Natural dog training - pushing

 Hey, Ron.

You're right, in a sense, that self-confidence is more of a human feeling state. Canines have no sense of self, at least not in the same, complicated way that we do. (Evolutionary biologist and professor of veterinary medicine at Washington State University, Jaak Panksepp theorizes that a primordial sense of self can be found in an area of the midbrain-diencephalon.) But I'm not talking about being resistant to doing something, as in, "Nah, that doesn't interest me." I'm talking about an internal feeling of resistance that comes up in some dogs, based on how their natural means of reducing tension and stress (through biting in play) has been quashed by well-meaning (and some not so well-meaning) owners. Also, remember, self-organizing systems, like that of a dog and owner, operate on the principles of attraction and resistance. So when I use the word resistance I'm talking about one of the simplest, most basic components of energy. It has nothing to do with higher cognitive thought processes. It's more like the resistance that's part of an electrical circuit.

It might help to know that Kevin Behan's father trained dogs for the K-9 Corps in World War II. So he grew up around working dogs. He trained police dogs and attack dogs for a living for many years, and it helped him while he was working on his theories. And one of the first rules of that kind of training is, "Find a good dog." Meaning that not all dogs are cut out for bite work. But Kevin apparently thought he saw something in some of the dogs that could be brought out in them, some inner drive that the other trainers didn't see and weren't about to waste their time with. So he developed techniques to do that. That's when he started seeing things in terms of attraction and resistance.

As for the increased reliability and strength of the recall that Neil Sattin mentioned in his blog article, that's because the pushing exercise increases the dog's social attraction, probably through a combination of the things he talks about.

LCK
 

I can't say I've ever observed any "internal tension" in my dogs related to their prey drive. They see prey, they joyfully give chase and if lucky enough to catch it, their joy just increases.

I do see that some dogs are "inhibited" and just acting silly and playing with them in ways they find acceptful can lower that inhibition level. The push game is just one such way you could do that. It mimics the way dogs play "shoulder barge" with each other. But I don't see how it's any better than any other way you might have fun with your dog- anything you do that the dog thinks is fun increases his "attraction" to you.

DPU

So that is what you are recommending to JQP dog owners?  How do I interpret your statement "can be very very healthy" as in is the case of most, some, or a few of the dogs that are feed this way?

 I worked at a place that made and sold commercial raw food for 9 years. In that time I was in contact with literally thousands of raw fed dogs and raw feeders - some well known breeders, others were just average pet owners trying to feed their dog better. I have never heard of fasting causing any health problems. You don't have to agree with fasting but you seem unwillingly to accept that others do it and have healthy dogs. If I talk to someone about raw feeding in depth I do bring up weekly, bi weekly or monthly fasting because it is an accepted practice with that method of feeding. I don't care of they choose to do it or not though, it is up to them to decide. If they read raw feeding books they will get the same info on fasting.  When I teach classes I often suggest that owners don't feed their dogs right before class and possibley just have their dinner "meal" be what they work for in class.

Lee Charles Kelley

Yet your response was all about behavior, not about internal resistance, etc. What was I supposed to think about your not "getting" what I was saying, except perhaps that you're too focused on learning theory to be able to look at my explanation, which may or may not be part of a new paradigm shift?

But, what are you not "getting", when I say that I don't really care for most of the theory that much? It's not I don't "get" it. It's not that hard to conceptualize, really. I just don't really think it brings much more to the current knowledge that we already have, compared to other theories that are out there. Why would I talk in terms of "internal resistance" when I don't really support it all that much? I've looked at your explanation, but it doesn't mean I'm going to jump all over it!

Lee Charles Kelley

You're, I don't know, showing off?

Hardly. I don't care much for that. The point is, every phenomenon can accurately be explained by multiple fields. So while there is a chance that your theory fits just what causes dogs to do as they do perfectly, the point is, so do others. The only point in that was to say that this theory you support so avidly is really no more special, or more accurate, than any other theory. It's just another theory. I was trying to put it nicely though *G*.

Lee Charles Kelley

I guess the part of my post about Thomas Kuhn and how behaviorism is a dying science put you in a defensive mood, perhaps

I don't know...a dying science? Coming from a direct academic background, I'd have to say myself that behaviourism is still going very strong and in the last 10 years has only gotten stronger. Things like operant conditioning, classical conditioning, are expanding in the everyday world, not diminishing. I think you really need to take a close look at what is being taught formally, and what is being applied, before you classify something as a dying science *G* Especially when you are comparing it to your own theories and ironically I haven't seen that one gaining much "popularity", not that it's popularity contest (or at least it shouldn't be).

I'm really not defensive at all, I just find it quite humorous that what you are calling a dying science is becoming more and more used and implemented, with huge success, in all animals, and the amount it has branched into human behaviour work is simply astounding.

Lee Charles Kelley

I was under the impression that you wanted to understand what the purpose and effectiveness of the pushing exercise is. I tried to answer that, and thought I did a pretty good job.

I do want to understand it, but the point I was making that even with your explanation it doesn't appear to make sense how it increases prey drive. It doesn't add up IMO, and I've read and re-read your explanations every time. Again it might just come down to the fact that prey drive already has a definition in sense, and I'm not fond of re-defining words to fit a new schema.

Lee Charles Kelley

Personally, I'm kind of mystified as to why when we have discussions our positions never seem to dovetail.

Why does that mystify you? Do you find it hard to believe that not everybody is going to jump on the bandwagon just because a new idea is presented? It certainly doesn't mystify me that you have discarded the behaviourist perspective. That's a choice you made based upon what theory seemed most correct to you. I don't spend time being bothered by it or wonder why you "haven't seen the light?". A discussion on completley different theories is never going to dovetail, how can it? I've already said that the theory may very well have its place, in part, alongside other theories, is that not harmonious enough? I think it has been a rather enlightening discussion, and discussions don't have to end in agreement, otherwise the world would be a boring place. We all challenged each other's thoughts, we pondered, we discussed, and we will go on to have our own views. Some will take what you have written, see value in pushing, and will try it. That's great. Others will decide it's really not that special, and will decide not to try it. That's great too. And others will keep it in mind and realize that it might have value to use in the future if other things don't work out so well. And that's fine too. I think that's about as productive a discussion as you need, because if one is looking for a discussion to end in sheer agreement, sadly it just ain't gonna happen. If that was the case there wouldn't be so many theories, there would just be "the theory".

Lee Charles Kelley

happy to know you use the prey drive (in whatever way that's defined for you) in training, which I think is unusual for a clicker trainer, particularly since most +R trainers believe that play is just another form of positive reinforcement (and it's not).

That's another one of those assumptions...and you know what they say about assuming. ;-) I've never claimed, overtly or indirectly, to be a clicker trainer. I dislike labels of all sorts *G*. I find the clicker to be extremely valuable for teaching a lot of things, yes, but it's certainly not the only strategy I have, or the only tool in my toolkit. I think, if you open your mind to it, and look at the individual rather than a preassigned label, you'll find that I'm not "most R+ trainers". :-) As you can begin to see with my varied use of strategies in teaching, hopefully as you gain experience with the members of this board, you'll come to see more of that (once again, it's very useful to read past posts to get to know your fellow members better, as a lot of useful information can be found there).

mudpuppy

I can't say I've ever observed any "internal tension" in my dogs related to their prey drive. They see prey, they joyfully give chase and if lucky enough to catch it, their joy just increases.

 I think you are more likely to see the conflict with larger prey. You can see how there is a prey/predator conflict seeing wolves interacting with bison. The wolves don't run away when a bison turns on them because they are just seeing prey, giving joyful chase and trying to catch it. It is a fine line, like someone said "a dance". Fight or flight goes or "defense drive"  goes into it as well, once pressure is put on the predator by the prey animal.

YouTube - Wolves Hunting Bison

YouTube - Wolves in Wolf Park

 You see the same thing with herding dogs, especially at instinct tests and when dogs in training are put on harder stock. When I was in 4H I had a llama that for a time was kept at the place where summer agility for the all breed club was held. The llama got loose one day during class. Luckily enough an experienced herding BC was in agility class. The BC had only been worked on sheep but she offered his services to help catch the llama. The llama was intimidating to the dog, so it was half herding, half llama chasing dog but we did get him back in the barn LOL The dog when presented with a larger animal who wasn't dog broke wasn't sure what to do and several times had to be sent back after the llama when he returned to his owner.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=p4QQncNd6DY You can see the dog back off, just like the wolf from the cow

http://youtube.com/watch?v=m29yr6ZqmPI This dog in training is "mighty cautious" about getting behind cattle

And this same thing applies to training for for protection work as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=961OD57KnOw&NR=1 This is pretty typical of protection training with a young or inexperienced dog. The helper starts easy with making noise, being very prey like and letting the dog win. The dog is held on a lead or tied because the pressure increases the dog's desire to "get" the helper/tug and makes them more confident. As it progresses to be harder the dog still is allowed to "win" by getting the tug or sleeve and the helper moving away. Helpers need to be properly taught so they can put pressure on at the right moments, know when to let the dog win, when to push and how to move.

LCK1:  What was I supposed to think about your not "getting" what I was saying, except perhaps that you're too focused on learning theory to be able to look at my explanation, which may or may not be part of a new paradigm shift? You're, I don't know, showing off?

KMc: Hardly. I don't care much for that. The point is, every phenomenon can accurately be explained by multiple fields. [This isn't actually true, Kim—in fact, far from it.] So while there is a chance that your theory fits just what causes dogs to do as they do perfectly, the point is, so do others. The only point in that was to say that this theory you support so avidly is really no more special, or more accurate, than any other theory. It's just another theory. I was trying to put it nicely though.

LCK: Let’s look at what you’re saying. That the pushing exercise, and the resultant effect it has on intensifying the prey drive (which I and others who’ve used it have observed), can be explained by all these multiple fields you brought in to the discussion? Behaviorism? Neurochemistry? Ethology? Biology? These are all fields that you seem to have some familiarity with, correct? And yet you don’t “get” how the pushing exercise increases the prey drive. So in other words, either you don’t have enough expertise in these fields, or else these fields can’t explain the results that I and others have observed, or else our observations are wrong. Correct?

Given that I’ve seen the same thing happen with every dog I’ve done this with (it increases their desire to express their prey drive, usually through play), I strongly suspect that the last explanation is not the case. Since I don’t know enough about the other fields you brought in, and since you didn’t spend any time articulating how they would “accurately” explain how and why the pushing exercise increases drive, then either the first or second possibility holds (or is most likely).

As for bringing neuroscience, etc., into it, that’s another example of how our discussions don’t dovetail (see below). As I said before, you can’t understand a new theoretical paradigm from within the conceptual framework of another. You claim this isn’t the case, that that’s not what’s going on with you. Yet that’s exactly what I’m seeing. You spend most of a previous post talking about how the pushing exercise doesn’t have anything to do with predatory motor patterns. Then, when I explained that in order to understand how it does relate, on an energetic/emotional level, you have to look at it through a whole new lens. Then you say the theory may have merit, but it doesn’t interest you, or whatever. But what I’m saying is if you want to understand how and why the pushing exercise increases drive you can’t look at it through 19th or 20th Century  science. You’ll get nowhere. And don’t feel bad (not that I expect you to): I didn’t understand it theoretically either until I did it.

Which brings up another option, and that is at some point, when you’ve got a dog who doesn’t show much drive, and you can’t seem to bring it out in her, but you want to, you could try the pushing exercise and see if it does anything. Then, once you see it actually working, then you can go ahead and try to analyze its effects from whatever paradigm you want to. And feel free to let me know what you’ve found out. But my suspicion is that, like a lot of things I do in training*, you won’t be able to explain it accurately or certainly not fully without at least dipping your toe into the energy theory. (*Using praise to extinguish the exact behavior you’re praising, is one example.)

LCK1: I guess the part of my post about how behaviorism is a dying science put you in a defensive mood, perhaps.

KMc: I don't know...a dying science? Coming from a direct academic background, I'd have to say myself that behaviourism is still going very strong and in the last 10 years has only gotten stronger.

LCK2: I was being kind. I could give you a list of scientists from Harvard, MIT, NYU, Northwestern, Duke, and others who say that not only is behaviorism dying, it’s already dead. (Also, Chomsky points out that academia is nothing more than a set of filters, designed to prevent brilliant new ideas from coming through them.)

LCK1: I was under the impression that you wanted to understand what the purpose and effectiveness of the pushing exercise is. I tried to answer that, and thought I did a pretty good job.

KMc: I do want to understand it, but the point I was making that even with your explanation it doesn't appear to make sense how it increases prey drive. It doesn't add up IMO, and I've read and re-read your explanations every time.

LCK2: Then you need to look at it from an entirely new theoretical framework.

LCK1: Personally, I'm kind of mystified as to why when we have discussions our positions never seem to dovetail

KMc: Why does that mystify you? Do you find it hard to believe that not everybody is going to jump on the bandwagon just because a new idea is presented?

This is exactly what I mean. To me when someone presents a position or argument, if the other party is interested in discussing the subject, they will either offer a partial agreement or a counterargument. I don’t think dovetailing means I expect you agree with everything, or even anything I say. Quite the opposite. How am I supposed to see the flaws in my theoretical arguments if no one points them out. So by dovetailing I mean I was hoping to see some cogency to your counter-positions. And so far that’s only happened once here (with the Broca’s area argument you made).

LCK
 

Honestly, I haven't read much after things started the back and forth about prey drive and relation to pushing, but I do think the idea is interesting.  I too have a dog, like Corvus, who does not really like to play with me and this has gotten more apparent since I added a second permanent dog to the family.  Regardless of why it might work, I'm going to try it.

(To my eye it looks like the exercise really is just about desensitizing the dog to certain types of handling that can be common in play in a very gradual, stepwise manner without the expectation that they should "like it" already.)

Lee Charles Kelley

So in other words, either you don’t have enough expertise in these fields, or else these fields can’t explain the results that I and others have observed, or else our observations are wrong. Correct?

Not correct. I've said over and over again how I don't think it increases prey drive. Perhaps it's not "me" that's not getting something. Perhaps I shouldn't say "I don't see how it increases prey drive", as that assumes I'm confused. Rather, I'll change the sentence structure and say that I don't think it increases prey drive. That's better.

Lee Charles Kelley

Given that I’ve seen the same thing happen with every dog I’ve done this with (it increases their desire to express their prey drive, usually through play), I strongly suspect that the last explanation is not the case.

Again, that's really not that helpful. I can say that "I've seen wonderful results with every single dog I've worked with with a clicker, so operant conditioning must be the be all and end all of dogs". Regardless that I don't feel that way, I'm pretty sure I could teach the exact same thing, and get the exact same outcome, with a clicker, and you wouldn't see any difference between the two dogs. You could have both dogs demonstrate the same behaviour, taught two different ways, and chances are 99% that observers would be able to find zero difference between the two dogs.

You are performing basic food-reward teaching. That's all it is. So once again you can argue both sides. You can call it "releasing tension", or you can call it learned behaviour. They result in the same outward appearance, and you couldn't argue that the "tension-release" wasn't simply learned, just like you can't argue that the "learned behaviour" wasn't releasing tension. They are the same phenomenon, the same end behaviour, just explained differently.

Lee Charles Kelley

I was being kind. I could give you a list of scientists from Harvard, MIT, NYU, Northwestern, Duke, and others who say that not only is behaviorism dying, it’s already dead. (Also, Chomsky points out that academia is nothing more than a set of filters, designed to prevent brilliant new ideas from coming through them.)

You know, I think you could find a PhD's who support the Flat Earth Society too *G*. That statement of trying to pinpoint people from "top" universities is pointless, because I'm sure I could find you a list of scientists from those same universities that publish behaviour research in the top behaviour and cognition journals in the world. So once again, it's moot.

Lee Charles Kelley

This is exactly what I mean. To me when someone presents a position or argument, if the other party is interested in discussing the subject, they will either offer a partial agreement or a counterargument

I did offer partial agreement. That it might have some use in the context of other theories. I did offer a counterargument, in that the behaviour you are offering (pushing in high arousal) can be explained in any number of other ways and to me doesn't appear to have much at all to do with prey drive. The point is, the  conversation isn't going to dovetail, because we disagree on some of the fundamental issues (although I would suspect you are used to the conversation not dovetailing, from other experiences in other groups *G*). And personally it doesn't matter to me if conversations always have to dovetail. It's the bouncing off of ideas and causing us all to question our current knowledge base that is what I find most useful. Just because I still don't agree with everything the theory has to offer doesn't mean I haven't taken away some valuable information and new knowledge.

No one has answered my question about possible injury or pain. I'm a bit worried about Penny's degenerate disc near her shoulder blades, as it causes her quite a bit of pain in some circumstances.  

corvus

No one has answered my question about possible injury or pain. I'm a bit worried about Penny's degenerate disc near her shoulder blades, as it causes her quite a bit of pain in some circumstances.  

I would think you might actually know the answer to that already. But from my perspective, I certainly wouldn't want to teach or encourage a dog to put stress on a body part which already experiences pain, especially the pain that can be caused by a degenerate disc. Pushing would cause a lot of pressure to be applied back onto the sternum, which affects the chest, shoulders, neck, and spine (and elbows, and hips.....).

Kim_MacMillan

Lee Charles Kelley

Given that I’ve seen the same thing happen with every dog I’ve done this with (it increases their desire to express their prey drive, usually through play), I strongly suspect that the last explanation is not the case.

Again, that's really not that helpful. I can say that "I've seen wonderful results with every single dog I've worked with with a clicker, so operant conditioning must be the be all and end all of dogs".

It has nothing to do with anything being the be-all and end-all. I never said that. And I'm not saying now that I'm getting wonderful results (I did in another post, but not in the context of this particular discussion). My point had to do with how doing a specific exercise (pushing) seems to create a specific result in all dogs that do it (an increase in the dog's prey drive, usually manifesting as a sudden interest in play that wasn't present before). If the results of the exercise can't be accurately explained by behavioral science, or neurochemistry, etc., then something else is probably operating. That was my point. If they can be explained through these other disciplines, then fine. I don't care one way or another.

Kim_MacMillan

I'm pretty sure I could teach the exact same thing, and get the exact same outcome, with a clicker, and you wouldn't see any difference between the two dogs. You could have both dogs demonstrate the same behaviour, taught two different ways, and chances are 99% that observers would be able to find zero difference between the two dogs.

Which behavior? The behavior of pushing itself, or the increase in the dog's prey drive that seems to always be a result?

And I'm talking about what I've actually done, repeatedly, and the effects I've seen taking place as a result, not some hypothetical outcome I'm "pretty sure" would happen. And what do you think you're actually going to teach with the clicker? For the dog to push into you? Good! That's part of the process, making contact, pushing against an obstacle, overcoming resistance. Would you get the exact same result, in terms of increasing a dog's prey drive by using a clicker instead of letting the dog eat out of your hand? Hypothetically, probably nowhere even close.

And you're still talking about behavior, as if that were the be-all and end-all of the pushing exercise, or that the "learned behavior" is somehow connected to why it works. I've said repeatedly it works by removing emotional blockages in the dog's energy system. What blockages? one might ask. Well, as I see it a dog's predatory energy is always there, always trying to find a way to express itself through one behavior or another. Sometimes, due to mistreatment or trauma, the dog doesn't feel comfortable expressing his drive. Doing the pushing exercise seems to have the effect of making the dog feel more comfortable about doing that. That's all. Whether you're using the pushing exercise, playing tug-of-war and letting the dog win, or taking him on long walks in nature, you're doing something to unblock his drive.

So can you explain how clicking would unblock a dog's drive? (That was rhetorical.)

Kim_MacMillan

You are performing basic food-reward teaching. That's all it is.

This is why I've said that you're looking at it through the wrong lens. If you need to look at it in terms of reward, it isn't the food. The reward is in the emotions, along with the concomitant feeling of safety, that eating and pushing at the same engenders in the dog. Yes eating is part of it. And maybe it's a substantial part. But if you look at the way some trainers will push against a dog while playing tug to increase the dog's drive, you'll see why the pushing exercise does the same thing. With tug, up to a certain point, the more you push, the more interested the dog becomes in playing. It's the same process here, only the dog has to push into you instead of the other way around.

I hope that helps clarify this a little better. 

LCK

Right on. Sometimes it's hard to tell with Pen how much she's hurting because sometimes the most I'll get from her is a weary look and her slowing down. She was going up and down stairs over Christmas to keep up with me, even though it was obvious she was finding each jolt almost too much to keep following me. That's gotta be pretty bad for her. She was still doing it, though, even when I was telling her to stay and wait. In the end she at least would wait a few moments to see if someone was going to carry her. Penny used to loathe being carried.

I really think it's pretty important to acknowledge that this kind of exercise could be bad for the health of a dog with an injury, or even arthritis. 

Gee, LCK, thanks for turning my simple discussion into a crazy personal battle hardly anyone on the board has the knowledge and patience to follow anyway. May I suggest that in future people who want to exclude everyone else with technical, heavy-weight, and personal arguments consider the PM function? There were people earlier that were actually interested in how this method might be applied and what the benefits or drawbacks or side-effects might be. I think most of those people have given up. 

By all means, I welcome technical discussion. Just keep it simple and succinct and non-personal. We're not all experts, here, and frankly, this back-and-forthing that's been dominating the thread is pretty exclusive and a turn-off. I mean, for several pages there a legitimate concern about how this method might affect the health of a dog was ignored.