Why This Surliness Towards Clickers (and other great questions)

I, too, can think of using the dog's natural behaviors to train but I don't think that it is all unthinking, either. For example, using resource guarding to control resource guarding. That has worked for me. Just as others here are using tension on the leash to use a dog's natural ability to pull against that tension to refine the down or stay. Which is does not eradicate the usefulness of reward based training. Nor would it excuse the use of a shock collar for a down.

And alas, it is from a different viewpoint. In fact, the author of that idea doesn't see the collar as +P but -R, in the sense that anything we do that we normally call punishment is -R as the successful dog revises behavior to avoid the pain. But, also, I think, the link is made that even +R is -R, if one wishes to think that a dog will train to what you want to avoid hunger. Eating the food assuages the "tension" of being hungry.

I am for using a dog's natural strengths. My BIL's Aussie, a natural born cutting dog, if there ever was one. Cutting in the herding sense. She lives to cut from the herd.

And I have agreed with parts of this theory. For example, what some mistaken people view as a dog being dominant is not dominance at all. Maybe it's a side effect of my trade experience, as well as my view of OC but I do not think a shock collar should be used to train down. The guy could shower every day and use wonderful cologne and brush his teeth and speak in soft tones and flowery concepts and I would still think it's wrong to shock for down. Dogs that get shocked enough will quit responding to anything, to avoid the shock. That's already been established. And perhaps I see the use of the shock collar to train a down as a fatal flaw in the method. IMO, as always.

But I am also aware of the politics that go on. For example, since Sept 2005, not one person has ever doubted my judgement on Shadow's breed mix or his breed traits until this thread. And then, only because I dare to disagree with a guy that calmly states that he is against clickers, which is a side issue, for me. That is, I'm not disagreeing with him on that, though I have disagreed plenty in regards to it before, but it was not the main issue I was disagreeing with. However, that doesn't stop the politics.

ron2

But I am also aware of the politics that go on. For example, since Sept 2005, not one person has ever doubted my judgement on Shadow's breed mix or his breed traits until this thread. And then, only because I dare to disagree with a guy that calmly states that he is against clickers, which is a side issue, for me. That is, I'm not disagreeing with him on that, though I have disagreed plenty in regards to it before, but it was not the main issue I was disagreeing with. However, that doesn't stop the politics.

The politics of dog training.....interesting, we all know about that, especially the people who don't subscribe to the "Clicker movement"......

ron2

I do not think a shock collar should be used to train down.

Okay. But, that's a very different statement than, "I wouldn't want to be part of a system that trains down with a shock collar." That, sir is politics. A prime political statement that attempts to sully the entire "system" because of one flaw. I have no problem with you rejecting the use of a shock collar. My point was that you seemed to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You made the connection between LCK, Sattin and Behan and then proceeded to take ONE point of Sattin's (who I've never heard of) and connect it to "Natural Dog Training". Pure politics. We've just heard that Farrakhan endorses Obama. That's the exact same political strategy, as far as I can tell.

ron2

And then, only because I dare to disagree with a guy that calmly states that he is against clickers, which is a side issue, for me.

I SERIOUSLY doubt that's the reason people questions Shadow's breed mix, Ron. Seriously. I think you might be seeing politics where there are none. Very few of us are innocent of playing the politics of this subject. It's part of the game it seems.

Lee Charles Kelley

 And I've been "donating" my time* on sites like this to explain why this silly belief in a dog's ability to use language is such a fantasy. I

We can take up a collection, if you'd like. 

Would you prefer to be compensated per post or per word? 

Dog_ma

Lee Charles Kelley

 And I've been "donating" my time* on sites like this to explain why this silly belief in a dog's ability to use language is such a fantasy. I

 

We can take up a collection, if you'd like. 

Would you prefer to be compensated per post or per word? 

LOL!

I've got news for you LCK, we all donate our time here to both educate and learn from each other.

As for the original topic of this thread, I think "surliness" occurs whenever someone proclaims "their" way is the only way, "their" way is a better way, or "their" way is all you need with all dogs, all of the time.

This doesn't just apply to clickers.

Angelique

As for the original topic of this thread, I think "surliness" occurs whenever someone proclaims "their" way is the only way, "their" way is a better way, or "their" way is all you need with all dogs, all of the time.

This doesn't just apply to clickers.

It appears "surliness" is a contagious and highly infectious disease primarily contracted through unprotected use of the internet. LOL!

denise m

It appears "surliness" is a contagious and highly infectious disease primarily contracted through unprotected use of the internet. LOL!

ROFL!

 I really like what Grandin had to say about language.  Unfortuantely I leant the book out and never got it back.  But if anyone is interested in animals and language READ it, if you haven't already (Animals in Translation)

spiritdogs

As to the question of "language", it is true that dogs don't use it - IF we define language as human speech.  However, if you've ever heard dog vocalizations, or nudges/pawing/posturing, or body "language", absent humans in the vicinity, you realize that communication is happening.  So, if you define language as communication, many species are "talking" to one another quite effectively.  Sure, coyotes probably don't look at one another and say "stay", but somehow, a couple of them know enough to wait in a particular spot for their cohort to chase a prey animal into the pre-set ambush.  Communication doesn't have to be on the same par with our own to be effective or real.

I can see where you're coming from on this, but as I've pointed out several times there are two basic types of communication, one that requires the use of language, and is done with the deliberate intent to communicate information directly to the mind of another through symbols, written, spoken, or signed. Then there's the second type, which does not require symbolic language, and even in humans is done, for the most part, unconsciously.

As for how wolves (or coyotes) communicate while hunting, to me it's a very complex system of reading the prey animal's energy while also reading the energy of each of your pack mates. And the energy is always shifting and changing from moment to moment, so it's very, very complicated. But we know now from disciplines like emergence theory, computer programming, and A.I., etc., that very complex systems can arise out of simple, binary choices and things like pattern recognition, and I mean verrrrry complex behaviors with no conscious or intentional thought involved. In fact, ant colonies engage in some very sophisticated behaviors; some of them are far more sophisticated than what a wolf pack could ever do. And the entire organization of the colony is based on 10 or 11 simple behaviors, most if not all of which are controlled by semio-chemicals. In this microcosm of social organization, when one ant secretes a pheromone, that's a form of communication because it changes another ant's behavior. But it doesn't mean the 1st ant has any awareness of what it's doing, nor the intent to communicate. 

By the way, there is a type of jellyfish that seems to engage in a pack style of hunting. Two or three of the sea creatures will "swim" toward their prey, coming at it from different angles. In the footage I've seen of this it seemed at times as if one of the jellies was actually "driving" the prey directly toward the other. Yet jelly fish are a form of plankton, with no brain or sensory organs. So how do they do that?

LCK 

Lee Charles Kelley

from disciplines like emergence theory

My understanding emergence theory was to explain how a wolf pack functions as multi-faceted hunting mechanism. Each wolf will have different talents. Together, in cooperation, they bring down the game. The one with the best sniffer is on point and locates the prey. The fastest runner flushes and chases. The second fastest runners flank and herd. And when the fastest runner latches onto prey, the biggest one might get in to add his or her weight to bringing down the prey. A situation where the combined effect is more successful than each wolf hunting for him/herself.

 Oh goodness, don't get me started on ants! Social insects blow my mind. I've been entertaining the idea that ants are a hyper-intelligent race from outer space and are quietly taking over the world, but the truth is, in a way, much more impressive.

Jellyfish plankton? Not really. Try a bunch of plankton living in a commune and forming some kind of Megatron creature in the process

Penny once trained a very good sit stay with another dog. It was so specific it went along the lines of "sit and stay under that bush until I am finished greeting the humans". It was very cool, but explainable without the use of complex language. Really, the other dog was just trying to get Penny to stop staring at her so menacingly, and sitting under the bush worked. Of course, that dog later had a serious melt-down and tried to kill her. I think there's an important lesson there for us! 

And I understand something a little better this morning. I couldn't see it because it was right in front of me (happens all the time). The LCK theory has the important precept of mental process and/or thinking ability tied secifically to language. Having stated more than once that language, at least as defined by one thinker in the neurology field, must contain spoken words of a discrete pattern that symbolize. With this definition, Man is the only animal capable of thought, mental process, symbolic meaning. If an animal, such as a dog, whale, elephant cannot speak words that sound like human speach, then they can't be having mental processes, abstract thought, or symbolic communication. Animals like Parrots and others that can mimick human speach are just there to mess with you. Anyway, if a dog cannot speak like a human, he therefore has no mental process and must be interacting or responding with the environment through some way. Well, one could describe it as an energy exchange. I can also describe your computer desk as a waveform at one level with quantum mechanics. But you can hurt your knee or toe if you run into that particular waveform. Or emotion.

Emotion, to me, is a mental process. Do the jellyfish plankton have emotions?

Given the limitation defined by language, such as the presented language being judged whether it's a language or not and the hingepinning of thought ability to that narrowly defined language, what's left must be the explanation, from that viewpoint.

It's a mathematical construct and as such is a striking use of algebraic logic. If a < b and c is a constant whole integer, then ac < bc. While I love the use of logic, I may disagree with the initial parameters set forth. And disagree with other suppositions involved in the theory. But, many times, math is just a descriptive language. Rev. Billy Graham once explained the trinity of God as 1 ^ 3. Problem is, that also "proves" polytheism, 1 ^ n, where n is any number.

ron2

Having stated more than once that language, at least as defined by one thinker in the neurology field, must contain spoken words of a discrete pattern that symbolize. With this definition, Man is the only animal capable of thought, mental process, symbolic meaning.

Google Alex the talking Parrot and watch several of the videos. Or Koko, the gorilla who knew and communicated with sign language.