The "Eyes" Exercise - a Bit Different from "Watch Me"

Lee Charles Kelley

Yes, but you've left out the most important part, which I re-described just above. In other words we're not just rewarding him for just looking us in the eyes, but for looking to us for a solution to his dilemma. Doesn't that at all strike you as being something of a substantial difference?

That sounds dangerously close to cognition. The raising of the stakes as it were, wherein frustration gets higher and higher, then sweeter is the reward, is applying a human value and thought process to the dog's struggle to solve the problem. Dogs, unless trained otherwise, find the optimum route to a goal. For example, most middle and large breed dogs do not decide to go through a tunnel to get something, they go around or over the tunnel. They would rather grab something with their teeth than swipe with a paw, unless the paw swipe brings whatever into a better position to be bitten. If my dog sees a fence with the gate open and he wants to get on the other side of the fence, he will go through the gate, rather than over the fence. And specifically, he will wait for a lure or leading move if he can't figure out what it is I want. You are luring. Nothing wrong with that. I train with a clicker (requires luring sometimes) more often than I clicker train (freeshaping, where the dog offers assorted self-defined behaviors then I click on one I like and he repeats because that move was rewarded). When I trained watch me I used my hand, as he reads hand signals very well. I can command him to sit, stay, or down with single moves of the hand while my mouth is full of food or not speaking. This is because dogs read movement better than they understand the Queen's english. I think it was a bit bold in an earlier post of yours to state that dogs are born knowing how to do the obedience commands. Would that be in Farsi? True, the moves we require are within their mechanical range of motion. But doing them on command is a learned skill. Fluency, as SD calls it, requires a strong connection and practice.

Lee Charles Kelley

But that's the real reward: finding the solution

Another human value judgement, though it does appear that the dog is pleased to figure the new pattern to get the reward. The reward of finding the solution is truly human, and certainly cognitive, imo. For example, in 3-phase power, when figuring current on a single conductor, say either line or load side of a transformer, one must use the formula I = (VA or P)/(E*1.732). VA is volt-amps but is sometimes called power, though technically VA is ac and P is dc. E is voltage and 1.732 happens to be the square root of 3. I just had to know why. So, I started from square one. How 3-phase power is generated. That led to a solution in spherical trigonometry. Then a co-worker who was from the Ukraine showed me how he had learned it through Pythagora's Theorem, which primarily treated it as a phasor problem. So, in 3-phase, the voltage between any two hots of 120 V is 208 V, and between two hots of 277 is 480. Ah, sweetness, I found truly explanatory reasons for this process. It doesn't make me any better at bending pipe or remembering to torque all the bus bars in a switchgear, but it was an itch I had to scratch. Are you suggesting that the dog is engaged in an intellectual pursuit for the enjoyment of solving a puzzle? Sniff, sniff, ah, the aroma of cognition.

Lee Charles Kelley

You’ve not only given him the answer to his problem, as far as he’s concerned you are the answer."

That is also the goal of my training. I am the one worth listening to because I have the good stuff, as SD might say in a colloquial manner, though she has the academic education to put it in precise scientific terms.

Lee Charles Kelley

That's pretty strong stuff. A lot stronger than, "Oh, this is nice! I got a treat for something, I'm not sure what..."

But in my training, especially with the clicker, there is no doubt what the treat was for. It was for Sit, Stay, Down, Here, Off, Pound the Floor (freeshaped), Heel, Watch Me. Other times, I do give him good stuff just because. But then, it's not in connection to a behavior, I'm just spoiling him rotten. With the clicker, I was able to remove his confusion as to what the treat was for. It was for "click" that, right there. And repeatable on the very next click. The exact advantage of marking is to precisely show what the treat is for. Methinks you were setting up a straw boss.

Lee Charles Kelley

I didn't know we were playing chess

I was being a little cheeky. You can disregard.

 

Granted I have only scanned these responses and not read the blog.  However, I am lead to believe this is the establishment of a default behavior.  We often set them up in dogs without realizing.  How many of us have a dog that sits just about any time we engage them in some activity?  How many times does a dog offer a sit as a method to engage us?  Differential reinforcement schedules can establish anything.  This particular behavior of eye contact is easily shaped in dogs as they are such good readers of non verbal communication... I know of OTCH level trainers who will down their dogs on the return from Open B out of sites, so that low scores are not recorded for their dogs.  They prefer an NQ.  I would assume few if any observers could find that signal especially from across the ring.... The dogs dont miss it......

spiritdogs

The reduction of stress is a reinforcer for many dogs.  But, again, that isn't what I want my dog working for.  I don't like the idea of purposely stressing a dog to get them to learn

 

And as I said in one of my previous posts, that's a self-limiting attitude. Also, a dog experiences tension and stress just by being alive. We all do. Plus there are many different types and levels of tension and stress, not all of them are necessarily harmful. And if you think it wasn't stressful for Sequoyah to learn to circle around you as you walk, you're very much mistaken; it's just that you hadn't intended to cause stress, but you did, whether you meant to or not. All learning is stressful in some way.

And as I also said in one of my previous posts, you don't want to frustrate the dog to the point where he shuts down or loses interest. The kind of frustration I'm talking about is not that different from teasing a puppy with a toy in order to increase his interest in it; that's all.

LCK 

ron2

Lee Charles Kelley

Yes, but you've left out the most important part, which I re-described just above. In other words we're not just rewarding him for just looking us in the eyes, but for looking to us for a solution to his dilemma.

That sounds dangerously close to cognition.

Really?

You're reading too much into what is really very simple: a dog has a desire/attraction for the treat. He acts in a way that he feels will enable his energy to flow successfully toward the completion of that desire, and his energy is blocked or frustrated in some way, so he tries again, tries harder, tries coming at a different angle, tries behaviors that were successful in the past. Then, since you're in control of the thing he wants, and since you also hold some level of attraction for him, he looks at you. Attraction for the treat > attraction for you. Where's the cognition in that? It's pure energy flow.

ron2

The raising of the stakes as it were, wherein frustration gets higher and higher, then sweeter is the reward, is applying a human value and thought process to the dog's struggle to solve the problem.

Not at all. It's all about the flow of energy.

ron2

Dogs, unless trained otherwise, find the optimum route to a goal.

Yeah. That's kind of what I'm saying: like the water in a river, the energy will always try to flow in as direct a manner as possible. When the dog's energy doesn't flow directly to the desired outcome, it leads him to try other routes.

ron2

I think it was a bit bold in an earlier post of yours to state that dogs are born knowing how to do the obedience commands. Would that be in Farsi? True, the moves we require are within their mechanical range of motion. But doing them on command is a learned skill.

You're going to have to read my posts a little more carefully, Ron. I can't keep going back and cutting and pasting things I've already dealt with, to wit: "Most dogs are born already knowing how to obey most of the commands we give them. The trick is making the cues relevant to their emotions at any given moment, particularly in critical situations."

Lee Charles Kelley

But that's the real reward: finding the solution

ron2

Another human value judgement, though it does appear that the dog is pleased to figure the new pattern to get the reward. The reward of finding the solution is truly human, and certainly cognitive, imo.

Fine. Pardon me for not describing every little detail in terms of energy theory. "The real reward is the completion of the blocked energy flow." Does that save me the tsurris of having to listen to your constant caviling about cognition?

Lee Charles Kelley

That's pretty strong stuff. A lot stronger than, "Oh, this is nice! I got a treat for something, I'm not sure what..."

ron2

But in my training, especially with the clicker, there is no doubt what the treat was for.

Not if you're free shaping the "watch me" command, which is what I was talking about. In that scenario the dog has no idea what the treat was for, if anything. It takes many, many repetitions for him to make the connection through free shaping. Here's one of the descriptions I found online [I've underlined the relevant passages]:

    * Be ready with a small piece of your dog's favorite treat. Put it in your pocket or some place your dog can't see it.
    * Stand or sit facing your dog.
    * As soon as he looks right at your face, quickly tell him "Watch me!" and give him a treat. Then say, "Good boy!"

    It is important that you do not show your dog the treat first. If you do, he will want to look at the treat instead of you.

    Practice "Watch me" many times during the day. It may take a long time before your dog understands. When you think
    he knows the words "Watch me", try it again. If he doesn't look at you, don't say anything. Just try it again another time.
    Praise him whenever he does what he is supposed to do.

Some here have said they don't train it this way; my impression was that this was quite similar to the method you would use.

The way I do it, within 5 mins. the dog will have learned to look at me immediately when I give him the command, and will even keep his eyes locked on mine while I dance the treat around his nose. So that's another big difference right there, at least between the technique described above ("it may take a long time";) and the "eyes" exercise (it takes 5 mins.).

Look, I'm not trying to open up a philosophical debate here. I'm just trying to answer people's honest questions. You had said several weeks ago that you didn't see any difference between the eyes exercise, as I described it briefly in passing, and what you do. I'm not pushing the exercise on anyone, or recommending anyone try it; I'm just pointing out what I think the differences are. All this stuff about whether dogs are more closely related to coyotes then they are to wolves, and "that sure sounds like cognition to me," and "it's pure oc!" aren't relevant. I know what oc is and isn't. I had my own Karen Pryor phase years ago, probably before you ever heard of a clicker. And I know you're pissed off at me because of my Bob Bailey quote, but try to get over it. I'm not here to antagonize anyone, just to explain things from an alternative pov.

LCK 

I tried this today with Penny (and Kivi Tarro, but he was feeling bored of mental challenges at the time, so it doesn't count). After ten minutes of doing absolutely nothing but sitting and staring at me for ten minutes waiting for a click and a treat, which I couldn't really give her because the only thing I DON'T want to reinforce with her is sitting and staring at food, I thought I'd give it a go and we did get further than with the clicker. She did look at me, but failed to make the connection. Although I also rewarded her for looking at my right knee, which she did get, but didn't quite believe. She was like "What, I stare at your knee instead? No, that's crazy, even for you." But that's still better than the impervious sitstare. I might add the clicker. I'll see if it makes a difference at all. 

spiritdogs

A trainer I butt heads with once in a while here in Manhattan is fond of telling people to let the dog know that when he behaves properly he gets access to the "good stuff," and that when he does something he wrong, "the good stuff disappears." On a certain level I sort of agree with her. But her phraseology belies a belief that there's a mental thought process going on.

Her phraseology is perfectly wonderful for one thing - getting her students to do what she is asking them to do.  And, frankly, if their dogs then learn to sit, come, or whatever the object is at the moment, then that's great.  The public doesn't usually give a rat's butt about our debates on Skinner or the cognitive capabilities of their dogs.  They just want the dog to stay or stop jumping up.  And, to be honest, explaining your current posit as "not the same as "watch me" implies that there is only one exercise that trainers call "watch me", which is not exactly correct.  Some trainers do what you do, others stick a treat in their hand at arms length and just wait for the dog to make eye contact instead of watching the treat.  The phrase is unimportant when you talk about behavior, it's the behavior that requires description.  I doubt that my dog feels that her internal stress is lowered by looking me in the eye - gee, wouldn't she have to have some advanced cognitive function, that you feel she lacks, in order to think of it that way?
Sometimes, there is no hidden meaning in all this, save that the dogs think our direct eye contact is pretty impolite - perhaps because we give them a lot of "good stuff", they forgive us our poor canine manners.

 

 

I agree with spiritdogs - it is like a lie, but a useful one, and conveys enough truth to be worth something.  Rather like being taught in school taht we have FIVE sense (touch, sight, smell, hearing, taste) when in fact we have many, many more than that.  But is it WRONG that the schools teach kids a "lie"?  This is the same IMO. 

Lee Charles Kelley

spiritdogs

The reduction of stress is a reinforcer for many dogs.  But, again, that isn't what I want my dog working for.  I don't like the idea of purposely stressing a dog to get them to learn

 

And as I said in one of my previous posts, that's a self-limiting attitude.

 

We all have a line we draw somewhere....  Frankly I don't want to purposely stress the dog either and I am sure I share that view with MANY pet owners.  We own dogs because we love them, no?

Lee Charles Kelley

Where's the cognition in that? It's pure energy flow

I work with the flow of energy every day, it's my stock in trade, literally. So, allow me to teach you a little about it. While I am at it, allow me, as you would, to explain some of my credentials. To start, I don't have a college degree. I was about 4 classes short of an Associate's and about 8 classes (subjects ancillary to electrical or totally away from it and were lib art courses required in all degree programs) short of a EE and ran out of money. Thanks to my step-grandfather, I have been studying electrical theory and electronics since 1974, as well as physics, including theories of relativity, etc. 1974 was a pivotal year for me in many ways. I have the biggest license Texas grants short of being a professional engineer. A master license. That means I know how to find answers in the code book really fast and that I have a basic understanding of electricity. Anyway, enough self-serving bragging.

Energy does flow, and follows the path of least resistance. One might call the path of least resistance the optimum path, whether that is optimal for our purposes or not. Call it a law of the universe, requiring no specific cognition the energy itself. So, if one wishes to describe the dog's actions as purely the flow of energy, requiring no specific cognition, then the dog is going to follow the path of least resistance. And in response to your attempts at raising resistance, will respond by either flowing the energy into a shut down, or flowing "around" the resistance, even if that flow brings them to look at you as an option.

Then you reward. That means you are capturing the behavior, sans clicker. And you do it again when the dog does it again, even if that requires drawing his attention to your eyes (luring). And you may have to lure. Just as you noted with other training methods, there may be other factors that dog notices that you don't. And if the dog always sought you as the solution, the exercise would be unnecessary, as would any other training regime. You would already have the "perfect" dog. Hence the treat. You are weighting one solution heavier than the others. At first, the dog may not see you as the solution. He is simply doing a behavior that is getting him a treat or, in the case of some of your training, the main meal. He is working for food. Eventually, ala a pavlovian response, he will seek your eyes as a default move because it has been rewarding or has become an "ingrained" habit, so to speak.

A side note: I noticed in your blog that you slight Skinner by stating that he half-starved the subjects before engaging them in the press the button for food test. Yet, you have recommended, if necessary, fasting the dog a little bit, then feeding him his meals by hand, eventually leading him into the push exercise, specifically. A bit of irony I happened to notice. I did catch the part about another researcher trying it and noticing that eventually, without reinforcement, the animals went back to fixed action patterns, such as scratching or rooting the ground. This was also in response to McConnell's supposition that creatures learn the same way regardless of species or genus.She was not wrong. But any learned behavior that doesn't fall into fixed action requires reinforcement, at least for a while. So, I get the point that, in your view of natural dog training, you are trying to have the dog respond to you through fixed action patterns, which are "hard-wired", so to speak. Yet, "eyes" or "watch me" runs counter to what might be a fixed action pattern for dogs, which is to avoid prolonged eye contact. And you remember who made a career out of fixed action pattern, right?

Lee Charles Kelley

Not if you're free shaping the "watch me" command, which is what I was talking about. In that scenario the dog has no idea what the treat was for, if anything

Unless you use a clicker, which has been previously established by associative learning, at which dogs are excellent. Freeshaping is most noticably attached to or used in conjunction with a distinctive marker, nominally a clicker, though it could be verbal or a light signal or a touch or a whistle. Or, sometimes, a certain dog make an association that looking at you equals reward. That's an easy day for everyone.

Lee Charles Kelley

You had said several weeks ago that you didn't see any difference between the eyes exercise, as I described it briefly in passing, and what you do. I'm not pushing the exercise on anyone, or recommending anyone try it; I'm just pointing out what I think the differences are.

And the difference is, as far as I can see, primarily involved in your view of the process vs. the view of most of the notable experts in the field. Mechanically, I'm not seeing a difference. Just a difference of weltanschauung.

Lee Charles Kelley

All this stuff about whether dogs are more closely related to coyotes then they are to wolves, and "that sure sounds like cognition to me," and "it's pure oc!" aren't relevant

Your linked article includes your view of wolf and dog as a crucial part of what your theory entails.

Lee Charles Kelley

"that sure sounds like cognition to me," and "it's pure oc!" aren't relevant

You asked what our impressions were. I answered the best way that I could, which may not be perfect or what you were expecting.

Lee Charles Kelley

And I know you're pissed off at me because of my Bob Bailey quote, but try to get over it.

Actually, I am not. I find that quote to mean that Mr. Bailey doesn't understand what he thinks he does.

Lee Charles Kelley

I had my own Karen Pryor phase years ago, probably before you ever heard of a clicker.

Of that I am sure.

Lee Charles Kelley

I'm not here to antagonize anyone, just to explain things from an alternative pov

I've never had the impression that you were trying to cause problems in any way. All you've wanted to do is view from the alternate pov. And I'm seeing that the main difference between watch me and eyes is pov, a human thing, rather than the actual mechanical process, which is easily and accurately described by OC. Especially as it pertains to a behavior that is counter to a seeming FAP in dogs.

 

Chuffy

I don't want to purposely stress the dog either and I am sure I share that view with MANY pet owners.  We own dogs because we love them, no?

 

As I said, this exercise isn't stressful to anything near the level that it's in any way harmful to the dog, or to your relationship. It's really no different than teasing a puppy with a toy in order to increase his interest in it, and it strengthens your relationship with the dog. Besides, as I also said learning itself is stressful, so by your logic you'd never want to "purposely stress" your dog in order for her to learn anything.

Also, do you think you can protect the dog from any stressful experience that might come up in her life? No, of course not. So I would imagine that if you love your dog, as we all do, then you'd want to teach her how to handle stress on her own correct? What could be better than to teach her that when she looks to you, all her stress momentarily disappears? To me that seems like pretty good stuff.

I guess I just don't understand the mentality being exhibited.

LCK 

Making a separate reply in order to not let a point get lost in edit.

In my post, I said the Bailey quote showed a non-understanding of the process. I was wrong. Here's a link to an interview with Bailey.

http://www.clickersolutions.com/interviews/bailey.htm

In context, Bailey is no stranger to clickers. Though I think it's interesting that his wife is the one with the particular credentials for behavior. Anyway, his objection to clickers is not clickers themselves, as they are an important tool. His objection is to what he feels is overboard behavior on the part of other clicker trainers. "Ever clicking" and "no punishment", wihch is inaccurate. I use punishment, mostly -P, though I have used +P in the past. Most any training will include punishment. It's just that most clicker trainers have found -P to be compatible and effective with what they do. And, in the texts I have read, one is cautioned not to use a punishment in conjunction with pressing the clicker. That is, if you must punish, don't mark it with the clicker.

So, the Bailey quote is really just an opinion about something out of context and the quote is almost taken out of context but it would be unwieldy to fit the entire interview into a sig.

Chuffy

Lee Charles Kelley

spiritdogs

The reduction of stress is a reinforcer for many dogs.  But, again, that isn't what I want my dog working for.  I don't like the idea of purposely stressing a dog to get them to learn

 

And as I said in one of my previous posts, that's a self-limiting attitude.

 

We all have a line we draw somewhere....  Frankly I don't want to purposely stress the dog either and I am sure I share that view with MANY pet owners.  We own dogs because we love them, no?

 

Thanks for joining the ranks of the "self-limiting".  No one, including me, ever said that learning wasn't stressful at times.  How did you feel the first time you drove an automobile, jumped a horse, or set off down the hill on skis?  But, the deliberate creation of ADDITIONAL stress, more than what is required to learn a simple task, is what I am not comfortable with.  LCK seems to want to do a lot of stressing, pushing, etc. in the name of NATURAL dog training, but as we all know, humans training dogs is NOT natural in any context.  Dogs training dogs is what's really natural.  We are but meager substitutes.  The least we can do, in that context, as the dominant culture, is not to make their subservience to our wishes any more stressful than it needs to be.  No one would argue that we should stop asking dogs to sit, or lie down, or quit begging at the table.  But, we don't need to fabricate and elaborate just to teach a simple skillset.  Dogs pretty much automatically defer to their humans - in the canine world, you are pre-programmed to recognize who controls the resources and who has the powerful presence.  As mrv stated, it's really just a default that is being trained, that of looking directly AT the human, which is what dogs find naturally disconcerting.  

It is true that not all stress is bad.  When dogs learn how to learn, and get rewarded for it, they begin to look upon the process as a game that ends in fun, not as a chore done for the self-aggrandisement of the human.  When I pull the clicker out, Sequoyah is happy and willing, not showing stress or displacement signals, although there certainly might be a few moments of stress as she tries to play the game and figure out which move makes the click happen.  I really think that the only "self limiting" that is going on in this discussion is the kind that says "I'm always right, and others are always wrong."  If I felt that way, I'd still be using leash corrections.
 

ron2

Lee Charles Kelley

Where's the cognition in that? It's pure energy flow

I work with the flow of energy every day, it's my stock in trade, literally. So, allow me to teach you a little about it.

Okay. If you're an expert on energy I'd be glad to learn something from you.

ron2

Energy does flow, and follows the path of least resistance. One might call the path of least resistance the optimum path, whether that is optimal for our purposes or not. Call it a law of the universe, requiring no specific cognition the energy itself. So, if one wishes to describe the dog's actions as purely the flow of energy, requiring no specific cognition, then the dog is going to follow the path of least resistance. And in response to your attempts at raising resistance, will respond by either flowing the energy into a shut down, or flowing "around" the resistance, even if that flow brings them to look at you as an option.

Ron, you tease: I thought you were going to illuminate something. I've already said all of this myself. 

ron2

I noticed in your blog that you slight Skinner by stating that he half-starved the subjects before engaging them in the press the button for food test. Yet, you have recommended, if necessary, fasting the dog a little bit, then feeding him his meals by hand, eventually leading him into the push exercise, specifically. A bit of irony I happened to notice.

Skinner, in order to make sure that this theory worked, made sure the animals he tested it on were very hungry (and isolated, with nothing else to do) so that he'd get the best possible results. In terms of Natural Dog Training we only use hunger as a means of helping dogs with severe behavioral problems, particularly with dogs who exhibit fear or anxiety-based behaviors. That's because hunger is nature's way of overcoming fear. We use sometimes use it to help nature do her work. So I don't see any irony there at all. (And by the way, nature is much smarter than B. F. Skinner, not to mention the rest of us...)

ron2

I did catch the part about another researcher trying it and noticing that eventually, without reinforcement, the animals went back to fixed action patterns, such as scratching or rooting the ground. This was also in response to McConnell's supposition that creatures learn the same way regardless of species or genus.She was not wrong. But any learned behavior that doesn't fall into fixed action requires reinforcement, at least for a while. So, I get the point that, in your view of natural dog training, you are trying to have the dog respond to you through fixed action patterns, which are "hard-wired", so to speak. Yet, "eyes" or "watch me" runs counter to what might be a fixed action pattern for dogs, which is to avoid prolonged eye contact. And you remember who made a career out of fixed action pattern, right?

The point of that section of my article is that in dog training most of what any of us do, whether we're aware of it or not, is we elicit some of the predatory motor patterns found in wild canines. In fact, that's how obedience training got its start. Since these motor patterns are arguably the bedrock of obedience training in dogs, I just think it's better to do it intentionally (by inducing the behavior through play), rather than by accident.

What Keller Breland learned, and wrote about, was that an animal's fixed-action patterns often override conditioning. The experiment he did with pigs had to be stopped or they would have starved to death, even though they had supposedly "learned" how to get food by pressing a button.

And while Konrad Lorenz was wrong about a lot of things, even things like imprinting, which is what I think he was most famous for, he wasn't wrong about everything.  

Finally, I don't think dogs have a universal aversion to direct eye contact at all. I think it's something which is deeply embedded in their psyches, behaviorally, psychologically, and emotionally, given the proper context. When my dog Fred was alive his main means of communicating that he wanted or needed something was through eye contact. If he had diarrhea he would stare at me until I took him outside. If his water bowl was empty, he'd stare at me till I refilled it. The purpose of the "eyes" exercise (of one of them) is to use that instinct, reinforce it, strengthen it, give it  a little more oomph, so that you have a tool to override things like leash aggression, chasing squirrels, etc.

I worked with a dog recently who was obsessed with skateboarders. She used to pant frantically, whine, and pull like crazy to get at them whenever she saw one. Now she immediately looks up at me and locks her eyes intensely on mine instead. And she does a perfect heel (which is actually a by-product of the exercise in this case). Her behavior is definitely due to of the fact that the "eyes" exercise stimulates and satisfies some aspect of her natural predatory instincts (and her redirecting her energy into the heel is a part of that). Yes, the "watch me" exercise would probably do something similar, but the result would be accidental rather than integral to the design of the exercise.

ron2

I'm seeing that the main difference between watch me and eyes is pov, a human thing, rather than the actual mechanical process, which is easily and accurately described by OC. Especially as it pertains to a behavior that is counter to a seeming FAP in dogs.

 

No, if you ask me the oc description is only a partial one. It assumes -- much as Skinner himself seemed to have done when he proudly talked about those pigeons who'd worn their beaks down to nubs -- that the behavior is learned ONLY as a matter of conditioning, when it's not; it's actually a combination of learning and instinct. And to me the difference in the way the "watch me" exercise is done (at least as described in the clip I quoted) is that it's only geared toward conditioning the dog to produce a somewhat mechanical behavior. And as a result, the way it taps into a dog's instincts and emotions is purely accidental. In the "eyes" exercise, that instinctive part of the equation -- which I think is the most important aspect of it -- is done deliberately and with a specific awareness of what's really going on.

Some others here have said they don't like the idea of using the treat (and the make-believe eye) to frustrate the dog, saying that they would never purposely stress their dogs. So right there, these people are seeing a critical difference between "eyes" and "watch me." Yet they're ignoring the fact that much of what they do, whether deliberately or not, is stressful to their dogs. It should be pointed out that the quote I gave earlier from a trainer here in Manhattan about teaching a dog "that when he does something he wrong, 'the good stuff disappears'" was lauded by these same posters, yet doing that sort of thing (negative punishment) is often, it not always, stressful for a dog. Anytime you don't let your dog do something he wants to do but "shouldn't," or teach him some form of impulse control, you're creating stress. But if you're not doing things to deliberately stress the dog, and it's only an accidental side-effect, then you don't need to feel bad about it.

Is that the rationale here? I really don't understand this apparent hypocrisy.

LCK 

Lee Charles Kelley

And to me the difference in the way the "watch me" exercise is done (at least as described in the clip I quoted) is that it's only geared toward conditioning the dog to produce a somewhat mechanical behavior. And as a result, the way it taps into a dog's instincts and emotions is purely accidental. In the "eyes" exercise, that instinctive part of the equation -- which I think is the most important aspect of it -- is done deliberately and with a specific awareness of what's really going on.

So on one hand you have an exercise to condition the mechanical behavior of eye contact, with the accidental result of tapping into a dog's instincts and emotions, and on the other hand you have an exercise to also condition eye contact, but with the deliberate intent of tapping into a dog's instincts and emotions. So what? The only difference sounds like awareness of the HANDLER, not the dog - the end result is the same for him/her - eye contact with the handler, and tapping into the dog's instincts and emotions. What you name the exercise is immaterial. There are many ways to teach eye contact as a default behavior, (and I agree with spritidogs and anyone else who said that's what we're doing here), and they are not mutually exclusive. As I mentioned earlier, I train eye contact several different ways, all at the same time - one is pretty much freeshaping, and another is pretty much what you're doing, but I don't have a fancy name for it. It's all eye contact, and it all works. *MY* intent and awareness of what I'm doing during training isn't really important to my dogs. They 'get it' either way.

Lee Charles Kelley

...A lot stronger than, "Oh, this is nice! I got a treat for something, I'm not sure what..."

ron2

But in my training, especially with the clicker, there is no doubt what the treat was for.

Lee Charles Kelley

Not if you're free shaping the "watch me" command, which is what I was talking about. In that scenario the dog has no idea what the treat was for, if anything. It takes many, many repetitions for him to make the connection through free shaping.

I'm with Ron here, that's the whole point of using a clicker or some other marker - to inform the dog that what they were doing AT THAT EXACT MOMENT was what earned the treat. Good timing of the marker is an important part of the process. And maybe your experience with freeshaping is different than mine, but I found it doesn't take any time at all for even a 9 week old puppy to figure out exactly what s/he's being rewarded for and how to continue earning that reward. Certainly not "many, many repetitions". It's very clear to the dog as long as your timing is good and you're executing the technique properly.

I'm with Ron here, that's the whole point of using a clicker or some other marker - to inform the dog that what they were doing AT THAT EXACT MOMENT was what earned the treat. Good timing of the marker is an important part of the process. And maybe your experience with freeshaping is different than mine, but I found it doesn't take any time at all for even a 9 week old puppy to figure out exactly what s/he's being rewarded for and how to continue earning that reward. Certainly not "many, many repetitions". It's very clear to the dog as long as your timing is good and you're executing the technique properly.

Me, too.  Maybe I'm spoiled because I have the pleasure every day of working with a clicker savvy Australian Shepherd who is pretty brilliant anyway, but if my students can have their own dogs looking at them by the end of week 2 (week 1 is a lecture/discussion), then it can't be that I, or my dog, are so special that only we can do this LOL.  And, I also agree with Ron that LCK's interpretation suggests a thought process on the part of the dog that he has spent considerable time on this forum discounting.  If anyone who uses a clicker is having to do "many, many repetitions", then they are doing something wrong.  With clicker training, timing is very important.  Maybe it's time for some practice, LCK - toss up those tennis balls and click at the top of the arc! 

 

I get so tired of people slamming Skinner.  For crying out loud, the man was brilliant.  His brand of psychology offers many things to many people.  Explaining that attention to the events that preceed a behavior and the events that follow a behavior can be used to systematically change behavior was incredibly valuable.  At the time Skinner presented his theories, learning was  speculation to a degree because there was minimal research in neuroscience.  From my training and discussions, he would have embraced the new knowledge and folded it into his practices over time.

If you take the time to examine the establishment of new behavior it is obvious,  dogs (and any organism) does what works to get its needs met.  So no matter what you choose to call it, behavioral principles are at work.  Its not applied behavior analysis because that requires active thought and planning on the part of the individual changing the behavior.  Implying higher level thinking skills in animals, especially dogs is not really possible to support from a neuroscience stand point because they don't have a frontal lobe.  I am not saying they are not thinking creatures, just that some thought processes (attributed to dogs)  are more complex than the neurology supports.

ABA has saved the lives of animals and improved the quality of life for many individuals.  Ok off the soapbox.

MRV the radical behaviorist with a neuropsych basis

(radical behaviorists are those who believe in self reinforcement, the ability to mediate behavior internaly through metacognition.)