Aidan3

Now I don’t understand this at all. You say that “for me, the focus is on letting the dog make good choices…rather than setting him up to make bad choices.” But if you don’t allow the dog the freedom to make bad choices then in what sense is letting him make good choices really a ‘choice’. It seems to me that instead of allowing the dog to make choices you are in fact making the choice for the dog – by precluding the dog the opportunity to make bad choices. Make a list of all the things a dog could do on a long-line. Where in this perspective is any notion of the dog’s agency? Where is there any notion here as to the intrinsic reward/reinforcement that comes from freely exercising one’s own agency to work things out? Rather than making unfounded assumptions about what dogs find reinforcing, how about you try the Koehler long-line method without the long-line and tell me what happens? No-one else is punishing you for not solving a cross-word, that's not analogous. But that’s because the behaviorist having already ruled out the mind as being relevant to behavior, simply cannot see nor recognize the intrinsic reward that comes from exercising one’s own agency to work things out. Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. There are very few radical behaviourists who might take this position even as a theoretical side-trip. Did you know that the notion of intrinsic rewards comes from behaviourism? But putting a check chain attached to a long-line around a dog's neck is none of these things in your view? Sorry, but "letting a dog self-correct" is hardly an "empowering free exercise". Tell me which "empowered" choices are available to this "free" dog? You're right that there is no agency without constraint, this is absolutely true. But don't kid yourself into believing that you're bestowing some noble gift upon these dogs. You're putting a chain around their neck and letting them experience the discomfort of not blindly following you around to the exclusion of all else. How this is preferable to giving them opportunities to earn rewards that they will actually work for (rather than to avoid) is beyond me. Yup, we're all trying to make sense of the world, we're all looking for security and comfort. Take away all the long lines, collars, and fences and see what wild dogs (e.g dingos) do. They hunt, they forage, and they look out for themselves and their kin. If you want to give a dog a life of dignity, try and give them what their biology is craving.

Before I answer some of these questions, may I ask whether you are referring to philosophical behaviourism (philosophy of the mind and self) or psychological behaviourism? The two are not the same thing.

Camp Tailwaggers is having Emily here for a seminar, i think in August:) Oh really? Emily Larlham, Bob Bailey - 2012 is a good year on the speaker's circuit!

Emily is a very clever trainer who walks the walk. She does a lot of stuff that "can't be done" :laugh:

I don’t need to. The study only discusses the drawbacks to using what it defines as ‘confrontational methods’ it does not address or even consider the benefits of such methods. It is of course unable to do so because the study is biased to present only those instances where it didn’t work. It is in the discussion of the results that the bias is clearly shown. I think you need to re-read the method and results, you misunderstand what the study is investigating. Participants used a wide range of methods, significant differences in those using confrontational vs non-confrontational methods were found. This is important to understand. The study is biased, but not in the way that you think it is. Aidan, science is what scientists do, it’s not something independent of scientists. Follow this train of thought a little further. And I am sure they will remain silent. LOL. They are hardly going to take your money and tell you differently. I'm doing a double-major in Psychology and Neuroscience at a highly regarded university. I'm reasonably up to date with the different theories, and well acquainted with the scientific process, including the various debates in the philosophy of science. It's not that anyone could think that behaviourism explains all behaviour, but it has certainly not been discarded. Science that recognizes and explores the role of the mind in behavior. For instance, a while ago we were discussing the way the long line worked. You said it worked by aversive conditioning the dog. I would say it worked by setting the dog up to make choices. You would say the aversive of being caught at the end of line is what motivates the dog, I disagree. Certainly it tells the dog he has made the wrong decision, but I see the motivation coming more from making the right decision to be the more powerful motivator. That's a good start. How does that invalidate anything behaviourism says about aversive conditioning? It's very popular in comparative psychology to talk about these cognitive processes, and certainly we can now see more inside the "black box" that couldn't be investigated (empirically) in Skinner's day, but how does this "discard" behaviourism or anything that we know about aversive conditioning? If we look at fMRI scans of people motivated by reward, or by escape from punishment, we see similar things happening in the brain. If we were to be completely reductionist, we might conclude that promise of reward and promise of escape from punishment are the same thing neurologically. But then we have to forget about everything we know about the differences in overt behaviour, and future behaviours. So even as neuroscientists, we can't discard behaviourism. Behaviourism simply stems from objective observations of overt behaviours. It seems a bit silly to emphasise the role of emotion, brain chemistry, and cognition and then completely discard what the animal actually does. Eta: you do make some valid points, I'm just taking the discussion a bit further. These are the sorts of things I think about a lot.

Aidan, there is one I can tell you about I'm sure we could find thousands like this. How does it relate to the study in question? There were plenty of people who had success with confrontational methods in the study cited also.

How do you explain the difference between respondents who had used 'confrontational' vs 'non-confrontational' techniques then? Both categories were presenting to the veterinary behaviourists. There is definitely bias in there, but it's not what you're highlighting here and it's still not looking good for those using confrontational methods. The history of science shows that scientists have as much difficulty in changing their views regardless of the evidence. How much they resist change depends on how much their reputation as scientists are based on the outdated view they support. We're not talking about scientists. We're talking about science. No, I did not know that. I hope they plan on telling me before I finish my degree, but they've been strangely quiet on that fact so far. We have some comparative psychologists and biologists researching animal cognition on this very forum. Behaviourism is alive and well in both human and animal psychology, I can assure you of that. What do you regard to be better science and more adequate in understanding behaviour?

Unfortunately what you will find is that any study with good external validity (that is, conducted in the "real world" outside of the laboratory) will have something wrong with it. How can we see what a broad cross-section of the dog owning public does without a survey? How can we design a survey that answers questions that we're interested in without inherent bias? It is very difficult. This is why the scientific process does not rely on any one method of data collection. If you want to get rid of bias or demand characteristics, you design an experiment. If you want to see how it works in the outside world (the laboratory is no less "real" than the outside world), you use observational methods. Put the two together and you start to form a picture. Unfortunately, outside of science we have proven to be extraordinarily poor at rejecting false claims. I cannot stress that enough. We will believe almost anything unless we have some objective measure, and then we will still miss what we're not measuring. The same is true of science, but at least science is under close, methodical scrutiny. This is why I go to a doctor instead of a faith-healer, for example. This is true to some extent. There aren't many people still using Koehler, for e.g (I'm stirring, kinda). But nothing knocks a hypothesis down like objective, verifiable, repeatable data. The survey you linked to above has been repeated with different questions, not many times but the results repeat. The whole reason it was done was because behavioural science (from the lab and the real world) lead animal behaviourists to make certain predictions about dog training based on other data. Science is a process. You can never take one study and reject it as if it's the only piece in the puzzle, because this is never true. I could be quite critical of Herron et al for showing a clear bias in the introduction and not revealing a proper rationale for the study.

Aidan what gives or speaks with authority for each of us is different. For many people in regards to dog training science speaks with authority. I could say the same thing to those people, be a little less credulous. This is not having a dig, just noting that the lines of authority speak differently to different people. I am a person who is impressed by real world experience, not science when it comes to dog training. We've had this discussion, science is real world experience. The distinction is that in science we deliberately try to knock down our hypotheses. Nevertheless, my mentor has been training dogs for over 40 years and has titles in every sport available in Canada, coaching others to the highest levels, and trains her own service dogs (she has an acquired brain injury). Real world experience? For sure. Not to discount my own experience, but that's pretty substantial by anyone's measure.

Clicker training works with all dogs too. The principles remain the same, how the dog and owner respond, and how the environment serves them changes. If I could give you a piece of very valuable advice - be less credulous. Everyone is an expert on the internet. Anyone can get testimonials.

Schutzhund isn't personal protection training, you may as well use a dog trained in Flyball and hope it will protect you on the street. It's not that dogs trained in sport are no good at protection, the reason they are no good protection is because they aren't trained in personal protection, otherwise they are the same dogs taken on a different training path. Speak of the devil

My neighbour selected and trained dogs in the defence force for several years. This will tread on everyone's toes, but the fact is he selected dogs (GSDs and Rotts mostly) from the pound. As adults. If they wanted to chase a ball all day and didn't back off when pushed, they got the job.

LOL, where's "mace" when you need him/her? :laugh: Where did you find that video, Bobby_the_Samoyed? Gosh, no wonder you are put off SchH :laugh:

Gosh, now I'm feeling sentimental. Kruger was so handsome, very similar looks to my Von Forell girl. Sabella, so dearly missed.

Then that's a nice result then, something worth paying for. Pity said owner of dog didn't come to you first, instead of spending 3 years unsuccessfully trying to train a dog. Thank you. Said owner actually came to me for 4 weeks from memory. But her dog was also well outside the norm.

Aidan2, there is a difference between a dog bred for shutzhund, and a dog for PP. Sport dogs have very high prey drives. While for PP, you would be looking at a dog with moderate prey drive but also civilian drive. The ratio most PP handlers look for is a ratio of 60/40 with the 60% being civilian drive. Ofcourse the ratio differs between handlers but you get my idea. If you dont agree i would love to hear your opinion on this issue :) Robbie I think you'll find a range of opinions on this, but at the end of the day they are all coming from the same kennels in this country, so if you want to meet as many working line GSDs as you can - a Schutzhund club is a good place to start. I had a bitch from East German lines, her littermates all went to working homes and her lines were intended for work, not sport. But you can guess what was at the end of all those names on her pedigree :) If this dog will be the first you train, then a bit more prey-drive won't hurt you so long as the dog is of sound temperament.

Go to your nearest Schutzhund club, meet as many dogs as you can. If this is your first, an adult dog might be a far less steep learning curve.

My response was directly related. As you very well know from your long history of arguments here under various user names I do not use prong collars myself. K9Pro is also well aware of this, and he is more interested in finding help for dogs owners than forcing some petty political/moral argument onto them. Every trainer who refers to me does so because they have come to expect that I will actually train the dog rather than bang on about which tool is the best to do it with. Just as I don't care if they use a prong collar, they don't care if I don't. The proof is in the pudding, everything else is internet waffle. Yes or no would have been a sufficient answer Adian without all the waffle attached to it :laugh: Personally I don't care if you use prong collars or not, it's just nice to know how many tools trainers have in their box, obviously yours is limited in that case then ;) I'll try not to lose any sleep over my limited tool box. "If it weren't for these talons instead of fingers, I would be able to use a prong - why was I born with these hideous talons???!?!?!" :laugh:

My response was directly related. As you very well know from your long history of arguments here under various user names I do not use prong collars myself. K9Pro is also well aware of this, and he is more interested in finding help for dogs owners than forcing some petty political/moral argument onto them. Every trainer who refers to me does so because they have come to expect that I will actually train the dog rather than bang on about which tool is the best to do it with. Just as I don't care if they use a prong collar, they don't care if I don't. The proof is in the pudding, everything else is internet waffle.

Okay Aidan, let's keep it simple then. What is a reasonable time frame to train the above category of dogs to heel off-leash around distractions? Let's assume the owner is an average pet owner, and let's also assume he is compliant with instructions. What is a reasonable time frame to get the above result? If the owner does their homework and has other people to practise with, 8 weeks should get pleasing results.

I'm confused, are people supposed to turn up and do what the instructor advises them, or turn up with the tool they want and tell the instructor how they would like to be instructed? It's pretty straight forward Aidan, I want to learn how to train using a prong collar, can I book a lesson or two with you to teach me as K9Pro will, yes or no? You're contradicting yourself with every post. In one post you're saying the dog owner should turn up and do what they're told, in the next you're saying the dog owner should turn up and tell the instructor what to do. Make up your mind. Either you go to an instructor because they will figure out the solution for you, or you figure out the solution yourself and go to the instructor to get rid of spare cash/argue.

Whoever puts a Halti on a dog and claims that they trained the dog? That's a separate issue entirely

95% of dog behaviour falls within two standard deviations of the mean (average). If a trainer has trained more than a handful of dogs and has half a brain, they will have a reasonable expectation of how long things will take before even looking at the dog. Dogs who come to private trainers such as myself are often coming because they fall outside of that range. In fact, I do not offer my services outside of referral. So that means at least one other trainer or vet has decided that the dog falls outside the range they are comfortable with and would be better off seeing me in fairness to the dog. If you think you can train a Borzoi to recall to the same standard and in the same time frame as a Kelpie, you have either never met a Borzoi, or are suffering from delusions of grandeur. Why is it that different dogs are selected for different roles? Because they are different. Why is it that working dogs are selected and raised from pups in a certain way? Because their genetics and learning histories are different.

I'm confused, are people supposed to turn up and do what the instructor advises them, or turn up with the tool they want and tell the instructor how they would like to be instructed?

Our local council seems to be fairly reasonable. If anything, a little inactive (unless you happen to be on the beach during summer...) I still wouldn't want to test it though.