This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Changer on 13 September 2010 - 15:09
Hi Steve,
i think the clicker is a better marker than verbal when teaching new behaviors. It's the same every time. The dog never hears it in any other context so it means exactly the same thing every single time. And since dogs were not born knowing verbal words, the dog doesn't have to stop for a second and think "did I hear a yes or a no or a good boy?" After the dog knows the behavior and it's named, I always switch to a verbal marker/release word and I don't think the clicker is better at this point.
Dooberdoodle,
All very good points. Actually I always wonder about all the Schutzhund dogs in general that aren't good in the house, aren't good with other dogs and generally are not trained at all except when they hit the field in high drive. I mean, jeeze, they can't even walk on a leash!!!! Compulsion trained and positive trained. I've had very good success myself using the method of clicker training with my schutzhund dogs, who are trained very well off the field. I've had good sucess with clients as well, but I wouldn't say all of it has been purely positive. It depends on what the owner wants to accomplish and what the dog is able to do. I can't train an owner to train a non food motivated, shy, dog aggressive, non toy motivated Kuvasz that has had three owners to shine in the competition ring with purely positive. If the dog has no drive and wants nothing more than to sleep on the porch, it shouldn't be doing competition obedience. It should however, be a good house dog and we can take care of that dog aggression with alot of positive, and a little "have to". It frustrates me because many times I see the "purely positive" facilities not know at all what to do with the really aggressive dogs and then positive training gets a bad rap in general.
i think the clicker is a better marker than verbal when teaching new behaviors. It's the same every time. The dog never hears it in any other context so it means exactly the same thing every single time. And since dogs were not born knowing verbal words, the dog doesn't have to stop for a second and think "did I hear a yes or a no or a good boy?" After the dog knows the behavior and it's named, I always switch to a verbal marker/release word and I don't think the clicker is better at this point.
Dooberdoodle,
All very good points. Actually I always wonder about all the Schutzhund dogs in general that aren't good in the house, aren't good with other dogs and generally are not trained at all except when they hit the field in high drive. I mean, jeeze, they can't even walk on a leash!!!! Compulsion trained and positive trained. I've had very good success myself using the method of clicker training with my schutzhund dogs, who are trained very well off the field. I've had good sucess with clients as well, but I wouldn't say all of it has been purely positive. It depends on what the owner wants to accomplish and what the dog is able to do. I can't train an owner to train a non food motivated, shy, dog aggressive, non toy motivated Kuvasz that has had three owners to shine in the competition ring with purely positive. If the dog has no drive and wants nothing more than to sleep on the porch, it shouldn't be doing competition obedience. It should however, be a good house dog and we can take care of that dog aggression with alot of positive, and a little "have to". It frustrates me because many times I see the "purely positive" facilities not know at all what to do with the really aggressive dogs and then positive training gets a bad rap in general.
by Diane Jessup on 13 September 2010 - 18:09
The bottom line: Conditioning an animal to respond to cues is different than training them. You can condition a chicken to respond to a clicker, but they do not understand correction like a dog does. Dogs understand correction from the time they are a puppy with their mother.....
All interesting points Dober... but I have kept chickens for a hundred years, and like ALL social animals, they, too, understand correction. Don't think hens don't correct their babies, and don't think there isn't JUST AS MUCH social crap going on in a hen pen as in a wolf pack! Ever seen a chicken sulk? Its so common its a common term. It means a chicken that has gotten "corrected" by another chicken and it runs off and sulks.
I have a mean old Wyandotte rooster. He'll spur me every time he can. If I carry my cane, he knows I can "correct" him, and his little pea brain keeps him back. The reason punishment doesn't work well to train chickens, compared to dogs, is that THEY DONT CARE. They don't love us. A dog does.
I make this point because I for one use "pure positive" ONLY in teaching behaviors, not around the house. Shade, on the other hand, has THE BEST behaved dogs I've ever seen, and they are trained without punishment. Her dog can stand by her while bitework is going on, and it will keep its attention on her. THAT's A GOOD trainer! : )
All interesting points Dober... but I have kept chickens for a hundred years, and like ALL social animals, they, too, understand correction. Don't think hens don't correct their babies, and don't think there isn't JUST AS MUCH social crap going on in a hen pen as in a wolf pack! Ever seen a chicken sulk? Its so common its a common term. It means a chicken that has gotten "corrected" by another chicken and it runs off and sulks.
I have a mean old Wyandotte rooster. He'll spur me every time he can. If I carry my cane, he knows I can "correct" him, and his little pea brain keeps him back. The reason punishment doesn't work well to train chickens, compared to dogs, is that THEY DONT CARE. They don't love us. A dog does.
I make this point because I for one use "pure positive" ONLY in teaching behaviors, not around the house. Shade, on the other hand, has THE BEST behaved dogs I've ever seen, and they are trained without punishment. Her dog can stand by her while bitework is going on, and it will keep its attention on her. THAT's A GOOD trainer! : )
by Prager on 13 September 2010 - 22:09
Changer
So you think that we are not allowed to have opinion on things which we have not experience personally? That is one of the sophistry statements. I do not need to be inside of nuclear reactor in order to discuss chain reaction. Einstein did. I can give you 1000 s of examples like this That statement does not hold water what so ever.
Doberdoodle
Also most points on negative reinforcement were excellently made by Doberdoodle above I would like to add/repeat this.
There is a big difference in to make a dog to perform in controlled environment of a SchH or AKC ... field and in every day life. Yes you can make a dog do what ever you want with positive only(+) And I personally have not seen any self respected trainer who would teach the dog with negative(-) reinforcement only as had been insinuated in many books on + only methods. In training for every day life (in contrast to Sport training in controlled environment) there are 3 stagers of training. Learning ( should be always +) , conditioning (Should be mostly + but some - is necessary) and then there is a maintenance training ( also +-) . I am beginning to believe that trainers who do training in controlled environment do not even realize that there is none sport non controlled environment. There then must be some negative reinforcement.
The truism of the life is that it is + and -. (Positive and negative). Nobody can deny that. Thus if you take - (neg) out of the total training then you have only 1/2 of the training for life or 1/2 of the life if you may. Even Dr Spock toward the end of his life retracted that children can and should be successfully developed by positive only means. However today culture is stubbornly clinging to PC + only systems. It would be funny if it would not be so sad when you look at confused young adults while they realize during their entry into the real life that their boss does not give a dam about their esteem and don't give them smily face but fire their ass (Negative reinforcement) on drop of the hat if they mess up. "It's not fair", they whine. Yes it is !
I ask people who say that they can have dog to be totally and completely trained by + only what do they do if the dog get into fight or growls on a friendly nonthreatening senior person or child?.... and I can go for ever here.
ALSO :
Keep in mind that dogs in their daily interaction do use on each other serious - (neg) reinforcement on regular basis. Thus yes you can teach with +(pos) only but you must incorporate - (neg)now and then sooner or later or you will not have complete circle in training of your dog for every day life.
Think about this . I am doing behavioral modification of dogs for decades and I would venture to say that almost 100% of my clients who have problem with their dog's aggression were not properly introduced to any training at all or were trained with + reinforcement only methods. There I can see dogs overly protective and even aggressive to their owners.
Thus people trivializing neg reinforcement as an obsolete subject are denying nature and are causing havoc in every day life of innocent and trusting students in their dog training class.
Prager Hans
http://www.alpinek9.com
So you think that we are not allowed to have opinion on things which we have not experience personally? That is one of the sophistry statements. I do not need to be inside of nuclear reactor in order to discuss chain reaction. Einstein did. I can give you 1000 s of examples like this That statement does not hold water what so ever.
Doberdoodle
Also most points on negative reinforcement were excellently made by Doberdoodle above I would like to add/repeat this.
There is a big difference in to make a dog to perform in controlled environment of a SchH or AKC ... field and in every day life. Yes you can make a dog do what ever you want with positive only(+) And I personally have not seen any self respected trainer who would teach the dog with negative(-) reinforcement only as had been insinuated in many books on + only methods. In training for every day life (in contrast to Sport training in controlled environment) there are 3 stagers of training. Learning ( should be always +) , conditioning (Should be mostly + but some - is necessary) and then there is a maintenance training ( also +-) . I am beginning to believe that trainers who do training in controlled environment do not even realize that there is none sport non controlled environment. There then must be some negative reinforcement.
The truism of the life is that it is + and -. (Positive and negative). Nobody can deny that. Thus if you take - (neg) out of the total training then you have only 1/2 of the training for life or 1/2 of the life if you may. Even Dr Spock toward the end of his life retracted that children can and should be successfully developed by positive only means. However today culture is stubbornly clinging to PC + only systems. It would be funny if it would not be so sad when you look at confused young adults while they realize during their entry into the real life that their boss does not give a dam about their esteem and don't give them smily face but fire their ass (Negative reinforcement) on drop of the hat if they mess up. "It's not fair", they whine. Yes it is !
I ask people who say that they can have dog to be totally and completely trained by + only what do they do if the dog get into fight or growls on a friendly nonthreatening senior person or child?.... and I can go for ever here.
ALSO :
Keep in mind that dogs in their daily interaction do use on each other serious - (neg) reinforcement on regular basis. Thus yes you can teach with +(pos) only but you must incorporate - (neg)now and then sooner or later or you will not have complete circle in training of your dog for every day life.
Think about this . I am doing behavioral modification of dogs for decades and I would venture to say that almost 100% of my clients who have problem with their dog's aggression were not properly introduced to any training at all or were trained with + reinforcement only methods. There I can see dogs overly protective and even aggressive to their owners.
Thus people trivializing neg reinforcement as an obsolete subject are denying nature and are causing havoc in every day life of innocent and trusting students in their dog training class.
Prager Hans
http://www.alpinek9.com
by animules on 13 September 2010 - 23:09
Cool, 6-pages of dog discussion. 
by Steve Schuler on 13 September 2010 - 23:09
Amen!!!
SteveO
SteveO
by Prager on 14 September 2010 - 00:09
Changer said
i think the clicker is a better marker than verbal when teaching new behaviors. It's the same every time. The dog never hears it in any other context so it means exactly the same thing every single time. And since dogs were not born knowing verbal words, the dog doesn't have to stop for a second and think "did I hear a yes or a no or a good boy?" After the dog knows the behavior and it's named, I always switch to a verbal marker/release word and I don't think the clicker is better at this point.
I completely disagree. Dogs have very colorful language. There is estimated 460 ways the dog can communicate which include all senses.
Also in every day if if the dog decides to cross busy road after a bitch in heat or a rabbit I am not going to use clicker or monotonous voice but I will put serious urgency into my stopping command. That urgency must be trained during basic training.
Sound has Pitch, Quality and Loudness. Quality has : Harmonic content, Attack and decay, color ,
Then bunch of sounds generate sequence of melody which has pitches, durations, colors , rhythm and so on and on. I am sure I am not saying everything and everything correctly as far as scientific description of music goes ( A am pulling it out of my memory) But , I am sure, you get the picture.
All these characteristics of tones serve the dog to communicate with each other, us and us to the dog. The relationship between you and the dog then is much more colorful if you use voice then if you use pairing with clicker. I want my dog to pair with certain situations certain sounds I am generating and use of my voice gives me infinity of possibilities. I understand that monotonous clicking may teach the dog faster certain pairing but as a whole the pairing behaviors with different sounds of my voice will generate more complex understanding between the trainer and his dog.
I remember I had a history teacher in Czech who had a son and he spoke to him Czech ands English, his mother spoke to him, French, the grand pa talk to him German and Grand ma Russian. The son did not talk for long time where other kids of his age were way ahead of him. But when he started to talk he spoke < Czech, Russian, English, French and German. ,
Go figure.
Prager Hans
http://www.alpinek9.com
i think the clicker is a better marker than verbal when teaching new behaviors. It's the same every time. The dog never hears it in any other context so it means exactly the same thing every single time. And since dogs were not born knowing verbal words, the dog doesn't have to stop for a second and think "did I hear a yes or a no or a good boy?" After the dog knows the behavior and it's named, I always switch to a verbal marker/release word and I don't think the clicker is better at this point.
I completely disagree. Dogs have very colorful language. There is estimated 460 ways the dog can communicate which include all senses.
Also in every day if if the dog decides to cross busy road after a bitch in heat or a rabbit I am not going to use clicker or monotonous voice but I will put serious urgency into my stopping command. That urgency must be trained during basic training.
Sound has Pitch, Quality and Loudness. Quality has : Harmonic content, Attack and decay, color ,
Then bunch of sounds generate sequence of melody which has pitches, durations, colors , rhythm and so on and on. I am sure I am not saying everything and everything correctly as far as scientific description of music goes ( A am pulling it out of my memory) But , I am sure, you get the picture.
All these characteristics of tones serve the dog to communicate with each other, us and us to the dog. The relationship between you and the dog then is much more colorful if you use voice then if you use pairing with clicker. I want my dog to pair with certain situations certain sounds I am generating and use of my voice gives me infinity of possibilities. I understand that monotonous clicking may teach the dog faster certain pairing but as a whole the pairing behaviors with different sounds of my voice will generate more complex understanding between the trainer and his dog.
I remember I had a history teacher in Czech who had a son and he spoke to him Czech ands English, his mother spoke to him, French, the grand pa talk to him German and Grand ma Russian. The son did not talk for long time where other kids of his age were way ahead of him. But when he started to talk he spoke < Czech, Russian, English, French and German. ,
Go figure.
Prager Hans
http://www.alpinek9.com
by Phil Behun on 14 September 2010 - 14:09
Think next time I'm in a trial "group" I'm going to bring a clicker and click away until my thumb falls off.
by Phil Behun on 14 September 2010 - 15:09
Seriously though, to the OP, so the only 2 methods of training you know are clicker or pinch collar????? Not giving your dog much of a fair chance or credit for having a brain are you?
by Prager on 14 September 2010 - 15:09
Whom are you addressing?
by animules on 14 September 2010 - 18:09
Phil, No those are not the only two methods I know. I was trying to get some discussion going related to dogs and training, it seemed to work now didn't it?
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
