, food is a motivator and food gets the dog excited and the dog is willing to perform for the human.  To me it is a quick way to get a dog to do what you want at the expense of the relationship.  But I don't want a dog in servitude.  I want my dogs to do things because it pleases them to please me and vice versa.  I don't like the idea of my dogs working for a paycheck or even the idea they get a paycheck for good behavior.  That is not how it is with my Danes.  My Danes reward is affection and I have an abundant supply always on hand.

Having many foster dogs come into my home, exposes me to dog behavior that is a result of a deficiency in one need or another.  Sometimes the behaviors and the deficiencies are hard to connect.  Observing a dog over time is the only way to find this out.  So no, I do not begin training a dog as soon as they come into my home.  I fear I may mask a problem that will probably exhibit itself in a worse behavior in the future. 

I guess, what I see here is positive trainers are results and numbers driven, that is the more tricks the dog knows, the better the dog is off or the smart they are.  That not me.  Training has a beginning and training has a end.  After the end of training, life with the dog begins and you live life.

Oh yeah, I believe motivators can be strengthened and weakened.  I believe you can lower the drive of a food motivated dog just as I believe that affection can take presidence over food.

ron2

I think another quality of what makes a trainer a positive trainer is that, aside from eschewing positive punishment unless there is no other recourse, the main gist of their techniques and methods are ones that they absolutely can encourage people to do at home. I think a positive trainer is also hesitant to assume that every behavior is a move for dominance on the part of the dog.

Something bothered me about this at first and I'm only now able to say what it is. It's simply that the main gist of most techniques and methods are ones that people can encourage others to do at home. In other words, this isn't unique to so-called positive trainers. Additionally, I have seen (and heard) positive trainers say that some behaviors are a move for dominance on the part of the dog. So, I disagree with both of the points you've stated here.

FourIsCompany

corvus

See, I don't know why you think scientifically minded people don't care for spiritual relationships with animals.

 

I don't think that.   And notice - I haven't said that nor have I said that they "just can't be bothered" with the spiritual. I just think we each have our priorities. Just as I do consider the scientific (it's just not AS important to me as the spiritual) I believe that others consider the spiritual (it's just not AS important to them as the scientific). It's just a matter of preference and priorities based on our belief systems.

No, it's not about priorities for me at all. Science is not my priority in dealing with my dog. Having a happy, balanced dog is my priority. Enjoying a relationship that constantly amazes me with its depth and understanding is my priority. That is in fact VERY spiritual. It just so happens that as I am a scientific person, my path to my magic, spiritual relationship takes me through a lot of scientific theory. Spiritual is every bit as important to me than scientific, perhaps even more so because it is not my end target, it's just the way I can see to get me to where I want to go, which is in fact a spiritual place. Like Houndlove, I'm often completely floored by how me, a human, can find ways to communicate with other animals. It's magical to me when they understand me. It blows me away that they're so good at it and I'm so bad at it despite being smarter, with stronger powers of reasoning, a grasp of abstract ideas, and the benefit of the work of many people that went before me. And yes, evolution is something that's a little magical to me at times as well.

The essence that you speak of is all about the individual. That's certainly important, but I argue that it's not at the very root because evolution still dictates that many individuals will behave in the same predictable way to certain stimuli. I would say all, but I'm sure there are exceptions out there somewhere. I heard of a little girl incapable of feeling pain, once. She kept damaging her eyes by poking at them. Anyway, the individual, or soul, is a pleasure to learn and tells you how you should adapt methods based on what evolution makes typical behaviour. Without evolution, there would be no typical behaviour and we'd have nothing to adapt to our particular individual. Does that make any sense? It might all be pedantic twaddle, but it's an important distinction to me. Underneath the individual is evolution. In fact, evolution is what made individuals in the first place. Because clones don't last long in a dynamic environment. It's very elegant and beautiful, but what it all means to me is that evolution is indeed at the root of behaviour, individual variation, and physiology as well. I love evolution!