The Training/Behavior "Chatter" Thread

FourIsCompany

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.

I don't withhold food when I train Kenya (for example, I do feed her normal meals, I don't withhold her meals before training.  I also do not train by showing her treats before looking for a behavior).  There are other things that motivate her more than food.  Yes, I would withhold certain rewards unless the child earns them.  It's sort of how I was raised.  I never had many rules or punishments, but when I did things right on my own, I was allowed my freedom.  For example, because I never got into trouble and told my parents where I was, I never had a curfew.  I got good grades, so I was allowed to use the computer (for chatting and non-school stuff) as much as I wanted.

I don't know the correlations between flooding a child and flooding a dog.  I think they are very different (human vs. dog) which is why I don't use it on my dog.  If Kenya were more like the CM Great Dane and was afraid of some object, I'd be more inclined to try flooding.  However, since her fear is certain people, I'm too scared to try.  If she were scared of carpet and I tried flooding and it didn't work, I'd have a dog that was still scared of carpet.  If I try flooding on her for her fear of big, loud men and it doesn't work, the consequences could include injury.  If she bites carpet b/c she's scared of it and I messed up the flooding...oh well.  If she bites my father in law......yeah...... 

Chuffy

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.... 

OMG! I can't believe it! LOL

My aversion to training a human being like this is as strong as some people's aversion to the alpha roll. I think it's clearly inhumane to manipulate another human being, whether child or adult with marking and a treat. Yeah, it works, but I could never do it. It's totally out of integrity with who I am. And I really cannot believe people do it or support it.

I find myself wanting to say, "Yes, it works and it can be done, but have you stopped to think whether or not it should be done"?  No kidding.

That's pretty funny.  

FourIsCompany

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

Yes I really think we are on a wavelength here :) I find that generally, (IME) food has been far, far easier to fade out than an actual touch.  You can use the food AND a hand signal and then after a few reps, the same signal without the food.  Of course, the dog will often assume the food is there and do it anyway and then you show the dog your empty hands but give lots of praise and petting and a treat from your POCKET.  It doesnt take a dog long to think "well, even if there doesnt SEEM to be food, its still worth a try!"  From there the response becomes classical... the dog just does it out of habit and because he links it with "good stuff" he actually feels good doing it too.  To save myself this bother, if I do use food as a lure, I never let the dog eat THAT piece of food, I always get another bit from my pocket and feed with my other hand. 

FourIsCompany

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.

Can I answer too? I think it's inaccurate to say that clicker training is about withholding food, or anything else. No matter what kind of training I do with my dogs, I usually do it before a meal, but that's not the same as withholding food, think of it more as getting treats before dinner.  For one thing, when I get home from work is the most convenient time for me to train, and I can be sure that the dog will be interested and engaged in food treats when they don't already have a full belly, so it works for everybody. One of Keefer's training classes was at noon on Saturdays, and since he's SO incredibly food motivated, he did get breakfast before class. I had enough time for him to digest and potty before we had to leave, and since he's always interested in food I didn't need to worry about losing his attention because he was already full. There is no such thing as full with that boy, he can ALWAYS eat! You can also use toys and playtime as rewards.

And the simple fact that you CAN explain in words to a human child what you want means that it's completely unnecessary to make them totally figure stuff out without any cues - the clicker is simply the marker that at exactly that moment they got it right. If we could explain a task or skill to our dogs in words and they'd understand, we would! But we can't, so sometimes we have to let them figure it out on their own. But there's nothing cruel or abusive about it, if they get it wrong, nothing happens. Nothing good and nothing bad. But when they get it RIGHT, oh boy! So you see an attitude of happy, engaged enthusiasm about learning, because it's fun, and there's always an incentive to keep trying.

Clicker training isn't solely about free-shaping either, where the dog gets no cues at all and must figure out what you want by trying different things until he gets it right. I used it to capture behaviors when D & K were puppies. There was no expectation of anything, I just clicked and treated anytime they did something I wanted to encourage. So it was like bonus food, they're just going around being puppies and being randomly rewarded for it. I used the clicker as a marker instead of my voice sometimes too, and a lot in agility classes with Dena.

I can see I should have picked potty training or crate training for my analogy instead of clicker training. LOL

But at least I know the point I'm making here. And I don't think anyone is really answering it.  

FourIsCompany

Chuffy

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.... 

 

OMG! I can't believe it! LOL

My aversion to training a human being like this is as strong as some people's aversion to the alpha roll. I think it's clearly inhumane to manipulate another human being, whether child or adult with marking and a treat. Yeah, it works, but I could never do it. It's totally out of integrity with who I am. And I really cannot believe people do it or support it.

I find myself wanting to say, "Yes, it works and it can be done, but have you stopped to think whether or not it should be done"?  No kidding.

That's pretty funny.  

It doesn't have to be done as conscious manipulation. In any relationship there are things your partner does that you really like, and things that probably bug you. Think of it as the difference between focusing on and complaining about the things you don't like, (he left his dirty socks on the floor AGAIN - who does he think I am, the maid?!?!), and instead focus on what you love about him, the nice things he does for you, and show your appreciation for those things. Accentuate the positive in your relationship - there's nothing inhumane about that. It's not always easy to do, and sometimes we have to make a special effort to tell those we love what we appreciate about them and not get angry or frustrated about the things that drive us crazy.
 

FourIsCompany

Chuffy

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.... 

 

OMG! I can't believe it! LOL

My aversion to training a human being like this is as strong as some people's aversion to the alpha roll. I think it's clearly inhumane to manipulate another human being, whether child or adult with marking and a treat. Yeah, it works, but I could never do it. It's totally out of integrity with who I am. And I really cannot believe people do it or support it.

I find myself wanting to say, "Yes, it works and it can be done, but have you stopped to think whether or not it should be done"?  No kidding.

That's pretty funny.  

The thing is, people manipulate each other all the time.  It's human nature.  On the TV show, the women had to make a consciour effort to stop NAGGING their husbands and stop focusing on things they had forgotten to do or done poorly. A lot of it boils down to the same as dog training - making an effort to be interesting and motivate people, be nice to them, encourage them, let them know when they are doing it right....

As with dog training, we often inadvertantly "train" our friends, family, employees, colleagues, clients etc. to behave in ways we DON'T want rather than in ways we DO want.  An example in Pryors book (Don't Shoot...) is the mother who never hears from her daughter and when the daughter DOES ring, all she gets is an earful of how she should ring more often.  In orderto avoid that unpleasant experience, she rings less often.  The mother has used P+ to "train" the daughter to ring her less often, which was not the result she wanted!! 

Well, I don't accept the basic premise of "withhold food and have the subject try different behaviors" as a description of clicker training. I thought I addressed that and I'm not sure how else to explain it if I wasn't clear enough.

My aversion to flooding is not because of the association to me, and I wouldn't want someone else doing it to my dog either. Where it relates to me is the loss of trust and resultant damage to our relationship, but I still don't like the technique in general. Some unpleasant things, such as surgical procedures, are necessary. Some things, such as immersing a dog in a situation that causes him extreme fear or stress can be avoided, and I choose to use other methods.

FourIsCompany

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

Funny, but no! I just think that there some books that you would particularly enjoy based on your general training philosophy and the kinds of questions you ask and the discussions you engage in. Suzanne Clothier's book and Patricia McConnell's in particular - I think you'd find a lot in both those books that would resonate with you and make you think. I certainly did.
 

Cassidys Mom

Accentuate the positive in your relationship - there's nothing inhumane about that.

Yep.  I'm not really sure how else it would be appropriate to raise children (and dogs I guess)... 

Chuffy

As with dog training, we often inadvertantly "train" our friends, family, employees, colleagues, clients etc. to behave in ways we DON'T want rather than in ways we DO want.  An example in Pryors book (Don't Shoot...) is the mother who never hears from her daughter and when the daughter DOES ring, all she gets is an earful of how she should ring more often.  In orderto avoid that unpleasant experience, she rings less often.  The mother has used P+ to "train" the daughter to ring her less often, which was not the result she wanted!!

Great example Chuffy, I remember that from the book! In order to fix it, the mother would have to set aside her anger that her daughter doesn't call as often as she'd like and make a special effort to instead tell her how nice it is to hear from her. Would that be manipulation? She truly IS happy to hear from her daughter, so she's telling the truth. And by making the choice to be nice rather than unpleasant, her daughter is likely to call more often. What's wrong with that? 

The thing is, you DO use OC with your human family and friends, you just may not think of it that way.  But everything you do impacts on others around you and affects their behaviour.  What I am tapping into largely requires me to make a conscious effort to basically focus on the positive things, remember to say thank you, etc.  Isn't that what our mothers tell us to do from as young an age as possible???  And of course, I get positive reinforcement for my efforts when it works, encouraging me to continue, until becomes classical!    Not sure I am making much sense here!

 Pefect sense, well said!
 

Cassidys Mom

It doesn't have to be done as conscious manipulation.

Clicker training IS a conscious manipulation, though. The intent is to manipulate. And the reward is a basic need of the animal.

Chuffy

we often inadvertantly "train" our friends, family, employees, colleagues, clients etc. to behave

When you clicker train your dog, it's not inadvertent, though. It's very purposeful manipulation. And the reward is a basic need of the animal.

I think my questions have been answered. It's just not the answer I expected. LOL You would clicker train your child. I'm just a little shocked about that. That's all.

FourIsCompany

Clicker training IS a conscious manipulation, though. The intent is to manipulate. And the reward is a basic need of the animal.

I guess I don't understand this at all?  I use a clicker to name behaviors the dog does on her own.  I've actually been quite unsuccessful at training totally new behaviors with a clicker. I tried it for the right finish and it was a mess.  Had to use a different technique for that one!  However, I used the clicker to train "touch" because Kenya likes to dig and paw at various objects.  All the clicker did was show her that when the paw touches the object, that is "touch".  Like I was saying before, we use the same concept in gymnastics.  There are many skills that require you to hit and exact position.  For example, a press to handstand on the balance beam.  When you are doing it, you can't see yourself and know when you are at vertical.  When you hit, the coach gives a "yes!".  If your back starts to arch or your head pops out, you'll get a "no!" or "eh eh!"  No food is involved, no basic needs are being withheld, no one is being forced to do anything.  It's simply one person marking exactly when the other person is doing the behavior correctly, so the name is associated with that feeling/position/movement.

I also don't see how jumping up on a human's chest is a "basic need" of any animal?  Many of us do not have food motivated dogs.

The "touch" is probably the most significant thing I've clicker trained Kenya to do.  "Touch" is one of her favorite games, it has become a reward in and of itself!  She loves when I throw a bunch of junk on the ground and we run around pointing to things and going "touch!" "yes!" "touch!"  She is not a mouthy dog and we are still backchaining tug and retrieve.  To her, digging at things with her paws is just as fun as playing tug.  If she were feeling manipulated, why would she keeping touching things to try to get me to continue with the game? 

Liesje

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. 

Four - Just wanted to add - this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how clicker training works.  The idea of clicker training is NOT  to withhold food.  It's to FIND something to reward for.  [Edit - thats when you use freeshaping OR capturing, or pretty much anything with a clicker... and sometimes you "set the dog up to get it right" so you can reward for it]  (I think a lot of parents could use that little nugget of wisdom rather than berating the kids all the time, to be honest.) If pupper isn't "getting it", make it easier!  You don't send a kid to school on his first day and expect him to do calculus and then withhold lunch because he couldn't do it.  THAT would be unfair.  

Perhaps a better analogy would be NILIF, but then you use that with kids too -you can't go to the park unless you put your coat and shoes on for example.  Or, you can't have dessert if you don't eat your vegetables (not that I would use that one personally, but you get the picture I am painting, I am sure). 

Liesje

I also don't see how jumping up on a human's chest is a "basic need" of any animal? 

LOL No. The food reward given in conjunction with the click is the reward. It's how the clicker is charged.

Liesje, it's clear people aren't seeing the inconsistency that I am. I was asking basically how people can be so scientific as regards operant conditioning and then turn around and anthropomorphize to the extreme as regards classical conditioning...

I still think it's a glaring inconsistency. I don't get it.

 

Carla, with dogs, I agree, it is conscious manipulation. I was referring specifically to Chuffy's example of the TV show where it was used on humans.

But as I said, I reject the premise that in clicker training your dog you're withholding a basic need of the animal. You COULD do it that way, with the dog having to earn every single piece of kibble he eats in a day, but I've never heard of anyone doing it that way, or suggesting that's how it should be done, so I don't believe the argument is relative. During training, my dogs, in addition to their basic need of regular twice daily meals, got bits of cheese, hot dogs, freeze dried liver, beef, lamb, turkey, or chicken jerky, Natural Balance rolls, or a number of any other yummy goodies.