Aidan3

All dogs do not have equal potential regardless of training style. I have no idea why you imagined I said otherwise when it's so self-evidently true.

Who knows what anything I say appears like to you? :laugh:

Studies of choice behaviour have consistently and repeatedly demonstrated that we can trump a big reward with lots of little rewards. So you don't necessarily need a better reward (or stronger negative reinforcer), but yes, overcoming a sighthound's drive to chase takes a lot more work! Why not use an Ecollar correction to flatten the drive to chase live prey? People make choices based on their own reasons, but as far as I know you are free to do that if you like.

Studies of choice behaviour have consistently and repeatedly demonstrated that we can trump a big reward with lots of little rewards. So you don't necessarily need a better reward (or stronger negative reinforcer), but yes, overcoming a sighthound's drive to chase takes a lot more work! I do find however that a Jack Pot sometimes gets through really well where smaller treats might not be quite doing it. When training Digby not to eat a person with a camera, I used Jack pot reward (1 repetition per day, and 1 Jack pot) and it seemed to work exceptionally well. Classical conditioning?

Slow down! :laugh:

Studies of choice behaviour have consistently and repeatedly demonstrated that we can trump a big reward with lots of little rewards. So you don't necessarily need a better reward (or stronger negative reinforcer), but yes, overcoming a sighthound's drive to chase takes a lot more work!

I have one client who has an absolutely consistent and untainted "yesss", but by and large I feel like I'm pushing uphill to get someone to be as consistent as they need to be :laugh: In my experience the clicker is faster and more precise. I aim for a rate of reinforcement of 30 clicks/minute and adjust criteria to maintain that, it's hard to keep up (and tiring) if you're using a verbal marker. When you're no longer shaping, your rate of reinforcement is lower so it's easy to use a verbal bridge. It's plausible that a non-verbal sound can be more powerful because it's easily recognised and takes a quicker route in the dog's brain, it doesn't require cortical processing. There is a theoretical underpinning beneath that comment, but as far as I know no-one has set up an experiment to see if this translates to a practical benefit. Similarly, we can respond faster by pressing a button than articulating a sound. That has been tested. You'll always find some people who can't walk and chew gum at the same time and a verbal bridge, slower rate of reinforcement, lower criteria for the dog is better for those people.

Of course this is true, but in the longer term a properly constructed reinforcement history will overcome that. To a point yes, but it will never be as reliable as a dog with greater genetic focus for handler induced prey which can be determined in puppies at 6 to 7 weeks old and becomes part of common puppy selection process in a working dog. I would be the last person to suggest that all dogs have equal potential.

Of course this is true, but in the longer term a properly constructed reinforcement history will overcome that.

I would question how many trainers claiming +R are applying the science of it as most I have seen in practice are simply luring and chucking a few rewards around......maybe the reason why it appears not to be working reliably in mainstream training perhaps? Possibly, I think you get a range of abilities, like anything else. If training of trainers were less political and more technical I think we'd see an improvement in ability overall. It's actually very simple, but the simple stuff gets overlooked. Throw in a bit of emotional stuff ("I can't let him get away with that", "I don't want to reinforce the wrong thing", "it's stressful to withhold a reward", "dogs aren't dolphins/chickens/pigeons" etc) and you're suddenly well off the track. Personally I think clicker training is cumbersome and takes a skill level higher than what the average dog owner has to correctly apply it. I have found co-ordination and timing is more accurate using marker words, that is they seem more adapt at using their voice at the opportune moment than pressing the clicker. I usually start people off without a clicker, and then when they have some of the mechanics of training on auto-pilot we put a clicker in their hands and things take off. For work with reactive dogs there is nothing more precise, and more predictive of a reinforcer, than a clicker.

Not usually, they learn the cues that the click is for them or not very quickly.

If it were a large exotic, you'd be maimed or dead. But there is a world of difference between training with the science of +R and just chucking a few rewards into your training.

Again it's not about whether it can be achieved with rewards only, it's about what can be achieved in a reasonable amount of time within the skill limit of the owner. There's no surprise or question IMO about what can be achieved with the use of rewards. Didn't the OP have this exact question? And as I said in my OP what is best or right for each dog depends on many factors. We cannot make a blanket statement of "x method is always best for every dog and owner" as there are far too many variables involved. There's no question rewards are a powerful tool as corrections are also a powerful tool. But some people would have us believe that it's the tool that's broken, not the application :laugh:

That's clearly not what I said. Have you sought some assistance from your local dog sports club for this problem?

It really shouldn't be aversive, though. I'd feel like I'd failed to explain what I wanted, or asked too much, if a dog I was training actually got stressed about a reward being withheld, or didn't use a NRM as an opportunity to try something different. Do you really think there is no stress at all involved with removal of a reward? Sorry, but I just can't buy it and science doesn't either. We know removing a high value reward is stressful to a dog. It's stressful to people too. IMO there is stress in all learning and I don't think that's a bad thing. If removing a reward or giving a NRM created no stress in the dog at all it wouldn't be effective. Be careful to make the distinction that OsoSwift and I were talking about withholding a reward, not removing a reward. Withholding a reward is an extinction procedure, and whilst extinction can be aversive, it usually isn't and is easy to manage so that it isn't. Punishing a response by removing a stimulus or access to a stimulus is negative punishment, and that's a different kettle of fish.

Again it's not about whether it can be achieved with rewards only, it's about what can be achieved in a reasonable amount of time within the skill limit of the owner. There's no surprise or question IMO about what can be achieved with the use of rewards. Didn't the OP have this exact question?

For what purpose or advantage over the prong collar work which took 3 corrections to stop the dog lunging from a 3 year old habit in a timeframe of 30 minutes. R+ is faster than that, more reliable what? You make it sound so simple, has it stopped your dog getting upset at the vet?

It really shouldn't be aversive, though. I'd feel like I'd failed to explain what I wanted, or asked too much, if a dog I was training actually got stressed about a reward being withheld, or didn't use a NRM as an opportunity to try something different.

Anything really, so long as there is audio as well. If they just have a phone at the ready to capture it, there's no need to capture the entire performance. If they get some, PM me just in case I miss it here.

That's what I would call waving around a reward and hoping that "drive" will get them through a litany of poor training decisions. It's not training using the science of positive reinforcement, it's training as a craft with "rewards". Or they could have trained the dog properly with +R. So could you, for that matter. You might be surprised at what happens with some good instruction. In a sterile environment yes absolutely.....where it falls over is in the face of distraction If you're waving a reward around hoping that drive will get you through, that's what happens and it's entirely predictable. I'm not sure how sterile the environment is when wild dolphins are trained within 3 months to perform complex missions over large distances in the open ocean.

If he's muzzled why do you need to "choke him out"?

No, it doesn't. It depends on whether you are actually reinforcing the dog or just offering a reward and hoping "drive" will get you through a litany of poor training decisions.

It's helpful but without seeing it it's hard to know whether I'd be making a good suggestion or not.

Can you get post some video of one of these 'panic attacks'?

What you use as a reward does come into the equation, but if this problem comes up the trainer needs to re-evaluate what the handler is doing and teach them how to overcome this. It really should not be about one reward being in competition with another. That, by definition, would not be training with positive reinforcement.