Interesting read on dominance/behavior

corvus

Leadership is another one that's been annoying me lately. What does being a good leader even mean? It's such an abstract, subjective concept. What happens if I pretend leadership doesn't exist in my house and we just all try to get what we want? Surprise surprise, there's no difference! That's all we were doing all along.

I believe in being a good leader. I believe being a good leader means that you lay the ground rules and teach and train your dogs fairly and consistently. I show them how it works, I am the one who controls all the resources and I hold the 'key' to getting those resources. My dogs don't always get what they want. If they did, there would be no food in the house and one very fat beagle waddling around! LOL.

 Hi

I have to say sometimes why bother? but i am wirting a response becuase there are some things that need clarification and some issues that really do need a resposne as they are quite insidious.

huski

I've always used food as a motivator, but using it in drive training has produced much better results. I'm not using any different food, but the way I'm using it has changed. 

The sad bit is that we don't actually know whether  "drive training" as you are calling it here is producing the results or whether you are responding better to your dog, or whether you have learnt some other skills. There are so many variables at play. When i check things out with the old timers around, they reckon that i was on the nail when i said it was food biffing. Not a bad thing, not drive training, but a reasonable way to excite your dog. The label "drive training" seems to be one trainer's label for an old activity

huski

I don't really care if he calls himself a "drive" trainer, what I do care about is how I train my dog and I call what I do drive training. Other people can call it Whacky Doo training for all I care ;)

 Chris Bach is a women, and has a trialling history that many of us are envious of. She is i suppose a modern positive ecclectic trainer that looks at methods that don't "invade the sensibilities of her dogs'. Her DVDs are great and are based on sound theory and practice. There are plenty of modern trainers and theorists that have stuff out there to that really get the old brain thinking. Of late i have liked Kathy Sdao , Steve White, Roger Abrantes, Ray Coppinger (he visited oz, pity i coudn't go). I saw Ian Dunbar and he was a great presenter. There is a lot out there.

I actually think it is really important to get the labels right for two reasons.

1) It is very hard to communicate accurately  with others outside of a pretty small group who have a shared understanding of what you mean by drive training when you use it as you are.

2) It is disrespectful to use a label or concept invented by others without acknowledging them, and riding on the back of the name that they may have made for that label.  If i did that kind of thing professionally, i would get roasted within an inch of my life, be suspended from membership in the professional organisations that i belong to and it would be treated as a kind of theft. But i guess for some dog trainers it is different.

poodleOwned

 Hi

I have to say sometimes why bother? but i am wirting a response becuase there are some things that need clarification and some issues that really do need a resposne as they are quite insidious.

Insidious? Oh dear.

The sad bit is that we don't actually know whether  "drive training" as you are calling it here is producing the results or whether you are responding better to your dog, or whether you have learnt some other skills. There are so many variables at play. When i check things out with the old timers around, they reckon that i was on the nail when i said it was food biffing. Not a bad thing, not drive training, but a reasonable way to excite your dog. The label "drive training" seems to be one trainer's label for an old activity

You wouldn't know, because you don't know me, or my dog. There are many trainers who use drive. It's not a new concept or something used by just one trainer.

1) It is very hard to communicate accurately  with others outside of a pretty small group who have a shared understanding of what you mean by drive training when you use it as you are.

Use it how? In words or "jargon" that you don't like or agree with, that somehow makes me insideous? Perhaps you should get over yourself?

2) It is disrespectful to use a label or concept invented by others without acknowledging them, and riding on the back of the name that they may have made for that label.  If i did that kind of thing professionally, i would get roasted within an inch of my life, be suspended from membership in the professional organisations that i belong to and it would be treated as a kind of theft. But i guess for some dog trainers it is different.

Hold up now - are you saying that I should only talk about the way I chose to train my dogs if I officially credit every person who has taught me, or the concepts that I use? Or are you bringing out your own personal vendetta against particular trainer/s again?

ron2

Call it drive training, if you wish. It is still rewarding training. My BIL has Cassie, a Blue Merle Aussie. She lives to herd and cut, even if it's just a ball. She will herd it around and then cut and hold until you come to her and take the ball. And no one trained her to do that. It's her "drive."

Hi

Yes, it is a problem. My response is to talk drive with those who wish to talk drive, talk quadrant for those who talk quadrant. Roger Abrantes suggests that there realy is no conflict between the two models and i agree with him.

I have been working with an emotional model mentioned in Temple  Grandin's book "Making Animals Happy" pge 5 -9. Buy the book just for these pages and the excellent notes and references. I am very happy with the model and find it much easier on the brain than constanty swapping between drive and behavoursit models and remembering the exceptions, emotions. This model is quite hard ot quiblle with, being based in what happens when various parts of the brain is stimulated. It does not supplant the information that we have gained form studying behaviour as a kind of black box, but sure clarifies it.

One of the things that us eccletic lot learn is that often our connection with our dogs is emotional. We know that often they will shut down we we get nervous, that they will come closer when we smile. There is a strong chance i guess that dogs detect our state by smell and body langugae. We are a whole lot dumber. Very few triainers that i know are good at detecting correctly the emotional state of a dog. I mean we can look at the tail, check for yawns. licks, and if all else fails , try jamming some food in their mouths and see if they spit it out. 

An emotional model doesn't have much space at all for that dominance nonsense. It gives me the freedom to start teaching my dogs my emotional responses, and that none of them are fearful.:).

corvus

What happens if I pretend leadership doesn't exist in my house and we just all try to get what we want? Surprise surprise, there's no difference! That's all we were doing all along.

You are making a very good point. I think it is called the placebo effect. Until you try it yourself then you can ingnore all the theory, all the the trials, they are just mere speed bumps:)) 

I go to this training group that i started. I was getting annoyed with the s***head factor at clubs and not being able to get a safe place to train my dogs. So i asked all these trainers that i respect whether they would like to come along on a certain  night and  to my suprise a large number did. Now i have been watching them, and many of them have multiple titles in multiple disciplines,and train in different ways predominantly . But they all have clickers, they all have toys, and none of them do long heeling stuff that you see in clubs. All do them will try something new or different at the drop of a hat if it wont hurt their dogs. I have my favourite techniques too, but none of them could be sold that easily. :))

Hi Huski

I am sorry that we have no common ground, i assumed certain understandings about the scientific method, referencing, and intellectual property that are outside the limits of this forum. I thought they would be accepted knowledge within this forum.You took a great deal of my reply the wrong way. You also assume that i have very little knowledge of "drive training", i do. I have a working and theoretical knowledge of many areas of dog training.

huski

Are you bringing out your own personal vendetta against particular trainer/s again?

Dog training as a whole often seems to be a profession where the claims made by many trainers exceed the ability to deliver and don't acknowledge the origin of the material they use  . I do not restrict these comments to one particular trainer. A quick trawl through the net gives the proof i need.

 As Ian Dunbar says there is nothing more a waste of time than arguing about dog training methods over the internet. I am always prepared to discuss, but really can't be bothered without something to discuss with.

huski

You wouldn't know, because you don't know me, or my dog. There are many trainers who use drive. It's not a new concept or something used by just one trainer.

Protestations based on the your  percieved subjective performance of your dog and yourself (this is not sarcastic it is just descriptive of the statement you made) without the open mindedness to discuss the other variables is no place to start.

Hint.. How do you know your dog is in drive? What makes the dog seem to be in drive? Are there other explanations? Have you explored them? Why have you discounted them?  

huski

But is positive reinforcement always the most 'efficient' method for every dog?

Well that all depends on what you're offering, doesn't it? If you're offering a reward that outweighs any punishments you would consider offering, then yes. If you are offering punishments that outweigh any reward you would consider, then no. Naturally, the dog defines how good or bad your rewards and punishments are, but you are the one with the power to decide what you are prepared or capable of offering.

I believe in being a good leader. I believe being a good leader means that you lay the ground rules and teach and train your dogs fairly and consistently. I show them how it works, I am the one who controls all the resources and I hold the 'key' to getting those resources.

I believe in doing what I damn well please and enjoying my life. That requires that my animals act in a way that pleases me. We are all selfish and lazy creatures by nature. We will put in exactly how much effort we feel the result would be worth, and that holds for dogs as well. You don't need to be a "good leader" to want your dog to sit quietly when waiting for their meal rather than jumping around like a maniac. You don't need to be a "good leader" to demand that something you care very much about be adhered to. You just need to be selfish and lazy.

poodleOwned

Hi Huski

I am sorry that we have no common ground, i assumed certain understandings about the scientific method, referencing, and intellectual property that are outside the limits of this forum. I thought they would be accepted knowledge within this forum.You took a great deal of my reply the wrong way. You also assume that i have very little knowledge of "drive training", i do. I have a working and theoretical knowledge of many areas of dog training.

Why would we have any common ground, you inferred I was insidious. 

I'm not doubting that you have your own experiences and knowledge. I don't know you enough to judge how much you do or don't know. I've been reading your posts on various forums for years ;)

Protestations based on the your  percieved subjective performance of your dog and yourself (this is not sarcastic it is just descriptive of the statement you made) without the open mindedness to discuss the other variables is no place to start.

Hint.. How do you know your dog is in drive? What makes the dog seem to be in drive? Are there other explanations? Have you explored them? Why have you discounted them? 

Why do I need to prove anything to you? You obviously don't agree with the methods/terminology I use, what's the point in further discussion?

corvus

Well that all depends on what you're offering, doesn't it? If you're offering a reward that outweighs any punishments you would consider offering, then yes. If you are offering punishments that outweigh any reward you would consider, then no. Naturally, the dog defines how good or bad your rewards and punishments are, but you are the one with the power to decide what you are prepared or capable of offering.

I'm not going to wipe out the idea of using any other method bar positive reinforcement because you never know when you may need to employ other methods. Positive reinforcement is not always the most efficient way to train, for every handler and dog.

I believe in being a good leader. I believe being a good leader means that you lay the ground rules and teach and train your dogs fairly and consistently. I show them how it works, I am the one who controls all the resources and I hold the 'key' to getting those resources.

I believe in doing what I damn well please and enjoying my life. That requires that my animals act in a way that pleases me. We are all selfish and lazy creatures by nature. We will put in exactly how much effort we feel the result would be worth, and that holds for dogs as well. You don't need to be a "good leader" to want your dog to sit quietly when waiting for their meal rather than jumping around like a maniac. You don't need to be a "good leader" to demand that something you care very much about be adhered to. You just need to be selfish and lazy.

Aww, Corvus, you edited out your snide remark ;) And here I was thinking you wanted to play nice...

I think there is a lot more to handling, raising and training my dogs than simply being lazy and selfish but if that's the attitude you want to employ when it comes to training and teaching your dogs then go for it. In my opinion being a 'good leader' is about being fair and consistent, teaching my dogs the rules and boundaries etc. How much more PC will dog training need to get if we can't even use words like 'being a good leader' without being pounced on?

 Why is it that just because I think leadership is wishy washy that somehow I think no one should use the word??

 I think you missed my point entirely. I was saying that you don't need to hold yourself up to a pre-conceived idea of what a good leader to a dog is in order to be what you would call a good leader. There's no difference in how I work with my animals whether I am consciously trying to be a good leader or consciously ignoring leadership as a concept all together, or not thinking about it consciously at all. The dogs still win when they care more than I do and I still win when I care more than they do. That's what makes the social world go 'round, really. I just think that adding leadership and dominance and hierarchies makes it all more complex than it needs to be. 

In the end, what do we have? An animal that we share our environment with. What happens when we share our environment with an animal? We find ways to reduce conflict and increase the likelihood of us getting what we want. As a clever human, it's not very hard to swing this entirely our way with a dog. Minimise conflict, maximise getting what we want. Don't need to be a good leader for that. Just need to be smart and selfish as well as lazy and selfish.

poodleOwned

We know that often they will shut down we we get nervous, that they will come closer when we smile. There is a strong chance i guess that dogs detect our state by smell and body langugae. We are a whole lot dumber.

Bingo, with one caveat. The smile we give is not the cue, it is other signals we give, including relaxed body posture and a different scent. A true human smile bares teeth, which is usually a tough signal for a dog to interpret as friendly. OTOH, a smile is similar to a dog who's mouth is open and panting, which they could interpret that fashion. And more than once, I have calmed a dog that doesn't know me by assuming a side presentation and as relaxed as I can be without crumpling to a heap. Works every time I have tried it.

 Yeah, there's definitely more to a smile than teeth. It's in the eyes and how your body relaxes. Side presentation with relaxed shoulders is the best way to put Kit at ease as well, and he's a prey animal. There are some things I think that are universal to animals. At least those with a brain.

huski

Why would we have any common ground, you inferred I was insidious. 

I think that you should go back and read my original post, note what i said was insidious because it certainly wasn't you. I normally don't go for the personal insult, unless it is well earned.

huski

what's the point in further discussion?

Agreed. You aren't saying anything new, adding to the discussion, showing where your training is strong or weak, revealing what breed you train, what level you are trialling at.It is an absolute struggle to communicate with you becuase your use of jargon is way off. Also, if i want to read motherhood statements i will read them elsewhere but i really want to see something real.Something of you. It takes  bit of effort and courage to go against the tide and do that, to be less than perfect to have a go and sometimes fail and sometimes do well.

I don't think this forum is about sending heaps of emoticoms and sharing in jokes with an in group  :)

It is about trying to push our knowledge of training a bit and letting others into how we might think about it.

ron2

Bingo, with one caveat. The smile we give is not the cue, it is other signals we give, including relaxed body posture and a different scent. A true human smile bares teeth, which is usually a tough signal for a dog to interpret as friendly. OTOH, a smile is similar to a dog who's mouth is open and panting, which they could interpret that fashion. And more than once, I have calmed a dog that doesn't know me by assuming a side presentation and as relaxed as I can be without crumpling to a heap. Works every time I have tried it.

Yes, i have a mild movement disorder which prevents the open teeth smile. I never thought about it. I generally tend to be one of those people that dogs run towards and relax around.  In UD, we do these excercises, seekback, directed jumping, Scent discrimination, Signals... at the end of the signals excercise we have to leave our dogs go about five paces , then signal to drop , sit and come to us. It sounds easy but you have no idea the number of experienced dogs that fail at this part. 

What i do is that as i am moving away, i tell myself this sick joke. It makes me smile, relaxes my body movements , and my dog never fails.

 It is a chicken goes up to James Bond and says  what is your name? James bond of course says Bond, James Bond...

Then James bond asks the chicken what his name is ... Ken, Chick Ken...

Sorry, might not get over the cultural distance

poodleOwned

Agreed. You aren't saying anything new, adding to the discussion, showing where your training is strong or weak, revealing what breed you train, what level you are trialling at.It is an absolute struggle to communicate with you becuase your use of jargon is way off. Also, if i want to read motherhood statements i will read them elsewhere but i really want to see something real.Something of you. It takes  bit of effort and courage to go against the tide and do that, to be less than perfect to have a go and sometimes fail and sometimes do well. 

Sigh. I'm sorry I even tried to participate. Why would I want to strike up any further communication with you when you tell me my "jargon is way off" and insidious - at the end of the day this is the way I train and the way I think and the jargon I use. Why would I want to delve into more detail when even outlining the basics of the methods I use (and the knowing your biased against the trainers I learn from ;)) when you already think it's wrong?

And Corvus - that is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I can't even use a term that you don't approve of without you commenting on how 'wishy washy' or wrong it is irregardless of how much you may say you don't care if other people use words you don't agree with. I don't care if you don't like the word leadership, to me it nicely defines the way I chose to interact with my dogs.