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

houndlove

People for some reason have this weird aversion to the operant conditioning terminology and I can't really figure out why. Whether or not you know what to call it, you are using one or more quadrants of operant conditioning in your training, so learn a little about what it is and how it works and why it works so you can talk about it.

Does this mean, then, that I also have a "weird aversion" to internal combustion? Because I can drive my car, I know how to work all the little gadgets and knobs, but if I open the hood, I can't name more than 2 or 3 things in there. Just because I don't want to go into minute detail about the scientific intricacies of operant conditioning, doesn't mean I have a weird aversion to the terminology. It just means (for me) that I know how to work with my dogs and I don't really care about the science behind it. My priorities lie in other areas of my relationship with my dogs.

Does that help you to understand why some people might not be all heavy into these discussions?   There's no aversion, I just don't care. 

Well I couldn't name much under the bonnet of a car, I don't care how it works and I don't care to discuss it.  Hence why I dont frequent automobile discussion forums....

 ... lol. I belonged to a sewing machine forum for awhile   ... massively TMI!

Well, I don't know anything about how a car works because I don't have to ever fix or work on my car, I just drive it. I pay other people to work on it for me. I do however have to work on my dogs (and not just drive them--my husband just drives them and there's a big difference) and I've found that learning how to do that is a lot easier once I began to know the ins and outs of a few basic concepts. It's like any hobby or profession, it has it's lingo so that people can talk about what they're doing using a common vocabulary. You should hear my husband talk to his friend that he plays role-playing games with--they talk another language and I have no idea what they're talking about because I don't have to, I don't game and they do.  When I was heavy in to the jam band scene, we talked about type 1, type 2 and type 3 jams--accepted vocabulary so we could all talk about our favorite jams and everyone else would know what we were talking about. Learning to sew is similar as well. When you get a pattern at the store there's a large amount of vocabulary in the instructions that the pattern-makers take for granted that anyone who knows how to sew already knows. If you don't know the words used, it makes it a lot harder to figure out what to do with a pattern. I'm a largely self-taught seamstress and it is indeed a lot harder for me than it would be if I would take the time to either do some reading or take a class.

OK, dog nerds, I'll go with that or would never have come here. I love my dogs and they are part of the family and a really fun part of life. I love agility, and Frisbee and hiking with them, even just watching the grace and power when they run. I do a ton of training, all clicker, all reward. I only want people to give it a try first, before all the aversive P's.;

OK "eh eh" is allowed.

Chuffy

Well I couldn't name much under the bonnet of a car, I don't care how it works and I don't care to discuss it.  Hence why I dont frequent automobile discussion forums....

But there's so much more to dogs and to my relationship with my dogs, than how they respond to stimuli - that I DO enjoy discussing. I don't see the fact that they are subjects of operant conditioning as the important part of our relationship. I mean, they are subjects of operant conditioning, we all are, but it's such a minor part of our relationship that it's just not an area of interest for me. No aversion, just disinterest.

In my opinion, the term "operant conditioning" actually reinforces the mistaken belief that humans are innately superior to dogs. Humans have superior technology (when measured by our standards) and humans have a higher degree of intelligence (when measured by our standards), but I don't believe we are superior to dogs and I'm not interested in viewing my dogs as subject matter.    

Consider applying the term to your human children or your spouse. I don't think about how my husband responds to praise or what I can do to get him to give me the behavior that I want from him... I don't think about it with my dogs either.

I fully understand operant conditioning. Have for years. And I use "positive reinforcement" (if it must be termed as such) the vast majority of the time. I just don't spend a lot of time thinking about it in those terms.  

FourIsCompany

Does that help you to understand why some people might not be all heavy into these discussions?   There's no aversion, I just don't care. 

Or maybe a lot of us do understand but incorporate the other learning theories in teaching our dog.  I, myself always work on satisfying basic needs first including instinctual and then social learning before I tinker with the dog's motivators or aversions.  And remember because I foster I am always learning with each new dog.  What I realized now is I risk creating an obsessive dog or an anxious dog if I don't address the needs first. 

lcbryson

I actually really disagree that most of the group use old school methods. Old school methods to me are stringing the dog up, throwing them around, alpha rolls, rubbing their faces in pee, cruel and harsh, harsh methods. I don't think anyone here uses any of those methods. I do know some people who do and I have seen what happens to their dogs as a result. Just because someone is not opposed to using chokes and prongs does not mean they are an "old school trainer". This article explains very well my approach to dog training. While I do not agree 100% with everything he says, we have very similar views, ideas, and training techniques. http://leerburg.com/philosophy.htm

Well, I'm sure that you view yourself as a positive trainer, but I don't think that you will find many of the people who are usually regarded as positive agreeing completely with Leerburg's philosophy.  I do think his advice on breaking up dog fights is valuable, but if I were going to align myself with positive trainers, I'd be thinking more about Karen Pryor, Pia Sylvani, Pat Miller, Kay Laurence, than Leerburg. 

I also think that for some people, old style does mean choke chains, prongs, and the like.  Even used judiciously, they are still designed to stop behavior, rather than encourage it, and when you couple that with clicker training, for example, you are working at cross purposes.  The clicker dog should be encouraged to offer behavior that you can then shape.  If a clicker dog just sits there because he is afraid to move, having been corrected by the chain or prong, you will not have as much success with the clicker - and, I think that is yet another reason why people who hang on to those things with a so-called crossover dog are not as successful with positive training.  They are expecting a dog that has always been stopped from doing things, to suddenly begin to do things, and the dog must unlearn the effects of punishment (in the operant sense) before he can go on and feel that offering behavior is ok.

houndlove

Well, I don't know anything about how a car works because I don't have to ever fix or work on my car, I just drive it. I pay other people to work on it for me. I do however have to work on my dogs (and not just drive them--my husband just drives them and there's a big difference) and I've found that learning how to do that is a lot easier once I began to know the ins and outs of a few basic concepts. It's like any hobby or profession, it has it's lingo so that people can talk about what they're doing using a common vocabulary. You should hear my husband talk to his friend that he plays role-playing games with--they talk another language and I have no idea what they're talking about because I don't have to, I don't game and they do.  When I was heavy in to the jam band scene, we talked about type 1, type 2 and type 3 jams--accepted vocabulary so we could all talk about our favorite jams and everyone else would know what we were talking about. Learning to sew is similar as well. When you get a pattern at the store there's a large amount of vocabulary in the instructions that the pattern-makers take for granted that anyone who knows how to sew already knows. If you don't know the words used, it makes it a lot harder to figure out what to do with a pattern. I'm a largely self-taught seamstress and it is indeed a lot harder for me than it would be if I would take the time to either do some reading or take a class.

I agree, and I also think that discussing training using the scientific terms helps avoid any misunderstandings, too.  When you are all speaking the same lingo, at least you really know what you are agreeing or disagreeing with.  Once you learn the terminology, you understand the concepts better, and are less likely to call a reinforcer a bribe...which, of course, it is not. 

Ixas_girl

 ... lol. I belonged to a sewing machine forum for awhile   ... massively TMI!

I think one of the most important  concepts for me is that a punisher is a punisher if the dog sees it that way.

Shadow is Siberian Husky in temperment and some other ways. With that comes the independence, strong will, and playing hard. Most times I scruffed him, he thought it was play, therefore, ineffective. Body blocking just gives him another obstacle to get around at 30 mph. I think most people thought I was manhandling him, which to a degree, it was. But it was also ineffective. He's not small or medium like an Aussie or Collie. He is 26 in tall at the shoulder, weighs 65 lbs and can run over 30 mph and likes to play with body slams once in a while. So, what do you do with a toughly built dog who sees most of your wrestling as play, especially since his first owner used to wrestle with him in play? You let him know what you want him to do and let him have the things he likes most for doing that. For the matter of corrections, I've seen him cower and try to disappear from a strong tone in my voice more than I could accomplish with any physical stronghold or correction. I only have to whisper or talk in a calm tone and make one, little, consistent sound and he can hear me just fine. And that's part of what I mean about him being a soft dog, in spite of his football player toughness.

As for the different styles, I think the dichotomy here lies in what we're willing to justify in our own experiences. I used to justify and defend more corrective practices, especially as I was using them myself and thought I needed them. Who knew my dog better than I did, right? And wasn't having a lot of success but felt I was because I was, as I thought, pack leader. Well, I happened to be wrong. I learned more scientific principles, dropped some pride, and stepped into new territory. And now I see Shadow better than before. That's all from my personal perspective. Another's mileage may vary.

FourIsCompany

Consider applying the term to your human children or your spouse.

I do already.  (Please see the "Just what is Operant Conditioning" thread.  I reference my son on two seperate posts, one about variable schedules of reinforcement and one about antecedents) 

That is why I have no problems applying it with dogs and I *don't* think it means that it's all, "subject, motivator, stimulus, robots, blah blah blah".  It's how EVERYTHING LEARNS.  And therefore it is how my dogs are learning and it is how *I* am teaching, whether I choose to think of it that way or not.  So the way I see it, if I accept that that is what is happening and think of it in those terms, it is much easier and I am able to stay much calmer and more patient and work with them more harmoniously.

I think the dichotomy here lies in what we're willing to justify in our own experiences. I used to justify and defend more corrective practices, especially as I was using them myself and thought I needed them. Who knew my dog better than I did, right? And wasn't having a lot of success but felt I was because I was, as I thought, pack leader. Well, I happened to be wrong. I learned more scientific principles, dropped some pride, and stepped into new territory. And now I see Shadow better than before. That's all from my personal perspective. Another's mileage may vary.

You really got me with the part about "who knew my dog better than I did, right?"  I deal with this every day as a trainer.  Even though you give some input in these situations, by explaining what's wrong, you wouldn't necessarily tell your plumber how to fix your toilet, you wouldn't tell your mechanic how to fix your car, you wouldn't tell your doctor how to diagnose your symptoms,  but by golly, everyone knows how to train their own darn dog!!!!  You would not believe the number of times people say BUT... to me, and then repeat what they have been doing.  I ask them if it has been working, and they say, well, no....  but then, when I suggest something else, they can't believe THAT would work. Oy.

So, hats off to you.  Not for being "wrong" - you weren't so much wrong as you were simply on a journey of learning:-)  I expect you'll keep that up.

Click - chocolate.  Again. 

spiritdogs

You really got me with the part about "who knew my dog better than I did, right?"  I deal with this every day as a trainer.  Even though you give some input in these situations, by explaining what's wrong, you wouldn't necessarily tell your plumber how to fix your toilet, you wouldn't tell your mechanic how to fix your car, you wouldn't tell your doctor how to diagnose your symptoms,  but by golly, everyone knows how to train their own darn dog!!!! 

Well my toilet doesn't have its own personality and nor does my car.  And I think I would get just as sniffy with people if they told me how to raise William.  Suggest something that might work and tell me what I'm ALREADY doing right and how I can expand on that into problem areas and I'll probably go with it and be successful.  It's all in the approach.  A more R+ based approach works better with people too, not just dogs.  Again, I hold my driving lessons up as an example.

ron2

I used to justify and defend more corrective practices, especially as I was using them myself and thought I needed them. Who knew my dog better than I did, right? And wasn't having a lot of success but felt I was because I was, as I thought, pack leader. Well, I happened to be wrong. I learned more scientific principles, dropped some pride, and stepped into new territory. And now I see Shadow better than before. That's all from my personal perspective.

That's really great. I'm glad you found what works for you. I can say pretty much the same thing. I used to justify more reward-based and negotiations practices with my dogs. I wasn't very successful either. I thought, though, that I was doing the best thing for my dogs and our relationship. I won't say I was "wrong", it just didn't work for us. I learned more about communicating with dogs on a different level, dropped some preconceived negative ideas about correction, punishment and pack-orientation, and since then, it has been a whole new and wonderful world. I see my dogs differently than before and there's a lot more respect and understanding both ways.

So, I fully believe your journey to where you are now is the best thing for you and Shadow and that everything is as it should be.