Why This Surliness Towards Clickers (and other great questions)

I'm actually beginning to think clickers are good for some things but not necessarily for everything. Now, I haven't really tried it properly, so I probably shouldn't talk, but I just have this vague sense that it is not always what you want to be doing.

I used a clicker with my rabbit to try to teach her that it was a good thing to let people touch her. I did it lazily and didn't properly load the clicker and all the rest, but nonetheless, in a few days she was happy to be brushed and she did the rest on her own without a clicker. I think we put ideas into her head, because she's been reward training us ever since, using affection as the reward. But it's come back to bite her, because she's realised she really likes affection too and now we can train her using affection as a reward. This has led to quite a special little bond and I just had to kick her off my lap so I could finish typing this message. So I found the clicker to be a great bridging tool to help an animal that didn't like humans realise that we weren't so bad. But she took control from there and I think that was good for our relationship (considering rabbits think humans are rabbit slaves and Bonnie doesn't like to think we're calling the shots). I've brought the clicker out a couple of times and Bonnie doesn't want to play most of the time.

I also think the clicker is good for independent dogs like Pyry, who always asks "What's in it for Pyry?" before he does something. He likes to do stuff with people, if it's the same stuff he wants to do, but it's hard to imagine him wanting to learn just for the sake of learning. He really is in it only for himself. He wants to learn so he can get what he wants, and it doesn't bother him overly much if people don't form a part of that. He has been partially clicker trained and responds wonderfully to it. He's smart and will do things for treats, but doesn't desperately need them the way Penny does.

As I've said recently, Penny has this fixation on food and it's hard to teach her when food is present. I taught her most things just with verbal praise while we were out walking together, and I think that has worked really well for her. She's not super reliable, and she'd be more reliable if there was food involved, but these things aren't things I need her to be reliable on. Just conveniences. I'm reluctant to use a clicker paired with food with Penny because of her food fixation.

And then there's Kit.... who won't work for anything, really. But we've got the strongest bond of all, and even though he isn't a social animal, I really think he values happiness in his family members and he seems to care about our emotional states. We are very good at understanding each other, me and him, and any problems I've had with him I've solved by working out what he wanted and supplying it in a form acceptable to me. I keep saying I'm raising my next puppy the way I raised him because it created such a special bond, and clicker training has really not been a part of that method at all. The hare method was just purely knowing nothing about hares and listening really hard to him so he could tell me what I needed to know. And he did tell me.

But then, there's a lot of stuff I don't expect of him that I would expect of a dog. So in the end, I think I'm just going to marry a bunch of things I've used with my other animals that have had good results. A clicker to break through a wall, affection as a reward when it works, food when I need the behaviour to be very reliable, and listening to what the animal tells me.
 

I do wish we could rate individual posts because I would give you ***** (5 stars)

Like almost ANYTHING, the best answer isn't found at the extremes (using the clicker for EVERYTHING or NOTHING), but somewhere in the middle (using it for some things and using other tools and methods for other things). At least, that's MY best answer.

Lee Charles Kelley

First of all, it's a mistake to think that dogs learn through making mental associations. They don't. They learn to choose behaviors that they find successfully reduce their own internal levels of tension or stress. It's learning by homeostasis, if you will, not through external rewards.
 

Then I wonder why both of my dogs rush to the kitchen when they hear a can being opened..... 

Yeah, or if they hear the leash being moved.

sillysally

Lee Charles Kelley

First of all, it's a mistake to think that dogs learn through making mental associations. They don't. They learn to choose behaviors that they find successfully reduce their own internal levels of tension or stress. It's learning by homeostasis, if you will, not through external rewards.
 

 

Then I wonder why both of my dogs rush to the kitchen when they hear a can being opened..... 

Don't wonder, SillySally. Tell us why you think they do.

Whatever you think, I can assure you that it's not because they've made a mental association between the sound of a can being opened and an "external reward" that may follow. If you think they DO make a mental association between these two things, tell me how this is done. Just one thing, though, since dogs don't have the capacity to use and understand language, don't use any words when you explain it...

It's certainly easy to believe, as Skinner did (based on Pavlov's work, based on Watson's ideas*, which can be traced back to Darwin, sort of), that what you see happening is a simple stimulus-response chain, but it's not. In fact, most behaviors (except maybe pure reflexes) are not in any way part of a simple stimulus-response chain. And while yours is a clever answer, it doesn't tell us much about HOW your dogs were supposedly conditioned to respond this way via mental associations -- i.e., can opening = external reward -- rather than through a much simpler mechanism, based on the ebb and flow of their own internal emotional states: how the sound of the can being opened creates a "disturbance" in whatever flow state their emotions are in when they hear it, and what that change of their internal energy state motivates them to do. All of this can be explained through the energetic properties of tension and release, no mental thought process or use of language would be required.

Here's how it would work:

> dogs are sleeping or relaxing (one energy state)

> the can being opened creates a sound wave which hits the dogs ears

> the sound stirs feelings of hunger and desire, rousing the dogs

> the dogs follow the sound to its source

> their hunger and desire is sometimes satisfied ("rewarded";), sometimes not

> either way, the desire dissipates, returning the dogs to their former state

> the desire to follow the the sound to its source is always satisfied. 

Meanwhile, your explanation (which I'm taking the liberty to supply for you) requires that the dogs engage in a kind of low-level logical thinking:

> if sound, then external reward.

That's logic at its simplest, most basic level, And, sorry, but dogs don't have the capacity to think logically, even at this low a level. (Because again, it would require the use of language.)

But I don't suppose you were expecting me to distill this down to its barest essence. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me you were just being glib. You haven't really thought it through from a 21st Century perspective...

Sorry to have bothered you,

LCK

*Watson's theory of stimulus-response goes back to about 1912, almost 100 years ago. Time to move on, don't you think?

Lee Charles Kelley

Too many owners and trainers ignore this, thinking if the dog is producing physical behaviors on command, they've been successful. (I've also heard a lot of clicker trainers complain privately that their dogs have developed food-related misbehaviors, such as scavenging, counter-surfing, etc.)

  LOL dogs have been scavenging LONG before clicker training came along. In fact, dogs have been scavenging even before they ever met up with humans. Story has it that their tendency to scavenge may have played a key role in their domestication. I am pretty sure dogs have been counter surfing since humans started living in houses ;)

Lee Charles Kelley

sillysally

Lee Charles Kelley

First of all, it's a mistake to think that dogs learn through making mental associations. They don't. They learn to choose behaviors that they find successfully reduce their own internal levels of tension or stress. It's learning by homeostasis, if you will, not through external rewards.
 

 

Then I wonder why both of my dogs rush to the kitchen when they hear a can being opened..... 

 

 

It's certainly easy to believe, as Skinner did (based on Pavlov's work, based on Watson's ideas, which can be traced back to Darwin, sort of), that what you see happening is a simple stimulus-response chain, but it's not.

Proof?

AgileGSD

Lee Charles Kelley

Too many owners and trainers ignore this, thinking if the dog is producing physical behaviors on command, they've been successful. (I've also heard a lot of clicker trainers complain privately that their dogs have developed food-related misbehaviors, such as scavenging, counter-surfing, etc.)

  LOL dogs have been scavenging LONG before clicker training came along. In fact, dogs have been scavenging even before they ever met up with humans. Story has it that their tendency to scavenge may have played a key role in their domestication. I am pretty sure dogs have been counter surfing since humans started living in houses ;)

Dogs who are well fed and do not have any medical conditions or internal parasites would have no reason to scavenge or counter-surf. I often board many of the dogs I've trained. Have done so for years. And yet with one exception (a very anxious beagle) none of them have ever felt the need to scavenge or counter-surf.

The idea that scavenging is a normal behavior in adult dogs is a complete fallacy. It's a symptom of anxiety.

As to the current theory of domestication, there are serious holes in it as far as I'm concerned: http://www.tiny.cc/InHisDNA

Here's a snippet from that article:

Who Knows, Maybe Dogs Domesticated Us...

In recent years a new theory about how dogs became domesticated has arisen, suggesting that dogs are not predators at all, that they became domesticated because they scavenged at human encampments, and somehow, through this kind of rat-like behavior of eating our *** and garbage, they somehow wormed their way into our hearts. Sounds lovely, right? (And a bit unlikely if you ask me.) It also denies a few simple questions that almost every dog owner inevitably asks: “Why does my puppy shake his head around when he has a toy in his mouth?” or “Why does my puppy chase leaves when the wind blows, or run after anything that moves?” or “Why does my puppy stalk the cat?”

The answer is that dogs are really predators at heart, and the heart of the puppy is the clearest window into that predatory nature. Think about it: a puppy is attracted to everything in the world through his teeth. He seems utterly driven to grab, bite, nibble, mouth, and chew everything he can. Do kittens do that? Gerbils? Nope, just dogs.

It’s true that wolves are generalists. They don’t just hunt large prey, they’ll also scavenge if necessary. So it’s not much of a stretch, I suppose, to think that it was only this one aspect of the wolf’s nature that created the dog/human bond countless years ago. But I like to think that instead of individual wolves being attracted to us through our garbage, early man was attracted to wolves because of the way they hunted. After all, we were social animals, they were social animals. It’s a pretty good bet that we identified with them on some level. (The animal lore of many Native America tribes tell us that there’s a very strong likelihood that this is, indeed, true.) Even today dog owners form strong feelings of identification with their dogs.

Anyway, that's how I see it...

LCK 

sillysally

Proof?

The proof is in my previous post. Perhaps it went over your head, or you didn't take the time to read it: To form a mental association -- "if can opening, then possible external reward" -- requires the use of language and logic, abilities that dogs don't have.

Looked at from an energy theory of behavior, the behavior still makes total sense, yet there's no need for higher dognitive functions. 

LCK 

Lee Charles Kelley

sillysally

Proof?

 

The proof is in my previous post. Perhaps it went over your head, or you didn't take the time to read it: To form a mental association -- "if can opening, then possible external reward" -- requires the use of language and logic, abilities that dogs don't have.

Looked at from an energy theory of behavior, the behavior still makes total sense, yet there's no need for higher dognitive functions. 

LCK 

So, do you have any proof other than your opinion of what goes on in a dog's brain?  If you could cite any studies I woould be interested in reading them. 

Lee Charles Kelley

First of all, it's a mistake to think that dogs learn through making mental associations

Actually, yes they do. Any organsim does. Classical conditioning is also known as associative learning. That's the basis of how the clicker even works. The dog associates the sound with a reward that they want. Not to say that playing can't train, too. Because playing is rewarding. Belonging to the social group is rewarding. Also, at times, I think some dogs diagnosed as anxious are actually thinking faster than the human imagined they would. They exhibit frustration or anxiety because the trainer didn't catch the one behavior out of the several they just offered. It'salso how punishment works. The dog associates the punishment with the undesired behavior and learns to not do the behavior again to avoid punishment. If the dog didn't associate punishment with the undesired behavior, then no punishment, +P or -P, would work.

I read the non-linear study, too. While I appreciate that dogs seek equilbrium in their social interaction, I do not think that it negates the process of the Learning Theory and one of the best tools for operant conditioning, the consistent marker.

Lee Charles Kelley

(Karen Pryor, for example, who frankly doesn't know anything about dogs

I would disagree with that statement. She was owning and training dogs before her landmark dolphin study. That study was conducted in the early to mid 60's and published in 1965, originally. Shortly after that and through the early 70's, she and others developed the clicker method for pet animals, such as dogs. So, is it still a "fad" after 35 years? Might as well call Skinner a fad, too. Not that decades of expeience equates to knowledge, per se. But I think she knows quite a bit about dogs.

Lee Charles Kelley

And the dog actually has to work harder to learn things than he would if he were energized during the training process.

I beg to differ again. I tried to teach my dog to fetch, just for the "joy" of fetching. Because of his breed temperment, his idea of fetch was to get the ball and take off at 30 mph and you chase him and then play tug. That's his enjoyment. The only way I could teach fetch was with the clicker. Then, he could see the value in returning the ball to me. It resulted in treats and another run and fetch and some more treats. And clicking the completed behavior let him know exactly how to do it. That's "harder"? I'm not getting it, I guess.

Lee Charles Kelley

ignoring the fact that every dog who ever lived was born wanting to learn and obey.

Unless you own a sled dog or an Akita. Or Chihuahua. Or Dogo de Argentino. Some dogs have independent temperments and a specific job that they were bred to that is not always conducive to the standard obedience we come to expect in a house pet. That's not to say that a dog previously thought of as independent and headstrong doesn't want to obey. I used to think my dog was headstrong and trying to be dominant, a breed characteristic, and old, out-dated theories ("the dog is trying to dominate. You must show them you are alpha";). Then I extricated my noggin from my nether region and learned to use a clicker, only to find that he likes to learn and obey, now that I can let him know when it is right.

While some dogs seem to learn their job, such as herding, by the pressure of space placed upon them by their trainer, or even guiding with a training stick, my one dog will be the exception, in that he loves to learn and obey because I click and treat. And, in fact, I see his energy as good when he gets the concept. When doing free-shaping, I expected him to be fast, like a lot of dogs are. It turns out that he is methodical and considers before doing. So, I had to slow my time down to match his and catch something to learn.

Of course, my opinion and $2.98 will buy you a gallon of gas around here.

Dogs who are well fed and do not have any medical conditions or internal parasites would have no reason to scavenge or counter-surf. I often board many of the dogs I've trained. Have done so for years. And yet with one exception (a very anxious beagle) none of them have ever felt the need to scavenge or counter-surf.

I have to agree with this one.  When River was 10 months old his resource guarding was getting dangerous, to the point that he would start to growl at us when we entered a room where his food bowl was or walked past his crate.  He has always been a garbage, counter surfer (give his size, he was self rewarded early on by having access), etc.  VERY FOOD MOTIVATED

I hired a behaviorist to help with this issue and some others.  His cure for resource guarding was simple.  Open bowl feed him and let him eat to his heart is content!  He explained that the first 3 three days he will gorge himself, but to keep filling the bowl regardless.  So we did exactly that.  That night we filled Rivers bowl and before he could empty it we were instructed to add more and keep it full.  The first night we did this he ate 9 cups of food!!! 

I would measured how much food a bowl held and I would measure what was left when he walked away so I could judge.  We went to bed with a full bowl of food.  When we woke up in the morning he had eaten another 2 cups during the night (the bowl held 6 cups).  I filled it again, and again the third day River cut back to a consistent 5 cups a day.  I was feeding him 4 cups, twice a day.  We did this for 2 months and he remained pretty consistent to 5 cups in a 24 hour period.  Amazingly his bowl guarding STOPPED, his Counter Surfing STOPPED, his garbage raiding STOPPED!  But he started to gain a lot of weight and I had to stop with the protocol.  Reverted back to hand feeding meals and his resource guarding came back a little but not terribly but his counter surfing came back and so did his garbage raiding.

I know a lot people hate open bowl feeding but I did that with my previous dog all his life and he never got, fat, guarded or raided anything.

Lee Charles Kelley

sillysally

Proof?

 

The proof is in my previous post. Perhaps it went over your head, or you didn't take the time to read it: To form a mental association -- "if can opening, then possible external reward" -- requires the use of language and logic, abilities that dogs don't have.

Looked at from an energy theory of behavior, the behavior still makes total sense, yet there's no need for higher dognitive functions. 

LCK 

Not at all. And that is a really odd assertion. Associative learning is not dependent upon advanced cognition, self-awareness, or any of that. There are many examples in people. One that happens to many people including me: before the flash of a camera, red eye prevention systems flash a tiny light. It is too fast to think about, but some people "learn" to blink in anticipation of the brighter flash.

In one of Oliver Sack's books, he talks about a patient with brain damage who could no longer encode short term memory into long term memory. At all. Every day he met his doctors for the first time. A doctor hid a pin in his hand one day, causing a jab of pain when they shook hands. Next day, man had no memory of this. When the same doctor tried to shake his hand the next day, the man refused. He couldn't explain why, he just didn't want to. On a level that was not consciously available, he had an association.

Here's a nifty little wiki on Hebbian learning - http://wd320pc2.cs.memphis.edu/cogsci-wiki/Hebbian_Learning_in_Simple_Invertebrates

I'm not sure what you mean by "mental association," LCK. If you mean conscious association, then no, that is not how classical conditioning works in dogs or people. The brain is an amazing and complex organ - even in dogs. There are so many kinds of learning that don't depend on conscious awareness.

"Energy theory" of behavior is not science. It is magical thinking. I don't see why we'd need to go for something as out there as that when the neurobiology of learning is a hot field. 

Lee Charles Kelley

dogs don't have the capacity to use and understand language

I have first hand seen quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. In fact, if you search this board, there was a thread discussing it not too long ago.

As for why I'm surly towards clickers? Well, I'm really not. I am happy to be called "surly" because I know that that thread title was in humor. I am always open to that, and it's great to have a coming-together on clicker usage among those who use them in ways other than how the full-blown clicker trainers do. Some of us believe that clickers can be utilized in conjunction with corrections.

Although i will admit that my surliness towards clickers increased over the past week when Nyx decided to attack the clicker. *insert one of those neat goofy emoticons here*

 Okay LCK, I agree with you to a certain extent. Penny, for instance, is extremely cluey about human communication and what events are worth taking note of, but she rarely seems to think. It's all stimulus reaction with her. However, I've seen some things from Pyry that make me wonder if some dogs are in fact capable of more. I've seen him called up from barking at the fence, receive a treat for coming, and then start wandering off and then stopping, looking at the fence, looking at the door where the treat dispenser is still nearby, and then looking at the fence and trying an experimental bark at nothing, then looking back at the treat dispenser. I swear, that dog is thinking. When he doesn't get called, he gives up and looks for something else to do. Penny would never do something like that in a million years. She just isn't capable of it. Pyry, though, he tests the heat of the bbq plate before standing on it to lick it clean. If it's a bit too hot, he wanders off to wait a while, then comes back and tries it again 5 or 10 minutes later. I mean, Penny will leave a sausage if it's too hot to eat and try it later, but sometimes she won't try it later unless someone points to it, because she already tried it and it was too hot to eat. And there was that dog on It's Me or the Dog that was filmed opening all the drawers in the kitchen to create a staircase onto the counter where he could raid it for food.

So I'm inclined to think Penny and Jill certainly just learn to do things that work and don't reason or engage logic in any form, and I think Pyry often doesn't, but every now and then he does something that seems a cut above what most dogs can do.