Food Rewards - For and against..

glenmar

And now, sorry, but my fictional dogs are waiting for their fictional romp through the fictional woods.  Perhaps with their fictional mom.....

Cita

If that is the case, DPU, then by the same logic using affection as a reward (instead of food) would also involve -P and +P. In fact, any form of training (including teaching the dog to be more confident with other dogs, or more confident with people) would also involve -P and +P. I don't see how that's an issue exclusive to training with food.

It was asked before and not answered.  How do you withhold the feelings associated with a bond.?  It is always there and the dog knows it.  Affection is expressed differently but the feelings don't change.

DPU

Benedict, I probably understand your post more than others since our thinking is not all that different.

Actually, I'm pretty sure our thinking is very different on most subjects, and that's fine.  You've got your happy dogs, I have my happy dog.  Whatever road leads to Rome is a-ok with me just as long as there's a party when I get there.  

DPU

.  Its all about building bridges to get the dog to its happiest state and in the process building a very strong relationship bond.  Food is one of the bridges and counting on the relationship is the end.  Agility is an excellent sport for the human and dog because in the end, it comes down to just you, the dog, and the bond.

That I do actually agree with, and one of the reasons I do agility is because of the bond it has helped create between me and Ben.  Not that we didn't have a great relationship beforehand, but there is something totally indescribable about working as a seamless team with a different species to do something.  It's a learning experience for both of us, and I think that in any situation, a bond is created when 2 people...or 2 beings....are on equal footing working towards a goal.

There's an awful lot of talk about leadership, or dominance, or the type of relationship one had with a dog and how we'd classify that.  In the end, all those discussions lead to one thing - that we are above the dog in status - and that's FINE and those discussions are absolutely valid and necessary because, well, whatever word a person uses, that is in the end....true.  We are above the dog or dogs.  We provide the food, the shelter, the toys, the affection etc.  It's the nature of having a pet.

HOWEVER....there is less discussion on the ways in which we are equal with our dogs, or dare I say it, below them.  Ben is better at speaking dog than I am.  He can run a heck of a lot faster than I can.  He gets a simple joy out of the simplest things that I am well and truly envious of.  

Agility, however I further our goals towards it - and yes, that's with food and I am PERFECTLY fine with that - is a way in which Ben and I have been a team since our very first class, when we started on exactly the same level.  He didn't know what to do.  I didn't know what to do.  We were equals in every possible way.  And you know what?  He's learned faster than I have and he's better at it than me, but we're learning together and that makes for an incredible bond.

Whatever tool you use, be it treats, toys, praise, a toss of the ball, a swim in the lake, a run with a doggy friend, an extra trip over the A-frame.....WHATEVER....I think we do the bonds that are or will be created with our dogs during ANY kind of training serious damage by not acknowledging - not to each other, but to the DOG - that we are learning too, that we might mess up or get our timing wrong and that it doesn't matter because a true bond or love can take a screwup.....try another day and don't hold it over each other's heads.  Ben can't hold it over my head, so I don't have that right to do it to him.  Confidence is important, yes.  Believing that we know what is best for our dogs is important too.  But by acting - again, not to each other but to the dog - that we are always right in knowing what they want or should be doing we are setting the human-dog relationship up for a HUGE blow when we DO mess up - and that will happen because we're all human. 

Trust is a two-way street.  I use food most of the time to help build that trust and it's fine if other people don't.  No skin off my nose and it's just a tool anyway....Not every screwdriver fits every screw.  But we really need to trust our dogs that sometimes THEY know what is best for them, and there is just the slightest chance that we could be wrong about what we think they want.  Having confidence in your dog is just as important during training as having confidence in yourself.

DPU

You should think twice about your last statement because for me peer praise is higher valued than a oreo cookie or my highest prize food dessert

I admit to being unsure about why I should reconsider something just because it doesn't apply to you.  

corgipower

glenmar

And now, sorry, but my fictional dogs are waiting for their fictional romp through the fictional woods.  Perhaps with their fictional mom.....

Make sure you bring some fictional chicken and some fictional cheese!

Yeah, I was going to comment on that because it showed that with even with fictional dogs, Glenmar was going to throw real food at them to perform fictional behaviors. 

Holy moses that was a long post.  Sorry everyone.  Treats, praise or toys (pick the reward of your choice) to anyone who actually manages to read all that.   

Benedict

I admit to being unsure about why I should reconsider something just because it doesn't apply to you.  

Because I think and yes I repeat I think it was a sentence that supports your position on food training.  Like dogs, humans are social animals and it is my belief social acceptance is a higher prized value, unless of course you are hungary (oops) hungry.    But I am an accountant and I will leave the analysis to the psych educated people here.

I don't think your thinking is all that different from mine but you say it is.  Thats is ok but it may be an example of me extending myself to your understanding and you not reciprocating.  I do believe that the use of food continuously throughout your relationship with your dog  is not neccessary and if one substitues affections and working on substituing, then one object is eliminated in the relationship between you and the dog.

DPU

Since the discussion of clicker training started here, we have learned that is not pure positive, everyone agrees there is -P in it

Who is this everyone? I certainly don't agree there is P- in teaching with a clicker! I never, ever use P- when teaching a behaviour. The only time P- is used is when the behaviour is known, on cue, and the clicker is long phased out. I am a person that teaches in "sessions" rather than throughout the day, simply because it's easiest for me. But I certainly don't ever associate P- with the clicker. Never.

And I think everyone has come to the conlusion that you are the only person who sees P+ in clicker work (using the clicker actively, not what happens when the clicker is put away). *G* So really that point is moot.

But you are also the only person (in public anyhow) who sees that we "create hunger" in our dogs. If in 40 years you win the Nobel Prize for having discovered that clicker training causes hunger in dogs and it's horrible, then I'll bow down and accept that. But for now I stick to the decades of science that totally contradicts what you are saying, and base it off the fact that my dogs are not wanting or hungry in any way.

DPU

So for me, it is not practical and that needs to be discussed and frankly I don't know how to do that in warm and fuzzy way. 

We don't want the warm and fuzzy. We want the reality, and from the basis of conversations P+ and hunger are not the realities.

Benedict

Treats, praise or toys (pick the reward of your choice) to anyone who actually manages to read all that.   

I just want a hug.

Kim_MacMillan

Benedict

Treats, praise or toys (pick the reward of your choice) to anyone who actually manages to read all that.   

I just want a hug.

DPU

Because I think and yes I repeat I think it was a sentence that supports your position on food training.  Like dogs, humans are social animals and it is my belief social acceptance is a higher prized value,

Because I know I am socially accepted in my agility group, in the same way Ben knows we have a bond and is loved by me, there is no reason not to make food a part of that.  In any case, my original statement was a joke.  I only quoted you because I saw what you said as an example of how we (a general we, society in general) do not have confidence in each other to accept that another person is doing what is right for themselves.

DPU

I don't think your thinking is all that different from mine but you say it is.  Thats is ok but it may be an example of me extending myself to your understanding and you not reciprocating.

DPU

 I do believe that the use of food continuously throughout your relationship with your dog  is not neccessary and if one substitues affections and working on substituing, then one object is eliminated in the relationship between you and the dog.

And that is why we disagree.  You see food (treats in training) as an obstacle between you and your dogs, I see food (treats in training) as an aspect of the bond itself. 

Kim_MacMillan

Who is this everyone? I certainly don't agree there is P- in teaching with a clicker! I never, ever use P- when teaching a behaviour.

Houndlove for one.  This is what really irks me.  Houndlove has put that statement out at least 5 times and you have never commented, rebutted, or took exception.  You and Mudpuppy are at opposite ends on some issues but you never do an exchange to spell out why you have different views.  You and Spiritdogs have opposing takes also but never is there a dialogue for us JQPs to gain knowledge from such an exchange.  You seem to take on and oppose the easy targets, those that have beliefs based decades of observations and real experience with a variety of dogs.  So, I think you should be like everyone else here, share your knowledge and also learn from others.   

But you are also the only person (in public anyhow) who sees that we "create hunger" in our dogs. If in 40 years you win the Nobel Prize for having discovered that clicker training causes hunger in dogs and it's horrible, then I'll bow down and accept that. But for now I stick to the decades of science that totally contradicts what you are saying, and base it off the fact that my dogs are not wanting or hungry in any way.

You admitted you do not have the experience and rely on black and white paper written by others to support your view.  I have experience and I state my observations.  You offer not alternative explanation for the behavior because you can't.

We don't want the warm and fuzzy. We want the reality, and from the basis of conversations P+ and hunger are not the realities.

You do not know 100% for sure and when I tried to diplomatically point this out, you refused to address it.

DPU

Houndlove for one.  This is what really irks me.  Houndlove has put that statement out at least 5 times and you have never commented, rebutted, or took exception.  You and Mudpuppy are at opposite ends on some issues but you never do an exchange to spell out why you have different views.  You and Spiritdogs have opposing takes also but never is there a dialogue for us JQPs to gain knowledge from such an exchange.  You seem to take on and oppose the easy targets, those that have beliefs based decades of observations and real experience with a variety of dogs.  So, I think you should be like everyone else here, share your knowledge and also learn from others. 

Say wha?

Do you have an example? Certainly I've disagreed with all of these people on some things, but I'm pretty sure I explain why I disagree at all times! Sheesh, I am a free thinker,not a follower. I don't put people on pedestals...lol. And I haven't met anybody yet in which I've agreed with 100% of what they had to say.

If there's something you'd like to see, just ask, instead of pointing out all the people I disagee with but not saying what it is I'm disagreeing with! So if there's something you would like to learn, just ask.

And as for easy targets.....I don't know how you live your life, but I don't target people. I take it as it comes, and if I agree I will say so, and if I disagree I will also say so. In my world targetting is only something dogs do with their noses or paws.

DPU

You admitted you do not have the experience and rely on black and white paper written by others to support your view.

I said I haven't dealt with starving dogs. It doesn't take a starving (actually - once starved - dogs don't starve forever, they either eat or they die) dog to know that. I have years of experience in knowing that giving treats doesn't cause hunger, which yep is supported by the decades of research that also claims that.  *shrug* I don't see any point in what was just said, unless I misunderstood something. I don't know why one has to have a starving dog to know whether or not a non-meal food 'causes' hunger, because if it would it would *cause* hunger in all dogs equally.

DPU

You do not know 100% for sure and when I tried to diplomatically point this out, you refused to address it.

I didn't refuse. In fact I addressed both of those points quite heavily when they were brought up. I think rather that you either missed them or refused to read them. They are there, and if you need help finding them I'll help you out!

corgipower

If I give you a hug, do I get some of that ice cream?

Depends on the quality of the hug *G* No less-than-perfect hugs here y'hear?

DPU

from a simple discussion on using food in training, look at all the spin-off conversation.  It most definitely is a topic that should be discussed.

Actually all that means is that this thread is dreadfully off-topic now, and if it were anyone else's thread I'd likely have said something.  However since I started it, and it's a theory debate rather than someone actually needing some kind of help, I'm happy to let it wander.  I just suggest that we don't all make a habit of it.   

Benedict

I understand what you're doing, but understanding and agreeing are two different things.  We don't have to agree, it's not written in stone that we all should....in fact I think we shouldn't...we learn when we debate, and isn't this forum for learning?  How can we decide whether we like or agree with something or not if we're never forced to consider it?

You have never stated that you understood my view and by disagreeing only, as Mudpuppy did, one dismisses the idea without consideration.  In addition I am depicted in absolutes when in fact those are not true statement, not that you have done this.  We are here to learn and by dismissing, future reference for the possiblity is not there.