Clicker training - Page 6

I have not say that clicker  does not work. But it is an unecessary  gimmick. And no,YOU are ignorant!!!!!.....I am just kidding in order to show you how silly an childish your statement of calling me ignorant is.
 First there is no need to say "good boy" 10 times! Once is fine. Dogs are not stupid or deaf.      In order to differentiate the praise from every day language 
we can put in front of the command or praise of the dogs name  Like: "Buster Good boy" .  And use higher pitched voice in order to differentiate it from every day language. Higher pitched voice also taps into inherited ability of the dog to recognize  that we are pleased. Higher pitched voice is positive, lower ( growling) is negative. Clicker will not do that.  Woice in training  had been used for evernity and it works really well. :)
If that is not enough we may  use foreigner language in order to differentiate commands from every day life words. That also had been done for long long time and it works like a charm.
Please answer me. What are you going to do if the clicker company will get out of business?
AH! I know that is an "ignorant" question.
 Prager Hans
http://www.alpinek9.com

There was a series of articles a while back that addressed the question of why one method or another has not ecliipsed others. The conclusion? Because they all do work.

Hans, you have your opinion and may not see a need to change it. Fair enough. Maybe there isn't.
But I just found it funny since my words were excatly the same and I sure am seeing the added benefits.
The sort of turning moment was once I asked myself "I wonder if......" in regards to a specific maneuver. Made me play with it, partially to prove my point. Well, I didn't. Instead I was so intrigued by the results that I choose to investigate, try, play with and experiment with it more.
Note that I used the word "added". I am by no means a stictly positive trainer although that is my natural tendency.
If all fails, I can still make things happen the good old fashioned way. And my guys know it.

Also, when you shape behavior and teach it correctly, with all the things like animals actually learning to learn, develping a work ethic and even sort of reason behind what we are asking them to do, you create a habit. Once the habit has been created you add new things. At this point, there is no need to constantly reinforce the already tought behaviors. They become incidental and nothing special. The learning continues from there.
Not sure if that makes any sense. Just trying to put a few of my thoughts down in writing. Not always my strong suit!

No, I change my opinions all the time. However, I work on my opinions hard and they are thus hard to change. For that I need good argument and proof. Also based on Pavlovian response you need to reinforce old conditioning or it will diminish.

Again I am not against clicker training. I just think that it is not necessary to add between me and the dog another step, device or so which is not necessary. I feel the same way about e collars. I am not against e collar, but I will not use one as a primary training method.  I train dogs not because I want results. I train dogs in order to have proper relationship with such dog. Performance/results is secondary, but eventually inevitable. I believe that, at least in dog training, if you do everything right the dog and his/hers performance  will turn right too. And to me the paramount importance is in relationship I have with my dog(s).  I will sacrifice some performance for proper relationship and not the other way around.
 It is a matter of philosophy. 
Prager Hans
http://www.alpinek9.com  

I don't know squat from diddly, but in the Michael Ellis online video that I *advertised* here a while back, and that my friend Mudwick made a direct link to, he talks about his use of a "Marker Word" (spoken obviously) instead of a Clicker to "mark" the desired behaviour which is then followed by a reward, ideally within 1 second.  At least from his perspective the clicker itself and the specific sound that it makes are not critical to the sucess of this approach to training.  What he uses as his marker word is "Yes!".  He will use this word to "mark" the desired behaviour and follow with a reward (food, toy, etc...)  He only uses "Yes!" as a marker and uses "Good" as a verbal signal to continue the desired behaviour which also serves as praise or an additional positive reinforcement.

Like Hans, I have a certain aversion to "gadgets".  To know that at least one Top Flight trainer is okay with using a vocal signal instead of a clicker to mark a behaviour makes the whole approach much more attractive to me.  The rational I have read here as to why a clicker is superior to a verbal marker makes good sense to me, but if I can get along well enough with what I already have (my voice) and what I probably won't misplace (Damn, I know it's here Somewhere!?) and that I ALWAYS have with me, I think that might be the best to just use "Yes!", or whatever,  as my marker.

SteveO

Prager, If the clicker companies go out of business you can use a snapple Iced tea lid (or other glass juice bottle lid).  Makes the same consistent clicing sound when you depress the seal. 

BUT, I highly doubt that all the clikcer companies are going to go out of business.  The "dog as an accessory" business is just getting crazier and crazier and I would literally never speak a word again in my life if all the clicker companies went out of business.  Calling a clicker a gimick is like calling aFurminator a gimick. 

It might not be something that YOU would use, but it is a very useful tool.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for you Prager, but I think it isn't fair to call clicker training an uneccesarry gimick.  The method that works best for the Dog/handler team is the best method period.  For many that may be behaviour shaping.  If you look at Karen's other videos, not just 101 things to do with a box, I think you can hardly say that she doesn't have a "proper relationship" with her dog.  In fact just the opposite, I think she has the relationship with kaine that most dog owners dream of having and Kaine 100% positive reinforcement trained.

Why does one make the other bad or less good?
I hate the old "proper relationship" card played by anyone.
Especially when it sounds like you are saying others that use different methods can and will not ever achieve the same "proper" relationship with their dogs. Maybe it is a sore spot with me since I have trained with trainers like that. And I try to not let my clients feel it.

I lean towards simple stuff that I have with me for the most part. Mainly because I can't ever seem to find anything that is not attached to my body somehow. So my voice, hands and whatever other body part are my main "tools".
Having said that though, there is no way to downplay the value of behavioral shaping (be it using a clicker or voice - which is not the argument as far as I am concerned at all).

One huge part of the true clicker training is simply the breaking down of behaviors and thinking through it in minute steps so that it can be shaped. That in itself makes it possible for a wide variety of people to actually truly understand it and also pulls many behaviors apart to a point where it is easier to understand for the animals as well. Then add the thougth out and highlighted response by the trainer to mark and call focus on a desired move....big huge deal. That in itself for me is a huge part of shaping. Be it with a clicker or not.

aceofspades
HBFanatic

I am sorry if I have ruffled your feathers, it was not my intention, however
one day people are going to actually read what I have written before they are going to take issue with me.
1.  I  am not anywhere saying that I am against clicker training. It is a free world . Do what makes you happy as long as it does not hurt anyone else.
2. I am saying that the clicker companies may go out of business as a joke and as an example of an items which may not be handy all the time. Where my voice will be.
3. I will always say that clicker method is based  on a gimmick because you can use words instead of clicking. Clicking is gimmick without added benefit.  You can also use trombone  which would be even less convenient then clickers and I would not be against that either, but I would say that it is also not necessary to use trombone if one word would  be sufficient .
4. Nowhere  have I said that the person using clicker has no proper personal relationship with the dog. I am saying that I personally do not like to wedge between me and the dog unnecessary devices.  I am interested in a relationship with the dog more then performance. It is my philosophy. I am minimalist in training. I do not like or need much equipment to train a dog. I am trying to do more with less. That is me though you do what ever you want. I am not against that.
Leash, collar, toy or treat  for obedience and for protection that and some  necessary protection for me so that I do not get bloody.
Prager  Hans

 It is just me. And it has nothing to do with you.  Any method which you use and it works for you and the dog  is fine. :)

Prager Hans
http://www.alpinek9.com

Careful there Hans, next thing you know we'll be hearing that Alpine K9 is marketing a new system of communicating with one's dog called "Trombone Training", the best thing to come down the pike in a long time...

Well, it woudl be more difficult to lose or misplace a trombone than a clicker, so right off the bat I can see at least one advantage to packin' a trombone around.

Keep Laughin'

SteveO

You made me smile! Hard thing to do.

Hans

You made me smile first, Hans.

But I'm always on the lookout for Laughter!

SteveO