The Training/Behavior "Chatter" Thread

    • Gold Top Dog

    Liesje
    Since relaxation and confidence are EXACTLY what I am looking for in this specific situation, I chose to use the clicker.

     

     This is GREAT.  I love it!  LOVE IT.  So many times I see the myth perpetuated that clicker training makes the dog over excited, hyper, etc.  With my older terrier, it does perk him up and make him more creative and more adventurous... it certainly builds his confidence.  With the young collie it steadies her, it gives her focus and purpose and calms her down.  Odd heh?

    • Gold Top Dog

    FourIsCompany

    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.

     

    Only if you are using food as the reward, and even then, it's a reward.  I don't withhold meals in order to clicker train, I don't use kibbles to train, I don't feed my dogs less because we trained.  It's just something extra.  I got lots of "extras" for my job if I do certain things, but I don't feel manipulated.  If I don't want the extra, I don't have to do the thing, or I can find another job.

    • Gold Top Dog

    Chuffy

    Liesje
    Since relaxation and confidence are EXACTLY what I am looking for in this specific situation, I chose to use the clicker.

     

     This is GREAT.  I love it!  LOVE IT.  So many times I see the myth perpetuated that clicker training makes the dog over excited, hyper, etc.  With my older terrier, it does perk him up and make him more creative and more adventurous... it certainly builds his confidence.  With the young collie it steadies her, it gives her focus and purpose and calms her down.  Odd heh?

     

    Yep, it's been working fabulously.  Last night we had rally practice group.  Kenya is generally good at the club because she is used to the environment and people, but still sticks to me like glue.  Well, we've been working on the "go to your mat" at home.  Last night I was talking with someone and thought, "where the heck is my dog?" and I see her over in the opposite corner of the facility, sitting on this little carpet, beaming at us!  I had to interrupt the conversation so I could go tell her yes and reward her, lol.  She looked so happy like she thought she was the smartest dog ever.  Certainly no manipulation was involved there, I had no idea she had even made the "mat" connection already.

     

    I guess I would like to know, if clicker training is manipulation, then what are other alternatives and how are they not manipulation? 

    • Gold Top Dog

    FourIsCompany

    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.

     

    I believe her point was that for Kenya, who is not food motivated, she uses jumping up on her as the reward. The reward does not have to be food.  

    Oops, Liesje beat me to it! 

    • Gold Top Dog

    FourIsCompany

    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. Sad

     

     

    I think I can see what you are saying, but I do not see the inconsistency?  I am uncpomfortable with the idea of flooding, whether applied to animals or humans.  I am totally OK with the principles of clciker training (or "marker training";) when applied to animals or humans.  Where is the inconsistency?  I don't get it either! Sad  At least we are trying!

    YES, with clicker training, the manipulation is deliberate.  And if you were to do it with people, then you would be DELIBERATELY being nice to them, thanking them for a job well done, giving your employees bonuses for especially good work, etc.  I don't see how consciously making yourself note the good in others is a bad thing?  Even if you are hoping that Gran will buy you something just as nice next Christmas, or your employees work just as hard next month, that doesn't make the conscious effort to thank them and reward them for their generosity/hard work/good will toward you a bad thing... does it?

    Edit to add: yeah I do see differences in the way we treat dogs and kids, I mean we call it "potty training" for both, but only the child ACTUALLY goes on the potty.  And we don't expect the child to go out in the garden.  The reward for the dog might be a piece of food or a pat on the head, but the reward for the child might be a smile, or a thank you, or a hug, or a special outing....  I don't see these things as inconsistencies though.  The key principles remain the same.

    In the TV show I mentioned, the one wife just wanted her husband to tidy away after himself.  At the end, both saw it as a bit of fun and laughed about it but said that the husband was definately better about clearing stuff away and the wife was better at not nagging and things in the house had generally improved.  Wouldn't it have been wonderful if the wife had not-nagged the husband because she loved him?  Wouldn't it have been wonderful if the husband had just tidied up without prompting?  Unfortunately, we humans are not like that.  Sometimes we have to have an incentive to do the right thing.  Otherwise, there would be no need for traffic lights and speed limits!  Smile

    • Gold Top Dog

    FourIsCompany.....I think I see what your saying, but I'm not sure I can explain it any better than you did.  Well I guess I'll give it a try.....

    In reading these boards I see so much talk about not anthromorphasizing (sp?) your dog.  Lots of 'dogs are dogs, they aren't people.'  Which is true.  But when it comes to flooding there are some that are saying not to do it b/c as people they don't like it.  So I think FIC is saying that since it has been said 'dogs aren't people' why are we saying it's wrong to flood b/c people don't like it.

    That's what I got from FIC posts, and maybe I'm off base, but I figured I put it out there just in case it might clear somethings up.

    • Gold Top Dog

    TheDogHouseBCMPD

    FourIsCompany.....I think I see what your saying, but I'm not sure I can explain it any better than you did.  Well I guess I'll give it a try.....

    In reading these boards I see so much talk about not anthromorphasizing (sp?) your dog.  Lots of 'dogs are dogs, they aren't people.'  Which is true.  But when it comes to flooding there are some that are saying not to do it b/c as people they don't like it.  So I think FIC is saying that since it has been said 'dogs aren't people' why are we saying it's wrong to flood b/c people don't like it.

    That's what I got from FIC posts, and maybe I'm off base, but I figured I put it out there just in case it might clear somethings up.

     

     
    OK, that makes more sense.  However, regarding flooding, I guess I'm the opposite.  I think it's different with dogs and people.  I'm more comfortable doing it to people than I am to dogs.  I would much sooner put myself in a small room full of spiders than put Kenya in a small room full of big, loud men.  I would never want her to experience what I experience when I'm totally freaking out over a spider, not to mention her lacking the ability to rationalize. 

    Not sure how we got from that to clicker training = manipulation though...

    • Gold Top Dog
    Thank you, TheDogHouseBCMPD. I guess I should have just sent you a PM and had you post for me! LOL

    Liesje
    Not sure how we got from that to clicker training = manipulation though...

     

    Manipulate is just one of those "loaded" words. Clicker training DOES equal manipulation. All training is manipulation. It's not a "bad" thing, just a form of control. The way that came into the discussion is when Chuffy (?) was talking about the woman who "trained" her husband by touching his arm and smiling. To me, for a person to "train" another adult person by the use of less-than-straightforward means is something I'm not willing to support. I didn't know people would so easily support it. It kind of blew that part of my argument. Smile (The other part of my argument detailed in my post on page 4 has been COMPLETELY ignored.)

    But TheDogHouseBCMPD is correct. Dogs are NOT people, but when talk of flooding comes up (or almost any aversive, for that matter) the rationale for not liking it is because of how it would affect people -- so therefore it must affect dogs the same way. It's just not scientific at all, from a group of people who rely heavily on science for supporting nearly every other aspect of dog training.

    • Gold Top Dog

    Social life is a series of manipulations. Becoming conscious of the ways in which we manipulate other beings is a plus in my book, because it allows for thoughtfulness and evaluation. You can't have Right Speech without awareness.

     Example - my instinct, when I'm tired out by life, is to snap at my husband for small mistakes. I don't say anything vile, but I'm definitely not being nice. It is a quick reaction, and the intent is to stop him from making whatever mistake pissed me off. He, being the sweetheart that he is, will sometimes calmly comment, "You know, you can just say 'honey can you pick that up please.' " If I want him not to leave his socks in the foyer, being sarcastic about it isn't the best way to go about it. If I *consciously* make an attempt to modify his sock leaving behavior by being nice about it, he is more likely to pick up the dang socks and we all feel happier.

    I consciously manipulate my child into better behavior, all the time. I do my best to respect her personhood as I do so, and to never think of her as an object or project, but life as a parent has taught me that I must use my brain to pick and choose the techniques that will help my daughter grow into a happy and pleasant adult. With awareness comes the opportunity to consider my actions carefully, and I'm a better parent when my actions are based on decisions and not reactive.

    For the record, I have clicker trained my daughter. LOL! Only once, because it was funny. I had her picking up toys for a click and an MnM.  She's only 4, but she shares my humor, so we had a blast. My husband gave me a look like "Oh no you aren't doing what I think you're doing." Big Smile


    Speaking of the munchkin, time to pick her up from school. She will probably have two stamps, an indication that she was a good listener and a good helper. Preschool uses spoken markers and stamps. Not too far off from clicks and treats. 

    • Gold Top Dog

     

    FourIsCompany
    But TheDogHouseBCMPD is correct. Dogs are NOT people, but when talk of flooding comes up (or almost any aversive, for that matter) the rationale for not liking it is because of how it would affect people -- so therefore it must affect dogs the same way.

    When it comes to fear responses, the phrase "we are more alike than we are different" springs to mind. 

    Remembering the fundamental differences between dogs and humans is very useful at times.  There are certain ways primates just differ from canines; like hugging for example, or approaching head on.  Yet in other ways, as a pp pointed out, many of our actions and responses spring from very similar sources (from an evolutionary standpoint) and if we are to empathise with the dog, what else can we do other than anthropomorphising?

    I will go back to pg4 and see if I can find the bit that has been ignored... Smile  

    Edit to add: can't find it!  Could you highlight it by quoting yourself?  Is it the bit about betrayal (I agreed with Casssidysmom on that one I think) or the bit about the fact that flooding could be linked to the flooder?  Or something else?

    For me, I do think that one of the ways flooding can backfire is if you are the one forcing the frightened student (animal or human) to face his fears.  I could not bring myself to put any of my aniamls (or children) in a position where they were that frightened and force them to ride it out.  By the same token, I could not allow someone else to do it to them either.  The whole time they were showing signs of fear, stress, anxiety, trauma, whatever, I'd be thinking "leave my dog alone!"

    I also think that by "throwing them in at the deep end" you give them little chance to actually LEARN something from the experience, because fear is not a state which is conducive to learning.  So, from a "scientific" standpoint, I don't think flooding is the best way to go (although I would never say never.... my experience so far is not that extensive.)  I suspect that if the flooding worked, then a slightly slower and less  stressful path would have worked also.  And if the flooding DOESN'T work, not only do you have zero steps forward you have several steps back (to say the least).  It's too much of a gamble.

    Bottom line is, for me, it is just not something I want any animal or child in my care to go through.

    • Gold Top Dog

    FourIsCompany
    But TheDogHouseBCMPD is correct. Dogs are NOT people, but when talk of flooding comes up (or almost any aversive, for that matter) the rationale for not liking it is because of how it would affect people -- so therefore it must affect dogs the same way. It's just not scientific at all, from a group of people who rely heavily on science for supporting nearly every other aspect of dog training.

     

    I would like to try and address this concern Smile. One reason why flooding is successful in cognitive-behavioural therapy with humans is the cognitive part of the therapy- a major part of the flooding procedure is getting the client to actively practise calming techniques (deep breathing, imagery etc) in the presence of the fear-inducing stimulus, thus creating a new association to override the old fearful one. This would be much more difficult to do with dogs, given they aren't able to rationalise ("okay, this is scary, but I can practise these techniques to make it less scary";), and the language barrier that doesn't exist between therapist and client.

    ... Thoughts?
     

    • Gold Top Dog

    Yes, it's the betrayal part, but all the questions about betrayal. Stick out tongue

    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?

    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 taking a fearful dog (such as ron2's Shadow) to the vet be determined as a necessary fear (by the dog)?

    .... 

    I distinctly remember being told that dogs are not wolves. Now I'm supposed to recognize the similarities between dogs and people? It sounds to me as though the line between wolves and dogs is growing thicker by the page here and the line between dogs and people is getting pretty thin. If we're talking about holding down a dog (puppy pin), I am told "dogs are not wolves"! And if we're talking about flooding, I am told, "dogs are more like people"...

    Are dogs more like people than like wolves? It depends, it seems, on our personal beliefs. Certainly not science. And personally, I'm far more inclined to make comparisons between dogs and wolves than I am between dogs and people. It seems the more scientific way to think... Wink  

    The scientifically-minded among us are sounding awfully unscientific, depending on the subject. If the subject is positive reinforcement, it's all science. If the subject is positive punishment, or anything you judge to be "negative", dogs, all of a sudden, are people, too! Wink

    • Gold Top Dog

    Vinia
    One reason why flooding is successful in cognitive-behavioural therapy with humans is the cognitive part of the therapy- a major part of the flooding procedure is getting the client to actively practise calming techniques (deep breathing, imagery etc)

     

    I agree. It is successful in humans. But it is also successful in dogs, providing the fear isn't too overwhelming. So, yeah, humans can have coping techniques, but that doesn't mean that it's NOT successful in dogs.

    • Gold Top Dog

    FourIsCompany
    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 don't know if a dog feels betrayal or not, in the human sense of the word. The problem is that we humans can define this 'feeling' that we have of "being betrayed"? Dogs likely may not look at it as betrayal, and may not even understand it, but certainly I think dogs can have the same feeling of losing trust, certainly. I know of a dog personally that completely changed as a result of something that was out of everybody's control, and this dog lost trust in a lot of people and underwent a complete personality change because of it. I don't think a dog can discriminate between "necessary" and "unecessary", no. They don't have that level of complexity, and again they don't have language to be able to tell them what is necessary and unecessary. They just know what they feel, regardless of why they feel it. It's not so much "when" to feel betrayed, it's simply whether or not they do. To be honest, there are a lot of dogs who are permanently changed after simple operations such as spays/neuters. The surgery could have been traumatic, it could have gone awry and perhaps the dog suffered brain damage, the vet environment could have been stressful (another dog near them, a dog screaming, loud noises, scary people, etc), their person leaving them behind. Most dogs aren't affected negatively by this, but there are dogs that are.

    I look at when in the past I used to spend my weekends at a friend's place and the dogs stayed at my family's house here at home (for work, not pleasure - I hated doing it). When I came home after three days of being away, Gaci would be ecstatic to see me at first, and do her "oh my god you left me forever" thing, and then once she realized I was back, she would basically ignore me the rest of the night, even sleeping away from me. She had this "look" in her eyes too, not something you can put a meaning to but something you can see and feel. I don't know what she was thinking per se, but she definitely was put off that I left her for so long, and one could even argue that the feeling was a form of betrayal and she was snubbing me for having left her. After all, she had no way of knowing I'd be coming back in three days, and I had no way to tell her. As it went on though, this reaction went away, as she began to understand that even when I left, I was always coming back. It became routine and after the first weekend or two she didn't react that way. Then, two years later, when I go on a three-day trip, and come back home she does the same thing. Because the pattern had been broken, my absense was unexpected.

    As for flooding versus desensitization, the difference that we do have to keep in mind between animals and people is that people have the power of language as a backup - animals do not have that language. We cannot tell them in words that they'll be fine, and that nothing will hurt them. We can't express to an animal what we can to a dog, even through the best of our body language, energy, and teachng. So while certain forms of flooding may work better on people for certain forms of problems that doesn't mean it can be directly applied to dogs in that manner with the same expectation.

    FourIsCompany
    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?

    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.

    I have never "withheld" food from my dogs while it tried to figure out exactly what I wanted. My dogs get their mornig and evening meals, regardless of how much teaching I do that day.

    And to answer the question about children, clicker teaching is very much used with children, and adults! All the time! If you Google TagTeach, you'll find a start there to a whole world of operant contioning and clicker use in people. It is used extensively in sports and gymnastics, and it is used extensively in some types of special needs children. I know somebody who used clicker principles to potty train their child, and the child was potty trained within two days...honestly. And the child would go to the potty, and then RUN to their mother beaming with pride at having used the potty properly. So I don't see any inconsistency here,

    I still think there is a misunderstanding about clicker teaching here. You aren't "withholding" anything from a dog, and there is no frustration involved in the earning of rewards. Think of clicker sessions like a classroom session. During that time, learning of a specific subject takes place - there is that understanding there, and learning is shaped through communication betwee human and dog, as it is between teacher and student.  They are earning their rewards via contingencies. There's no "if you don't do this, you don't get this", and 99% of clicker teaching has nothing to do with a dog "trying to figure things out" in the sense that it is manically trying out different things. The majority of clicker teaching is quick, calm, quiet, and simple. Most times the dog doesn't appear to be guessing anything, as the process is so gradual, that it flows from one step to another, it is so smooth you wonder how you've moved so quickly, as it's simply down to timing and experience in breaking things into steps. You aren't withholding things if you don't see what you want,  you are giving things when you DO see what you want. There is a difference there, even if it appears subtle.

    So in the human sense, rewards can be in the form of stars, snacks, money, the ability to do something fun, or in gymnastics for example, simply knowing what movement was the right one to completely shape a pirouette. Because humans have this language thing and more complex brains, they have some different motivations (I love ballet, I want to please my parents, I want to be in front of a crowed, etc), so the marker itself can be the reinforcement for a behaviour (movement).

    So I'm not sure why you think clicker training is cruel in regards to children, I don't see it that way at all. The way I teach my animals, I would have absolutely no problems teaching my children certain things. Because once again it has been shown to be extremely affective.

    I think your idea of cruelty lies in this concept of "withholding" versus "earning". You don't teach with a clicker by with-holding, you teach by giving, and you set it up so that giving is very easy and that the animal/person is NOT left guessing. Children learn by reinforcement of correct choices whether or not you use a clicker, the concept of operant conditioning is the same with all species. And it has been shown that the clicker can be more effective than the traditional ways of teaching certain things, when minute details are important. Perhaps this isn't why you see it as cruel, so if it is not,

    Children, music lessons, and the clicker: http://www.clickertraining.com/node/252

    Tag Teach International: http://www.tagteach.com/

    TagTeach Autism: http://www.tagteachautism.com/

    Those are just a couple of sites portraying use of the clicker with people.

    • Gold Top Dog

    FourIsCompany
    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 don't know if a dog feels betrayal or not, in the human sense of the word. The problem is that we humans can define this 'feeling' that we have of "being betrayed"? Dogs likely may not look at it as betrayal, and may not even understand it, but certainly I think dogs can have the same feeling of losing trust, certainly. I know of a dog personally that completely changed as a result of something that was out of everybody's control, and this dog lost trust in a lot of people and underwent a complete personality change because of it. I don't think a dog can discriminate between "necessary" and "unecessary", no. They don't have that level of complexity, and again they don't have language to be able to tell them what is necessary and unecessary. They just know what they feel, regardless of why they feel it. It's not so much "when" to feel betrayed, it's simply whether or not they do. To be honest, there are a lot of dogs who are permanently changed after simple operations such as spays/neuters. The surgery could have been traumatic, it could have gone awry and perhaps the dog suffered brain damage, the vet environment could have been stressful (another dog near them, a dog screaming, loud noises, scary people, etc), their person leaving them behind. Most dogs aren't affected negatively by this, but there are dogs that are.

    I look at when in the past I used to spend my weekends at a friend's place and the dogs stayed at my family's house here at home (for work, not pleasure - I hated doing it). When I came home after three days of being away, Gaci would be ecstatic to see me at first, and do her "oh my god you left me forever" thing, and then once she realized I was back, she would basically ignore me the rest of the night, even sleeping away from me. She had this "look" in her eyes too, not something you can put a meaning to but something you can see and feel. I don't know what she was thinking per se, but she definitely was put off that I left her for so long, and one could even argue that the feeling was a form of betrayal and she was snubbing me for having left her. After all, she had no way of knowing I'd be coming back in three days, and I had no way to tell her. As it went on though, this reaction went away, as she began to understand that even when I left, I was always coming back. It became routine and after the first weekend or two she didn't react that way. Then, two years later, when I go on a three-day trip, and come back home she does the same thing. Because the pattern had been broken, my absense was unexpected.

    As for flooding versus desensitization, the difference that we do have to keep in mind between animals and people is that people have the power of language as a backup - animals do not have that language. We cannot tell them in words that they'll be fine, and that nothing will hurt them. We can't express to an animal what we can to a dog, even through the best of our body language, energy, and teachng. So while certain forms of flooding may work better on people for certain forms of problems that doesn't mean it can be directly applied to dogs in that manner with the same expectation.

    FourIsCompany
    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?

    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.

    I have never "withheld" food from my dogs while it tried to figure out exactly what I wanted. My dogs get their mornig and evening meals, regardless of how much teaching I do that day.

    And to answer the question about children, clicker teaching is very much used with children, and adults! All the time! If you Google TagTeach, you'll find a start there to a whole world of operant contioning and clicker use in people. It is used extensively in sports and gymnastics, and it is used extensively in some types of special needs children. I know somebody who used clicker principles to potty train their child, and the child was potty trained within two days...honestly. And the child would go to the potty, and then RUN to their mother beaming with pride at having used the potty properly. So I don't see any inconsistency here,

    I still think there is a misunderstanding about clicker teaching here. You aren't "withholding" anything from a dog, and there is no frustration involved in the earning of rewards. Think of clicker sessions like a classroom session. During that time, learning of a specific subject takes place - there is that understanding there, and learning is shaped through communication betwee human and dog, as it is between teacher and student.  They are earning their rewards via contingencies. There's no "if you don't do this, you don't get this", and 99% of clicker teaching has nothing to do with a dog "trying to figure things out" in the sense that it is manically trying out different things. The majority of clicker teaching is quick, calm, quiet, and simple. Most times the dog doesn't appear to be guessing anything, as the process is so gradual, that it flows from one step to another, it is so smooth you wonder how you've moved so quickly, as it's simply down to timing and experience in breaking things into steps. You aren't withholding things if you don't see what you want,  you are giving things when you DO see what you want. There is a difference there, even if it appears subtle.

    So in the human sense, rewards can be in the form of stars, snacks, money, the ability to do something fun, or in gymnastics for example, simply knowing what movement was the right one to completely shape a pirouette. Because humans have this language thing and more complex brains, they have some different motivations (I love ballet, I want to please my parents, I want to be in front of a crowed, etc), so the marker itself can be the reinforcement for a behaviour (movement).

    So I'm not sure why you think clicker training is cruel in regards to children, I don't see it that way at all. The way I teach my animals, I would have absolutely no problems teaching my children certain things. Because once again it has been shown to be extremely affective.

    I think your idea of cruelty lies in this concept of "withholding" versus "earning". You don't teach with a clicker by with-holding, you teach by giving, and you set it up so that giving is very easy and that the animal/person is NOT left guessing. Children learn by reinforcement of correct choices whether or not you use a clicker, the concept of operant conditioning is the same with all species. And it has been shown that the clicker can be more effective than the traditional ways of teaching certain things, when minute details are important. Perhaps this isn't why you see it as cruel, so if it is not, why do you feel this way/

    Children, music lessons, and the clicker: http://www.clickertraining.com/node/252

    Tag Teach International: http://www.tagteach.com/

    TagTeach Autism: http://www.tagteachautism.com/

    Those are just a couple of sites portraying use of the clicker with people.