The Training/Behavior "Chatter" Thread

Excellent post, Spencer.

Though I may disagree with the idea that flooding can be accomplished in one session for everyone or everything. Certainly, there are exceptions. Riding on a bucket truck was new thing for me, earlier this year. But over the months, I got used to it. But that's over time. I didn't just go out and have to ride it all the way extended. Drawn out over time, it is more like desensitization.

I never liked snakes until my old friend, Lee, got himself a Ball Python Constrictor named Sulphur. He got him as a baby snake and I got used to handling him. By the time he was full grown ( 6 feet long and as big around as my arm), it was nothing scary at all to hold him. He had grown used to humans and I had grown used to him, as well as learning from my friend a bit about the behavior of snakes. But Lee's wife and mine, never, ever cared to hold him.

So, I guess, too, that some fears some people just won't get over, like it or not. I think you have a good point in that dogs do not have the abstract thought and language of humans. And it's certainly possible that a dog that showed a fear response one time to a stimulus might keep doing it if it initially garned him/her affection. Every appearance of the stimulus afterwards becomes an opportunity to get affection.

espencer

Flooding is all about reinforcement in the brain. Whenever we engage in an habitual behavior in response to something we fear, we reinforce that fear. If we are afraid of spiders and back away from them, we reinforce that fear.

Hmmm, I enjoy that this person is a pscyhologist, but I don't particularly give any credence to this. In the last ten years or so, research in human and animal sciences are changing the way in which emotions are viewed, and the prevailing thoughts are the emotions cannot be reinforced. They can be strengthened (such as if you are with somebody else who is also scared, or told that you should be scared), but they cannot be reinforced. Reinforcement occurs only in the eyes of operant behaviour, if a psychologist is to use that term properly. Because emotions are not operant, they cannot, simply, be reinforced. If that was true, any form of reinforcement that happens would reinforce fear, and of course, we all know that doesn't happen. If you just don't like spiders, and you act in those manners, that can lead to fears, because you are still operant. But if you are already petrified of spiders, backing away or leaving the room will not make that fear any worse. It will simply be. It likely won't be any less fearful, but chances are it won't be any more fearful either. This psychologist is saying that fear is an operant response, when it is not. Emotion is not able to be controlled by the brain, you cannot "change" your emotions just because you want to, and you cannot reinforce or punish emotions. So, degree or not, I will disagree with this particular psychologist's opinion. Not all psychologists have the same beliefs either *G*, and having a degree doesn't make everything said gospel (as I and others have mentioned before). ;-)

Contrast that to Amy Cook, also a psychologist, who would disgree with Clearman in entirety. You can find her work on various websites, but the best resource to check out is her Yahoo Group - Shyk9's, as it's the most in depth and you can read a lot of things there you won't find on generalized websites. It's fascinating stuff actually, definitely worth a read.

espencer

VERY IMPORTANT POINT: The difference between dogs an humans when it comes to phobias says Dr Clearman is that humans attach thought, imagination, memory and anticipation of their fears. Dogs do not do these things; they live in the moment, giving them a huge advantage over us in overcoming fears and phobias

This is true, that in some cases this is a good thing in working with dogs with behaviour issues. In other contexts, it can also be a drawback. Dogs cannot tell us when they are feeling a certain way, they cannot tell us when something is too much, they cannot say "no", they don't have a choice. The largest difference, as a whole, between behaviour modification in people, and behaviour modification in dogs, is that humans seek help because they "choose" to. If you took that person, restrained them against their will, and forced them through a flooding procedure, I dare say the results would be a lot different (and there is evidence to back this up in human research).

Dogs do not have a choice. This may not seem like a big thing, but it really is when it comes down to it - because humans choose to undergo behaviour mod, they are already setting themselves up in a certain physiological and motivational state. They have the choice to leave if they want, even in a flooding procedure the option is always there to back out. They choose to stay. Flooding in people only works as long as the person submits to being flooded. Dogs don't have choices like this.

espencer

Dr Clearman explains that the mountains of research that have been done on it continue to prove that its very, very effective

Yes, there certainly is. And there is also mountains of research that has been done to show that it can be very, very, ineffective, as well as very maladaptive. So which do we believe? Personally I look at all the evidence, but in the end, it's the evidence that shows something can also be dangerous or negative that is most important, IMO. It's nice to know that something "can" work, but it's a lot nicer to know the full story - all the things that can go wrong as well. If we only look at what we want to see, then we are only doing ourselves a disservice. For this case, when done right very little can possibly go wrong with desensitization. With flooding, when done right, it can go either way - it very much depends on the dog/person, and you often don't know without trying it. None of us deny that flooding can work effectively. What some people question is all of those other cases where it didn't work. And that is a very fair worry to be had, wouldn't you say?

For me, it is much more effective to use something that may take time, but will work, rather than something done quickly, but that has as much a chance of working as not working, and that working or not working is totally out of your control, it is a result of the animal itself. It comes down to looking at all of the research, and making eduated decisions with all of the evidence in hand.

espencer

When a dog overcomes his phobia himself they become self empowered, increasing their self esteem and affecting other areas of their lives as they feel stronger, more comfortable and happier

This I very much agree with, 100%. :-) And both desensitization and flooding involve the dog overcoming the phobia himself, both rely on the dog making those decisions.

Like if I did a parachute jump (something which would petrify me) but I got to the ground OK and felt as if I had achieved something.  I think the glaring difference that Kim has pointed out (that dogs do not have a choice) is a very important one.  How would I feel about that parachute jump if I had been pushed, rather than taken the decision to jump myself?  Might I feel differently? 

Often, when using desensitiation, classical conditioning is a big part of it.  The dog begins to associate the former-fear-inducing-thing with something GOOD, to the point where he starts to actually look FORWARD to seeing that person/dog/object and will willingly move closer to it.  If every time you saw a policeman he gave you £5, you might start to look forward to meeting policemen. 

Some may think the difference is subtle but I think the dog choosing to step closer gives him a greater feeling of empowerment than the dog being forced into proximity with it, realising he can't get away, giving up hope, and then, possibly, hopefully, beginning to realise that it is not hurting him, nothing bad is happening and he does not have to be afraid.

In actual fact, I think that last is not always true.  Again, classical conditioning is at work here.  When you are very afraid of something, when you see it or come close to it your heart rate increases, your body temperature changes, you can go pale, sweaty, shaky, you can feel nauseous, you may actually vomit or pass out.... so it would be false to say "nothing bad is happening and you don't have to be afraid" because, to YOU lots of bad things are happening and you feel awful!  And so, at the very least, you can be afraid of something because of the horrible response it provokes - every time you see it you can dread it because you know all those horrible things happen and round and round we go in a horrible vicious circle.

"We have nothing to fear except fear itself" might be apt here...??

Chuffy

Might I feel differently?

You might, but what makes you think a dog would feel differently? Whether he was "forced" into the fear position or chose to go in there himself (which he wouldn't do) what's the difference TO HIM? Do you think he has the mental capacity of reasoning and logic, the same as we do, to "think", "I'm afraid, my pulse is racing, I'm shaking and sweating. This is all very uncomfortable. And it's all because mom put me here" ?

This is one of the points I've been trying to make. It doesn't really matter how YOU would feel under the same circumstances. Yes, you would both feel fear, but all the "chatter" around the fear is surely a human emotion/reasoning/logic thing and we cannot apply it to dogs.

All the feelings in your post are about PEOPLE feelings. Reasoning, logic, rational thought, extrapolation, human consciousness, physiology... all human, not dogs. Yes, fear is fear. We all feel fear at one time or another. It's part of life. It teaches us. Overprotecting a dog results in an overprotected, fearful, skittish dog. One who CAN NOT deal with strange happenings or his own fear.

I'm not saying desensitization equates to overprotection, but the mindset of protecting a dog from feeling fear, does. I know... People will say that dogs have enough fear in their lives, but if he's afraid of a ceiling fan, stairs, the oven, hardwood floors, other people, certain voices, the vacuum cleaner or other every day occurrences, then he's afraid of fear and something should be done for the dog, no matter how uncomfortable the owner is about it.

I think systematic desensitization to the feeling of fear is in order! LOL

espencer, this guy might be the MOST expert authority on the face of the planet, but I promise you if he "floods" me with snakes he's going to be very sorry.  I'm not just afraid, I'm phobic.  And while I recognize that this is a totally irrational fear, well, there it is.  And while it might seem like a piddling little nothing to some, it's HUGE for me to actually go into the yard, or walk to the mailbox in the summer when I KNOW that there are snakes out there.  When DS found the nest of snakes in the garage and I had to approach him with a shovel so he could move the danged things I was absolutely petrified.  But, I DID it.  Granted I didn't get any closer than the length of my arm plus the shovel, but, I actually looked at the things and didn't wet my pants.  THAT was huge for me.  I have NEVER in my life had an experience with a snake that could have caused this phobia.  I can tell you exactly why I'm afaid of heights and exactly why I'm claustrophobic, but I can't tell you where this horrible, irrational terror of snakes came from.  But, I can absolutely PROMISE you that anyone who tries to force the issue might end up missing some body parts because the terror will escalate to the point that I'll do whatever it takes to get away and if you get in my way, that's your problem.

Tyler came back to me with a terror of bare floors.  After he was nuetered, DS had to CARRY him across an expanse of shiney floor at the vets because he was NOT going to walk on it.  We tried EVERYTHING to get him to cross that floor and he wasn't having it. German Shepherds are NOT little dogs, easy to carry and they are not without strength when they are terrified.  And I know the why of it.  In his "forever" home the way outside was over a ceramic tile floor.  The gal didn't use ANY rugs, not even a mat at the door.  With six kids and three dogs romping in and out, well, floors like that get wet and slippery.  Her description was "think Bambi on ice" and she thought it was FUNNY.  When we moved to our current house, with hardware floors in the common area, we put down runners for him.  And we slowly desensitized him and taught him that he could walk on those floors without falling.  And now, he WILL walk on strange bare floors.  Yes, he looks to me for reassurance, but he TRUSTS me to keep him safe.

My way worked for Tyler.  It took longer, but I didn't cause him additional terror by forcing the issue.  Maybe the difference is that he had a valid REASON for his fear, but the idea of flooding just really bothers me, and yes, a lot of it has to do with MY feelings.  But, that's what I, as an owner, have to go on.  My experience with dogs, and my feelings as a person.

This thread is tought to keep up with because its fast moving.....I had a number of comments on some of the other stuff mentioned here, but, gosh, too many pages ago..... 

My Swissy is a very confident dog; he has never had a fear in his entire 3 years of life.  He can meander around anything and anyone without not one nervous reaction.  The first time I took him to him the lake to swim he stopped dead in his tracks.  I waited and watched him.  He would walk into the water but never submerge himself.  Swissy for the most part are not swimmers – although some love it, most do not.   We purchased a boat and wanted to spend as much time at the lake and on our boat as possible with our dog.  Not only did he not want to go into the water he did not want to walk down the dock and into our boat.  The first couple of times we went I tried everything to lure and coax him into the water and down the dock – he wasn’t having it.  To big to pull and force and to heavy to carry I was stuck.

Once morning my husband took River to the lake early in the morning.  Now mind you I am the trainer of my dog.  My husband for the most part is the playmate and thinks I baby him.  I was sleeping in that morning and didn’t go, I told him that I would meet him there later with my son.  To my surprise when I got to the lake the boat was gone, so was my husband and my dog.  I called him on his cell and he told me he and River were taking a ride.  I was like, what??  How did you get him on the boat?

It turns out that my DH decided to carry him into the water over his head and let him go forcing him to swim.  He told me River was nervous, panting and trying to climb up his back, although heavy and bulky he forced him to go with him.  When River was let free franticly swam to shore. DH went and got him again and repeated a couple of times.

After about the third time DH said he called to him to come (which he is 100% reliable with) while DH stayed in the water and River started freaking out.  He didn’t know how he was going to get to DH without going in the water.  He ran back and forth and round the beach for a few minutes, whining and crying when he finally decided that the dock was the easiest way to get close to DH (already in the water) cautious and scared he slowly walked down the dock.  Don’t you know he went on the dock to the end, whined at the end until he finally jumped in the water!!  From that day on River loves the water, swims in the pond at our house now too, every chance he gets.  He walks on the dock and after some coaxing has managed to figure out how to get into the boat without panicking.

In my mind DH flooded him by forcing the swimming part on him.  Once he realized there was nothing to fear he was fine with the whole water, boat and dock thing.  There was no adverse effect on my dog he is still the same guy he always was.  I am sure different situations must be handled differently for sure and DH did something I would not have done, but I am glad he did.  Now on the other hand, I don’t’ think there is anything I could have done with my Duke who was fearful of thunder.  Flooding him would probably have given him a heart attack.

glenmar

And we slowly desensitized him and taught him that he could walk on those floors without falling. 

I'm curious how you did that. If you don't mind, could you tell me more? I desensitized Jaia to the vet's office (in this thread) and I had never done anything like that so I'd like to see how they compare. (It's not a challenge, I promise, I am just curious.)

Secondly, I have said several times on this board that Cara is afraid of my sneezes and chokes. As I was writing my last post, it occurred to me that I really should "practice what I preach". So, in the coming days, I'm going to set it up to do some flooding with her as regards my sneezing and choking. And I will post about it here. I have to do some research to make sure I know what I'm doing.

The situation is that when I sneeze (or choke), she leaves the house. If it's cold, raining, snowing, dark or in the middle of the night, she skulks out of the house, head low, making a bee-line for the door. If we're all sitting around the fire in the evening enjoying a "family time" and I sneeze, she MUST leave. I have tried desensitizing her to it, but she can never get past a certain point. I hate her having this fear and it certainly can't be good for her or much fun for her because she always has to separate herself from the pack when she really would rather just lie comfortably in her nice bed.

I'll get back to you on that.  

That's a great story, swissy! I would probably use desensitization in a case of thunder fear. I'm not sure why, but it just seems to me that would bring the best results. That's why I think it's so important that each of us choose the way to handle (or not) our dogs' fears. We know them best.

If "flooding" is so effective, how come dogs almost never get over fear of thunderstorms without a desensitization program? every time a storm blows in the dog is "flooded", nothing bad happens to the dog, and yet most dogs get more and more frantic with each storm. Or separation anxiety- the dog gets "flooded" with being alone every day, nothing bad ever happens to them, and yet they don't get over their severe fear. 

I personally can't imagine putting a dog through the terror of a flooding experience just to "get it over quick"; that seems mean compared to a desensitization program, which is more likely to work and less likely to backfire.  Why are people so attracted to the "quick fix"?

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.

this is a complete mis-understanding of ecollars. First of all, at the "working level" it doesn't feel at all like a static shock- it feels like a weird, unpleasant tickling sensation, think bugs crawling on your skin. Yes, I've tried it on me and on my SO.  And second, the dog CAN predict when he will receive stim, it doesn't come out of the blue. You first teach the dog the basic commands using lures and rewards, and then you introduce the ecollar and teach the dog he can turn off the unpleasant sensation by obeying commands he already knows. At first the stim comes at the same time as the command, then goes off when he obeys the command. This is pure negative reinforcement. Here you are using the ecollar to help proof commands. After a week or so you start to hesitate between giving the command and hitting the stim, setting up a "superstition" in the dog's mind that if he obeys commands quickly enough he "beats the stim". And you're done, and don't have to stim the dog again unless he is slow in obeying a command.

Dogs trained this way respond nicely and seem to feel empowered- the communications and timing are crystal-clear and always consistent which means more to dogs than the actual methods used.

I've also seen our local sitmeanssit train puppies entirely with the ecollar without first teaching commands, not a method I'd recommend (it actually seems a much slower method than pure clicker training or a combo of first +R then ecollar to proof), and what they do is carefully guide the puppy so he is quickly successful- combine a lure with the stim to get the sit, and so on. It doesn't crush spirits, create jumpy dogs, whatever other myths you've heard.

Of course some people use ecollars incorrectly, just as some people use clickers incorrectly.

mudpuppy

I personally can't imagine putting a dog through the terror of a flooding experience just to "get it over quick"; that seems mean compared to a desensitization program, which is more likely to work and less likely to backfire.

Thanks for proving this point:

"The difference between dogs an humans when it comes to phobias says Dr Clearman is that humans attach thought, imagination, memory and anticipation of their fears."

mudpuppy

Why are people so attracted to the "quick fix"?

Believe it or not, that is not the motivation. As long as you carry the opinion that everyone is out for a "quick fix", then you're going to wonder about that, and you're going down the road to nowhere. The motivation is what will work the best for the situation -- what will help the dog to overcome his fear and get out of the fear more quickly. For the dog's welfare, not the owner's.

The reason flooding doesn't work with thunderstorms is that the dog isn't IN the fear long enough for it to fade away. During the storm, the thunder comes and goes and each time the dog goes INTO the fear and then calms down somewhat between lightening strikes. The only way to flood the dog successfully would be to have nearly constant thunder that lasted however long was necessary for the dog's fear to fade and to realize that the thunder wasn't actually causing harm. The dog (or person) cannot stay "in fear" forever and so the body moves out of fear even though the stimulus is still present.

I've been reading about flooding and what actually happens psychologically and it's very interesting.  

mudpuppy

this is a complete mis-understanding of ecollars. First of all, at the "working level" it doesn't feel at all like a static shock- it feels like a weird, unpleasant tickling sensation, think bugs crawling on your skin. Yes, I've tried it on me and on my SO.  And second, the dog CAN predict when he will receive stim, it doesn't come out of the blue. You first teach the dog the basic commands using lures and rewards, and then you introduce the ecollar and teach the dog he can turn off the unpleasant sensation by obeying commands he already knows. At first the stim comes at the same time as the command, then goes off when he obeys the command. This is pure negative reinforcement. Here you are using the ecollar to help proof commands. After a week or so you start to hesitate between giving the command and hitting the stim, setting up a "superstition" in the dog's mind that if he obeys commands quickly enough he "beats the stim". And you're done, and don't have to stim the dog again unless he is slow in obeying a command.

No, it's not a misunderstanding. :-) It's one way the shock collar is used, by some of the most well-known shock trainers in the world. For many trainers, the shock is used from day one, and the dog learns cues via shock. So with those trainers, until the behaviours are known the shocks are unexpected, the shocks are unpredictable, and the body is constantly wondering (via a state of arousal/stress) when the next shock might arise. For dogs that are already taught the cues and shock is used for proofing, I agree wholeheartedly, it's a totally different ball game. But I wasn't talking about that method of e-collar use, where cues are taught first and then proofed (not that I would use it anyhow), I was talking about the other method that is used by hundreds of trainers. Both methods are considered 'right' by their respective people who use them.

And not all dogs are worked on a stimulation in which it is only a "mild" sensation. Believe me, I've tried it on my skin too, at various levels - my arms, hands, neck, legs, feet, to compare intensities. I worked under a lady who was a complete shock-collar advocate, who used the shock collar much the way I described, under the "training" of a well-known local shock trainer, who was taught this by many very well-known shock collar users (for police/protection work, etc). Some dogs are worked on quite a strong stimulation, under the guise of being a "difficult" breed. I saw a pittie mix that was worked routinely on a level 6 stim, when 8 was the highest it would go to. So while you may use the collar one way, I think it's wise to realize it's used (and considered "correct", and taught that way!) in more than just that way.

FourIsCompany

You might, but what makes you think a dog would feel differently? Whether he was "forced" into the fear position or chose to go in there himself (which he wouldn't do) what's the difference TO HIM? Do you think he has the mental capacity of reasoning and logic, the same as we do, to "think", "I'm afraid, my pulse is racing, I'm shaking and sweating. This is all very uncomfortable. And it's all because mom put me here" ?

No, I am not talking about logic or reasoning, I am talking about classical conditioning, and yes, dogs can be classically conditioned.  Pavlovs dogs didn't think "hmmm, there;s a bell ringing, now let me think, that means we will be fed, mmm, yummy, wait I had better start salivating".  The sound triggered the response, it was not the result of a logical chain of thought.  So if a dog is scared of going in the car for example, it might get to the point that he is actually sick.  He begins to hate car journeys, because on top of everything else, he feels horrible when they happen.  I'm not making much sense, even to myself....

When I said "Might I feel differently?" I was specifically talking about feelings of empowerment.  If such feelings/thoughts are human-only then they don't apply to either technique when used on dogs.  But if they can be applied to flooding, then they can be applied to desensitisation as well.  (I think there's some crossed wires here somewhere.)  If a dog can get a boost from puzzling something out on his own and getting it right, (which they CAN, unequivocally in my mind) then I don't see how he cannot also get a boost from overcoming his own fear and not being "pushed" into it.  (I understand that even desensitisation also uses a degree of "pushing", even if only in starting the programme in the first place, but I hope you can see what I mean)

Why would you assume a dog is afraid of fear just because he has a phobia of something ordinary and everyday (to us)?  That makes no sense to me.  Why would you assume a dog is "afraid of fear" just because he is more sensitive and more "skittish"?  Some dogs are genetically pre-disposed to being fearful (people too) and there's not a lot ANY training programme can do to change it.
 

The dog on a shock collar is taught by using cues both verbal and signal.  There are warning beeps and the dogs are taught to respond to the verbal and warning beeps way before a stim is ever introduced.  The stim is used for proofing.