Why This Surliness Towards Clickers (and other great questions)

I thought Labs love to play fetch and retrieve......or am I wrong .....?

Most do, but some don't - in fact, I have a client right now who has a Lab (purebred) that shows no interest in it at the moment.  Ron has a point that mixed breed dogs favor one breed in some aspects, and another breed in other aspects, and that's dependent upon the particular genetics of that dog, coupled, perhaps, with his early experiences.  I have a dog that is half Aussie, but she hated dumbbells - most Aussies love retrieving things - this dog didn't.  So, I don't know what point you were trying to make.  I think we have to consider all dogs as individuals to some extent, especially if we have little information about their prior history, and don't really accurately know the breed mix in its accurate proportions.

Ron, there is no doubt in my mind that Shadow has some Sibe characteristics, and I am sure he has a different behavior pattern than a Lab.......I was just pointing out the fact that he has Lab in him and that might help him out a little better in retrieving than a full Sibe.........meinst Du nicht?

Btw, do you have any pics of Shadow showing off a curly tail or standing ears.....that would be lovely to see since he is such a beauty....

ron2

Shadow will leave half a bowl sitting there for most of the day.

This is actually considered a bad trait in a sled dog.......a good sled dog benefits from having a fierce appetite .....needing the fuel for running.....

ron2

Lee Charles Kelley

The only way you could teach him fetch, as you put it, was not based on reading and using his energy. That's why you had problems with it. If you had been reading his energy you would have been able to teach him to fetch in less than five minutes.

If you don't mind, let me teach you a few things about dogs.

Yeah, right. ';);" title="Confused - ">

ron2

Different breeds have different traits or characteristics they are known for, as well as physiological differences.

Gee, I never knew that (even though I specifically alluded to this fact in my previous post). 

ron2

For over 1,000 years, the chukchi dog was not trained or bred to retrieve.

That doesn't matter. In a certain respect what the dog was bred for is only of minor importance.

ron2

They were bred to pull hard and run fast in the worst conditions on the planet on very little food. With an independent streak to them, partially from not being bred for obedience or retrieval and partly because a smart lead dog can be a lifesaver on the trail. So, my dog, who is primarily Siberian Husky (the modern name of the chuckchi dog), has the natural energy or inclination to grab the object as if it were prey and then run flat out. The camraderie of human company and the joy of fetching and returning for another fun bout of fetching wasn't enough or even existed as a possibility for him. It's not what he was bred to do.

Years ago I was on a board like this (only a lot more fractious in nature), and was told, in no uncertain terms, that not all dogs can be trained to fetch, That it's impossible to train a bloodhound, for example, to do it. Funny thing was, I had just done it earlier in the week. It took me all of three minutes. The trick in that situation was knowing what the dog was bred for (tracking), factoring it in (by starting with very short throws so his desire for chasing the ball wouldn't be overridden by his tracking instincts), and a few other things I'm not going to go into now, here. You limit yourself by believing your dog's breeding prevents him from learning certain behaviors, that they can only be taught in this slow, sequential process, instead of tapping into what's there beneath the surface, but which still exists a little deeper within his genetic heritage.

ron2

Karen Pryor and slandering her knowledge based on a quote you didn't like and supposing an emotion on dogs not evident in most cases or misread in most cases, does not count as proof that the use of a marker is wrong. Most people here use markers. They think it's affection when they say good boy but that is also a marker for the successfully completed behavior.

I don't think my comment about Pryor's lack of understanding dogs had anything to do with my objections to clicker training. I just think that when someone is in a position of authority, and they say something as fundamentally wrong-headed, and have not only said it in one situation, but have used it as a kind of mantra, indicative of her overall view of dogs, you simply can't trust their understanding of dogs in general.  

ron2

As for dogs being in it for themselves, of course they are. We all are.

What I said was that of all species on the planet, dogs are the least likely to be in for themselves. They're genetically engineered to give up something of value to them specifically if it benefits the group as a whole. For you to not understand this is forgivable. For Karen Pryor to have such a major understanding about the nature of dogs is not.

ron2

And I don't mean to "pick on you." But you have made some statements that I think contradict everything any one does here, whether it is reward or punishment. Those things work because they are involved in associative learning.

I don't disagree that dogs make associations, and have basically said as much. They just don't make mental associations. 

ron2

Dogs do generalize. For example, a dog has one bad experience with a male human and is scared of male humans in general, after that. My dog came up with ways to cue me for when he wanted more training. He also has a specific way of letting me know when he needs to go outside. It is rudimentary interspecies communication. And no, it's not a simple scratching on the door. It involves 4 specific behaviors in a chain in an exact order. And he came up with it, not me. I happened to notice it and successfully let him out the door and that chain became his communication to me. I think that's a little more than just a lump of energy. At the risk of anthropromorphizing, at exactly which point does an animal quit being a lump of energy and become sentient? I don't see where you have defined that.

Well, I never said anything remotely close to this idea that dogs are just a lump of energy. My position is that all behavior is part of an energy exchange system with the environment. Dogs choose behaviors that provide the most satisfying energy exchange, either for themselves, or for their group as a whole. When a dog has a bad experience with a male human, he may very well develop a mistrust of males after that, but it won't be because of a stimulus-response chain, or because he makes a mental association between all males and that one bad egg. In fact, it would be presumptuous to suppose that we can determine what the determining factors were, exactly, that caused this "generalization." We don't have anywhere near the capacity for pattern recognition that dogs do, or if we do, our brains have a tendency to put things into conceptualized chunks, rather than to look at the pattern as a whole. My view would be that if a dog had a bad experience with one type of human being, or a washing machine, or a rattlesnake, and if it was a singular enough experience (meaning it affected him emotionally to the point that it became a primary nexus point in his emotional flow at that moment,) he may very well be cautious or fearful of men, washing machines, or rattlesnakes. But to assume that the process is purely mental, rather than part of this emotional flow of energy, is, I think, absurd.

As for your dog's learning to "communicate" his need to go outside, without you training him to do it, I think you may be mistaken about that. Whether you had the conscious intent to teach him this behavior or not, you were part of the energy exchange which created it. The same dog, with a different owner, may have come up with a simpler, less sequential behavior, or a more complicated one, or not come up with one at all. The behavior would arise in its own way out of the dog's genetic background, history, and the group structural/energetic dynamic the dog is part of.

Does that help you understand my views on this better?

LCK 

spiritdogs

So, I don't know what point you were trying to make. 

I do believe my post was directed at Ron......but thanks for answering anyway......

spiritdogs

We trainers have all done that at one time or another

Yes, and when I made that comment I said that I didn't have time to go into great detail. So that was a general statement, not meant to explain the entire process. And I was talking specifically to someone who believed that his dog didn't have the instincts needed to learn to play fetch.

spiritdogs

why do you think a game or object that the dog is interested in is any different from any other reinforcer he's interested in?

It's vastly different, it's hugely different. Play is probably the singlemost important part of a dog's life. Once a dog has a safe place to sleep, plenty of food and water, the next thing he needs most is play, and not as a positive reinforcer. It goes deeper than that. Play increases brain growth factors, facilitates neurological development, and a lot of other things that go beyond what a treat in the mouth or a click from a clicker could ever do for him: http://www.tiny.cc/playbenefits

spiritdogs

Try teasing a Bulldog that doesn't care a whit about a toy or a game - what is your tactic then?

I'm not going to go into all the various tactics I would use for various dogs, breeds, situations, etc. I've covered this in a general way in the article I previously posted a link to How to Jump Start Your Dog's Prey Drive. 

spiritdogs

I think that you are like many other trainers and handlers - you've found a guru, too, and are now part of his fold.

Gee, thank you for telling me who you think I am, and what I'm like.

And Kevin Behan is not a guru. He's a dog trainer with a radical new vision of the nature of dogs, the nature of learning, and the nature of nature itself. And by the way, I have disagreed, initially, with every new idea he's ever come up with. I nearly threw his book Natural Dog Training down a dozen times when I first read it. It was only after I'd gotten over myself, tested his theories, and used his techniques, that I slowly, and somewhat reluctantly, came to the conclusion that he was on the right track.

But hey, whatever works for you.

LCK 

spiritdogs

As a matter of fact, a five year old once taught me the really simple method that I now use for teaching dogs to "shake" - and it works just about every time. 

I don't care how OT it is, I would love it if you  shared that little nugget.  Please?

Edit - I am thinking of starting a new thread called - "Why the surliness towards Energy?".... 

snownose

.......I was just pointing out the fact that he has Lab in him and that might help him out a little better in retrieving than a full Sibe

There might be some of that as a factor. Or, as LCK might put it, one can train a dog to do something outside of the breed trait. For example, Sibes were never bred to walk in heel. In fact, to do so is antithetical to being a good sled dog. And I can have Shadow walk in heel. Even Labs never particularly walked in heel. They swam or ran out and retrieved or pointed out game.

Thanks Ron......those are gorgous pics.....I can really see the different colors in his coat.......two things that pop out are his feet.....more Lab than Husky....and the smoothness of his coat, also very Lab like......but the different colors really show Sibe in him....

Lee Charles Kelley

You limit yourself by believing your dog's breeding prevents him from learning certain behaviors, that they can only be taught in this slow, sequential process, instead of tapping into what's there beneath the surface, but which still exists a little deeper within his genetic heritage.

That's an inaccurate generalization. I didn't once say that Shadow couldn't learn to play fetch. But it wasn't part of his breed's history to do so as a daily job, like the Lab. I did say that he couldn't learn (or should I say, seem to learn) fetch within the context of his natural energy or inclinations or as a process of always wanting to please and obey, which are affected by breed trait. Before learning fetch, when he did return to me, it was a desire to play tug. This, in and of itself, did not reinforce the fetch and return. The tug was a separate behavior reinforced by the enjoyment of that particular activity, not the preceding toss, get, and eventually return. Other times, the process was toss, get, run like the wind for a good 5 minutes straight at absolute top speed, slowing down just enough to turn and come back the other way.

Sibes were also not bred to walk in heel. And I can walk Shadow in heel. In one location, thanks to my artificial, hyper-anxiety-inducing training, he will assume heel without a command, treat, or clicker.

True, a dog can be taught something, regardless of breed and I am in total agreement on that. But when explaining the natural behaviors of a dog, breed will account for some of it.

Lee Charles Kelley

it was a singular enough experience (meaning it affected him emotionally to the point that it became a primary nexus point in his emotional flow at that moment,) he may very well be cautious or fearful of men, washing machines, or rattlesnakes. But to assume that the process is purely mental, rather than part of this emotional flow of energy, is, I think, absurd.

I think you are differentiating what you call energy flow from mental processes. And it seems like you mean concscious deductive reasoning when talking about mental processes. A developed or situational fear is a mental process even if the dog doesn't actually for the doggy equivalent of "uh oh, it's man! I better do unto him before he does unto me."

IMO, for a new theory to supplant an old one, it must adequately explain the results of previous theories in a competent way, as well as account for the failings of the old theories, if such failings exist. And that is why I think the Linear Dog Theory is limited. It provides, within a limited scope, some of the motivation of a dog in a social scene but it does not disprove the science of Learning Theory, does not disprove the cause and effect nature described by operant conditioning, does not disprove the effectiveness of marking in training. As I think you pointed out, dogs are great at pattern recognition. I might be part dog because I recognize patterns. Sometimes, it's annoying to myself. I speak as a recovering word search addict. It is this pattern recognition that makes marking an inherent part of any successful training situation. Everyone marks. It's just that some of use a piece of tin and plastic. Marking is the easiest way for humans to communicate with dogs. It doesn't rely on ESP or an understanding of QM.

My dog acts differently with the differing neighbor dogs. And sometimes his actions are different with each dog. And communication does happen. Shadow has a vocabulary. Differing changes of pitch, tone, and volume mean different things. Like the time he spotted a stray cat, different than the cats of the neighbor behind us. He barked specifically in an interesting fashion (to me). 3 dogs in one yard and one in another yard each took up vantage points to where the stray cat should be now, a few moments later. They didn't meet at the four corners of the fences. They moved to coordinates based precisely on his vocalizations. That is, they didn't just react to barking and went over to bark at him. They received information from another mind who gave them information in the context of their positions.

And, alas, your response did not adequately, to me, explain why a dog would generalize from one instance of a trauma, through just an energy exchange with the environment. I exchange energy, too. The sun shines on me. I exhale carbon dixiode, which is absorbed by vegetation. When I die, my body feeds the worms and the soil. But this would not adequately explain why I have studied n-space geometry, topology, linear algebra, why I have studied particle physics or why I think Einstein is wrong and that QM isn't necessarily the final answer, either. It's fine to see things as an energy exchange but it must go beyond that to mean something, at least to humans. For example, the energy discussion so far hasn't explained the peculiar temperment of the Akita. And we've had a few people with experience with Akitas to counter the refutation that breed is of no significance.

Lee Charles Kelley

As for your dog's learning to "communicate" his need to go outside, without you training him to do it, I think you may be mistaken about that. Whether you had the conscious intent to teach him this behavior or not, you were part of the energy exchange which created it. The same dog, with a different owner, may have come up with a simpler, less sequential behavior, or a more complicated one, or not come up with one at all. The behavior would arise in its own way out of the dog's genetic background, history, and the group structural/energetic dynamic the dog is part of.

I can agree to that with the qualifier that it became training or an energy exchange of responses when I let him out. In another context, yes, the behaviors might be different, subtly or not, and context does mean something. What I was trying to say is that it expresses a need or thought on his part. Though I can see that you are driving at the idea that the chain he came up with was initially non-sensical and required no active deductive reasoning his part and that it is presumptuous think he did this with the expectation that I would understand and see to his need to have the door opened. I.E., he could start howling "Hello Dolly" out of the blue and if I responded to that, he would have used that. That there is nothing special in or about the behaviors he came up with. I disagree. The behaviors are associated with an outside activity.

Specifically, 4 behaviors. Walk in to the livng room. Look at the harness and leash. Look at the doorknob to the front door. Look at me.

I then get up and let him out the sliding glass door to the back yard.

Lee Charles Kelley

I've covered this in a general way in the article I previously posted a link to How to Jump Start Your Dog's Prey Drive. 

LCK, this link doesn't work, just goes to "tinycc".

Chuffy

Edit - I am thinking of starting a new thread called - "Why the surliness towards Energy?"....

LOL Sounds interesting.  

spiritdogs

I thought Labs love to play fetch and retrieve......or am I wrong .....?

Most do, but some don't - in fact, I have a client right now who has a Lab (purebred) that shows no interest in it at the moment.  Ron has a point that mixed breed dogs favor one breed in some aspects, and another breed in other aspects, and that's dependent upon the particular genetics of that dog, coupled, perhaps, with his early experiences.  I have a dog that is half Aussie, but she hated dumbbells - most Aussies love retrieving things - this dog didn't.  So, I don't know what point you were trying to make.  I think we have to consider all dogs as individuals to some extent, especially if we have little information about their prior history, and don't really accurately know the breed mix in its accurate proportions.

 Sorry. That seems to be happening a lot lately. Try this "Jump Starting the Prey Drive."

LCK 

Not sure why you would want to create or increase drive this way, since I think earlier you stated you were into Natural Dog Training.  I don't know much about Natural Dog Training but I do continuously bring in fosters and try and get their needs satisfied and placed in an order.   From your site reference, you utilized food and teasing in order to bridge the drive to a toy object.  I believe the drive for the objects was already there and would have come out in time but provided that food and treats were put in rightful place to satisfy hunger and taste enjoyment. 

Do you see another way to increase drive or interest without using food?

Ron2: I think you are differentiating what you call energy flow from mental processes. And it seems like you mean concscious deductive reasoning when talking about mental processes. A developed or situational fear is a mental process even if the dog doesn't actually for[m] the doggy equivalent of "uh oh, it's man! I better do unto him before he does unto me."

LCK: I would disagree that any mental process needs to be attached to that scenario. When I talk about mental associations I'm referring, at the barest minimum, to the sub-logical form I described in an earlier post in terms of dogs and can openers. In the example you've given there's still an "if, then" form to the reaction, at least in terms of how you've described it. And an "if, then" equation requires the use of language.

What I think you're doing, which is what the human mind is designed to do, is giving the dog a reason for his behavior (which would require a mental thought process), rather than seeing it more as a reflexive reaction (with no thought attached whatsoever). But looked at in terms of pure energy, it's like being hit by a sudden wave of emotion. Your body reacts before you have time to "think" about it. Especially, since if you're a dog, you can't think about it. You can only adjust your position in the time-space hologram in response to the sudden shift in energy that's taken place.

Ron2: IMO, for a new theory to supplant an old one, it must adequately explain the results of previous theories in a competent way, as well as account for the failings of the old theories, if such failings exist.

LCK: I agree. I would be dumb to attach oneself to a theory if it wasn't better at explaining natural phenomena than the old one.

Ron2: And that is why I think the Linear Dog Theory is limited. It provides, within a limited scope, some of the motivation of a dog in a social scene but it does not disprove the science of Learning Theory, does not disprove the cause and effect nature described by operant conditioning, does not disprove the effectiveness of marking in training.

LCK: First of all, it's not my theory. The paper was written by Alexandra Semyonova, who, while she sees potential in the energy theory, was totally unaware of it when she did her 15 year study. In fact, one of the main problems I have with her paper is her dependence on learning theory. I think if she were to rewrite it, using the principles I've outlined of attraction and resistance, desire and fear, tension and release, and some of which, from what I understand are already part of the scientific basis for describing self-organizing systems, her paper would really pop. It would be a home run. As it is, it's just a means of providing a good solid alternative to the pack theory of canine social organizations. (Also, it's NonlinearDogs, not Linear Dogs; it's meant to differentiate pack formation from being a linear hierarchy.)

Ron2: And, alas, your response did not adequately, to me, explain why a dog would generalize from one instance of a trauma, through just an energy exchange with the environment.

LCK: Again I think you have to look at in terms of how a dog is affected by a sudden shift of energy, a surge or a wave of it, if you will. If it really throws him off-balance, then when he's in a situation that creates the same surge, he'll respond accordingly. Some dogs are easily thrown off-balance emotionally. And to me it seems that to a dog there's usually a palpable, visceral feeling associated with that lack of emotional or energetic balance; it's like being caught in an undertow. The dog will do everything he can to restore his balance. Seen from this perspective, there's no need for an "if, then" proposition. That's all I'm saying. When the wave hits a second time, the dog responds, even if there's no discernible "reason" for him to do so. (In fact, there really can't be a reason for his behavior because that would require intellect.)

Ron2: The behaviors are associated with an outside activity. Specifically, 4 behaviors. Walk in to the livng room. Look at the harness and leash. Look at the doorknob to the front door. Look at me. I then get up and let him out the sliding glass door to the back yard.

LCK: I have to say that this is completely adorable. It's really quite lovely that you have this ritual with your dog.However, I think, given what I've written above, and given your own ability to reason, that you can apply an energetic explanation to your dog's behavior without my "help." You might also even see that for your dog, part of the "fun" (or the reward or reinforcement, if you will) is in the interaction itself. He's "communing" with you on an emotional level. That's enjoyable in and of itself, just as being thrown off-balance by a sudden surge of energy is not enjoyable. And yes, he's also trying to get you to do something. That doesn't make it an intentional, conscious act.

Philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel C. Dennett describes two forms of communication:

The intentional reporting of information, done to convey thoughts or ideas to another person's mind, etc., and

The conscious or unconscious expression of an internal state, it could be a mental state, or it could be pure emotion.

LCK