Human-training books?
Question:
Aha! It’s just this sort of dispute (btw. Mr. Hurwitz and Mr. Dermer) that makes me so curious about suiting training methods to the *humans*, not just the dogs (hence my original question in this thread). *Warning! long mess ‘o thinkin’ out loud ahead…* Acc. to Hurwitz, it’s simple — there are people who have spent *lifetimes* with dogs, watching them, working with them, living with them. These "experts", drawing on their great experience with dogs (and with strategies for training), have learned which things work and which things don’t, and one needs only to ask their advice to discover what those things are. Throw as much theoretical stuff around as you like, but whyever some things work, they do; I guess there’s a sort of doggy folk-psychology operating here (not unlike the folk-psychology of everyday human interaction), probably based in some basic analogies to both human and wolf behaviors (as they are commonly understood, non-scientifically). The question becomes: what do you really want? A deep explanation or a workable solution? Mr. Hurwitz seems to be saying that the workable solution is what we ought to go for. [note about terms: I'm using "folk psychology" here the way philosophers of mind use it, to describe our everyday habit of attributing beliefs, desires, interests, memories, and other mental states to others and to ourselves. So when we describe a dog as "fearful", and then go on to attribute a specific fear to the dog, we are engaging in a little doggy F-P.] Mr. Dermer, on the other hand, appears to suggest that the folk-psychological hands-on expertise of the "experts", while frequently very useful, may not be useful *enough* for some learning situations. Because it tends to be rather simplistic (comparatively — I don’t mean to insult it, here, and I’m sure he doesn’t either — Hurwitz sees its simplicity as an advantage, after all), it may be difficult to solve some problems this way. Another advantage of behavior theory applied to dogs and dog training might well be the possibility of greater flexibility w/r/t the kinds of things one can train a dog to do; the theoretical apparatus helps expain not only the animal’s immediate and occasional mental states, but *also* explains the animal’s learning strategies and priorities, making it easier to tailor specific solutions to specific dogs. My original worry about suiting training to the trainers and not just the dogs is given a handy illustration here, and leads me to believe that the dispute represented above (and repeated all over the place by a great many people — see any thread in Deja News with the phrase "Koehler Nazi" in it, I imagine, and you’ll find this argument) isn’t really as straightforward as it looks. (I’m using H. and D. as rpresentative names here — if y’all don’t agree with what’s said next to your names, I apologize.) Essentially, two different basic sets of priorities appear to be working here: "Hurwitz": dogs, as companions to humans, living in environs organized according to human interests and needs, need to be trained to live in that world. The most important thing for anyone training a dog, therefore, is success in adapting that dog’s behavior to human priorities (for its own sake as well as ours). As Koehler and others often say, the real test of a training method is reliable off-leash control under any and all circumstances (or something like that). It’s a pragmatic matter — if the dog lives in my house, the dog lives by my rules, and all concerned are happier for it. "Dermer": dogs and humans, as behaviorally complex critters trying to coexist in an environment designed mostly for human convenience, run into trouble when their occasionally similar but mostly very different behavioral makeups and priorities clash. In order to avoid these problems and make successful coexistence possible, we need to understand where those behavioral makeups intersect and where they diverge, and we need to tailor our dog-human interactions to suit not only the human’s interests, but also the dog’s. Understand what stresses the dog, remove that stress, and a great many of the problems that stress causes disappear (for example). The goal here isn’t just to get the dog to adapt its external behavior to our needs, it’s to find a way for dogs to be dogs while still living successfully with humans. These are, at least as far as I can tell, two VERY different goals. While I don’t doubt that they can and do coexist in the same trainer, the argument itself is confused by this fundamental disagreement about what we ought to be doing. Koehler’s method (for example) doesn’t really seem to be much use, taken either piecemeal or as a whole, to someone on the Dermer side, because its goal is different; the behavioral psych stuff is superfluous to the goal on the Hurwitz side. If we want results, plain and simple, the psych stuff doesn’t seem to do the trick. Without coming down on either side, I find myself reiterating my original question: how do we suit the method to the *person*, not just the dog? Both options offered above focus on one common thing: it’s the dog’s behavior and makeup that must be managed/understood/altered, and the method we use depends on the specific dog. Neither mentions how choosing and recommending a method ought to be suited to the *owner* as well. Now, though, I can see that Janet Boss’s tagline is right — looking at my question (and all of the above), I’m seeing an answer: first, find out what the owner really *wants*, and figure out how said owner is interested in getting it. Mr. Hurwitz would, undoubtedly, be just as frustrated with a behaviorist’s approach as Mr. Dermer is with Koehler (and others). Then, knowing what the owner wants and how s/he wants to get it, one tries to discover what s/he *can* do to get it. Some people, no matter how they adore simple solutions and tried-and-true methods, just can’t do Koehler right, lacking the timing, the skill, the coordination, the intuition, whatever it is that makes that (or any other method, really) work effectively from the human end. The Overall quotation calls the digging prevention method (dunking) dangerous for dog and owner and ineffective. I’d say she’s both right and wrong about that. I know myself well enough to know that I’m the kind of person who shouldn’t try it, for example. I’d bet Dogman, though, could do it effectively and safely. Still, some people don’t get the psych stuff, either, no matter how sensitive they’d like to be to the animal’s behavior. They get stuck in folk-psych, or they can’t get themselves out of the way in order to see what the *dog* is doing (as opposed to what they think the dog ought to be doing when it moves in such-and-such a way). They end up becoming doggy co-dependents or enablers (so to speak) instead of really understanding the dog well. They might do better with something simpler. Having a clicker doesn’t mean one also has the skill to use it. Hmmm… Well, thanks all! I may learn something yet this week. 
L. Bernhardt (and Angel) (using whatever method works for us both)
Response:
> > Suppose I wanted to make this more complex. > Why on earth would you want to? Are you planning to join the circus?
Why *shouldn’t* he want to? Learning that little trick could just be amusing, or it could lay some groundwork for other behaviors that might have some pragmatic application — directing the dog’s attention to a desired object, for instance, as a retrieving game. Sure, you could just ask doggy to search for the object and then bring it back (this is, I gather, what people usually do — "go find your ball", etc.), but wouldn’t it be cool to be able to direct the dog’s attention in a specific direction and get it to follow that direction to a specific object? Could be useful…admittedly, the procedure described here may not be the best way to teach it, but that doesn’t make it silly, or something only an entertainer’s dog would need to know. An assistance dog could certainly find it useful knowledge. > Suppose I wanted Maxi to only look right or look left when I say "look > right" or "look left," respectively, if my glasses are on; otherwise, > Maxi should do the opposite of what I say if my glasses are off. > You remind me of the guy described in one of the dog books I have who wanted > his dog to bark when he cleared his throat. A little over controlled, don’t > you think?
Ah, yes — the control-freak from _How to Be Your Dog’s Best Friend_.:) Of course, Marshall’s case is quite a bit different, I think. The guy in the book obviously wanted a little machine that looked like a dog; what’s being suggested in Mr. Dermer’s example, however, isn’t that at all. It’s a game — for an entertaining trick, it’d be cool, but also for cueing a special activity. (and what’s wrong with having a very fine level of control, anyway? i’ve met obedience competitors with just that kind of sensitivity to very subtle cues of posture, etc.) Even if that weren’t the case, with all due respect, I think you may have missed some of the point of the example. As I read it, it was meant as an example of the kind of subtle interaction that work with behavioral theory in training can make possible, a kind of interaction that some other training methods might not accomplish as efficiently. JMHO, of course, respectfully offered; I don’t know if this stuff actually works or not, so I can’t comment one way or the other on that. It just looks to me as if that’s what Mr. Dermer’s saying. Was it the best example he could have used? Maybe not, but the point’s the same. Just a thought… L. Bernhardt (and Angel)
Response:
>Even if that weren’t the case, with all due respect, I think you may have >missed some of the point of the example. As I read it, it was meant as an >example of the kind of subtle interaction that work with behavioral theory >in training can make possible
Actually, I studied behavioral psychology in college (and again in law school…!), so I had no trouble with figuring out the point of his example. I don’t really consider it interaction – I consider it manipulation to no real purpose other than pure amusement (nothing wrong with that I suppose…). If you want to teach a dog to mark a blind retrieve – just pick up a copy of Gun Dog – or to sight on a glove, pick up any good advanced obedience book. Psychobabble adds nothing to the over all results… If he tells me that Maxi is perfectly housetrained, sociable with guests, never barks, consistently comes when called, and holds a down stay in all circumstances, THEN I will be impressed… Rather than teaching the dog to turn his head from side to side on cue, teach it to do something that can add to its comfort and wellbeing. <BR> Charlotte Creeley<BR> http://members.aol.com/cccpups/index.html
Response:
> >Even if that weren’t the case, with all due respect, I think you may have >missed some of the point of the example. As I read it, it was meant as an >example of the kind of subtle interaction that work with behavioral theory >in training can make possible > Actually, I studied behavioral psychology in college (and again in law > school…!), so I had no trouble with figuring out the point of his example.
You have my condolences…;) I > don’t really consider it interaction – I consider it manipulation to no real > purpose other than pure amusement (nothing wrong with that I suppose…). If > you want to teach a dog to mark a blind retrieve – just pick up a copy of Gun > Dog – or to sight on a glove, pick up any good advanced obedience book. > Psychobabble adds nothing to the over all results…
[I'm having a devil's advocate kinda moment here:] Well, while the example he gave is not itself a good example of a productive interaction, is it impossible to imagine that something like it might be a part of one? It seems to me that we often take for granted a dog’s natural sensitivity to body language, without really making good use of it, as a communication tool Sure, trainers use it a lot, but most descriptions I’ve seen are focused only on the basics, a sort of folk-psych version of logical behaviorism (ala the phil. of mind, as opposed to Skinnerish-psychological — two different usages here) — granted I haven’t read everything out there. While the basics can take you a very long way indeed (and I imagine as far as most of us ever need to go), a little nuance might be nice, and useful too. While the "psychobabble" as such doesn’t add to the results, I’m sure there are people who would learn a great deal about training more effectively by having this stuff spelled out for them. Not all of us have the right intuitions for reading a dog well, or the practice at it, which makes having certain kinds of explanatory tools at our disposal vitally important. It’s certainly relevant to human tenure decisions, and is thus important to an academic’s dog’s well-being (what with job security for the human and all)…<smile> > If he tells me that Maxi is perfectly housetrained, sociable with
guests, never barks, consistently comes when called, and holds a down stay in all circumstances, THEN I will be impressed… There — you’re a results-oriented kind of person, which puts you in some distinguished company on this list and elsewhere. . I hazard a guess that even if Mr. Dermer’s dog *is* the very paragon of housepet virtue, he’s a process-oriented kind of person, so the stuff you find useless is pretty interesting to him, and (assuming it works) hasn’t done the dog any harm, either. Of course, I don’t know the man or the dog in this case — but this is an example of just the kind of thing I was curious about when I started on this thread. Thanks! L. Bernhardt (and Angel)
Response:
Mr. or Ms. Bernhardt, Thank you for characterizing my ideas about training so accurately and so perceptively. You’ve expressed my feelings about dog training far better and more thoroughly than I could. Richard – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Aha! It’s just this sort of dispute (btw. Mr. Hurwitz and Mr. Dermer) that > makes me so curious about suiting training methods to the *humans*, not > just the dogs (hence my original question in this thread). *Warning! long > mess ‘o thinkin’ out loud ahead…* > Acc. to Hurwitz, it’s simple — there are people who have spent > *lifetimes* with dogs, watching them, working with them, living with them. > These "experts", drawing on their great experience with dogs (and with > strategies for training), have learned which things work and which > things don’t, and one needs only to ask their advice to discover what > those things are. Throw as much theoretical stuff around as you like, but > whyever some things work, they do; I guess there’s a sort of doggy > folk-psychology operating here (not unlike the folk-psychology of everyday > human interaction), probably based in some basic analogies to both human > and wolf behaviors (as they are commonly understood, non-scientifically). > The question becomes: what do you really want? A deep explanation or a > workable solution? Mr. Hurwitz seems to be saying that the workable > solution is what we ought to go for. > [note about terms: I'm using "folk psychology" here the way philosophers > of mind use it, to describe our everyday habit of attributing beliefs, > desires, interests, memories, and other mental states to others and to > ourselves. So when we describe a dog as "fearful", and then go on to > attribute a specific fear to the dog, we are engaging in a little doggy > F-P.] > Mr. Dermer, on the other hand, appears to suggest that the > folk-psychological hands-on expertise of the "experts", while frequently > very useful, may not be useful *enough* for some learning situations. > Because it tends to be rather simplistic (comparatively — I don’t mean to > insult it, here, and I’m sure he doesn’t either — Hurwitz sees its > simplicity as an advantage, after all), it may be difficult to solve some > problems this way. Another advantage of behavior theory applied to dogs > and dog training might well be the possibility of greater flexibility > w/r/t the kinds of things one can train a dog to do; the theoretical > apparatus helps expain not only the animal’s immediate and occasional > mental states, but *also* explains the animal’s learning strategies and > priorities, making it easier to tailor specific solutions to specific > dogs. > My original worry about suiting training to the trainers and not just the > dogs is given a handy illustration here, and leads me to believe that the > dispute represented above (and repeated all over the place by a great many > people — see any thread in Deja News with the phrase "Koehler Nazi" in > it, I imagine, and you’ll find this argument) isn’t really as > straightforward as it looks. (I’m using H. and D. as rpresentative names > here — if y’all don’t agree with what’s said next to your names, I > apologize.) > Essentially, two different basic sets of priorities appear to be working > here: > "Hurwitz": dogs, as companions to humans, living in environs organized > according to human interests and needs, need to be trained to > live in that world. The most important thing for anyone training > a dog, therefore, is success in adapting that dog’s behavior to > human priorities (for its own sake as well as ours). As Koehler and > others often say, the real test of a training method is reliable > off-leash control under any and all circumstances (or something > like that). It’s a pragmatic matter — if the dog lives in my house, > the dog lives by my rules, and all concerned are happier for it. > "Dermer": dogs and humans, as behaviorally complex critters trying to > coexist in an environment designed mostly for human convenience, > run into trouble when their occasionally similar but mostly very > different behavioral makeups and priorities clash. In order to > avoid these problems and make successful coexistence possible, > we need to understand where those behavioral makeups intersect > and where they diverge, and we need to tailor our dog-human > interactions to suit not only the human’s interests, but also > the dog’s. Understand what stresses the dog, remove that stress, > and a great many of the problems that stress causes disappear (for > example). The goal here isn’t just to get the dog to adapt its > external behavior to our needs, it’s to find a way for dogs to be > dogs while still living successfully with humans. > These are, at least as far as I can tell, two VERY different goals. While > I don’t doubt that they can and do coexist in the same trainer, the > argument itself is confused by this fundamental disagreement about what > we ought to be doing. Koehler’s method (for example) doesn’t really > seem to be much use, taken either piecemeal or as a whole, to someone on > the Dermer side, because its goal is different; the behavioral psych stuff > is superfluous to the goal on the Hurwitz side. If we want results, plain > and simple, the psych stuff doesn’t seem to do the trick. > Without coming down on either side, I find myself reiterating my original > question: how do we suit the method to the *person*, not just the dog? > Both options offered above focus on one common thing: it’s the dog’s > behavior and makeup that must be managed/understood/altered, and the > method we use depends on the specific dog. Neither mentions how choosing > and recommending a method ought to be suited to the *owner* as well. > Now, though, I can see that Janet Boss’s tagline is right — looking at my > question (and all of the above), I’m seeing an answer: first, find out > what the owner really *wants*, and figure out how said owner is interested > in getting it. Mr. Hurwitz would, undoubtedly, be just as frustrated with > a behaviorist’s approach as Mr. Dermer is with Koehler (and others). > Then, knowing what the owner wants and how s/he wants to get it, one tries > to discover what s/he *can* do to get it. Some people, no matter how they > adore simple solutions and tried-and-true methods, just can’t do Koehler > right, lacking the timing, the skill, the coordination, the intuition, > whatever it is that makes that (or any other method, really) work > effectively from the human end. The Overall quotation calls the digging > prevention method (dunking) dangerous for dog and owner and ineffective. > I’d say she’s both right and wrong about that. I know myself well enough > to know that I’m the kind of person who shouldn’t try it, for example. I’d > bet Dogman, though, could do it effectively and safely. > Still, some people don’t get the psych stuff, either, no matter how > sensitive they’d like to be to the animal’s behavior. They get stuck in > folk-psych, or they can’t get themselves out of the way in order to see > what the *dog* is doing (as opposed to what they think the dog ought to be > doing when it moves in such-and-such a way). They end up becoming doggy > co-dependents or enablers (so to speak) instead of really understanding > the dog well. They might do better with something simpler. Having a > clicker doesn’t mean one also has the skill to use it. > Hmmm… > Well, thanks all! I may learn something yet this week. > L. Bernhardt (and Angel) > (using whatever method works for us both)
Response:
>Marshall, what do you want to train your dog to do/not do? It’s up to you, >within the constraints of the dog breed. Dobies don’t like to swim, and >Labradors do.
Sure, there are differences between breeds. >Once you’ve decided how you want your dog to behave (they are animals and we >are modern urban people), you have to consult the experts who, over the >years, have devoted their lives to the behavior of our closest friends of the >animal kingdom.
Well, what if you want to train your dog to do something new? For example, suppose my dog will look left and look right on command. (Maxi almost has mastered this.) Suppose I wanted to make this more complex. Suppose I wanted Maxi to only look right or look left when I say "look right" or "look left," respectively, if my glasses are on; otherwise, Maxi should do the opposite of what I say if my glasses are off. Perhaps some dog expert has trained similar behavior but then perhaps not. Should I believe that the dog experts have trained everything? More interestingly, have the dog experts discovered all the basic relations between environmental events and behavior? Could the dog experts learn something from the pigeon experts? Afterall, the kind of complex discrimination I described for Maxi, above, is mastered by piegons. >These experts are experts. They can show you how to get your Springer to come >back, they can show you how to get your German Shepherd Dog to protect. They >can show you how to get your Yorkshire Terrier to heel. They could probably >show you how to get your APBT to raise a rabbit. >They’re experts, and all you have to do is read their advice. >It’s not necessary to discover why dogs do things, AGAIN!
I’m sure we can all learn much from the experts. But even within a breed not all dogs are the same. Not only do they not share the exact set of genes but even if raised in the same house they do not share the identical environment. So, dogs may do things that are initially quite puzzling and often call for a careful environmental/behavioral analysis. I have stressed understanding such relations in my posts and I think any expert would have to do the same. The importance of studying environment/behavior relations, is not my personal view. Perhaps, if you have time you might want to review _Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Small Animals_ published by Mosby Press, 1997 which was written by Karen L. Overall, MA, VMD, PhD, Diplomate, American College of Veternary Behavior. I hope Dr.Overall, who holds a professorship in the Department of Clincal Studies of the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, is expert enough for you. As I recall there was a post about a dog who dug "too much." On pages 263-265, Overall discusses digging. She notes five causes of digging: to mark/scrape an elimination area, to bury somthing, to uncover something, to thermoregulate, to play with something that plays back e.g., soil, roots, stones. She then discusses each cause of digging in detail. Here is what she wrote about play: "Dogs that dig as a form of self-play, quickly learn that roots and soil play back. This is a formula for gardening disaster. The only remedy for this involves constant supervision so that the client can stop the dog as the digging begins, and active play should be increased. When dogs amuse themselves like this, they are not communicating that they would like to be penned in a cement and chain-link fence kennel; rather, they are communicating that they can stimulate themselves but need areobic play with people or objects that play back. Clients need to be helped to meet these pets’ needs. More confinement will not suffice. There is a learning component for any behavior, including digging. It is possible that the longer any digging in any of the above categories continues, the worse it will become. The dog learns, and the behavior will become self-reinforcing. The occasional dog digs constantly in the absence of any of the above correlates. This digging is qualitatively and quantitatively different from the above descriptions. These dogs require few or no stimuli and dig in a focused, invariant pattern. As with most management-related behaviors, this form of digging may be a form of an anxiety or OCD. It usually does not respond to the above "quick" management solutions, although they should be implemented, but can respond to behavioral and pharmalogical treatment for anxiety or OCD. Please ignore any advice about filling a hole that the dog has dug with water and then submerging the dog’s head in the water (Koehler, 1962). Such advice is barbaric, inhumane, potentially injurious to both client and dog, and wrong." >It’s not necessary to re-invent the wheel.
I really don’t know why you label my posts as "re-inventing the wheel"? If you think that Dogman and Koeheler have invented the wheel, then you can "get on their wagon." I’d rather apply the behaviorism of B.F. Skinner as outlined, for example, in: B.F. Skinner (1951). "How to teach animals." Scientific American 185 (12): 26-29. which emphasizes positive reinforcement. –Marshall Marshall Lev Dermer/ Department of Psychology/ University of http://www.uwm.edu/~dermer
Response:
>Yes he kept his daughter in an "Air Crib." One daughter is a successful >artist and the other a succesful professor of behavior analysis.
I know he didn’t do the Rhesus monkey experiments – it was a comparison. As for the "Air Crib" – it really was a glass sided box with a revolving diaper. Rather odd, don’t you think? <BR> Charlotte Creeley<BR> http://members.aol.com/cccpups/index.html
Response:
> For example, suppose my dog will look left and look right on command. > (Maxi almost has mastered this.)
Wave a tennis ball back in forth in front of his face. Maybe even lighten up and throw it… > Suppose I wanted to make this more complex.
Why on earth would you want to? Are you planning to join the circus? > > Suppose I wanted Maxi to only look right or look left when I say "look > right" or "look left," respectively, if my glasses are on; otherwise, > Maxi should do the opposite of what I say if my glasses are off.
You remind me of the guy described in one of the dog books I have who wanted his dog to bark when he cleared his throat. A little over controlled, don’t you think? I suppose better that you experiment on your dog instead of kids… <BR> Charlotte Creeley<BR> http://members.aol.com/cccpups/index.html
Response:
The Volehard book on how to be a pack leader (the CGC book) gives the simple stuff that I needed to know about how to act around my dominant dog. The way their book is written….its a way of life rather than daily training. For example a long down stay during dinner, I go through all doors first unless I give him permission to go first, he does not eat until after I do and only when I say he can……it not really training is a human routine. I like their whole pack leader concept because it make sense to me. It did far more for me than the dog so I guess it is human training. As far as the more detailed parts of your question…..I’m not ever up to the status of an amature so I will let someone else address it. : While I don’t collect dog training books and videos as avidly as Sudhir : does (lovely pictures of Kona, BTW!), I’ve noticed that in my little : library of sources there are very few books that *really* address the : human side of the human-dog relationship in any real depth. Milani’s book : is useful, and parts of Evans’ stuff, and behavioral psych of any kind can : be variously applied (species-wise), but I haven’t yet noticed many books : that *specifically* deal with the human condition as trainer/companion to : the dog. : The reason I ask is because I’ve noticed that very few of those who talk : about corrections (for example) address ways for people who *don’t* have : the subtle timing, skill, and physical coordination of someone like Mr. : Koehler to manage to correct their dogs effectively and humanely. It’s : commonplace to complain about excessive force in correction, or to : complain that wimpy corrections (or no corrections whatsoever) accomplish : nothing, but I haven’t yet seen many productive analyses of the : relationship between owner personality/etc. and individually : suited correction techniques. Everyone knows that every technique isn’t : suited for every dog — but every technique isn’t suited to every owner, : either. What’s the best way to help someone choose a technique? : I know, I know, most of the time knowing "why" doesn’t help — just do it : the right way, and "why" is irrelevant next to good, reliable results. : Still, I think it might be really helpful for any dog owner to be offered : a choice of correction styles in the context of an explanation of how : these styles might be well-matched to her/his personal attitudes and : aptitudes (and the things s/he is best able to learn well). Does such a : book exist? : Further — how would people here who train both people and dogs break down : their own recommendations for training styles? For example: to what sorts : of *people*, not just dogs, would you recommend a specific kind of : training technique, and why? Do you have a rule of thumb — some people : are always steered away from confrontational techniques, some aren’t, : etc.? : Curious, as usual… : L. Bernhardt (and Angel)
Response:
>Interesting, yes, but not really what I was asking for. The thing I’m >most curious about, you see, isn’t the effect of corrections on those >being corrected (by whatever method). I’m interested in looking at how >one adjusts a method of correction not only to the correctee (as’t were), >but also to the disposition, capacities, and skills of the agent of >correction him/herself.
The best way to learn is probably some combination of written instruction, video tapes, and direct exposure to a competent trainer. Because a competent trainer can provide oral instructions and serve as model for appropropriate training procedures then if you have the time and money a competent trainer would be best. At the university we teach applied behavior analysis not only through lectures but through laboratory courses where students can use behavioral procedures with non-human and human organisms, and through field placements where students can work along side competent professionals. >This seems to be something very important — how many times do people just >pick the wrong dog for their personalities, and how often do behaviorists >and trainers face the task of managing not only the dog, but the owner, >especially when the dog’s *life* can depend on finding ways to make even a >wild mismatch work out
You raise an important question for which I have no data. > Do I use punishment with my dog? Yes, but just verbal corrections in > "small doses." Why? Because my dog is rather submissive and "small doses" > are sufficient to produce the desired behavior. >And how did you acquire the skill that makes those verbal corrections >effective?
First, I read alot particularly the work of B. F. Skinner. Second, the behavior of the dog taught me whether my timing and other procedures were appropriate. Put another way, the trainer is also an organism subject to the laws of learning. If the trainer is attempting to train a dog to sit on command then behaviors of the trainer that lead to the dog approximating sitting will be reinforced by these approximations. Third, I purchased a copy of Karen Pryor’s video _Clicker Magic_ and read the article by Skinner on clicker training: B.F. Skinner (1951). "How to teach animals." Scientific American 185 (12): 26-29. >Essentially, I’m curious about how one goes about establishing >the groundwork for correction, praise, etc. in the context of a >*relationship* between dog and human, rather than simply talking about it >as a matter of which thing applies to which dog (or kind of dog).
Again, the behavior of the dog provides feedback. >I wonder how much his in-person trainer >adjusted what she (?) suggested to and demonstrated for him to what she >perceived not only in Neko, but also in *Eugene*, and what kind of >adjustment (if any) she made.
There is nothing like "being there" to assist in training! >Sorry to ramble along in my own wordy, abstract little way…
No problem. I hope my response is helpful. Best wishes, Marshall
Response:
-snip- > Again, the behavior of the dog provides feedback.
-snip- Yes, but why bother re-inventing the wheel? It’s only necessary to find out what professional trainers have done for years to evoke a desireable response. > No problem. I hope my response is helpful.
Yes, Marshall, it is quite helpful. > Best wishes, > Marshall
Right back at you Richard
Response:
Marshall, what do you want to train your dog to do/not do? It’s up to you, within the constraints of the dog breed. Dobies don’t like to swim, and Labradors do. Once you’ve decided how you want your dog to behave (they are animals and we are modern urban people), you have to consult the experts who, over the years, have devoted their lives to the behavior of our closest friends of the animal kingdom. These experts are experts. They can show you how to get your Springer to come back, they can show you how to get your German Shepherd Dog to protect. They can show you how to get your Yorkshire Terrier to heel. They could probably show you how to get your APBT to raise a rabbit. They’re experts, and all you have to do is read their advice. It’s not necessary to discover why dogs do things, AGAIN! It’s not necessary to re-invent the wheel. Richard – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Again, the behavior of the dog provides feedback. >-snip- >Yes, but why bother re-inventing the wheel? It’s only necessary to find >out what professional trainers have done for years to evoke a desireable >response. > I’m afraid your response is too cryptic for me Richard. > –Marshall
Response:
well I can tell you what I do for people I visit with them and their dogs I also attend at least one course (with some dog or anther) at most of the local trainers in my area Then I know who to send a soft dog soft owner to, or a hard dog soft owner, or hard owner hard dog etc etc in other words I send the people to the trainer I think they can best learn from and who can help them most with the dog they have IMO some trainers just cannot be the trainer for some people and dog combos Nancy
Response:
> First, I read alot particularly the work of B. F. Skinner.
Jeez, I remember Skinner… didn’t he keep his daughter in a box on a revolving diaper? Don’t you love it when human organisms try to relate in a competent manner with their offspring… kind of reminds you of wire monkey mommas… <BR> Charlotte Creeley<BR> http://members.aol.com/cccpups/index.html
Response:
>> First, I read alot particularly the work of B. F. Skinner. >Jeez, I remember Skinner… didn’t he keep his daughter in a box on a revolving >diaper? Don’t you love it when human organisms try to relate in a competent >manner with their offspring… kind of reminds you of wire monkey mommas…
Yes he kept his daughter in an "Air Crib." One daughter is a successful artist and the other a succesful professor of behavior analysis. The "wire monkey mommas" work was conducted by Harlow not Skinner. –Marshall – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -><BR> >Charlotte Creeley<BR> >http://members.aol.com/cccpups/index.html
Response:
>> Again, the behavior of the dog provides feedback. >-snip- >Yes, but why bother re-inventing the wheel? It’s only necessary to find >out what professional trainers have done for years to evoke a desireable >response.
I’m afraid your response is too cryptic for me Richard. –Marshall
Response:
The wheel has worn, better wheels have been developed, and the old wheel causes accidents. Do you want to continue with the old style wheel, and continue to risk loosing up to ten percent of the dogs that do not get ground by the old wheel? If something works, don’t fix it. If something works 90% of the time, YOU LOOSE 10%. That ten percent is an unacceptable loss/profit ratio. Jerry. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > -snip- > Again, the behavior of the dog provides feedback. > -snip- > Yes, but why bother re-inventing the wheel? It’s only necessary to find out what professional trainers have done for years to > evoke a desireable response. > No problem. I hope my response is helpful. > Yes, Marshall, it is quite helpful. > Best wishes, > Marshall > Right back at you > Richard
Response:
The wheel has worn, better wheels have been developed, and the old wheel causes accidents. Do you want to continue with the old style wheel, and continue to risk loosing up to ten percent of the dogs that do not get ground by the old wheel? If something works, don’t fix it. If something works 90% of the time, YOU LOOSE 10%. That ten percent is an unacceptable loss/profit ratio. Not bad odds at a gaming table, but not when we are gambling loosing dogs lives, and human injuries. Jerry. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > -snip- > Again, the behavior of the dog provides feedback. > -snip- > Yes, but why bother re-inventing the wheel? It’s only necessary to find out what professional trainers have done for years to > evoke a desireable response. > No problem. I hope my response is helpful. > Yes, Marshall, it is quite helpful. > Best wishes, > Marshall > Right back at you > Richard
Response:
>Further — how would people here who train both people and dogs break down >their own recommendations for training styles? For example: to what sorts >of *people*, not just dogs, would you recommend a specific kind of >training technique, and why? Do you have a rule of thumb — some people >are always steered away from confrontational techniques, some aren’t, >etc.? >Curious, as usual… >L. Bernhardt (and Angel)
Applied Behavior Analysis, as taught in universities, emphasizes the "constructional approach." That is, if a client behaves in some negative way, instead of attempting to eliminate the negative behavior, we provide the client with an alternative behavior that will allow the client to function better. For example, autistic children, without speech, may often tantrum in communicating with others. Rather than punishing the tantruming, we try to provide the client with a rudimentary form of communication and often the tantruming is eliminated. As an ethical matter, this alternative, constructive behavior is established through positive reinforcement. Punishment may be used but only if the client’s life is at risk and only after consulting and gaining written approval from a a review panel, the client’s parents/guardians, etc. A major problem with punishment, is that if the client is at all socially skilled the stimuli associated with the person who administers the punishment will become aversive and so the client will come to avoid or escape from that person. Using punishment with dogs, however, may not be so complicated. Although it is true that a person who administers punishement may produce a dog who escapes or avoids the person, this may not happen. Why? First, there are ways of administering punishment so that a dog will not associate the punishment with the person delivering the punishment. This, as I understand it, is an aspect of the Koehler method. The dog on a long lead, for example, is not likely to associate a correction with the trainer who is at some distance from the dog. Second, the person who uses corrections is also the person who likely provides the dog with all kinds of reinforcers in the form of petting, food, water, shelter, and play! So stimuli from the same person may come to function as reinforcers and the dog’s orienting, approach, and affiliative behavior with that person will be reinforced. Do I use punishment with my dog? Yes, but just verbal corrections in "small doses." Why? Because my dog is rather submissive and "small doses" are sufficient to produce the desired behavior. If punishment is often used will this harm the dog? Well, I would rather be using a clicker and positive reinforcers. But here is my analogy. When we drive our cars on the highway we are exposing ourselves to potentially severe punishment wrought by suffering an accident. Some of us, nonetheless, are quite calm and enjoy driving while others are quite anxious. Dogs too respond variably to punishment and its consequences. –Marshall Marshall Lev Dermer/ Department of Psychology/ University of http://www.uwm.edu/~dermer "Life is just too serious to be taken entirely seriousyl!" "It is better to listen to a wise man’s reproof than to listen to the praise of fools." (Ecclesiastes 7:5)
Response:
While I don’t collect dog training books and videos as avidly as Sudhir does (lovely pictures of Kona, BTW!), I’ve noticed that in my little library of sources there are very few books that *really* address the human side of the human-dog relationship in any real depth. Milani’s book is useful, and parts of Evans’ stuff, and behavioral psych of any kind can be variously applied (species-wise), but I haven’t yet noticed many books that *specifically* deal with the human condition as trainer/companion to the dog. The reason I ask is because I’ve noticed that very few of those who talk about corrections (for example) address ways for people who *don’t* have the subtle timing, skill, and physical coordination of someone like Mr. Koehler to manage to correct their dogs effectively and humanely. It’s commonplace to complain about excessive force in correction, or to complain that wimpy corrections (or no corrections whatsoever) accomplish nothing, but I haven’t yet seen many productive analyses of the relationship between owner personality/etc. and individually suited correction techniques. Everyone knows that every technique isn’t suited for every dog — but every technique isn’t suited to every owner, either. What’s the best way to help someone choose a technique? I know, I know, most of the time knowing "why" doesn’t help — just do it the right way, and "why" is irrelevant next to good, reliable results. Still, I think it might be really helpful for any dog owner to be offered a choice of correction styles in the context of an explanation of how these styles might be well-matched to her/his personal attitudes and aptitudes (and the things s/he is best able to learn well). Does such a book exist? Further — how would people here who train both people and dogs break down their own recommendations for training styles? For example: to what sorts of *people*, not just dogs, would you recommend a specific kind of training technique, and why? Do you have a rule of thumb — some people are always steered away from confrontational techniques, some aren’t, etc.? Curious, as usual… L. Bernhardt (and Angel)
Response:
<snipped:a nice, basic presentation of a "constructional approach" to correction, ala App.Behav.Psych> Interesting, yes, but not really what I was asking for. The thing I’m most curious about, you see, isn’t the effect of corrections on those being corrected (by whatever method). I’m interested in looking at how one adjusts a method of correction not only to the correctee (as’t were), but also to the disposition, capacities, and skills of the agent of correction him/herself. Granted, a soft dog needs different handling than a hard one. Now how about a soft *owner* with a hard dog, or vice versa? A Soft owner with a soft dog? A driven but perhaps timing-impaired owner with an equally driven dog? It’s easy to say "well, with a dog like x, you should always use technique q", but it’s somewhat more complicated in practice trying to help a human learn to make a technique work; the unfortunate result is, I think, frequently a person who is apparently doing everything s/he’s told to do to the letter and still can’t accomplish the training task at hand (for any number of possible reasons). This seems to be something very important — how many times do people just pick the wrong dog for their personalities, and how often do behaviorists and trainers face the task of managing not only the dog, but the owner, especially when the dog’s *life* can depend on finding ways to make even a wild mismatch work out? > Do I use punishment with my dog? Yes, but just verbal corrections in > "small doses." Why? Because my dog is rather submissive and "small doses" > are sufficient to produce the desired behavior.
And how did you acquire the skill that makes those verbal corrections effective rather than ineffectual? How did you learn that *that* was what you ought to do, and how hard was it for you to learn it? How much did you find yourself consciously adjusting your usual reactions to the dog so that small, effective correction became the norm and not the exception? In brief: how much work (and of what kind) did you have to do on yourself in order to accomplish any work at all with your dog? And how would you go about helping others to make similar self-adjustments? Essentially, I’m curious about how one goes about establishing the groundwork for correction, praise, etc. in the context of a *relationship* between dog and human, rather than simply talking about it as a matter of which thing applies to which dog (or kind of dog). The Neko thread got me started on this curiosity — (sorry to just haul you ’round as an example Eugene…<smile>). When Eugene posted about his troubles with Neko before, someone else noticed a pattern in his behavior with his dog (excessive and occasionally traumatic interactions followed by an attempt at something more moderate). Now he’s got a correction technique, shown to him in person by a trainer, with which he says he’s quite happy and which is markedly different from much of the advice he got from posters on the ‘group. I wonder how much his in-person trainer adjusted what she (?) suggested to and demonstrated for him to what she perceived not only in Neko, but also in *Eugene*, and what kind of adjustment (if any) she made. Sorry to ramble along in my own wordy, abstract little way… L. Bernhardt (and Angel)
Response:
>I’ve noticed that in my little >library of sources there are very few books that *really* address the >human side of the human-dog relationship in any real depth.
Try Bruce Fogle’s Games Pets Play… gives marvelous insight into the owner half of the equasion… <BR> Charlotte Creeley<BR> http://members.aol.com/cccpups/index.html
Response:
Related Posts