Jean Donaldson training video?

sillysally

Angelique

I don't see communication and expectations of proper social behavior regarding another being to be the same thing as the (food or sex) manipulation of another being. Again, this is in a social context.

 

Ever people watched at a bar?  Especially the dance club type places?  There is a TON of communication of social expectations going on there under the surface.  Guys buy girls drinks--dance with them, but need to be careful not to be too pushy, try to say things that walk the fine line between flirtation and offensiveness, etc.

Why?

For the reward of course--sex!

Yep. I agree.

My BF of 20 years is a musician and I've had plenty of time in these situations to watch how men buy women drinks (and lie) to get laid. I've also seen women manipulate guys into buying them drinks by acting (lying) like they might sleep with them, and then go home with someone else.

Are the large percent of these interactions an honest communication based on mutual respect with other person's best interests at heart? Or are these manipulative quests for instant personal gratification?

I've known two people in my life (one male, and one female) who claimed to be "master manipulators". Well, I wouldn't call them "masters" of their craft, simply by blowing their cover with such egotistical statements. Neither were honest, both were beyond selfish.

I think all creatures manipulate to a certain extent.

With humans, it's up to our on personal code of ethics where we draw the line, that's all.

I agree with you that the video was disturbing. I just didn't see as the nail in the coffin of +R training.

Also, it would seem that this is just a clip, taken out of context, with no explanation or leading up to it as to why she would do this. I do not see it as a duty of mine to allow the expression of my dog in that manner. That does make me a manipulator. I manipulate him into not doing that. Although, as I said, that behavior pretty much stopped after neutering. Jumping, however, was best cured by rewarding the "off' command. That (+R) worked better than ignoring him (-P).

ron2

I agree with you that the video was disturbing. I just didn't see as the nail in the coffin of +R training.

But not disturbing (at least to me) on a purely scientific level. I may have my issues with Jean, but they are not the topic of this thread.

ron2

Also, it would seem that this is just a clip, taken out of context, with no explanation or leading up to it as to why she would do this. I do not see it as a duty of mine to allow the expression of my dog in that manner. That does make me a manipulator. I manipulate him into not doing that. Although, as I said, that behavior pretty much stopped after neutering. Jumping, however, was best cured by rewarding the "off' command. That (+R) worked better than ignoring him (-P).

For me it's not simply about +R only (or Cesar only) when we have these discussions. It's looking at the bigger picture in many layers. Lately, I've been a bit of a classical conditioning freak. Pretty cool.

 On the subject of manipulation, though, I find it amusing that people think the use of food or sex is manipulative, but collars and leashes are not?  Coercion is manipulation, too.  If I cannot avoid manipulating my dog to train it (sillysally, you hit the nail on the head - all training is manipulation of a sort), then at least I don't have to cause pain or fear to do it.  Although, I do agree that I would stop short of providing quite that much pleasure to my dogs to get them to obey.  In this case, I really don't want the reinforcer to be "sex with mom's leg".  Although, I certainly do recognize that it could be a reinforcer for some dogs...  nfowler is right that the video is not about that, it's about placing behavior on cue and, thus, being able, subsequently, to have a shut off switch for that behavior.  Karen Pryor explains how to do it by reinforcing nuisance barking at first, and placing it on cue.  Then, you can interrupt it, place "quiet" on cue, and viola, there's your off switch.

Angelique

sillysally

Angelique

I don't see communication and expectations of proper social behavior regarding another being to be the same thing as the (food or sex) manipulation of another being. Again, this is in a social context.

 

Ever people watched at a bar?  Especially the dance club type places?  There is a TON of communication of social expectations going on there under the surface.  Guys buy girls drinks--dance with them, but need to be careful not to be too pushy, try to say things that walk the fine line between flirtation and offensiveness, etc.

Why?

For the reward of course--sex!

I think all creatures manipulate to a certain extent.

With humans, it's up to our on personal code of ethics where we draw the line, that's all.

 

 

 

I believe that if you are using an animal's or human's natural drives--love of food, desire for sex, avoidance of unpleasant consequences--pain, withdrawal of social interaction, shunning, separation from group, natural desires to move away from pressure, natural desires to move away from possible predators, desires to be predators, desire to have fun, than you are manipulating.  So unless you never train using drives, never ask a horse to move off of leg pressure, never put a child in a time out to calm down, never use unpleasant consequences when a dog misbehaves in a social situation, you are manipulating.

Angelique

Are the large percent of these interactions an honest communication based on mutual respect with other person's best interests at heart? Or are these manipulative quests for instant personal gratification?

Let's see - when I am training my dogs simple obedience behaviours for daily use - to help us live together more easily in a myriad of ways.... it is for mutual benefit.  

But when a person takes it more seriously and competes in obedience, how is that anything other than for the human's "personal gratification"?  Do you dislike the notion of obedience competitions then?  I personally have no problem with people competing in obedience.  But it sounds like you have decided that "training" is a powerful tool, and not one to be weilded on whim.  Admirable - but I don't think dogs give a hoot to be honest. 

Dogs get their own gratification out of "knowing" how to do a task, and satisfaction out of a job well done.  I also think that many dogs relish "obeying" their owners, because they have a strong desire to work WITH their human and communicate, understand and be understood. 

Undoubtedly, the dog in the video felt good about the fact that he knew WHAT to do and HOW and WHEN to do it. 

Sure, it was weird.  I often find the things "trainers" do to be weird or reprehensible.  Allowing/encouraging/teaching the dog to hump is certainly not the worst I have seen, by a LONG way.

Sure, it was weird.  I often find the things "trainers" do to be weird or reprehensible.  Allowing/encouraging/teaching the dog to hump is certainly not the worst I have seen, by a LONG way.

I also think that, if you really look at Jean during that sequence, you "get" that she thinks it's weird, too.  I just think she's quirky enough to do something weird to make her point about the science.  I agree that it certainly isn't the worst I've seen.  Pales by comparison to seeing a "trainer" lift a Husky puppy up bodily and slam it to the ground because it wouldn't heel - week 2 of puppy school.

 Wow!! Who did that?????

Yes, even classical conditioning is manipulating. And there's always going to be some direction on our part and many an animal will sneak in some operant conditioning. Pavlov's dog may be classical to start, hearing the bell ring when fed. Later salivating to the bell because of it's association with food. Notice that the experiment is with food, not a choke chain or slipknot. What if the bell rang from another direction? And the dog turned and looked in that direction? He just went operant. He chose an action as opposed to not turning and looking in the other direction and that motion could be rewarded by locating the dinner bell, now. The initial linking of bell and food is classical. But the very second the dog decides to alter behavior or alters without much thought to seek out the food that is signified by the bell, the dog is operant. Why? Because even if the dog doesn't receive the reward, it is still operant conditioning, which does include the possibility of not reward.

To expect that a correction with the collar will work is to expect operant conditioning to work. +P is a stimulus applied that decreases the likelihood of the behavior. The collar pop, even the "Tssst" is designed (hopefully) to stop a behavior and that is either +P or a cue. Even as a cue, it is leading to behavior that is preferred through reinforcement. That is, if the dog sees the pop as just a cue, that is because he has learned that listening to it or feeling it and going in that direction, means there is a reward somewhere, even if it's -R. A dog, like any creature, learns in Reinforcement. When we are punished and say we have learned not to do "that" again, it's a misuse of the language. What we mean is that we have learned to change our behavior to avoid that particular punishment. That is totally -R. Or we learn to do something that gives pleasure or reward, such as surfing. The balanace and learning of the skill results in a reward, which makes us want to do it again. +R. Learning happens through reinforcement. Punishment stops but it does not teach.

To put it another way, no dog exists alone by pure punishment without the intervention of humans. (No I am not PETA) They are getting a reinforcement somewhere. A dog gets tired of getting collar popped and eventually does what you want, to avoid the collar pop, that is -R. The change to avoid the "tssst", -R. They change to avoid getting pinned to the ground, -R. The change to avoid getting poked in the neck, -R. Unless these are cues to them, in which case, the cue other behaviors that are found as rewarding.

Chuffy

 Wow!! Who did that?????

Actually, it was a trainer in my area who has been teaching for a very, very long time, and still is:-((  I only know because I was actually in the hall when she did it - I was with a friend whose dog was there that evening (not in that class, thankfully).

 I do really weird things, when I'm training my dogs, too. I slap Ena's butt, as a reward. I allow her to mouth at my hands, as a reward. I encourage growling and all sorts of vocalization, in both dogs. I allow them to chase wild animals, at the beach, and at home. I encourage jumping up at/on me.

*shrugs* What I tolerate/allow/encourage is totally personal. Some people would see me slapping my dog, and her responding by leaping and mouthing at me as totally reprehensible. I think it's cute. Evil, toy dog owner. That toy dog can heel off leash, and stay for tested periods of up to five minutes. She demos for basic obedience classes, twice a week, and a novice rally class, every other week. She's nine months old. She's very, very well trained. It's just that I choose not to train out certain behaviors that others find unacceptable. I don't think it's weird at all to allow/encourage humping. If it's controlled, I have no problem with a "problem" behavior. 

 I'm going to agree with that.  What you do with your own dog, so long as it makes you and the dog happy, and doesn't translate to being a danger to either or a nuisance to the public, is, in  my opinion, perfectly fine.  I let Sequoyah jump all over me, snuggle up to my neck, and in general make a complete a&& of herself, as a reward.  But, like your dog, she will do what she is asked to do, and is very, very well trained. 

Just FYI - when I used the word "reprehensible", I was talking about what I considered to be abusive tactics. 

 LOL, Chuffy, I wasn't picking at you... I just liked your word.

I was just saying, I don't think it's any weirder to allow/encourage humping than it is to allow/encourage mouthing and leaping.

Shadow gets on the double recliner, sleeps in the bed. He likes to lick the foot rest part of the recliner. And I allow that because he moves when I ask, he "off"s," he heels. And the recliner is old and from a friend. I doubt we're hurting it.

Crud, I'm out of time. Maybe more later.