The Training/Behavior "Chatter" Thread

Liesje

I'd like to hear the answers. I use my hands for everything!  There's not a single command I have that doesn't have a hand signal (sit, down, wait, drop, up, off, paws, jump, paw, come, here, front sit, OK!, go fetch, right finish, left finish, left turn, get back, stand, heel...heck even my verbal "eh eh" has an accompanying hand signal). I can't imagine not using my hands....

A guy we boat w/ who has a black lab and is soooo well trained told us when training Misty we should always use a hand command with the vocal.  This is his reasoning:  If for instance, you are in a room, the dog walks in but you don't want him to come any further, you hold up your hand (like "stop", something a crossing guard would use), that way if the dog can't hear you, or you don't want to cut into someone's conversation, etc, the dog will see you and your hand gesture and "stay".  I found this very interesting and very useful.  Although, I don't always use my hands, I'm still learning too, but when I tell Misty to sit and stay at the door (since she was running us over, practically) I do hold my hand up in her face for the "stay" part.  I also noticed, that sometimes I'll tell her "stay" when I'm going upstairs and know I'll be right back down (she has to follow you everywhere), she'll hesitate, but as soon as my backs turned, she'll try to follow, so I'll hold up my hand and say "stay".  Go upstairs, get another cup of coffee, etc. and come down, and she's laying on the floor at the bottom of the stairs.  So, I definitely agree, all commands (if possible) should have a hand command with it.

FourIsCompany

What about flooding vs desensitization?

FourIsCompany

Yeah, I'm starting to see that. I would consider about maybe 2% of my touches involve physical corrections such as you've described. The rest is guiding, grooming and loving. I noticed today (with this thread in my mind) that my dogs come to my hands. In other words, if I hold out my hand, they will come up to it. Not sniffing or with their nose, even, they just come up and contact with the side of their face or neck.

Mine do that too. I specifically taught them to target my hand by bumping it with their nose to the "touch" command, so if I hold my hand down with the palm facing one of the dogs, they'll come up and stick their nose in it. But in addition, which I never actually taught, if I hold out both hands and wiggle my fingers they come running over for some loves. Somehow, it's become an alternate "come" signal, particularly for petting and affection.
 

Janet808

Ok, what is this?  I have no idea.  Help, please.

Flooding and desensitization are 2 different methods of exposure. The idea being that if a dog is afraid of something, you expose him to it to rid him of the fear. (Not just dogs, but since that's what we're talking about here...)

Flooding is really forcing a dog to be in the presence of the fear stimulus and "flooding" him with it so that he realizes that it's not something to fear.

Desensitization is exposing him to the stimulus a little at a time over a period of time, increasing the level of exposure, so that he gets used to being in the presence of it and eventually is not afraid of it anymore.

There's advantages and disadvantages to both.

Flooding happens quickly and if it works, the dog gets over his fear quickly. Cesar Millan used flooding in the episode where the Great Dane was afraid of slippery floors. I don't know if you saw that or not. It's the 9th one down in the CM Video Links thread. But he forced the dog to walk on the floor and just stood with him until the dog became calm and then moved a little more and a little more until the dog was walking on the floor just fine. It worked great for that problem.The disadvantage is that it might not work and the dog is now more afraid than ever of the stimulus.

Desensitization is slower and doesn't cause as much immediate stress, but the dog goes through however many "sessions" he needs carrying the fear with him into every one.

So if a dog was afraid of the vet, to flood it, you would just take him into the vet's office and stay there all day and "move through" the fear with the dog, until, at the end of the day, he's walking around taking treats from the people and so on because he has "realized" there's nothing to be afraid of. To desensitize it, you would drive first into the vet's parking lot but not get out of the car. Next day, do that again, but open the door to the car and close it several times. Next day, get out of the car, but leave the dog inside... And so on. Until you're finally taking him all the way in, one step at a time.

Cassidys Mom

But in addition, which I never actually taught, if I hold out both hands and wiggle my fingers they come running over for some loves. Somehow, it's become an alternate "come" signal, particularly for petting and affection.

I'm glad you said that! That's how I teach my dogs almost everything they know. There is no plan and no steps, but in the end, they know exactly what I want them to do.

I think "hands-off" teaching, as a term, has backfired, for a good part, in the clicker circles. For a long time there is the mention of "hands off" teaching using a clicker, and the intention behind it was good! But what resulted, was a group of people who thought that meant 'no touching' at all, and as a result they created dogs that were not used to being handled and became anxious, fearful, or aggressive when hands WERE used! This of course led to the (wrong) assumption that clickers caused dogs to become aggressive, fearful, (insert word here), when it simply was a miscommunication and lack of though on the part of some teachers to explain why "touch" was still so important, and to distinguish between touching in teaching, and touching as a part of life.

The term "hands off" teaching is meant to imply that you aren't using your hands to teach an animal directly. It usually is used only in reference to physically moving the dog around with your hands, but it has evolved to include more things than that.

I use my hands all the time with dogs. I do massage, I do rubs, I reward with my hands, I play with them with hands, I have hand signals......I just don't use my hands to physically situate my dogs in a certain position. Correction, for purposes of restraint, yes I obviously use my hands to hold a dog. I don't use my hands or a leash to physically situate dogs as a teaching tool.

Firstly, it is in my experience that dogs who are actively engaged in their own learning (by doing the behaviour themselves, rather than being placed in the position) learn faster, retain what they've learned much longer, and develop overall creativity in "learning how to learn". There is nothing inherently "wrong" in using your hands to place a dog, but I have found that dogs who learn this way are much less invested in the learning itself, and you don't get that "lightbulb moment" of understanding. So it's not bad, I just choose not to work that way, and I find it much less effective.

One tiny quibble to make, and that is about the concept of desensitization. FIC said:

FourIsCompany

Desensitization is slower and doesn't cause as much immediate stress, but the dog goes through however many "sessions" he needs carrying the fear with him into every one.

The dog doesn't "carry" fear into every situation he enters. If that was the case, desensitization wouldn't work. The whole concept behind desensitization is that you never put the dog above threshold, you always work WITH the dog, at its own pace, under threshold, at a distance from the stimulus that is required. Your example was a good one, but the dog wouldn't be "carrying" the fear each time, as the dog is never put into position that causes fear, as by the time you get to the next step, it's no longer scary to the dog. It's being ahead of the game and preventing fear. That's the process of desensitization in a nutshell. If you pushed the dog too fast, then fear would occur, but if do it well, the dog should not experience fear through the entire process. The key to well-executed desensitization is that in between sessions, the dog is not exposed at all to what it fears, so that your work isn't hindered in the process. This can be very difficult for some problems, which can indeed bring about fear.

The other thing, is that desensitization doesn't have to be slow. Oftentimes you hear the term used for extreme problems, so it is a slower process, but desensitization can also be quite rapid, when executed properly, depending on the issue you are working on desensitizing.

The term "hands off" teaching is meant to imply that you aren't using your hands to teach an animal directly. It usually is used only in reference to physically moving the dog around with your hands, but it has evolved to include more things than that.

I use my hands all the time with dogs. I do massage, I do rubs, I reward with my hands, I play with them with hands, I have hand signals......I just don't use my hands to physically situate my dogs in a certain position. Correction, for purposes of restraint, yes I obviously use my hands to hold a dog. I don't use my hands or a leash to physically situate dogs as a teaching tool.

That's how I understand the term and how I've always used it. I can see how it could be interpreted differently though, as you point out, which is why discussions such as this one are important. I touch my dogs constantly too, who wouldn't?   They are so sweet, social, and affectionate, with such soft fluffy coats that they are a people magnet - even to people who don't know and love them like we do, lol!

Firstly, it is in my experience that dogs who are actively engaged in their own learning (by doing the behaviour themselves, rather than being placed in the position) learn faster, retain what they've learned much longer, and develop overall creativity in "learning how to learn". There is nothing inherently "wrong" in using your hands to place a dog, but I have found that dogs who learn this way are much less invested in the learning itself, and you don't get that "lightbulb moment" of understanding. So it's not bad, I just choose not to work that way, and I find it much less effective.

I totally agree.  

Thanks Kim and Cassidy's for talking about "hands-off". Having never discussed much about dog psychology and training with other people before, I was a bit confused, to say the least, that people seemed to be encouraging not touching their dogs... Granted, I do touch for more than affection, but I really was under the impression that some people were virtually tying their hands behind their backs or touching only the leash, collar or other "tools" when training and dealing with their dogs. 

I agree it's important to have these discussions and also to use words that mean exactly what we want to say. Not for those who are accustomed to discussing these concepts, but for those of us   who aren't, and those who are just reading.

I understand what you're saying, Kim, about desensitization, but how can a dog be exposed to the stimulus without facing the fear, even if a little bit? I know that with my "Jaia and the vet" example, when we turned into the street that the vet's driveway was on, he began to show signs of  apprehension. If I were to stop before he showed these signs, then we'd never been able to get closer... I guess it depends on what you define as the "threshold", but I don't understand how there could be advancement if I pulled over and stopped before turning onto the street.

I'm also interested in an example (if you have one) of desensitization that would be faster than flooding under the same circumstances.

Thank you.  

I understand what you're saying, Kim, about desensitization, but how can a dog be exposed to the stimulus without facing the fear, even if a little bit? I know that with my "Jaia and the vet" example, when we turned into the street that the vet's driveway was on, he began to show signs of  apprehension. If I were to stop before he showed these signs, then we'd never been able to get closer... I guess it depends on what you define as the "threshold", but I don't understand how there could be advancement if I pulled over and stopped before turning onto the street.

The point is to introduce the dog to the scary stimulus at a distance that he can tolerate.  Think of it this way - some people are deathly afraid of snakes.  Isn't a snake very scary if you are six inches from it, as opposed to six feet from it, as opposed to sixty feet from it, or if it's on TV?  So, we get the dog to see the thing, but not at a distance which makes him so anxious that he cannot eat a treat.

Your analogy of the vet visit is correct - you would not get closer.  However, what if, in spite of his apprehension, you went to the vet without getting him treated?  How about going there every day for a month?  All that happens when the dog walks in is that he gets a treat from the receptionist and gets to leave.  Maybe after many, many "safe" visits, he would be less likely to fear the one where he actually has to go in and get the rabies shot.  This is a suggestion I make to all my puppy class participants, so that they establish, early on, that the vet's office is a GOOD place to go.
 

Just to give a concrete example of desensitization as it shakes out with a real dog....Conrad is fearful of other dogs while on leash. But that doesn't mean he's fearful of every dog he sees no matter how far, no matter what size the other dog is, no matter whether the other dog is on leash or not. He actually has little to no problem with seeing other dogs if they're over about 20-30 yards away. His body posture doesn't begin to change until the other dog starts closing that distance. His fear isn't really of the thing itself, it's of close proximity to that thing, or of that thing actively approaching him. The very existence of other dogs doesn't bother him. It's when they start to look like they're about to invade his (rather considerable at this point) personal space that he's got a problem. Kids are the same way. We can walk past a playground full of shrieking children running around and he's got no problem. It's situations where he's forced to interact in close proximity with shrieking running children that he's got an issue.

Another thing that comes in to play with desensitization that I've noticed (though this I've never really read or heard talked about) is preseverating on the stimulus, and breaking that cycle.  Just like someone with a phobia can work themselves up in to a complete lather by preseverating on what they are afraid of, to the point of absolute panic, even in a situation where the stimulus isn't close enough to really be threatening, OR their friend or therapist can help them to stop that cycle of obsessing over it and they can get a little bit closer to the stimulus than they otherwise would. I have found that with Conrad, if I allow him to "lock on" to the stimulus the distance at which we can work is much farther than if I take an active role in interrupting his train of thought early on, not allowing him to work up an obsessive fearful thought process, give him something else to do and something else to think about, he can work at much closer distances. That doesn't mean I demand 100% focus and attention on me rather than the stimulus so he's essentially learned to ignore it because being able to ignore is not really what I'm after so much as being able to work through the fear and get the experience that shows him that there's actually nothing to fear from those situations.  I give him his hand-target command, which is just a momentary thing--he gives a quick touch of his nose to my open palm, and then he's free to go back to what he was doing. I use it to help him check back in to reality every few moments, to keep him from developing an obsessive anxiety. Between those check-ins, he's free to have a look at the other dog, which I feel is important after hearing Leslie McDevitt speak about how reactivity is an information-seeking behavior, and we should allow our reactive dogs to get the information they need and not require them to drill holes in us with their eyes every time we come across the stimulus. But the trick right now for us still is for me to break the thought process with the target command very early on when we first see the stimulus. If I can do that, we can usually walk right by at a pretty close distance with not much problem--and Conrad's body language is not barely-contained-fear, it's curiosity about the stimulus and enthusiasm for performing the targeting command I give him every few steps. If I'm not paying attention and he gets a chance to start staring and posturing before I start calling him back down to Earth, it's a lot more difficult and we have to move further away so he can work at a distance where he's not fearful.

 Anyway, 4IC, I'd really encourage you to read the book Control Unleashed by Leslie McDevitt because she's got a really amazing understanding of fearful and reactive dogs. Even if you don't have a fearful or reactive dog, there is something in that book for everyone. I feel that it really bridges "dog psychology" with clicker training and I think you'd appreciate her really intuitive grasp of the emotional states of dogs.
 

Maybe I wasn't clear. The story of Jaia at the vet is true, not an analogy. We did go through desensitization, and he will go in now without a problem.

My point is that on some level, he had to "face the fear", even a little. Even if you're 60 feet away from the snake, there is some level of fear. Yes, it's lower than being 6 feet away and I guess that's what's meant by "threshold". At 60 feet, the fear is still present, but if you passed a truffle in front of my nose, I would take it. At 6 feet, well, I still would, but that's beside the point.

You said:

spiritdogs

So, we get the dog to see the thing, but not at a distance which makes him so anxious that he cannot eat a treat.

This is why I said I was successful with a combination of flooding and desensitization. There were times during our experience that he wouldn't take a treat (chicken OR a McDonald's cheeseburger!). I assume that means I was "past the threshold".  But as I sat there and didn't move back INTO his comfort zone, he decided maybe just a little cheeseburger would be all right. And as we spent more time over the threshold, his comfort zone expanded to accept the new situation.

I guess each situation would require the person to know their dog and know how to advance. But if we had stayed completely outside the "fear area", I don't know how we would have advanced. Some amount of anxiety is going to happen. I pushed it, but not to the point where he freaked out. It's all a matter of being able to recognize the threshold, I guess...

To me, if the idea of desensitization is to never have to approach the fear, and the idea of flooding is to face the fear head on, I'm leaning a little toward flooding and here's why. It seems that it gives the dog confidence of having faced something scary and made it through himself AND makes him stronger to face future scary things AND he gets the experience of me protecting him, even though things were scary. If a dog never has to deal with fear and doesn't get that experience of conquering something, it seems to me that the next strange thing he comes up against will be more likely to cause fear than curiosity.

I'm not a psychologist or anything, those are just my thoughts.

I hate spiders. I wouldn't call it a phobia exactly, but I get pretty freaky. When my husband took a job in another state for 1.5 years, I was left here most of the time to deal with them on my own. And HAVING to face it and deal with it took a lot of the "power" away. Now I even capture them and take them outside to release them as he has always done. (Not that we have a lot of spiders, but we do live in an area of the country that has some pretty hideous, large, creepy ones.)  

houndlove, I do plan on reading that book.  

I have a question...is this flooding?

At our old house, we lived literally...blocks from a Baseball stadium. As stadiums do...they shot off fireworks almost every game for some reason or another....and on the appointed holidays. Now many dogs are TERRIFIED of fireworks...but all the dogs we had at that house...slept thru them/ignored them. This would be because I figured...it was a normal everyday sound to them within a few weeks...they literally could NOT remain afraid because it simply happened too often.

I didn't actively do anything...it was just a part of their environment like cars passing by...pups were born into it and often heard it within the first 3-6 weeks of life.

Was that a flooding scenario?

 I'd say for the pups who were born at your house, that's a great example of socializing puppies to things that, if they were not exposed to them at an early age, might develop in to fears as adults.

Okay, that makes sense...but for dogs I purchased as adults that came in and just basically had to learn to deal with it....was that more a learned behavior?

It was interesting to watch them because they'd get startled...and run around looking for cover...and when none of the other dogs cared or "attended" them in their fear they really just didn't know what to do...LOL! Within a week or two they'd be settled...it was very interesting.

I don't think it's flooding unless you are intentionally exposing the dog to something it has already developed a fear of.  In your case, it sounds like the adults startle, and then recover as they are desensitized.  It doesn't sound like they had already developed fear of fireworks. 

Kenya sometimes startles at loud noises, so every once in a while I drop a large book on the ground or bump something.  I call that desensitization because she recovers very quickly and I don't have to repeat this over and over.  Now, I can throw a soda can filled with coins right at her face and she barely flinches.  However, Kenya has developed a pretty ingrained fear of large men.  Her reaction to them is more than just startling at the initial noise/movement, she has conditioned, fearful responses that will get worse before they get better if she's forced to interact with a man that makes her uncomfortable.  Therefore, if I were to tether her and have a bunch of men approach her, I'd call that flooding. 

Just want to say, I'm LOVING this thread.  Keep up the good work everyone!!!!