Belgian Shepherd or Whippet for an apartment

Ashbx · 29-07-2015 11:15am

I personally do not use chain collars or prong collars because I purely don't need them. However, when used correctly they do work and are not as bad for the dog as people are claiming. If a tool was that dangerous to dogs, it wouldn't be on the market. But people need to learn how to use these training tools properly before even attempting to use one. Using it incorrectly has disastrous results on a dog!

I do understand what Dazor said on the treats however. I had an awful lot of trouble getting my border terrier back to her recommended weight. She was never hugely overweight...maybe a kilo or so! But I do not like giving her treats by way of training because she gains weight very easily. I will in certain circumstances but I will try use toys (thankfully she is toy and food motivated) as much as I can. So positive reinforcement by way of treats is not always the answer.

Ashbx · 29-07-2015 11:19am

DBB wrote: »

Again, a couple of stock lines from lads who use pain-inducing gear... No right or wrong way? Imagine if human behavioural specialists said such a thing?!
If you don't need to use the prongs, why use the collar? Of course your dog co-operates with it, he kinda has to... Doesn't he?
Fact is that so many people who train dogs for professional work, have ditched such gear and attitudes long ago. Amateur, traditional trainers can't hide behind the excuses any more, but because they haven't updated their knowledge in line with the professional organisations, who themselves have realised the importance of using evidence-based, research-led dog training, they cling to saying things just like you have regarding positive reinforcement, "no right and wrong way", and "doesn't do (me) any harm".
Each to their own indeed... Justifying it is a whole different matter.

While I do agree with you DBB, whose to say that in 5 or 10 years time these top trainers will suddenly decide that positive training is bad? Years ago, everyone thought that alpha dog etc. training was THE way to train a dog. Now its taboo to even think like that! Training methods come in and out and but to say the use of prong collars is straight out wrong is a slightly naïve assumption in my opinion. I do think that prong collars should be used in only exceptional circumstances (and the owner needs to be trained how to use it correctly) but im not going to rule them out for every dog owner out there!

Nody · 29-07-2015 11:26am

Ashbx wrote: »

I personally do not use chain collars or prong collars because I purely don't need them. However, when used correctly they do work and are not as bad for the dog as people are claiming. If a tool was that dangerous to dogs, it wouldn't be on the market. But people need to learn how to use these training tools properly before even attempting to use one. Using it incorrectly has disastrous results on a dog!

You can also buy alcohol, cars and cigarettes; but since they are available on the market they can't be dangerous, right? You can buy choke chains and electrical pain inducing collars on the market as well but that does not make them right or any less dangerous to use and seeing how slow the legislation is in general on animal care you'd be lucky to see them banned by 2050. Trying to use the justification "it's available so it has to be ok" is BS and you know it.

As for the alpha dog etc. it's taboo because not only has the scientist who originally coined the term come out and said he was wrong but further scientific evidence has come out showing how it was wrong as a concept in every possible way. Care to show any positive evidence in the last 10 years on choke collars? They are for sale on the market so clearly as per your idea there must be positive research on it's uses, right?

DBB · 29-07-2015 11:28am

Ashbx wrote: »

I personally do not use chain collars or prong collars because I purely don't need them. However, when used correctly they do work and are not as bad for the dog as people are claiming. If a tool was that dangerous to dogs, it wouldn't be on the market.

That's a pretty naive thing to say... There are plenty of things available on the market to inflict pain on animals.
I'm blue in the face with threads like these saying that it's not necessarily disputed that pain-inducing gear works... It's how and why it works that's the problem (even when used properly) and there is simply no avoiding the fact that they cannot work without first inflicting pain
In light of the fact that there is so much gear out there that does the job without inflicting discomfort, there is no excuse for using pain-inflicting gear.

So positive reinforcement by way of treats is not always the answer.

Like I said above, there is far, far, far more to positive reinforcement than just treats. It is a fallacy spread by traditional trainers that one has to use treats to positively reward a dog/dogs get fat/dogs get lazy/dogs won't work unless he sees the treats... All excuses that reveal a very basic misunderstanding of basic learning theory.
All sniffer dogs, no matter what their target scent, are positively rewarded via play with a favourite toy. More and more police units are adopting the same with their protection dogs... Why? Because they get the results without the often disastrous side-effects of traditional training methods.
Many dogs with behavioural issues will not take a treat when in the presence of something they're anxious about, so it is pretty routine for trainers of such dogs to find alternatives.

DBB · 29-07-2015 11:40am

Ashbx wrote: »

While I do agree with you DBB, whose to say that in 5 or 10 years time these top trainers will suddenly decide that positive training is bad? Years ago, everyone thought that alpha dog etc. training was THE way to train a dog. Now its taboo to even think like that! Training methods come in and out and but to say the use of prong collars is straight out wrong is a slightly naïve assumption in my opinion. I do think that prong collars should be used in only exceptional circumstances (and the owner needs to be trained how to use it correctly) but im not going to rule them out for every dog owner out there!

There is a very key difference between what was thought 10-20 years ago, and what is known now... That key difference is research. Peer-reviewed, hardcore research.
In the mid- to late-80s, dogs became the focus of research by behavioural scientists, and scientific interest in them has grown exponentially since then.
Now, the research and evidence is there that proves that positive training is far superior to traditional training in terms of welfare, the ability of the dog to learn, the ability of the dog to retain that learning, and critically for people with working dogs, the ability of the dog to use his initiative and have the confidence to make good and useful decisions.
This has been proven, time and time again, and the damaging effects of traditional training have been proven, time and time again...I'm not just pulling it out of the air here.
So, because the reams and reams of science supports positive training, it's here to stay. And for the record, positive training is not a "method", it's an approach... An attitude. There are lots of ways to teach a dog the same thing... As long as it's done without causing harm, then it's okay.

Edited to add: Dor the record, I deal with the very worst behaved dogs in the country as part of my work. Some of the problems I've seen would make your hair stand on end. Yet I have never had cause to think "here's a problem that'd be helped by using a prong collar". Not one. Out of thousands of dogs I've worked with. I can say with confidence that my fellow positive trainers would tell you the same. Between us all in Ireland alone, that must represent many thousands of really badly behaved dogs. So, where that leaves the argument that prong/choke collars "have their place" I'm finding it hard to understand.
For the record, I would say that a large, large chunk of the worst dogs I've seen have been trained using traditional gear and methods at some point before I've seen them.

dazor · 29-07-2015 11:44am

I understand each of your opinions and I respect it.
I use the pinch collar with care, it works for me and my dog, so I'm going to just leave it at that.

Ashbx · 29-07-2015 11:50am

DBB wrote: »

There is a very key difference between what was thought 10-20 years ago, and what is known now... That key difference is research. Peer-reviewed, hardcore research.
In the mid- to late-80s, dogs became the focus of research by behavioural scientists, and scientific interest in them has grown exponentially since then.
Now, the research and evidence is there that proves that positive training is far superior to traditional training in terms of welfare, the ability of the dog to learn, the ability of the dog to retain that learning, and critically for people with working dogs, the ability of the dog to use his initiative and have the confidence to make good and useful decisions.
This has been proven, time and time again, and the damaging effects of traditional training have been proven, time and time again...I'm not just pulling it out of the air here.
So, because the reams and reams of science supports positive training, it's here to stay. And for the record, positive training is not a "method", it's an approach... An attitude. There are lots of ways to teach a dog the same thing... As long as it's done without causing harm, then it's okay.

Completely agree with you but you are kind of missing my point. What happens if in 10 years time, they do the research and they prove that positive reinforcement is not good for the dog? Im not saying that's gonna happen or that I think its bad but im saying that what is deemed good now may not be deemed good in 10 years time.

Please don't think that I advocate the use of prong collars...I don't! I have an avid puller with my collie and still personally wouldn't consider using a prong collar but as you said above, there are different approaches to dog training and I think people should explore them all and find what works best for them personally.

andreac · 29-07-2015 11:51am

dazor wrote: »

I understand each of your opinions and I respect it.
I use the pinch collar with care, it works for me and my dog, so I'm going to just leave it at that.

It works because your dog has no other choice but to make it "work" for you :rolleyes:.

Have you ever tried positive training with your dog? Of course the pinch collar will work if you use it, because if the dog does otherwise, its going to hurt him.

Ashbx · 29-07-2015 11:54am

Nody wrote: »

As for the alpha dog etc. it's taboo because not only has the scientist who originally coined the term come out and said he was wrong but further scientific evidence has come out showing how it was wrong as a concept in every possible way. Care to show any positive evidence in the last 10 years on choke collars? They are for sale on the market so clearly as per your idea there must be positive research on it's uses, right?

Missing my point Nody. Im not here to prove that prong collars are a good thing. As I have said in all my posts, I would never use one personally. But my point is what happens if they do the research into the positive reinforcement and decide its not the best approach. And a new way of training comes in? There will always be new methods and new approaches.

Nody · 29-07-2015 11:58am

Ashbx wrote: »

Missing my point Nody. Im not here to prove that prong collars are a good thing. As I have said in all my posts, I would never use one personally. But my point is what happens if they do the research into the positive reinforcement and decide its not the best approach. And a new way of training comes in? There will always be new methods and new approaches.

And then the training methods will then be improved and move with the new approach; that does not mean that today with all the evidence available that prong collars, pain & fear induced training methods which are today proven to be dangerous and detrimental should in any way be used or condoned. That's the issue in the first place; people have NOT moved on with the time to the new and current training methods and insist on using something that's 20 years (or more!) old!

To put in closer terms it would be like arguing that hitting children on their knuckles with a carpet cleaner is ok because they used to do that 100 years ago and there is no right or wrong way of how to teach children. No one can make a straight face with that argument and claim it's ok and we have a ton of studies to back that up; yet people are trying to make that argument for dog training for some reason...

kylith · 29-07-2015 12:00pm

Ashbx wrote: »

Missing my point Nody. Im not here to prove that prong collars are a good thing. As I have said in all my posts, I would never use one personally. But my point is what happens if they do the research into the positive reinforcement and decide its not the best approach. And a new way of training comes in? There will always be new methods and new approaches.

Then responsible trainers will retrain in new techniques and use those.

I don't get why you're saying. It sounds like you think that prong collars are ok to use because in future it may be found that whistling Dixie is a better training method than using treats. Are you anticipating that in a decade it'll be discovered that hurting your pet is better than positive re-enforcement? It's like saying 'well, I still hit my children because it may be found in future that discussing their problems with them isn't the best way to rear them'.

Ashbx · 29-07-2015 12:11pm

kylith wrote: »

Then responsible trainers will retrain in new techniques and use those.

I don't get why you're saying. It sounds like you think that prong collars are ok to use because in future it may be found that whistling Dixie is a better training method than using treats. Are you anticipating that in a decade it'll be discovered that hurting your pet is better than positive re-enforcement? It's like saying 'well, I still hit my children because it may be found in future that discussing their problems with them isn't the best way to rear them'.

No of course not...what a thing to say?! I have made it quite clear from the start that I would never use a prong collar on my dogs and also made it quite clear that I do not advocate the use of these training methods so please don't imply that I do.

Im not anticipating anything but saying WHAT IF in 10 years time they decide that positive reinforcement is not good. (I never once said that meant they will suddenly decide that prong collars are good again!) but what happens if the next approach completely disregards everything we learned in positive reinforcement? Will you suddenly stop using positive reinforcement even though it works for you?

Nody · 29-07-2015 12:17pm

Ashbx wrote: »

Im not anticipating anything but saying WHAT IF in 10 years time they decide that positive reinforcement is not good. (I never once said that meant they will suddenly decide that prong collars are good again!) but what happens if the next approach completely disregards everything we learned in positive reinforcement? Will you suddenly stop using positive reinforcement even though it works for you?

Obviously the new way will work even better though and help achieve the results in an ethically correct way then yes (i.e. I'd never propose to give a shot to a dog that puts it 100% under my control even though it's more effective because it's not ethically correct); not doing so is exactly what's the issue here in the first place and it's listed as a core principle of ADPT!

Ashbx · 29-07-2015 12:18pm

Nody wrote: »

And then the training methods will then be improved and move with the new approach; that does not mean that today with all the evidence available that prong collars, pain & fear induced training methods which are today proven to be dangerous and detrimental should in any way be used or condoned. That's the issue in the first place; people have NOT moved on with the time to the new and current training methods and insist on using something that's 20 years (or more!) old!

To put in closer terms it would be like arguing that hitting children on their knuckles with a carpet cleaner is ok because they used to do that 100 years ago and there is no right or wrong way of how to teach children. No one can make a straight face with that argument and claim it's ok and we have a ton of studies to back that up; yet people are trying to make that argument for dog training for some reason...

I 100% agree with you. People haven't moved on! I have used positive reinforcement since getting my dogs and found it very effective. But I can put money on that in 10 years time there will be more "better" techniques than positive reinforcement.

Can people please stop bringing hitting children into this! Its a completely different situation! Why people are even bringing this up is beyond me.

DBB · 29-07-2015 12:23pm

Ashbx wrote: »

Completely agree with you but you are kind of missing my point. What happens if in 10 years time, they do the research and they prove that positive reinforcement is not good for the dog? Im not saying that's gonna happen or that I think its bad but im saying that what is deemed good now may not be deemed good in 10 years time.

I don't think I missed your point, no. I thought I'd explained in my post that there is now 20 years of research that shows beyond any shadow of a doubt, along with a similar period of application of the theory, that using positive training works better than negative training on a number of levels, and that whilst the whole ethos of positive training is "do no harm", negative training has some pretty unpleasant side effects... The whole point of my post was to explain that we hadn't the scientific back-up 20 years ago... But now we do. That's the difference, and that's why positive training has gained the solid, proven basis that it has, rather than traditional methods that are now proven, scientifically and objectively, to be based entirely on supposition and flawed beliefs. Nothing can change that now, no more than Darwin's Theory of Evolution can be disproved.
Broadly speaking, there are only two ways training can happen. It can be positive. Or it can be negative. That will never change, a new 3rd dimensional category of training simply cannot be invented. And because of the overwhelming scientific and practical evidence supports positive training, it's always going to be positive training for enlightened trainers.... Unless of course you think that the scientists will suddenly discover, after all this, that hurting an animal is a more effective way to motivate learning? Or that welfare-friendly positive training will suddenly be discovered to be somehow harmful, despite the rafts and rafts if evidence to the contrary? Sorry, but if you believe that then we may open a new thread to discuss why the world is flat!

Ashbx · 29-07-2015 12:24pm

Nody wrote: »

Obviously the new way will work even better though and help achieve the results in an ethically correct way then yes (i.e. I'd never propose to give a shot to a dog that puts it 100% under my control even though it's more effective because it's not ethically correct); not doing so is exactly what's the issue here in the first place and it's listed as a core principle of ADPT!

Again, completely agree! My border terrier used to pull very bad when she was younger. I tried every method under the sun to snap her out of this. After 4 years and countless collars/harnesses/trainers/classes, I finally found what worked for my terrier. I got an anti pull harness (a particular one that I found worked) and she happily trots along by my side.

Got a rescue collie last year who pulls to her hearts content. Tried the methods I used with my terrier, and these didn't work. So back to square one, tried all the methods I used before and found a head collar was best for her.

I cant describe to you how much gear I went through to find what worked for my dogs. Not once did a prong collar enter my head even though I knew it would be the easy way out.

Ashbx · 29-07-2015 12:32pm

DBB wrote: »

I don't think I missed your point, no. I thought I'd explained in my post that there is now 20 years of research that shows beyond any shadow of a doubt, along with a similar period of application of the theory, that using positive training works better than negative training on a number of levels, and that whilst the whole ethos of positive training is "do no harm", negative training has some pretty unpleasant side effects... The whole point of my post was to explain that we hadn't the scientific back-up 20 years ago... But now we do. That's the difference, and that's why positive training has gained the solid, proven basis that it has, rather than traditional methods that are now proven, scientifically and objectively, to be based entirely on supposition and flawed beliefs. Nothing can change that now, no more than Darwin's Theory of Evolution can be disproved.
Broadly speaking, there are only two ways training can happen. It can be positive. Or it can be negative. That will never change, a new 3rd dimensional category of training simply cannot be invented. And because of the overwhelming scientific and practical evidence supports positive training, it's always going to be positive training for enlightened trainers.... Unless of course you think that the scientists will suddenly discover, after all this, that hurting an animal is a more effective way to motivate learning? Or that welfare-friendly positive training will suddenly be discovered to be somehow harmful, despite the rafts and rafts if evidence to the contrary? Sorry, but if you believe that then we may open a new thread to discuss why the world is flat!

Of course im not saying that hurting an animal is the way to get what you want. I wish people would stop implying that I think its ok to injure a dog! I am of course not saying that. I am even not talking about the research done on the prong collars.

As you said, we didn't have evidence we do now 20 years ago. So what happens if in another 20 years they do research that MAY be done on positive reinforcement and they MAY find a better option. IF (and a very big if) that was to happen, would you start berating someone for using positive reinforcement because there is now a better method in use?

DBB · 29-07-2015 12:59pm

Ashbx wrote: »

But I can put money on that in 10 years time there will be more "better" techniques than positive reinforcement.

Ashbx,
I don't think you quite understand what positive reinforcement actually is?
There are four categoriess to (operant) learning into which all training methods fall. These are immutable, unchangeable, just like any mathematical formula is.
They are
1. Positive punishment: receiving an unpleasant consequence in response to a behaviour, causing that behaviour to ultimately decrease.
2. Negative punishment: withholding an expected reward in response to a behaviour, causing that behaviour to ultimately decrease.
3. Positive reinforcement: receiving a pleasant consequence in response to a behaviour, causing that behaviour to ultimately increase.
4. Negative reinforcement: receiving relief/escape from an unpleasant event in response to a behaviour, causing that behaviour to ultimately increase.

That's it. Four categories into which all operant learning falls. There are no more. That's it. These categories are not "methods"... They are the categories into which every single training method falls. Not just for dogs, but for every single living being that's capable of learning.

Every training method that you can come up with will land into one of these categories.
Positive trainers generally use methods that fall within the categories of positive reinforcement (to encourage certain behaviours) and negative punishment (to discourage certain behaviours).
Traditional trainers will often use negative reinforcement (to encourage certain behaviours) and positive punishment (to discourage certain behaviours).
It's the consequences of using methods that fall into each category that science is interested in, and by definition, the consequences of negative reinforcement and positive punishment are potentially harmful and emotionally damaging... By definition.
On the other hand, by definition, the consequences of using positive reinforcement are the opposite of damaging. By definition.
So, no matter what training methods are conceived in the future, every one if them will fall into one of the four categories, and the consequences of it are dictated by that. By definition.

It's basic maths. Every training method falls into one of these categories. What we know, because it is the very definition of positive reinforcement, and simultaneously proven since the dawn of time for all species, that training methods which fall into the category of positive reinforcement result in better learning, the animal feeling happy, and avoids problems associated with positive punishment and negative reinforcement... For all species including humans.
Positive reinforcement is not a method, and I wish people would stop making this mistake. It is a definition of a category which contains any number of methods that result in learning via reward. It is the category into which methods used to teach children, dolphins, goldfish, dogs, cats, birds etc in a training environment fall, and outside a training environment in the wild, it's why animals do things that make them feel good. Animals in the wild choose to live in the positive reinforcement category every single day of their lives. So do we humans, without even knowing we're doing so.

DBB · 29-07-2015 1:08pm

Ashbx wrote: »

As you said, we didn't have evidence we do now 20 years ago. So what happens if in another 20 years they do research that MAY be done on positive reinforcement and they MAY find a better option. IF (and a very big if) that was to happen, would you start berating someone for using positive reinforcement because there is now a better method in use?

I hope my post above explains why the above just can't happen, and that it explains why your use of of the term "positive reinforcement" in the context you're using it is mistaken.
As for your above quoted post, in light of what positive reinforcement actually is, I'll have that conversation with you as soon as someone can rationally debate with me why Einstein's Theory of Relativity might be proved wrong in x years' time!
I'm not berating anyone, I'm simply appraising them of the facts. I will always espouse training methods that keep the animal happy and learning well... And by definition, that's what positive reinforcement is. Nothing can ever change that.

29-07-2015 1:17pm

Ashbx wrote: »

I have made it quite clear from the start that I would never use a prong collar on my dogs and also made it quite clear that I do not advocate the use of these training methods so please don't imply that I do.

I think you implied yourself that you do when you said this...

[/quote]I personally do not use chain collars or prong collars because I purely don't need them. However, when used correctly they do work and are not as bad for the dog as people are claiming. [/quote]

VonVix · 29-07-2015 1:39pm

I look at things this way...

If your mother is going to give you praise for mowing the lawn and your father is going to give out to you for NOT mowing the lawn. Which parent are you going to want to work for? Which one would give you enthusiasm and desire to do the job asked?

Also, with my recent new addition to my family I am using his food to train him, no additional food other than the food he is meant to get already. 11 weeks old and he's already excited to train and trying to figure out what I'm going to ask him whenever I get the bag of kibble out.

Ashbx · 29-07-2015 2:13pm

DBB wrote: »

I hope my post above explains why the above just can't happen, and that it explains why your use of of the term "positive reinforcement" in the context you're using it is mistaken.
As for your above quoted post, in light of what positive reinforcement actually is, I'll have that conversation with you as soon as someone can rationally debate with me why Einstein's Theory of Relativity might be proved wrong in x years' time!
I'm not berating anyone, I'm simply appraising them of the facts. I will always espouse training methods that keep the animal happy and learning well... And by definition, that's what positive reinforcement is. Nothing can ever change that.

It does. And my apologies, I should have explained that all my comments relate to positive reinforcement using rewards for good behaviour.

Still doesn't really answer what I am getting at but given the fact that no other training methods will ever come about, I suppose there is no point trying to continue what I am saying.

tk123 · 29-07-2015 2:19pm

Ashbx wrote: »

It does. And my apologies, I should have explained that all my comments relate to positive reinforcement using rewards for good behaviour.
.

What do you classify as a reward though? Most nay-sayers think positive reinforcement = shoving treats down a dogs neck. A reward for my dogs anyways could be a treat, a throw of a stick for them to chase/playing with a toy, allowed off their lead when they sit inside the gate of the park, a pet, asking them to do some of their tricks, praise etc etc etc They want to train and enjoy it because good things happen for them - not because they've been forced to do what I want them to or indeed expect them to do because of their breed which is often the case.
"My dog is too clever/driven to learn that way", "They have to have a pinch collar because of their breed" - in the case of the person who said that to me it was a beagle(!) who they expected to do everything they wanted without putting any time in training

Ashbx · 29-07-2015 2:23pm

tk123 wrote: »

What do you classify as a reward though? Most nay-sayers think positive reinforcement = shoving treats down a dogs neck. A reward for my dogs anyways could be a treat, a throw of a stick for them to chase/playing with a toy, allowed off their lead when they sit inside the gate of the park, a pet, asking them to do some of their tricks, praise etc etc etc

Well I said in a previous post that I specifically do not like using treats as a reward. I have had weight issues with my border terrier and do not want her to be overweight again.

Usually my rewards are toys or loads of praise. Thankfully both my dogs (the collie especially) are quite eager to please so are happy with a pet and some attention and don't necessarily need something physically given to them to be rewarded.

kylith · 29-07-2015 2:27pm

Ashbx wrote: »

As you said, we didn't have evidence we do now 20 years ago. So what happens if in another 20 years they do research that MAY be done on positive reinforcement and they MAY find a better option. IF (and a very big if) that was to happen, would you start berating someone for using positive reinforcement because there is now a better method in use?

IF in 20 years time a better method is found then people will use that. If they can't get their heads around it, yes, they will probably continue to use positive re-enforcement. BUT there is no situation where a person who can't handle Quantum Training, or whatever, and continues to use positive re-enforcement will be doing as much harm to their dog as someone who uses punitive techniques does.

We know now that we do not need prong or choke collars, and there is no excuse, barring 'I can't be arsed to train properly', for using them.

kylith · 29-07-2015 2:29pm

Ashbx wrote: »

Well I said in a previous post that I specifically do not like using treats as a reward. I have had weight issues with my border terrier and do not want her to be overweight again.

Usually my rewards are toys or loads of praise. Thankfully both my dogs (the collie especially) are quite eager to please so are happy with a pet and some attention and don't necessarily need something physically given to them to be rewarded.

I usually deducted from meals to cover treats. That way the dog doesn't put weight on. Even better if, like mine were, your dog is happy to take regular kibble as a treat.

DBB · 29-07-2015 2:38pm

Ashbx wrote: »

It does. And my apologies, I should have explained that all my comments relate to positive reinforcement using rewards for good behaviour.

Still doesn't really answer what I am getting at but given the fact that no other training methods will ever come about, I suppose there is no point trying to continue what I am saying.

But, but... You're doing it again, mixing up positive reinforcement as being "a method"! Of course new training methods will evolve, of course they will... But no matter what they are, they have to fall into one of those four categories into which ALL operant learning falls, whether you're training a dog, or whether you're an earthworm looking for food.... All animals, everything they operantly do and learn, can be defined by one of those categories... What we do whilst training is either punishing or reinforcing, and each is either positive or negative, it's as simple as that... Can you come up with another category?
If you invented ten new training methods today, you could place each one into one of the 4 categories, depending on what consequnces you're using to punish or reward the behaviour. Just because they're categorised does not mean new methods can't come about... I come up with something different for every dog I train,we all do... I just choose to ensure that what I'm doing lands in the positive reinforcement category.

Ashbx · 29-07-2015 2:57pm

DBB wrote: »

But, but... You're doing it again, mixing up positive reinforcement as being "a method"! Of course new training methods will evolve, of course they will... But no matter what they are, they have to fall into one of those four categories into which ALL operant learning falls, whether you're training a dog, or whether you're an earthworm looking for food.... All animals, everything they operantly do and learn, can be defined by one of those categories... What we do whilst training is either punishing or reinforcing, and each is either positive or negative, it's as simple as that... Can you come up with another category?
If you invented ten new training methods today, you could place each one into one of the 4 categories, depending on what consequnces you're using to punish or reward the behaviour. Just because they're categorised does not mean new methods can't come about... I come up with something different for every dog I train,we all do... I just choose to ensure that what I'm doing lands in the positive reinforcement category.

Do you have to be so finicky with the exact words I am using? You know what I am trying to say. The category is positive reinforcement. Within that, I say method.....you say attitude! It does not make me wrong because I don't say the same word as you.

Method, approach, attitude, style, technique, tactic....they all mean the same thing.

sillysmiles · 29-07-2015 3:24pm

dazor wrote: »

I don't like the choke collar and I also don't like giving a dog a treat when he does something good. Positive enforcement is good for smaller dogs or dogs with low drive.

Can I ask why not? If he has done something good does it not deserve a reward?

DBB · 29-07-2015 3:27pm

Ach, you know I became more specific in my use of words to try to offset the mislabelling that was going on, and despite my attempts to clarify that "methods" were part of a wider classification you seemingly continuing to mix the terms. If that's not what you meant, my apologies, but that's how it read to me, and seems to be reading to others

muddypaws · 29-07-2015 3:31pm

Ashbx wrote: »

Well I said in a previous post that I specifically do not like using treats as a reward. I have had weight issues with my border terrier and do not want her to be overweight again.

Usually my rewards are toys or loads of praise. Thankfully both my dogs (the collie especially) are quite eager to please so are happy with a pet and some attention and don't necessarily need something physically given to them to be rewarded.

I'm sorry, I hope you don't feel picked on, but I am confused by your posts. Anything that makes the dog feel good is a reward, and so, if used in training, it is positive reinforcement.

An example I often use because I am obsessed with sled dogs

is a team of sled dogs, the lead dogs could be 10+ feet ahead of me, we come to a crossroads. I ask them to go right, they go right. I don't jump off and go and give them a food treat, or a pet, instead, they get to keep on running, which is what makes them feel good, that is their reward. If they turned left, we would stop, so they wouldn't get the reward they want more than anything else in the world, which is to keep on running. That 'method' has been used for thousands of years, but people haven't probably realised that is what they are doing, it is only fairly recently that it has been recognised scientifically and words put to it. So I honestly cannot see how anything 'new' will come up as such an effective training method.

Of course there are people who also use whips to make dogs run faster, but to turn, the dog has to want to do it, horses have reins, so you could force a horse to turn in the direction you want, you can't do that with a team of sled dogs. Its the same as working sheep dogs, you cannot force one to go around the flock in a certain direction, they do it because then they get their reward of being on the sheep.

I think that is where people can get really confused, not realising what dogs perceive as a reward.

sillysmiles · 29-07-2015 3:42pm

Ashbx wrote: »

Thankfully both my dogs (the collie especially) are quite eager to please ......

But most/all dogs are eager to please, that is their nature as companion animals. This is why (in my understanding) dogs have evolved to read our emotions and our body language better than other dogs.

As humans, we need to show them what it is that pleases us.

Ashbx · 29-07-2015 3:47pm

muddypaws wrote: »

I'm sorry, I hope you don't feel picked on, but I am confused by your posts. Anything that makes the dog feel good is a reward, and so, if used in training, it is positive reinforcement.

An example I often use because I am obsessed with sled dogs is a team of sled dogs, the lead dogs could be 10+ feet ahead of me, we come to a crossroads. I ask them to go right, they go right. I don't jump off and go and give them a food treat, or a pet, instead, they get to keep on running, which is what makes them feel good, that is their reward. If they turned left, we would stop, so they wouldn't get the reward they want more than anything else in the world, which is to keep on running. That 'method' has been used for thousands of years, but people haven't probably realised that is what they are doing, it is only fairly recently that it has been recognised scientifically and words put to it. So I honestly cannot see how anything 'new' will come up as such an effective training method.

Of course there are people who also use whips to make dogs run faster, but to turn, the dog has to want to do it, horses have reins, so you could force a horse to turn in the direction you want, you can't do that with a team of sled dogs. Its the same as working sheep dogs, you cannot force one to go around the flock in a certain direction, they do it because then they get their reward of being on the sheep.

I think that is where people can get really confused, not realising what dogs perceive as a reward.

No, don't feel picked on. Now im confused as to what you are asking me though? :pac:

I think ive been shot down enough times on the fact that there will be no more training techniques so no point getting back into that point. Apparently whatever tools we have now is all we are going to ever have.

I do understand what you are saying about the reward and what we deem as an award. Its funny because im sure we all deem different things justifiable for a reward. For example, my dogs are allowed on the couches at home. Yet my friend only lets his dogs on the couch the odd time so to them, this is deemed a reward. Whereas to my dogs, its just their second bed!

muddypaws · 29-07-2015 4:12pm

dazor wrote: »

Each to their own I guess. I think he is a fantastic trainer that gets the job done. He has trained my dog to a really high standard in attacking/ protection.

I don't like the choke collar and I also don't like giving a dog a treat when he does something good. Positive enforcement is good for smaller dogs or dogs with low drive.

Positive re-inforcement is good for all dogs, and in fact works best with dogs with a high drive. A reward does not have to be a food treat, just something that the dog wants, which is why hard working dogs with high drive are so successfully trained by law enforcement agencies all around the world by using positive re-inforcement. Have you never seen any of the TV programmes? A dog finds a gun in an airport, he gets to play with his tennis ball, which to him is the best thing he could possibly get, that is his treat. As I said above, working sled dogs, who have incredibly high working drive get their reward from doing as they are asked, they get to continue running.

Do you go to work each day for no pay? How do you manage to buy dog food?

DBB · 29-07-2015 4:45pm

Ashbx wrote: »

I think ive been shot down enough times on the fact that there will be no more training techniques so no point getting back into that point. Apparently whatever tools we have now is all we are going to ever have.

Ashbx,
Can you not see, that when you're training a dog, the methods you're using are either punishing, or reinforcing?
Assuming you understand that, then is it not clear that every training method you can think of will fall into one or other category?
Even new methods... Because there can't be any other categories... Can there? Can you think of some that I'm missing, other than punishment or reinforcement?
If you're being "shot down", and the above post is another example, It's because you keep saying there will be no new training methods, or techniques.
There will be more training techniques.
There will be more training methods.
There will be new tools.
You can take this as being absolute certainty. All of them will fall into either punishment, or reinforcement.
I think I'm done now. I don't know how else to put you straight on your insistence on saying the same thing again and again, despite being "shot down" (read, put straight) on it. I'd suggest that you go read some good websites on learning theory, as I'm obviously making a mess of things here!

Ashbx · 29-07-2015 5:41pm

DBB wrote: »

Ashbx,
Can you not see, that when you're training a dog, the methods you're using are either punishing, or reinforcing?
Assuming you understand that, then is it not clear that every training method you can think of will fall into one or other category?
Even new methods... Because there can't be any other categories... Can there? Can you think of some that I'm missing, other than punishment or reinforcement?
If you're being "shot down", and the above post is another example, It's because you keep saying there will be no new training methods, or techniques.
There will be more training techniques.
There will be more training methods.
There will be new tools.
You can take this as being absolute certainty. All of them will fall into either punishment, or reinforcement.
I think I'm done now. I don't know how else to put you straight on your insistence on saying the same thing again and again, despite being "shot down" (read, put straight) on it. I'd suggest that you go read some good websites on learning theory, as I'm obviously making a mess of things here!

I think its the terminology we are using that is getting us confused here. I agree there is no more categories that can be made up. Plus, I agree that there may be more techniques within those categories that may pop up in 5/10/100 years! We both agree on that!

I said before, I use the term method as the technique I use within the category of reinforcement. You seem to use the word method as the category itself. It does not mean I am wrong because I don't use the words that you do.

My original point has seem to lost all meaning at this point due to all the to and fro and trying to explain myself. So yes lets just drop it. Its all irrelevant to the topic of the thread anyway.

DBB · 29-07-2015 5:57pm

Ashbx wrote: »

I think its the terminology we are using that is getting us confused here.

I'm not confused

You seem to use the word method as the category itself. It does not mean I am wrong because I don't use the words that you do.

Nope, that is pretty much the opposite of what I've been saying throughout. What I keep saying is that each of the four categories can include an infinite number of methods.
You have either not read what I've said, or completely misinterpreted pretty much everything I've said, and I'm not the only one who's noticed this.
So, as I'm going around in circles with you, I don't mind confessing that I give up!

ShaShaBear · 30-07-2015 12:57pm

TLDR

20 years of future research shows that giving a dog a treat when they do something correct is not good.
20 years of future research instead shows that dogs should in fact be given a pat on the head and 2 minutes to watch you spinning in circles when they do something correct.

20 years later, we all stop giving our dogs treats and start patting them and getting really good at spinning. Why? Because it's still positive reinforcement.

20 years of future research cannot possibly, ever, in any circumstance, show that positive reinforcement is not good for dogs. Simply because it is a way to learn, not a method to teach.

Belgian Shepherd or Whippet for an apartment

Comments