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

FourIsCompany

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.  

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

spiritdogs

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.

And I would count myself as one of those people. All the talk about clickers and positive first training, even though I was using lure/reward training in addition to corrections, sounded like blah, blah, too. And, initially, I couldn't see how clickers could work that well or that reward methods could diminish or change "wrong" behavior. Then Chuffy made a point about how dogs escalate, especially during extinction, because they tend to follow the more is better path. And why couldn't this tendency be used in training, not just something to put up with? That was a lightbulb. And so, I thought, what the heck. Try a clicker. If it doesn't work, then I have some actual experience to speak from. At the same time, I wasn't going to just click and throw a few treats and expect a heel (though that's kinda what I got). I resolved to give it a most earnest try. And I had a few missteps. And rather than think that the system was faulty, I re-examined what I did and changed the procedure to what it should have been, as I had made yet another mistake.

So the first official exercise was touch. In 3 clicks it was solid. I tried to do touch at a distance but he kept following me close to my hand and, as you pointed out, I had created a heel. Through the practice of clicker training and more in-depth study and thought, I have learned more about learning theory and OC and see it in the practice of clicker training immediately and easily. And will continue to do so.  I have a personality flaw in that I don't know everything and will always admit to being wrong or mistaken. Even the recent thread about the Jean's video was a learning experience.

I have a tendency to not do what doesn't work. And so I hope others can have patience with me when I am not convinced of the need or use of extensive corrections or punishments. Because I have already tried some. But again, others may have different mileage per gallon.

 

corgipower

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

 

I'm not sure what ron2 meant when he said that, but I meant justify them to myself. Rationalize or explain them to myself. Back then, I wasn't even talking to anyone else about such things, I was on my own. So it wasn't about defending them to someone else, but telling myself that I was doing it this way for the dog's well-being.

Just to be clear.

Edited to add: Maybe the fact that I felt I had to justify my position, if only to myself, should have been a clue that something was out of integrity with what I was doing. Perhaps that's why ron justified and defended his methods too... These days, I don't feel I have to justify them to anyone. It feels so right and works so well, that I don't have to defend my dealings with my dogs.
 

I don't know what we're even talking about anymore. But to add my 2 cents, for me training with positive methods is about acknowledging that my dog can not speak English and needs to be taught if we are ever to have a) a decent relationship and b) the ability to live in harmony. It's a two-way street, because in learning what drives my dog and what she will work for, I learn about her as an individual and what she wants and what she needs and she learns how to make herself understood by me. I hope. Because I have a scientific mind, the way animals learn is extraordinarily important to the way I behave and the methods I use around my dog. As a zoologist, I ALWAYS want to know why an animal behaves the way it does, and when I start learning about something, I always want to follow it back to its simplest, most basic roots, and with animals, that always comes back to evolution and learning. That's me. However, I have little interest in knowing why computer programs work the way they do. I just want them to do what I envision them doing. Different thing because they're not alive, but I pretty much only care about things that are alive. I can see how for some people they just can't be bothered with the basic roots of things, just as I can't be bothered with things that aren't alive. That's fine. Everyone is different. Me, I'm like houndlove and know no other way of thinking and learning than to discover what's at the root of it all.

corvus

I can see how for some people they just can't be bothered with the basic roots of things

 

Is that what you think of people who don't feel the same way as you do about it? That they "just can't be bothered"?

corvus

I'm like houndlove and know no other way of thinking and learning than to discover what's at the root of it all.

I agree with that statement. But it's just that we have a different opinion as to what "the root of it all" means. To me, the science behind my dog's brain is less important than other aspects of his being. Now, there's nothing wrong with preferring the science. It's just not what interests everyone.

corvus

It's a two-way street, because in learning what drives my dog and what she will work for, I learn about her as an individual and what she wants and what she needs and she learns how to make herself understood by me.

All of this is true for me as well. We just have a different way of learning what drives our dogs.

I do wish people of the more scientific nature (when dealing with dogs) could better understand and accept (if not agree with) those of the more spiritual nature (when dealing with dogs) AND vice versa. I think that's what it all comes down to. And interestingly, I'm an atheist. I love science, but in dealing with my dogs, the spiritual element is MUCH more a part of our relationship (and hence, much more important to me) than the scientific.

I understand that you (and others) have a scientific mind and that this aspect of human/animal relations is what you're drawn to, what you relate to and what's important to you... and I think it's great. I wonder why it is, then, that people who have more spiritual inclinations as regards the human/animal realm are many times considered to be wrong, mistaken, prideful, doing what doesn't work, can't be bothered and all these negative conclusions.

(Yeah, I know it isn't blatantly said, but I'm not a dummy. I can read between these lines.)

And yeah, I'm not sure what this discussion is about any more other than the same old right/wrong dichotomy...  

One more point.

The scientific and the spiritual aspects of human/animal behavioral interactions are equally valid as they are both based on observation and results. There's stimulation, results and observation.

We're putting in a concrete patio. This morning, my husband (who doesn't actively participate in training the dogs) came in to me just beaming, saying how good these dogs are. He told me that he had opened the "big gate" which leads out into the world, to bring in the trailer for hauling bricks. He told the dogs (the Shepherds) to "Stay" and they did. He had to open the car-size gate wide and then do some maneuvering out there, all the while, the dogs sat inside the yard patiently and watched. After he entered the yard, he was so proud and praised them and just HAD to come in and tell me about it.

Interesting thing, neither one of us has ever taught them that command. He thought I had. But I have never used that word with them. They don't know that command.

corvus: Me, I'm like houndlove and know no other way of thinking and learning than to discover what's at the root of it all.

just what is at the root of it all?

Smokey is just too cute.

 

content deleted - TOS violation (again)

Edited by myself for referencing deleted material.

content deleted - another TOS violation - please remain on topic on topic on topic on topic

Regarding Operant Conditioning:

Chuffy

... It's how EVERYTHING LEARNS.

 

This is, I believe, where we part ways. OC is one theory, at one point in history, for how we believe learning occurs. Funny thing about theories, is how they bear out over the test of time, in a variety of circumstances.

I don't doubt, at this moment, that much of what OC offers is extremely useful. I'm just not willing to put all my eggs in one theoretical basket.

It seems to me that some of the most vocal champions of "positive only" are folks who report having been fooled in the past, to use abusive methods that were once the common and popular way. The wonderful lesson that I get from that is not that OC is the grail, but that failing to be suspicious of any theoretical set is a recipe for disappointment.

Science disproves "proven" assumptions daily. Philosophy challenges yesterday's beliefs. As a species, we will have new information about the daily rising and setting of the sun ... we will have countless versions of countless stories concerning how long this has been happening, why it happens and whether or not it happens elsewhere.

We know so little about how living organisms function. Various stories, from folk wisdom, to intuition, to science give us clues to guess, but that's really as good as it gets. We tell ourselves these stories, then see if they do or don't pan out to seem more or less accurate.

In short, I don't believe we know how everything learns, but bless us for our efforts in trying to understand. 

OC is not the only way that things learn. It's one way. But in that one way, what it does is applicable to all creatures with a central nervous system. But I don't think anyone has ever meant to say that it's the only way that things learn.  I know sometimes in shorthand it comes out like that, but I think we're all aware that there are several different theories that posit schema for learning in living organisms. Even if you're 100% clicker training, your still using more than operant conditioning. Loading the clicker involves classical (Pavolvian) conditioning.

Though much of the time people when they say they aren't using OC, they clearly are. They're just calling it different stuff.  

Ixas_girl

OC is one theory, at one point in history, for how we believe learning occurs.

Excellent observation. Learning theory has supplanted the previous wolf model theories that were shown to be inaccurate for both wolves and dogs. (See L. David Mech, the Coppingers, etc., people that have made well-documented observations using agreed upon terms and language.) An unforeseen development in analysis of the learning behavior of organisms could happen, theoretically. So, I wouldn't reject science just yet simply because it has advanced and take that as a sign of imperfection. And when I say I was wrong before, it doesn't necessarily mean that I am wrong now. I, too, as an organism, can learn. Being wrong in the past does not necessarily predict being wrong in the future, though it's a possibility. The learning theory as it stands is separate from my human failings. That is, my admission of human failings does not mean the learning theory is wrong. If someone were to pose a theory that dogs can read our minds, they would certainly be welcome to provide proof of that theory in evidence that can be agreed upon. I suppose, too, that I haven't, in my limited experience, seen evidence that learning theory and the process of OC is wrong and plenty that it is right. OC does include the use of punishment and the conditions of it's effectiveness, though I might stipulate that I don't know enough to say how effective a punishment will be. That depends on the dog, the timing, the intensity. Simplistically, OC is a language to describe what we are doing in training and in how an animal learns. It is the best we have until any better scientific explanation or understanding comes along. Granted, some are confused by scientific terms, but that does not limit the usefulness of such. Approximation can be found in the phrase, dogs do what works.

FourIsCompany

One more point.

The scientific and the spiritual aspects of human/animal behavioral interactions are equally valid as they are both based on observation and results. There's stimulation, results and observation.

We're putting in a concrete patio. This morning, my husband (who doesn't actively participate in training the dogs) came in to me just beaming, saying how good these dogs are. He told me that he had opened the "big gate" which leads out into the world, to bring in the trailer for hauling bricks. He told the dogs (the Shepherds) to "Stay" and they did. He had to open the car-size gate wide and then do some maneuvering out there, all the while, the dogs sat inside the yard patiently and watched. After he entered the yard, he was so proud and praised them and just HAD to come in and tell me about it.

Interesting thing, neither one of us has ever taught them that command. He thought I had. But I have never used that word with them. They don't know that command.

 

That's all very nice, but it could just be that they prefer to be with their human than somewhere else, GSD's being what they are.  Whether they actually obeyed a command is up for debate IMO, even though they appeared to "stay".   *content removed*.

As to the previous point about science versus spiritual, I don't think they are mutually exclusive.  I have an extremely spiritual relationship with my dogs, and have always, but I think that it occurs on a different plane than some of our other forms of communication.  Scientific people are not aspiritual as an imperative - some are, some aren't.  I don't think that being spiritual makes you a positive trainer, or that being aspiritual makes you a non-positive trainer, or vice versa.