The Training/Behavior "Chatter" Thread

FourIsCompany

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.

I'm not sure desensitization is ever faster than flooding, but I agree, at some level they DO need to face the fear or you can't possibly get past it. But as others have described, that's done gradually, starting at a distance the dog can handle, which sound like exactly what you did with J'aia and the vet's office. In your example of the snake, if you experienced some trepidation at 60 feet, but stayed at that distance for some time (eating truffles!) you would eventually start to relax and realize that you were in no danger. At that point, you could move closer, probably again experiencing some initial fear, but then start to relax, particularly if every time you saw a snake it was paired with a high-value treat such as truffles, or a really fun game that you loved to play. And so on. Flooding would be where you were physically forced to face your fear of snakes by being led right up to one, up close and personal. Maybe you'd get over your fear or maybe you'd flip out in sheer terror, but in any case, how would you feel about the trusted friend who put you in that situation? It's this potential damage to the relationship that's the reason many people don't much like the technique.

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 don't consider this flooding. You pushed him slightly past his threshold, but then you stopped there and worked through it. That's classic desensitization. As long as you know your dog, and it sounds like you do, you can tell when it's too much and when you're pushing his limits just enough for learning to take place. Whether you moved faster or slower than someone else might have in a similar situation is immaterial - what you did was move his threshold and expand his comfort zone, and that's the ultimate goal!

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...

Exactly! You must be attuned to your dog.

I'm talking about touching or guiding him. It can be as light as a few fingers touching the top of his head to a palm placed on the side of his rear or neck to indicate a move to one side or the other. I'm constantly touching my dogs.

maybe it's because we do agility (you get eliminated if you touch the dog on course) and play at rally (can't touch the dog there either), but this seems very foreign to me- I "guide" them with my feet and shoulders, which can be done from quite a distance away from the dog. To each his own.

Flooding: any human members undergone this and have some thoughts? I'm afraid of heights, and a few well-meaning folks have tried to "flood" that out of me and now I'm afraid of heights. And don't speak to those people.

I saw that poor great dane being roughly man-handled by CM in that episode and almost cried. Replacing one rationale fear (great dane falls down on slippery floor great dane gets badly hurt) with terrror of one person hardly seems like a good idea- why can't they just put a runner down over the floor for the poor dog?  and, as is always my question, how do we know it worked? they never go back six months later and show us that in CM's absence the dog has been and remained "cured" of whatever.

FourIsCompany

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. 

Actually, touching the leash, collar, or other tools wouldn't really be hands off as far as I'm concerned because you're still attached to each other by a leash. Earlier you mentioned using body blocks, which I do consider hands off if used instead of physically holding the dog back by a leash or with a hand through the collar. Others may disagree with me on these two points, but that's how I see it. 

rwbeagles

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 agree with houndlove and Liesje, your dogs raised from puppies were socialized to the sound from a young age, which desensitized them. The adults are taking their cue from your other dogs, who no longer react to loud noises, so I'd say that's learned behavior. What would be really interesting is to see what would happen if you purchased an adult who was already sensitive to loud noises - how long would it take for them to learn from the rest of the dogs in the household?

Cassidys Mom

FourIsCompany

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. 

Actually, touching the leash, collar, or other tools wouldn't really be hands off as far as I'm concerned because you're still attached to each other by a leash. Earlier you mentioned using body blocks, which I do consider hands off if used instead of physically holding the dog back by a leash or with a hand through the collar. Others may disagree with me on these two points, but that's how I see it. 

I agree, maybe not about body blocking (I'd have to think more about it and how I use it), but to me, leashes, collars, tools...are still extensions of hands and are "hands on".  When I say I train "hands-off" and by "luring", I mean at no time am I ever touching the dog or guiding with a leash.  For me, when a leash is involved, it's no longer luring.  Without the leash, the dog is following my hand and taking cues from my hands, but the dog is offering the movement/behavior as I lure, I am exerting NO physical force, either directly or with a tool, to get the dog to do what I want.  I know a lot of people use leashes to guide the dog when training right and left finishes.  Interestingly, I tried that with both of my dogs and we got no where.  They both pull against the lead and never catch on to what we are doing.  Both were taught right and left finishes just with hand luring in just a few sessions.  The only thing we are "hands on" with right now is Coke's recalls outdoors.  We have to reel him in with a leash because he is not trustworthy enough to reliably follow a lure.

I don't put my hands behind my back, nor do I use leashes and collars for most training. 

mudpuppy

I saw that poor great dane being roughly man-handled by CM in that episode and almost cried. Replacing one rationale fear (great dane falls down on slippery floor great dane gets badly hurt) with terrror of one person hardly seems like a good idea- why can't they just put a runner down over the floor for the poor dog?  and, as is always my question, how do we know it worked? they never go back six months later and show us that in CM's absence the dog has been and remained "cured" of whatever.

I'm not agreeing with the technique, but they did actually go back to this Dane.  If I remember correctly, the Dane was early in season one and I think they went back in season two and showed the Dane going to the school for some event (a birthday?). Maybe it was even season three.  I don't get the channel so I download an entire season at once and watch it for a few days.

FourIsCompany

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

I'm not sure that desensitization would ever be faster than flooding. I simply meant that desensitization can occur very quickly, depending on what you're working on, and depending on the dog. :-) At least I don't think I made the claim that it would be faster, as I do think that flooding, if it works, will result in quicker change yes. An example of a situation in which desensitization can be used quickly - I know somebody who, when they introduced their dog to a clicker, the dog freaked. Whale eye, ears back, ran out of the room in fear. Because the noise was so sudden (and likely close to the dog's ears, as they do have such sensitive hearing), the dog was initially fearful of it. Simply repeating loud clicks (which would be flooding) was not working, so they used a desensitization process in which they put layers of tape on the clicker to muffle the sound, until the sound was not scary to the dog. With each click they removed one layer of tape, each time, watching the dog's reaction. The sound got ever so slightly louder each click, but it was so gradual, so that by the end of just one session (a matter of minutes) the clicker was being used at full strength and the dog was fine forever after. It's an example of desensitization being used that works very quickly. Gaci's desensitization to cars driving by (and not chasing) only took three-four days, and she never looked back. That is very quick by desensitization means.

I'm sure the fear is ever present, and the dog is aware of the stimulus (sometimes, if it is in view), but the point I was trying to get at is that the dog can be aware of the stimulus,. even see it, and not be in fear of it. Once you finish a step in the process, at the end of it the dog is not only "not bothered" but the dog is looking for more. So you give the dog more, and move to the next step, and see how the dog reacts. You learn to gauge a dog's level of fear by its behaviour, and when one lives with an inherently fearful dog you learn to really be able to understand their signals, as an individual dog (Gaci and Shimmer will display different signs to know when they are uncomfortable, yet both of their issues are fear-based). If Gaci is working with me, tail up (stump), observing her surroundings but not staring, ears forward, with her normal happy expression, I know she's not in fear. If she is staring/focused, tense, freezing - those are extreme signs, I know we've gone too far. If she is panting, looking at something then back at me, showin some white eye, has flitting attention (from me to environement, back to me then back to environment), and has trouble responding to me adequately (for things that she knows very well), then she is not over threshold yet but is uncomfortable, and she is doing her best to communicate that to me. Of course there are many ranges in between, there aren't three concrete "levels", so I am always cognizant of what she is doing an how she is reacting in different situations. For purposes of desensitization, even though she might know the stimulus is there, the goal is to always keep her in the "happy" range, and not the "intermediate" or "over threshold" range. So she might see the stimulus, and of course she knows that if it comes closer it becomes fearful, but at that distance it provides no fear for her, so you work on lessening the distance in a manner in which the stimulus never actually becomes fear-illiciting. That's the core of desensitization.

Now, I'm not saying there may never be a place for flooding, there may be, and I'm not saying I would never ever do it (although I lean more to that end than the other) but because it's a crapshoot no matter how "rightly" it's done, it's a very risky procedure to do, which is why I opt for the one with a better track record. It can work well for some dogs, and it can go horribly wrong, there is no way of knowing until it's too late unfortunately. So when working with an already messed up dog, the last thing I would want to risk is a dog that is more messed up, and who has lost its trust in me.

We do have to use the terms carefully here to keep the proper meaning of the word, as they are both specific procedures that are effortfully performed, in an attempt to change a behaviour. So a thunderstorm is not a flooding procedure as you have no control over it. In order for it to be flooding, you would have to have the dog in the thunder until it stops reacting (whether the dog stops being fearful or it becomes helpless is determined by the dog, or whether the dog still remains fearful and the fear just doesn't go away, or it may sensitize), and only end the thunder (or fireworks) when the dog has stopped reacting, and then repeat again in the future. Because you don't control them, they can't be considered true flooding procedures, even if the dog is apparently being "flooded" with the stimulus, which it very well may be. But in order for it to be used as a behaviour modification tool as classically defined, it has to have a beginning and end that is controlled by the human.

Cassidys Mom

Flooding would be where you were physically forced to face your fear of snakes by being led right up to one, up close and personal. Maybe you'd get over your fear or maybe you'd flip out in sheer terror, but in any case, how would you feel about the trusted friend who put you in that situation? It's this potential damage to the relationship that's the reason many people don't much like the technique.

We, as humans are autonomous. If someone "surprised" me with a box full of tarantulas in front of my face, I would hate them. But if I said to my friend, "You know, I really want to get over my fear of spiders. Would you help me by standing by my side while I am exposed to them so I can get over this irrational fear"? Then I wouldn't be mad at them at all and would be thankful to them for supporting me.

As dog owners, we have to make these decisions for our dogs, just as we decide whether or not to vaccinate them, get surgery on them or put them down with the time comes. They cannot ask us to help them overcome their fears or tell us the method they prefer, nor can we rationalize with them and convince them that they shouldn't be afraid of ceiling fans or slippery floors. So it's up to us to decide. I can understand people not choosing the technique for their own dogs, but to assume that a dog is going to feel the human emotion of betrayal and to ridicule people who have chosen to use the technique of flooding is a bit like thinking that the dog will be angry at me for having his testicles removed and therefore deriding me for doing so... in my opinion. 

Great post, Cassidys Mom! 

mudpuppy

Replacing one rationale fear (great dane falls down on slippery floor great dane gets badly hurt) with terrror of one person hardly seems like a good idea

What indication do you have that Kane, the Great Dane, was terrified of someone? Can you tell me where, in this video, Kane shows that he's afraid of CM?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2588379129552689906 

why can't they just put a runner down over the floor for the poor dog? 

The dog refused to walk on ANY shiny surface, including a wet street. That's an irrational fear.

how do we know it worked? they never go back six months later and show us that in CM's absence the dog has been and remained "cured" of whatever.

This is just inaccurate. They go back all the time. I don't know why people think this, but it's just not true. I watch reruns of this show every day at noon and they nearly  ALWAYS go back after 2 weeks, a month or 3 months to see how they have progressed, advance the training or for people who have the problem recur (because THEY didn't follow through). In Kane's case, 4 days later, the dog was pulling his owner INTO the building with slippery floors when Cesar was nowhere in site. The owner said he had overcome his fear.

And 6 months later:

Follow up: 

"Kane is completely over the whole thing," marvels owner Marina Dahlen, whose dog has marched over many shiny floors since the show taped six months ago. "Cesar just let him know he wasn't going to give up on him."

mudpuppy

I saw that poor great dane being roughly man-handled by CM in that episode and almost cried. Replacing one rationale fear (great dane falls down on slippery floor great dane gets badly hurt) with terrror of one person hardly seems like a good idea- why can't they just put a runner down over the floor for the poor dog?  and, as is always my question, how do we know it worked? they never go back six months later and show us that in CM's absence the dog has been and remained "cured" of whatever.

Actually a couple of weeks ago I caught a CM episode where a dog had a similar problem. The owners had replaced their floors with hardwood and the dog would not walk on them unless there were floor matts down. This dog had not fallen or been injured on the floors, just afraid to walk on them. CM used the same technique and interestingly they went back and showed clips from the Dane episode (which was the first time I had seen it). He then went and visited the Dane and his owner. They took the Dane to the school and showed him walking around with no problems or hesitation.  According to the owner the dog has been successfully rehabilitated. I have seen a few shows now where CM revisits his 'clients'. It's interesting.

I agree w/ Kim regarding flooding.  The things that terrify Kenya...I dunno, maybe I'm a bad dog owner, but I couldn't stand to force her to do those things.  Someone would get bit badly, or she would completely shut down and be damaged (even more so) for good.  Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I just don't see how it could end in a good way.  I understand I need to be in a calm state of mind, but seriously, Kenya is 4 years old and has had 4 years not with me to develop and reinforce her fears.  There's only so much that MY state of mind can overcome when she is truly terrified (I'm talking running like crazy with a tucked tail, peeing or expressing anal glands....not just startling or backing away) of certain people and has been for years.  I don't know anyone that has successfully rehabilitated a dog's fears through flooding and no trainer has ever recommended it to me.  If I'm going to be convinced to basically give my dog a panic attack, then I need someone with me who knows what they are doing.  Until then, we will stick with slow, positive sensitization.  I won't risk my dog's mental health over something that *might* work because it did once on TV.

Cool thread.

I would like to comment on Annes snake analogy.  I am one of those people who can't deal with one on TV.  I've finally reached the point where I don't have to change the channel, I can just shut my eyes or look away.  For years seeing even a glimpse on TV cause dreadful nightmares.  Having some close encounters has been horrificly terrifying for me.  I can deal with knowing that they are in the yard, I even reached the point of being able to deal with them being in the garage....by not going INTO said garage until we got a few good hard freezes.

Once upon a time, a gal I worked with was doing a street fair with me and decided to "flood" me by bringing a boa to meet me.....so I could see how unscary snakes really are.  I took off like a shot and must have looked totally terrorized because the door of the CLOSED diner I beat on opened real fast and they let me in.  I babbled rather incoherently about snake...snake...snake and locked myself in the bathroom.  My  husband was the ONLY person who could convince me that it was safe to come out again.  And, honestly, I was prepared to stay in that bathroom indefinately to avoid having to even see that PET snake.  All that little encounter did was terrorize me MORE.

The slow desensitization over the past two summers has at least allowed me to go outside.  And I've been without a few feet of the danged things without wetting my pants!

Liesje

I dunno, maybe I'm a bad dog owner, but I couldn't stand to force her to do those things. 

I don't even know why it would occur to you to say something like that. You are clearly very concerned for Kenya's welfare and you are a great dog owner (IMO, anyway). Kenya does have some special issues and you're dealing with them the best way you can. I really would love to see what CM would have to say about her. Remember, he assesses each case before deciding on a course of action. And I see her fears as more than the average fear or phobia. I don't think anyone thinks of you as a bad dog owner, though.

I would never try to convince someone to flood their dog. It's really up to each individual. I would suggest it, but I certainly would push it.

Liesje

I won't risk my dog's mental health over something that *might* work because it did once on TV.

Just to be realistic, flooding has a long history of positive outcome. It's not something that just worked once on TV. But yeah, that doesn't mean you should try it, especially if you're uncomfortable with it. I think that's the deciding factor, in fact. Feeling how you do about it, I would say you shouldn't do it.

glenmar

I've finally reached the point where I don't have to change the channel, I can just shut my eyes or look away.

Glenda, I had to laugh at this! When there are bugs on TV, I look away and my husband tells me, "Don't look... don't look... Ewww! ... Don't look... Okay." LOL   

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who has to look away!

On the "hands on" stuff....I'm very hands on with my dogs, but I don't use them for correction.  I'll lay my palm on a hip or shoulder, particularly when someone forgets that I'm not a sheep that needs herding.  I use tons of hand signals as well.  I just don't like poking, prodding, finger "bites" etc.  I personally don't find a need for them, but......

FourIsCompany

Just to be realistic, flooding has a long history of positive outcome. It's not something that just worked once on TV. But yeah, that doesn't mean you should try it, especially if you're uncomfortable with it. I think that's the deciding factor, in fact. Feeling how you do about it, I would say you shouldn't do it.

I think it can work well with humans, but we are better at expressing to other humans when we are at our limits.  I think I have a good relationship with Kenya as far as communication and reading each others' signals, but I'm not sure I could ever claim to have a close enough relationship with any of my animals to say for sure that they are not having a mental breakdown from flooding.  I'm sure I could use it and get her to hold perfectly still in the presence of certain people, rather than run away or air snap at them, but that's not enough for me.  I want her to enjoy other people, or at the very least be apathetic.  I don't want her to have to submit.  I don't want to replace the fear of the thing with the fear of being punished by reacting to the thing.  I have seen dogs react to certain things so severely that I have sometimes thought, "maybe being put down would be more fair to this dog."
 

Maybe I'm just too creeped out because of that episode of Criminal Minds where the nutty psychologist killed people with their fears.  Ever since then, the thought of flooding really rubs me the wrong way!!
 

FourIsCompany

I don't even know why it would occur to you to say something like that.

Because it's an opinion on the practice of flooding. We have our own personalities guiding us. For example, there are remote collars with adjustable levels of stim. They have been used successfully in field trial dogs and have been lauded as one of the best ways to train long-range recall and retrieve. But I wouldn't necessarily use one. In my career, I have received a number of electrical shocks and don't really care to give those to other beings. I would be more comfortable using a vibrating collar. So, I'm not saying that remote shock collars should never be used or that they have been unsuccessful, just that I wouldn't use them, primarily because I know what it's like to receive a shock. My dog may not feel the same way about shocks as I do, but I'm going to anthropromorphize and decide he doesn't need that.

There's another member who feels that clickers just aren't necessary and she is welcome to that opinion.