The Training/Behavior "Chatter" Thread

Liesje

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!!

*gasp* Do not get me started on Criminal Minds.....Best. Show. Ever. Seriously......how badly I want to talk but how OT it is.....guuuuuh.

Anyhow, I have a phobia of needles. As in - ghost face, racing pulse, temples pounding, want to vomit, sweat, passing out if applicable. On television, in real life, wherever, I get sweaty palms just thinking about it. Not needles in general, but needles actually entering skin and watching something being injected into a body gets me, as does watching blood come spurting out from a needle. Just talknig about it makes me cringe. If the needle is already in, that I'm okay with seeing, but the inserting or removing - no way. It's not even just getting the needle either, as I had a birth control shot 4 times a year in my hip where I didn't have to see it, so it didn't phase me.

When I went to get my wisdom teeth taken out, I got put under which required a needle. They poked and prodded one hand, and couldn't find a vein, so they went to the other hand. I tell ya, I was hooked up to the monitors by then and at the first poke you could hear the heart rate monitor: "beep...........beep.....Insert needle....beep.....beep....beep..beepbeepbeepbeep". The lady actually looked at me strangely and asked if I was okay. I almost didn't need the anaesthetic to put me out *G* Same for when I had to get blood drawn for a health issue I had.....I got the wet/cold facecloth, the reclining chair, the child's sucker, the whole works.

I did try a self-flooding procedure by watching videos of needles being injected. I also tried watching entire litters be vaccinated and microchipped. Flooding did not work. I remember it clearly,both times..urg. I'm not in a rush to try it again in the future either...lol.

ron2

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.

An interesting story.

Many people know my feelings about e-collars, but on a more personal note.....at my work one of the things that I do is cut plastic tablecloths for people. They come on HUGE rolls and are stacked on racks. This stuff carries huge static electricity. Doesn't matter if you wear rubber shoes, touch something else to ground you, wear gloves, if you work with this stuff you WILL get shocked. Wouldn't you know it is my most hated job in the store? I approach that stack of tablecloth material like its a plague, and the customers have looked at me funny as I'm cringing while reaching out slowwwwwwwwly. I have to do it, but it's the most aversive thing, and the sheer expectation of shock, and not knowing when you might actually GET shocked (as it can happen at beginning, middle, end, several times.....) is horribly aversive, and I've been finding ways to minimize the amount of shock that is received.  Such a simple experience, and the shock levels are similar to the e-collar stims that are used, but so very aversive.

These things correlate a lot to e-collar usage - dog can't predict shock (especially not at first), never knows when a shock might be coming until it does (until a cue is learned), doesn't know what might have caused the shock (again, usually more in the beginning but that's when they are most used), and the body is always amped up and prepared for the shock to take place, resulting in a sustained stress on the body.

The general physiology between dogs and humans isn't all that different, so I don't think it's a huge stretch to compare shock in people with that in animals, considering the wealth of literature that is available on shock with different species.

Kim_MacMillan

The general physiology between dogs and humans isn't all that different, so I don't think it's a huge stretch to compare shock in people with that in animals, considering the wealth of literature that is available on shock with different species

Which reminds of the experiments with shocking rats to observe operant conditioning. For most organisms, I would imagine a shock is a shock and is not welcome.

Let's remember to keep this about dog psychology and training so we don't get too far off topic.

Ron, if you'll look at my last post, you'll see that I quoted Liesje as saying "Maybe I'm a bad dog owner". THAT'S what I was responding to when I said I didn't know why she would even say something like that. In other words, I don't even know why it would occur to her to say that maybe she's a bad dog owner.  I'm not, in any way, judging her decisions about Kenya. Okie-dokey? 

FourIsCompany

"Maybe I'm a bad dog owner". THAT'S what I was responding to when I said I didn't know why she would even say something like that.

My bad. Maybe I'll wear my reading glasses next time.

I don't think anyone should flood their dog who doesn't want to. Period. But I would like take a look at the reasoning, logic and science behind it and explore our thinking on this subject just a little more.

As regards flooding vs. systematic desensitization, according to the book: Angles on Psychology by Matt Jarvis, Julia Russel and Phil Gorman, there are differing opinions as to which is more successful, but both show a high rate of success.

In this thread, it has been suggested several times that we compare flooding a dog with flooding a human being, even a child, as it would result in feelings of betrayal and unnecessary fear. I have a few issues I'd like to explore around this.

1. Does a dog feel betrayal? Does he feel it when his human forces him to undergo surgery, chemotherapy or other necessary procedures that result in him being fearful or in pain? Can a dog discriminate between "necessary" and "unnecessary" fears? How does he know when to feel betrayed? How could "flooding" to alleviate a fear be determined as an unnecessary fear (by the dog), while having his testicles removed and waking up in a strange cage in horrible pain be determined as a necessary fear (by the dog)?

I can understand people not choosing the technique (flooding) for their own dogs, but to assume that a dog is going to feel the human emotion of betrayal because of the flooding technique is a bit like thinking that the dog will be angry at me for having his testicles removed.

2. If we are going to relate how a child would feel being flooded by its fear, can we equate another dog behavior modification technique to children? Let's take clicker training. How would you (or your child) feel if you were to withhold its meal and only fed it one small bite at a time, while it tried to figure out what exactly you wanted it to do? Would you be willing to train your child to get dressed or brush its teeth or clean its room by withholding food and having it try various behaviors until it hit upon the one you wanted?

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with clicker training. Not at all. But I DO have a problem with the glaring incongruity of the strictly scientific approach taken by some when applying clicker training to dogs as opposed to the unscientific (anthropomorphizing) approach I see when other psychological concepts and forms of therapy are brought up.

How do you reconcile anthropomorphizing in one case of behavior modification (flooding) and not in the other (clicker training)?  How can you discount flooding because of how a human might respond with human emotions and responses and use clicker training without ever considering how a child would be damaged by the results of clicker training? Clicker training seems pretty cruel when applied to a child, doesn't it?

How can you clicker train your dog? Would you clicker train your child? I'd really like to hear some thoughts on this apparent inconsistency. If I'm wrong, please tell me how.

FourIsCompany

How can you clicker train your dog? Would you clicker train your child? I'd really like to hear some thoughts on this apparent inconsistency. If I'm wrong, please tell me how.

First, Ron, thanks for having my back and Carla, no worries, I understood what you meant in the other post.

As for the question above....my answer would be, I chose all of my training tools and techniques based on the specific behaviors I have in mind.  So, right now I have gone back to clicker training, not because I think it is better or even more effective, but because of WHAT I want from the dog - I want her to remain calm and relaxed next week when we travel to stay with a small house full of lots of in-laws.  I do believe that the author of Click to Calm (and many other trainers/animal behaviorists) are right in saying that dogs really don't multi-task, the dog cannot be totally stressed and nervous and going through the motions of clicker training at the same time.  I have seen the results they talk about, Kenya is a more relaxed and more confident dog when I am training with the clicker.  Since relaxation and confidence are EXACTLY what I am looking for in this specific situation, I chose to use the clicker.

We are also working on a very formal heel and I'm using a prong collar *gasp*.  The clicking hasn't really made any effective difference in her heeling.  Yes, it worked to teach loose leash walking and a good foundation for following me and maintaining eye contact, but now we are at another level and using another tool that is more effective because it self-corrects.  Even with a clicker, my timing is still not perfect, and right now we need something more precise than what I can be.  I've put the prong on her half a dozen times and already we are phasing it ou.  I would NEVER, however, put a prong on her while introducing her to the in-laws and trying to slowly desensitize her to their presence. 

Could you clicker train a child?  I'm sure of it.  If you watch a show like Super Nanny, she is using the exact same principles as clicker training - rewarding what is right, being clear and consistent.  I bet you could clicker train babies to touch objects, make ga-ga sounds, etc.

Would I use a system of teaching and learning based primarily on positive reinforcement and negative punishment with my child? YOU BET! Have I done so in my classrooms? Yep--in education it's known as "positive discipline".  See http://www.health.state.ok.us/program/mchecd/posdisc.html

The thing about a clicker or other marker is that it's particularly important when teaching a non-human animal because of the language barrier. With a human who speaks the same language as you, it's less necessary in most instances. But the foundations of clicker training are very applicable to teaching and learning with children.  An actual audible marker is also being used by coaches and teachers of physical activities: http://www.tagteach.com/ because of the complexity of the behaviors they are trying to teach, in a purely physical realm.

This is such a cool thread. 

About the desensitiation thing -

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.

 I don't think this is quite correct, not sure if this has been covered already as I am still catching up, but I'll just add my 0.02 if that's OK.  I am a bit scared of spiders, but I don't "carry my fear" around with me, into every situation that might contain a spider.  The point of desensitisation is to always work within the animal's comfort zone so that fear is never triggered.  For example, on the Oven Thread, I mentioned that it might be a good idea to move Rupert AWAY to a safe, happy place before switching the oven on so that the fear doesn't start.  Allow the stress hormones to dissipate so that the dog relaxes in general and then begin working well within his comfort zone (in this case, with the oven off).

 I have read a little bit of Jan Fennell's stuff.  The way she deals with dogs that are leash-reactive is quite effective and I do agree with her methods, although not necessarily the ideas behind them.  For example, she says not to walk your dog for a WEEK while you do the first stages of Amichien Bonding (establishing yourself as leader of your "pack";).  Then, when you walk the dog, avoid close contact with other dogs.  Keep a good distance so that the unwanted response is not triggered - walk the other way or cross the street - and encourage the dog with praise etc. maybe give him a treat.  Now she thinks that this works because the dog recognises you as "leader" after your week of working with him at home and then taking calm decisive action on the walk itself.  Perhaps that is true, but the week at home allowed the dog to relax and become less jumpy and easier to work with (key to any successful desensitisation programme).  Then keeping a comfortable distance and praising and rewarding the dog while keeping in his comfort zone is really just the same as many desensitisation programmes.  It works, and while it may be slower than flooding, if you don't fail at the first hurdle (allowing the dog a period of "non-stress" before beginning training) it can be quicker than you might think.

Now, about my hands... as corvus said, it's so easy to become reliant on your hands (or on the leash as as extension of your hands) and then when a touch is not possible you can become unstuck.  Relying too much on touch as a guide can actually slow the teaching process IME because the dog often waits for the touch as his "signal" to do whatever.  Dogs do respond to touch and visual signal very well and quicker than verbal signals in many cases.  I read an article about this a while ago and it made the point that if I see a book with the price on the back in ££ and $$ I always ignore the $$ because they don't mean anything to me!  So if the touch, or hand signal is made with the verbal signal, the dog may not make the connection as we might assume.  He is just as likely to simply take what he understands and act on that and not even notice or process the rest.  Does that make sense?

I read a really good tip in a book once about hand signals and touch.  Teach the dog "hands off" and THEN add the hands afterwards, so that you are not "using" your hands as part of the teaching.  And when you use hand signals, fade out the hand signal slowly so that the dog learns to  respond to the verbal signal alone.  But hand signals ARE useful, so fade it back in again once you know the dog can do it by voice alone.  I know that sounds a very long winded way of doing it, but the way it was explained made sense to me.  I will see if I can find it.
 

houndlove

An actual audible marker is also being used by coaches and teachers of physical activities: http://www.tagteach.com/ because of the complexity of the behaviors they are trying to teach, in a purely physical realm.

That's neat!  As someone who competed gymnastics for years, I am VERY familiar with a "yes!" marker and an "eh EH!" correction, lol. You want coaches marking and correcting you WHILE you are performing the skill because then you can feel what is right and what is not.  I know the term "muscle memory" is not exactly accurate, but there is something to be said about being told you are doing it correctly at the precise moment you do it.  Just looking at diagrams of skills or the coach having you watch someone else do it correctly really isn't enough.

Liesje and houndlove, The question is not COULD you clicker train a child or use positive reinforcement on a child, but WOULD you clicker-train YOUR child the same as you clicker-train a dog (if you do), by withholding food and having them try different behaviors until they got it right? If you're going to make a direct correlation from  flooding a dog to flooding a child, then make the direct correlation to clicker training a child. 

I'm sure you see the point I'm making here.

Chuffy, I haven't forgotten you.

Carla, have you read Don't Shoot the Dog by Karen Pryor? I first bought it when we had Sneaker, back in the late 80's, and then re-read it when we got Cassidy in 2000. She talks extensively in her book about using the concepts that clicker training is based on, (although not necessarily USING a clicker, as houndlove describes in her post), to reward/reinforce desirable behaviors in humans, adults and children alike. It's not just for animals! Anyway, it's another interesting read that you may enjoy.

As far as your question regarding animals and human feelings of betrayal, I don't see it exactly that way. I do feel that a good relationship with your animals implies a certain level of trust, and I believe that you can definitely lose that trust. Feeling betrayed may involve complex thought processes that animals, without the language skills of humans, aren't capable of - but that doesn't mean they can't or won't lose trust in you if you act in ways that directly cause them pain or fear.

In your example of being neutered, I don't see an awareness by the dog that YOU are responsible for his lack of testicles and the resulting pain of surgery, or even that he knows his testicles are missing at all. You take the dog to the vet, he's put under anesthesia, surgery is performed, he wakes up groggy and in pain, you arrive to take him home. You're not there with him, causing the pain - there's no understanding of exactly what happened, and your role in it. With flooding, you're right there, making him approach the source of his fear, and making him remain, even though he wants to bolt in fear.

Another wonderful book that explores dogs and emotions from a scientific viewpoint as well as anecdotal is Patricia McConnell's For the Love of a Dog, Understanding Emotion in You and Your Best Friend. Excellent book!

Chuffy, yes, my point about flooding and desensitization are that they both work. That's about all I'm trying to say. I don't think I've ever used flooding as it's been described here, so it's not like I'm not a big proponent of it. In fact, I like desensitization, simply because I've used it and I determined it would be the best therapy for the problem I had. But I don't think I'd hesitate to use flooding if I felt it was the bet way to handle the situation. Slippery floors? You BET I'd use flooding. And I don't think my dog would hate me or feel betrayed afterward!

I like your explanation of using hands after the fact. What I just realized while reading your post is that B'asia, while she will sit if I have something yummy, seems to not know what I'm talking about when I use the word in other contexts. She has apparently associated a food stimulus with sitting. I screwed up! LOL I think I'll start using a hand signal along with a food cue to make an alternate pathway in her brain. Mia responds better to the hand signal than anything.

FourIsCompany

. If we are going to relate how a child would feel being flooded by its fear, can we equate another dog behavior modification technique to children? Let's take clicker training. How would you (or your child) feel if you were to withhold its meal and only fed it one small bite at a time, while it tried to figure out what exactly you wanted it to do? Would you be willing to train your child to get dressed or brush its teeth or clean its room by withholding food and having it try various behaviors until it hit upon the one you wanted?

Gosh this is so interesting and I am SO glad you brought it up!

First of all, for a dog, getting food as a fun game rather than just in a bowl is (I Think) inherently more fun and more satisfying.  FWIW I rarely use the dog's meal to train.  A little of it maybe, but I wouldn't expect them to get their barest rations by working out exactly as I wanted, that seems rather mean.  Because I use such tiny pieces, I can use almost anything when training with food.

 As children we used to play this really cool game called Hot and Cold.  One of us would hide a sweet somewhere in the room and the other would look for it.  The "hider" would give the "seeker" clues by telling them they were getting warmer as they got closer to the sweet and colder as they moved away.  THAT'S how I view a clicker session with a dog, and so yeah, I have NO problem with doing the same sort of thing with a child!  I have also seen a lady on TV show women how to "train" their husbands using marker training, but the click was replaced with a touch on the arm and the "treat" was a genuine smile and a warm "thank you, love".  Would you believe it but the husbands WERE trained, although the show received complaints for being sexist.... 

I haven't read the book and I'm not talking about the "positive reinforcement" aspect of clicker training. Of course, positive reinforcement works across species. I'm talking about the "withhold food and have the subject try different behaviors" aspect of clicker training. No one is addressing that.

Cassidys Mom

In your example of being neutered, I don't see an awareness by the dog that YOU are responsible for his lack of testicles and the resulting pain of surgery

So, the aversion to flooding is not that the dog will experience something negative, but that he will associate that to you?

Cassidys Mom

With flooding, you're right there, making him approach the source of his fear

So, you'd be ok with someone else performing the deed? As long as the dog didn't associate it to you?

Do you realize if I read all of these books I wouldn't have time to post here?  Or... maybe that's the idea? LOL