A question on training...
Bare with me, I'm finding this hard to explain through text / type.
---
With Positive Reinforcement Training, you enforce the Positive behavior you want from your dog [ for example, "watch me" ] click [ marking the action ] reward with treat. Eventually you start phasing out the clicker & reward until the dog learns to do this with just the verbal [ &/or visual ] command.
So, we know that's how it's done for behaviors you WANT [ like watch me, sit, down, etc. ] ...but how about behaviors you DON'T want? [ like looking away, walking away, barking when not told, etc. ]
Do you just wait for the dog until the desired behavior is shown then mark / reward? Or is there something I've forgotten about / am missing?
Thanks guys...hope that was understandable.~
---
With Positive Reinforcement Training, you enforce the Positive behavior you want from your dog [ for example, "watch me" ] click [ marking the action ] reward with treat. Eventually you start phasing out the clicker & reward until the dog learns to do this with just the verbal [ &/or visual ] command.
So, we know that's how it's done for behaviors you WANT [ like watch me, sit, down, etc. ] ...but how about behaviors you DON'T want? [ like looking away, walking away, barking when not told, etc. ]
Do you just wait for the dog until the desired behavior is shown then mark / reward? Or is there something I've forgotten about / am missing?
Thanks guys...hope that was understandable.~
Comments
If you have a dog that likes to jump on the coffee table [ unwanted behavior ] You would train by leading him onto the ground, marking / click, then treat?
Or, if a dog is jumping up on you [ unwanted behavior ] you wait for the dog to stop [ or turn around / ignore ], when he does, marking / click, then treat?
What about if a dog is chewing on the furniture? Offer a toy, when the dog stops chews, marking / click, then treat with toy offered?
I mean, it sounds logical, just trying to understand the jist a bit better.
It really depends on the dogs age and level of understanding , as far as what I do when my dogs do something undesirable, but basically your dog will learn by the tone of your voice & body language what pleases you & doesn't. When he/she does something wrong you say "no" or "leave it" in a stronger voice . As he/she learns "no" or "leave it" you reward that. This way they understand what you mean & want, by that comand. Now you have a foundation to work with as far as teaching your pup what "isn't "acceptable behavior.I don't know if this fully answered your question, but I'm sure others can expand on this .
I know everyone says to make a loud noise or something like that, maybe use a tin can filled with pennies and when your puppy starts to chew on something that he/she shouldn't, distract with the noise and redirect to an acceptable toy. It sounds simple, but I've found that if Panda doesn't find the toy/chew that I'm redirecting her to very interesting, this won't work. Sometimes she just gets too overstimulated in the living room with all the soft things (couch, carpet . . . etc) and she just ignores all her toys and chews. At that point I put her back in her puppy safe area in the kitchen and give her some quiet time to calm down.
And just a guess about the coffee table, maybe don't let your puppy positively reinforce itself by finding yummy/interesting stuff on the table. I'm sure there is something else you could do. Maybe someone else on the forum will know. I'll be interesting in finding out also
See the thing about Kais can be that they like to be up high and look down on what's going on. I don't allow her on the coffee table but a do allow for her to have an outlet for that behavior. She can go up on the couch top when her blanket us there (not when guests are here) and she has a platform in the back. I never try and force a dog to stop a behavior that is inherent to their breed. There are strict boundaries and expectations though and I stay consistent with them.
Ok this got long. End note I use "off" got getting off the table. It amazes me how many words these buggers understand. Koda is really amazing at knowing exactly what I'm saying
>> The "Positive" in "Positive Reinforcement" has nothing to do with the behavior, it refers to the fact that there is something ADDED to the environment that reinforces the dog for a behavior. The "Positive" doesn't describe the actual behavior itself, in other words, you can use "Positive Reinforcement" to reinforce a negative behavior too. The counterpart to "Positive Reinforcement" is "Negative Reinforcement", where something is REMOVED from the environment to reinforce the dog for a behavior (C.A.T. is an example of R-).
There is also "Positive Punishment" and "Negative Punishment", in "Positive Punishment" you ADD something to the environment to punish a dog for a behavior (like kneeing a dog in the chest for jumping on you). In "Negative Punishment" you remove something from the environment to punish a dog for a behavior (like removing a toy 2 dogs are fighting over).
A "marker", like the click of a clicker, is a "bridge" between a behavior and a reward (or a punishment, but that is rather advanced). So, if you like what your dog is doing (offering a sit, for example) you can use the "click" of the clicker to mark a behavior and bridge it to the reward. You can replace the "click" with a verbal marker, like the word "YES!".
So, with that in mind, to the specific situation you mentioned...
If you have a dog that likes to jump on the coffee table [ unwanted behavior ] You would train by leading him onto the ground, marking / click, then treat?
>> Yes, you would mark when all 4 of his feet are on the ground and reward with a treat. You can also just "capture" his behavior when he is by the coffee table and not on it by waiting and marking that behavior - or even just wait for him to get off the table w/o using a lure. (in other words, you don't have to lure him off the table, you can wait for him to get off on his own and mark that behavior while ignoring the other). The more you reinforce a behavior the more of that behavior you will see.
Or, if a dog is jumping up on you [ unwanted behavior ] you wait for the dog to stop [ or turn around / ignore ], when he does, marking / click, then treat?
>> Yes, but so we are clear, turning around and ignoring when a dog jumps on you is "Negative Punishment" and clicking/treating when they are not jumping is "Positive Reinforcement".
These are all training methods created based on "Learning Theory" (Classical conditioning & Operant conditioning). These techniques apply to, and can be used to train, ALL cognitive creatures, so the "depends on the dog" argument is not entirely correct - all dogs learn in the same way, and so techniques based on Learning theory should work for all dogs, some may just require more patience than others.
----
Now, here's another question. [ trust me, I'm going somewhere with these questions
I understand how positive reinforcement is used to train obedience, or curve unwanted behaviors...we talked about simple stuff [ climbing on the coffee table, chewing furniture, IE: relatively "common" issues humans have with integrating dogs into their homes ]
Now, what about more "serious" things. IE: How would you use positive reinforcement [ or negative punishment ] to curb a dog who is reactive [ or aggressive ] [ to either humans or other dogs? ]
I assume the way for "Negative Punishment" would involve removing the dog at the slightest hint of re-activeness. [ slight physical cues, posturing, growling, etc. ] Then, bringing the dog back in...removing the dog when it shows reactive...rinse & repeat moving closer each time until the dog is able to tolerate the human / dog in a relatively close proximity without becoming reactive? [ obviously being done in several sessions over a period of time ] Is this the "general gist" of it?
I assume the way for "Positive Reinforcement" would be to reward the dog for not reacting, & moving closer & continuing to praise / reward for the behavior wanted [ indifference to the other dog / human ] ? [ obviously being done in several sessions over a period of time ] Am I close?
[ edited to correct terminology. Thanks Brad! ]
~
I think this is getting way too deep . Brad just to keep this simple for me do you actually train all of your dogs using this method to the fullest degree. I understand & practice reward training at a very simple & basic level. I guess I don't understand...,do you disipline unwanted or bad behavior?
However I will raise my voice to get their attention if they are riled up. But then I will calmly step in and address a situation. Sometimes that means taking a toy away that they are arguing over (negative punishment), or turning and walking them away from something that they are pulling trying to reach (negative punishment). Or I will pick up Miko and remove her from the window if she starts barking loudly at a passerby (negative punishment). At the same time if they are watching a dog pass by and are being calm and quiet, I praise them enthusiastically and reward them with a treat (positive reinforcement).
Does that clarify it some?
I'm on my phone too this weekend so I can't post too long if a message but I do worry about this conversation turning into making it sound easy. I think for new owners it's frusterating when they see techniques used on tv that don't work for their dog or as Tara said it's difficult to get timing down sometimes at first using treats as positive reinforcement.
Also some truly reactive dogs won't take treats when they are worked up. Different types of methods need to be used.
So...Here's my REAL questions / thoughts. [ finally ]
---
Let me try to put this as best as I can...
Isn't any form of training merely a form of "management?" I guess, the more I think about it, the more I see any form of "training" as "management," whether it be positive reinforcement, Negative Punishment, Positive Punishment, etc. You are essentially managing a behavior [ whether wanted or unwanted ]. You are not "reprogramming" the dog [ or other animal in which the same training can be used ] but simply showing them how to do what you want...right? You are teaching the dog boundries through reward / punishment
So a dog who is truly reactive to humans or other dogs...can they ever really be "taught" not to be afraid of them though training? [ any kind of training ] Aren't you more or less just "managing" the situation by having the dog focus on something else? Can a dog ever really be taught through training to be non [ or less ] reactive...are they actually learning? Will they one day be able to play with other dogs comfortably / confidently? Or is it truly just managing the situation?
Furthermore...I'm wondering how much the "training" sticks. If you have a dog who is taught to "sit" & you slowly phase out the treat-based reward...in 7 or 8 or 10 years, do you need to re-introduce the treat again? Or does once a dog "learn" something through training [ from humans], is it imprinted for life?
I've been reading a lot on the different training methods lately...some people claim methods like Koehler work completely & that truly the dog will learn within 13 weeks & basically the dog will never have the be "taught" again. [ they claim this method is superior as the dog "learns on it's own" ] Then some people say that once you teach a dog something...it sticks for life, whereas others point out the with any training method used, eventually, the dog may need a "refresher" from time to time. Then, some people see any form of training as "reprogramming" a dog...& that corrections, [ harsh tug on the choke chain, shock from an e-collar, etc. ] should only have to be done once & the dog will be forever imprinted & never need that "correction" for that specific behavior again.
Ultimately, it's been extremely fun reading about this stuff. But really, I think dogs are logical creatures. Dogs may be very well domesticated, but it doesn't mean that they speak the same language as us. I see training a dog as a form of communication...but without a "language"...kind of like 2 people from different countries trying to communicate through visual cues.
So I guess in the example with a [ very ] reactive dog...we can not tell the dog in their language "Hey, no need to be afraid, I'll protect you"...& while we can try to "show" them this through "training" it's fighting an uphill battle...like a very difficult game of charades.
Really, this whole thing sparked from that thread we had on whether dogs could be rehabilitated or not, just trying to hash out my thoughts which I'm having a lot of trouble doing as I'm getting lost in the terminology
Did any of this make sense? Am I right in my logic? Sorry, I know this is confusing, but I haven't been getting much sleep in the past two days...so probably not the best time to start a thread on this type of thing...but I've been bored & reading & reading...
Also...I'm genuinely asking questions, not trying to be snarky or anything
----
The terminology can be confusing, but the bulk of the methods used in common dog training fall under the "Positive Reinforcement", "Negative Punishment", and "Positive Punishment" banners. While "Negative Reinforcement" is a very powerful tool, it is rarely used due to the stress it places on the dog.
When you hear the terms "Positive Trainer" and "Positive Methods" they are usually referring to trainers or methods that fall under the "Positive Reinforcement" and "Negative Punishment" titles. While "Negative Punishment" sounds very negative and bad, it is actually the less aversive than "Positive Punishment" because "Negative Punishment" involves simply taking an item or stimuli away from the dog as a consequence while "Positive Punishment" means you are purposely adding something to the environment as a consequence for a behavior (yelling, hitting, shocking, scaring).
----
Another common phrase in training is the three "D"s: Distance, Duration, Distraction. Above Tara mentioned that some reactive dogs will not take treats, this is the case with a dog that has passed his/her threshold - which means one of the three "D"s has been "pushed" too far - you can usually get the dog to start taking treats if you increase one of the "D"s. For example, if you are experience a dog not wanting to take treats because he is fearful of a yellow cone, you can increase your distance from the cone until the dogs start to takes treats again - this give you a clear indication of your dog's threshold (the point where the dog gets overloaded by the stress of the cone). To increase the dog's threshold you would work the three "D"s by slowly decreasing the distance and increasing the duration. That is an example of Classical conditioning (aka "association"), where you are working to associate the cone with good things (food).
On the flip side, the three "D"s work in too... You can strengthen a dog's understanding of a command by asking him/her to preform the command under different (and increasingly difficult) three "D" scenarios. An example of this is asking your dog to sit in a public place, a public place has more distractions so if you get them to sit in a place with a lot of distraction then you know you have the distraction part of the three "D"s down - next you may increase your distance from the dog and ask for the behavior (a sit in this case). Increasing the "D"s helps to strengthen the behavior because it broadens the dog's understanding of what you wan them to do - which is a combination of Classical conditioning AND Operant conditioning. Remember, dogs are very poor at generalizing - if you teach them the phrase "sit" in your kitchen you shouldn't expect them to know the "sit" in the backyard too - and that is the point of the three "D"s, it helps to increase the dog's generalization of a command.
----
As for your questions Osy...
Now, what about more "serious" things. IE: How would you use positive reinforcement [ or negative punishment ] to curb a dog who is reactive [ or aggressive ] [ to either humans or other dogs? ]
>> Your suggestions are spot on. Using positive methods in this case is all about baby steps and takes time, but when it is done correctly and the effort is put into it the end result is a much more reliable and stable dog. The alternative (positive punishment) will show a faster result, but the end result will be volatile and the dog will end up slipping more often than not - which means they are less reliable than before (a dog that ALWAYS reacts is more reliable and predictable - and therefore easier to manage - than a dog that reacts randomly sure to abusive training techniques). I think you would see faster results from your suggested "Negative Punishment" example, but the best thing to do would be to combine both of your suggestions - we have seen some really nice results with combining clicker/treating (R+) with timeouts (P-).
One thing to keep in mind here tho, is that reactiveness in a dog is usually a sign of an underlying issue - like fear or insecurity. One of the golden rules of "positive training" is that you NEVER punish a dog for acting fearful... this means you NEVER punish a dog for resource guarding or fear biting. Punishing a dog for being fearful will only make them more fearful - this is really where the danger of using adverse methods is (think Cesar) - because you really never know for sure if a dog is acting reactively out of fear or not, and so if you punish it you run the risk of fueling the fear - and that will worsen the behavior, or even create more severe behavioral issues. With "positive methods" you don't run that risk, because you are not acting aggressively toward the dog - so while positive side of things may take more work and/or time, their is little-to-no risks involved.
Another huge issues with using "Positive Punishment" is that humans tend to not maintain the same level for the correction - meaning a person may smack their dog hard for doing something the first time, but the next time they may not smack them as hard. This creates a varying level of correction and the dog will "gamble" with you and to if you will smack them hard or not for the behavior - and so the behavior continues. That's why shock collars are so popular as they always deliver the same level of corrections to the dog (not that I think anyone should use shock collars).
In training, "gambling" is the thing that really sets a behavior, but that's a whole other can of worms, which I am happy to explain, but at this point I feel like I am rambling a bit so I'll spare you from that explanation (unless you ask me to explain it).
----
A lot of the training does "stick" without treats. It doesn't seem to go away, though of course I tend to continue to use treats occasionally--why not reward good behavior, right? (And I gotta say, for some things the training IS easy. Because we got Toby to go into his crate for treats, another behavior he offers (beyond sitting) is running to his crate at top speed and sitting in the crate. He does this if he thinks we're getting ready to go somewhere, if it's time to go to bed, or sometimes for reasons I can't fathom--maybe he just wants a cookie! ) I never thought of it as training him to go to his crate, but it sure was!
But I don't know how it works with reactive dogs, or dogs who aren't so motivated by food. I know in theory it does, but in practice it hasn't worked for me. I had a harder time with positive training with the Shibas when they were younger because they were less food motivated then. They'd do it at home, but anything more interesting....other dogs in the class say....meant they didn't want the treat and would ignore it. This is still a problem with distractions for them both, but they are more food motivated these days so at home they are much easier to work with.
I'd love to know what to do about reactive dogs (like mine!) all I do is manage the behavior through keeping them separate. I don't think I ever will be able to rehabilitate them for real (which in this case means I don't believe these two dogs will ever be able to be together again, although there are moments....today they ended up in the sunroom at the same time while we were putting our dinner on the table, and both of them ignored each other and immediately offered a "sit" since they were hoping for treats. We used that opportunity to separate them).
But there are methods of working on this. Jess mentioned the book "Click to Calm" (here? On the Shiba side?) which sounds interesting. I know that that Pat Miller has done a lot of work with reactive dogs. And now I'm not sure if it was her method, but there is the method where dogs are conditioned to accept other dogs....But yes, when I read about it, it seemed like it would be a long and slow process, and I think for me, personally, I simply don't trust my two dogs enough to feel comfortable attempting it. I'd rather manage their behavior.
anyway, I'm sure others will have lots more interesting thoughts on this....I'm really needing to rethink/review a lot of this too.
eta: and I see I cross posted with Brad....I was thinking about the operant conditioning in getting reactive dogs to accept others....there have been several good articles in the WDJ about this....
and I wonder if my management of my Shibas is negative punishment? Taking away the other dog so there isn't an opportunity for them to slip up? Will have to think more about this.
Training a fearful dog to ignore something it is fearful of is not training them to not be fearful - its training them to ignore - and that I think you could consider "managing a behavior". That's Operant conditioning.
When you take a dog and condition them to something they are fearful of (you reduce their threshold), in that case you are actually altering their physiological reaction to that stimuli - that is kinda like reprogramming - the issues is the older the dog is the longer the conditioning will take. when you add to that the learned behavior the dog may already have learned, you also have to reteach them not to preform those behaviors - so the "fix" becomes rather complex as the dog matures. Socialization is Classical conditioning.
With working with a fearful dog, I guess you could look at the training example as a "salvage procedure" and the classical conditioning of a puppy as (re)programming.
As for your question about if a man-aggressive dog can ever be trained to not be man-aggressive... well, that's that nature vs nurture thing. How much of it is breed, individual, and environment - no one knows. Masha had 100s of hours of training and socialization - some of the best socialization we have done with a dog - yet she still hates (strange) men... why? I dunno. My guess is genetics.
On you comment regarding some people saying specific training methods are "set" and are never lost or undone - bullshit.
All training methods are based on learning theory and all methods can be lost if not practiced through life. The foundation understanding of a command may stick around, but the dog's understanding of that command will dilute. The "Koehler Method" is simply "Positive Punishment", its just as effective and powerful as "Positive Reinforcement" just with the risk of injuring your relationship with your dog.
'the dog will learn within 13 weeks & basically the dog will never have the be "taught" again.' sounds like a nice sales pitch to me. I've got some beach-front property here in Taos I can sell you too, if you like. ;o)
----
Gambling is why Ahi always jumps on people, because some people will give her what she wants (attention) when she jumps on them and some people will not. So Ahi ALWAYS jumps on people - she is gambling that they will give her attention for offering that behavior. One of our most favorite trainers LOVES Ahi because of this as its the ultimate challenge for her - she wants to train Ahi not to jump on people... What success has she had? Well Ahi will not jump on her but she still jumps on everyone else. LOL ... Gambling is the secrete way to "set" a behavior in a dog.
----
Training a fearful dog to ignore something it is fearful of is not training them to not be fearful - its training them to ignore - and that I think you could consider "managing a behavior". That's Operant conditioning.
Ok, yes. This is what I refer to as "managing," through training.
When you take a dog and condition them to something they are fearful of (you reduce their threshold), in that case you are actually altering their physiological reaction to that stimuli - that is kinda like reprogramming - the issues is the older the dog is the longer the conditioning will take. when you add to that the learned behavior the dog may already have learned, you also have to reteach them not to preform those behaviors - so the "fix" becomes rather complex as the dog matures. Socialization is Classical conditioning.
Now, this is what I'm more interested in. How does one go about doing this, as an example? We always here about the "managing way" [ training the dog to ignore the trigger by focusing on you ] but other than early puppy hood socializing...what can be done for older, more fearful dogs? IE: Dogs who immediately react & escalate before coming close to the "trigger?"
The other reason why I was wonder does training = "managing" is because [ using a simple example of the coffee table earlier ] doesn't the dog associate a reward with the human[s] who give it? So if you have successfully trained your dog not to jump on the coffee table using positive reinforcement...is this training limited only to when the owner is around to "enforce" the reward / punishment?
I've been told that one of the things about training with an e-collar [ mind you, I have no intention of doing so except perhaps for the snake-avoidance training done by a professional as discussed before on the forum ] is that it has become a "goood training tool" [ not my words ] as the dog does not associate the punishment with the handler. [ ie: the dog does not realize the handler is the one pushing the button & causing a shock, vs. a choke chain where the dog clearly knows who is correcting him: the handler ]
That said...I've been told the other "benefit" of the e-collar is that it can be used while the owner is not present. [ for example, hiding in another room with a camera to know when to shock ] Thus, the dog does not associate the "punishment" with the handle being there, but solely with the action.
I'm wondering if with Positive Reinforcement, Positive Punishment, Negative Punishment, are these behaviors only happening because the owner is present? What if the owner isn't present, do the dogs, once "taught" what is acceptable, still follow the boundaries set for them even when the source of their reward / punishment isn't there?
'the dog will learn within 13 weeks & basically the dog will never have the be "taught" again.' sounds like a nice sales pitch to me. I've got some beach-front property here in Taos I can sell you too, if you like. ;o)
For sure it's a load of BullShit Brad! lol But I thought it worth mentioning, IMHO, it's right up there with the Caesar Antics. I'd never even heard of this method up until a week ago, & I think it's actually pretty ridiculous. [ how do people believe this type of shit actually works??? ]
& I'll take you up on that offer...if you send me Ahi! ;p [ & Bri wants Kaia, btw. & Blue lol ]
---
Phew. Definitely feel like I'm learning a ton!
Gambling is how you set a behavior w/o always needing a treat. You teach a dog a behavior using treats, when they can do that behavior under various circumstances (the three "D"s) you then start to phase out the treat only giving the treat at random times. Offering the behavior becomes addictive for the dog because they never know if they will get a treat for the behavior or not - they are gambling. As long as you continue to give them a treat randomly for that behavior they will continue to offer it.
Gambling is why Ahi always jumps on people, because some people will give her what she wants (attention) when she jumps on them and some people will not. So Ahi ALWAYS jumps on people - she is gambling that they will give her attention for offering that behavior. One of our most favorite trainers LOVES Ahi because of this as its the ultimate challenge for her - she wants to train Ahi not to jump on people... What success has she had? Well Ahi will not jump on her but she still jumps on everyone else. LOL ... Gambling is the secrete way to "set" a behavior in a dog.
Brad. I think has been the best metaphor [ or perhaps, "actual description" ] of training I've ever heard! When you put it this way, I now understand why reward goes from being given consistently, to sporadically. Definitely filing this one away.
Thanks Lisa! I've been extremely curious about this. I've trained a ton of cats using the "positive reinforcement" & "negative punishment" [ tho not knowing I was doing it at the time, it just seems like common sense ] & I noticed, even after phasing out treats years later the cats will still retain what they were taught. [ sit, stay, down, up...don't attack the birds...LOL ] Just wasn't sure if it was the same with dogs.
I agree tho, why not reward good behavior? I think if it's done sporadically, it will continue to fuel the "gambling" that Brad described.
[ yeah, it's a TON to take in...& it gets so technical & word specific...we'll get there eventually though!
Brad said: "Gambling is how you set a behavior w/o always needing a treat. You teach a dog a behavior using treats, when they can do that behavior under various circumstances (the three "D"s) you then start to phase out the treat only giving the treat at random times. Offering the behavior becomes addictive for the dog because they never know if they will get a treat for the behavior or not - they are gambling. As long as you continue to give them a treat randomly for that behavior they will continue to offer it.
Gambling is why Ahi always jumps on people, because some people will give her what she wants (attention) when she jumps on them and some people will not. So Ahi ALWAYS jumps on people - she is gambling that they will give her attention for offering that behavior. One of our most favorite trainers LOVES Ahi because of this as its the ultimate challenge for her - she wants to train Ahi not to jump on people... What success has she had? Well Ahi will not jump on her but she still jumps on everyone else. LOL ... Gambling is the secrete way to "set" a behavior in a dog."
Love this! This is exactly what Toby is doing when he races to his crate to sit. Maybe he'll get a treat! I just told this to my husband, and when I started it and said "gambling" and "dogs" he looked at me like I was crazy, but once I explained it, he said "That's Toby!" Yep!
As for will dogs who have learned a command do it with other people? I think so, if we train them with something recognizable, like a hand signal. The Shibas will sit for anyone who does the sit hand signal because they've been conditioned to see it as a sign a treat might be coming. Bel will even do it when she's very fearful and reached her threshold, though often she sits, then realizes she's scared or (more likely) doesn't want to come in the house so then she'll jump up again (and not take the treat), but even she always starts to sit when she sees the gesture.
Of course, some dogs are easy. Once my GSD learned something, he worked for everyone pretty reliably. And because I didn't know about positive training when he was young (10 years ago) he learned without a lot of treats (if I'd trained him with positive methods, my god, I can't even imagine how fast it would have been give how fast he learned anyway). He was a very tractable dog, though. What was funny was watching him watch me try to train the Shibas (by then I'd learned about positive training, thankfully, and was treating them). He'd do everything so quick, and look so impatient with the Shibas...but what I also noted was that at least when Bel was young, she tried to imitate him, so she was quicker to learn when I worked with both her and Kai at the same time. She really would watch him to see what he was doing too.
(Toby not so much, but that's just Toby)
This has gotten very interesting, and very educational, I think everyone has made very good points . I really appreciate this insight but after reading all of this about 'training" and managing behavior, I believe there is a element that is missing & that is the "connection" , "bond ", "trust ' and understanding that a dog shares with it's owner. Also the stability of it's environment.
I certainly won't challenge or debate training psychology & theory. I certainly have less "training knowledge" than many here. But raising a balanced dog has a lot to do with sharing a connection & trust . This is very powerful when it comes to developing a well behaved dog . It comes slowly over time.
I know this thread is about "training " wanted & unwanted behaviors but I think this element is being over shadowed. Knowledge is power but sometimes too much knowledge can cloud basics fundementals.
I have spend many hours "training" my dogs, however I never stop "connecting" with my dogs. In my expieience it's my connection to my dogs, not training that that has made them great compainions. My point is sometimes we rely too much on "book knowledge" & we lose some basic "common sense"
So yes, exactly. I think we're focusing on the how-to's of training here, but what's been going unsaid (but implied?) is how important connections and bonding is.
Further, I think there is a bigger distinction that needs to be drawn between training and management. In my opinion, management is not about what you get the dog to do, it is about modifying the environment's relationship with the dog. You use training as a way to learn communication with your dog so you can communicate to it where to be or to behave when the environment is out of your control. For example, if you have a dog that is fearful of children, you can manage that by not inviting children into your home; however, if you are out in public you can't always control when a child will or will not approach your dog. In that case, to control how the environment relates to your dog, you have to ask your dog to do things. That's where training comes in. Training is practice for communicating with your dog when it is really necessary (when you can't manage the situation through manipulating the environement alone).
I hope that makes sense, I'm writing this on my phone.
So, to summarize my point:
- training is the process of learning to communicate effectively with a dog (or the dog learning to communicate effectively with a person)
- management is the process of controlling the environment's relationship to the dog (note that you can manage your dog my controling how and when other dogs interact with it, management doesn't necessarily have to be inanimate objects or people)
- conditioning is the process of controlling the dog's relationship with the environment
If I didn't make that clear in my posts, and/or maybe they were too clinical, I apologize. Let me try and clear it up...
Giving your dogs a treat or praise for performing a behavior builds your dog's confidence and builds the trust in your relationship as you are working with your dog (as a team).
As I wrote earlier, a marker, whether it be a click or a verbal marker, is a bridge between the behavior and the reward. The marker tells your dog they did something correct - it communicates with your dog that you liked the behavior they just did - communication is connections.
----
@Lisa - I agree with you Lisa, that is exactly the same reason Jen and I use positive methods and not aversive methods.
@Dr. Dave - The spending time with your dog thing is a great idea and a great thing to incorporate in your training session. Agreed. I also agree with your comment regarding management and how training is used in management - good point. I guess there is environmental management and behavioral management with some overlap.
----