koalathebear Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) Article is here. It's long, but it's quite interesting. Not endorsing it - we have clickers in this household Then again, I don't own a Fila Brasiliero. Edited October 23, 2010 by koalathebear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huski Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) Wow, he's certainly got a very narrow view point and has put anyone who uses PR and/or clicker training in the same box. Not everyone who uses PR or clicker training is a purely positive trainer, either. Besides which, I don't think of clickers as an entire training method or philosophy, to me they are just a tool that helps me communicate more clearly to my dog. Are there some instances where PR is not useful? Sure, of course there are. But that doesn't make it (or clicker training) useless or means that anyone who uses either are wimps who have spoilt, out of control dogs who are never disciplined and walk all over them. Overall I found the article quite distasteful. Edited October 23, 2010 by huski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sas Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 I'm not a purely positive trainer and believe in delivering adversives where I feel required and use the clicker. Sounds like a hater.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huski Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) Sounds like a hater.... Yes you always have to wonder when someone is so extreme or hateful towards any training method. Edited October 23, 2010 by huski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koalathebear Posted October 23, 2010 Author Share Posted October 23, 2010 Yes you always have to wonder when someone is so extreme or hateful towards any training method. Maybe the sound of a clicker reminds him of a childhood trauma ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkySoaringMagpie Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 It misrepresents clicker trainers and conflates them with positive trainers which is an error at best and lazy propaganda at worst. There is a lot of overlap between the two but not all clicker trainers are purely or even mostly positive. I'd like to see him in a debate with Shirley Chong, my money would be on Shirley. I always find it amusing when people characterise science as something they "don't believe". It's not a faith based question, the principles of clicker training are well established. Just because clicker training is not the right tool for every situation does not make it a bad tool. No tool is universal in application and SOME of its followers suggesting it is still does not make it a bad tool. It's just a tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 The only thing I don't believe in are those who are close-minded enough to exclude training regimes, practices and tools that they don't believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 Didn't read too far as it is a complete load of rubbish. If he had done any research he will find that any positive clicker trainer will also say that you can click and punish, so you click when the dog does the wrong thing then give the adversive. The clicker is just a little box that clicks, not sure how it manages to do all the things he says. Clicker Training is based upon a theory called Operant Conditioning. Those who believe that all behavior is explained by Operant Conditioning also believe:1. All animals, including humans, are fixed-program machines 2. There is no such thing as love, joy, sadness, fear or any other kind of emotion… or it is irrelevant for the study and practice of training or behavior modification 3. Humans are incapable of free will, internal motivation, reason or conscious thought — animals have internal motivations, but that is irrelevant — we are all machines, controlled entirely by our environment 4. Animals are just specimens to be poked, experimented on, caged, and eventually dissected for examination. 5. It is inhumane to ask a dog to inhibit a behavior, such as teaching a “leave it” command, or to teach a dog it MUST do something 6. That any other training approach is either cruel or completely ineffective This bit is just totally insane. Me thinks he tried it, it didn't work necause he didn't know the little box is just a box that makes noise so therefore couldn't get any dogs to listen to him. Mine are clicker trained, but also know leave it, they do get growled at if needed and I am not into disection-how can he even come up with this rubbish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 The only thing I don't believe in are those who are close-minded enough to exclude training regimes, practices and tools that they don't believe in. Brilliant, I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spottychick Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 Yes, it seems he built a "straw man" to knock down so that he sounds like he's got the answer. I find that objectionable. Of course some of his points are valid along the way. That's how 'straw men' theories work. I agree - clicker training's just a tool, like any other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) He also doesn't believe in operant conditioning, claiming that it is obsolete. His ignorance of everything from psychology to marine mammal training is stunning. Then again, a recent survey in the US suggested that 20% of respondents believe that the sun revolves around the earth. I do agree with his definition that "clicker training" is a sub-set of operant conditioning, although of course you can use a clicker in conjunction with any method you wish. It was interesting that he chose to use the Brelands paper "Misbehavior of Organisms" as the basis of his argument, and claimed that you cannot train a wild dolphin in the open ocean using clicker training. The very same Marion Breland actually taught me quite a lot about clicker training when I first started, she was a wonderful teacher. Her second husband, Bob Bailey trained a lot of dolphins in the open ocean. He would take wild caught dolphins, and within 3 months have them trained to perform very long missions in the open ocean. Free to escape, free to hunt for their own food - yet they did not do either of these things! Edited October 23, 2010 by Aidan2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiesha09 Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 He has absolutely no idea. Has he ever even met a clicker trainer. For example I am a purely positive clicker trainer and know alot of others too. One of the main aspects of it is about leadership, particularly by implementing programs like NILF. Therefore his quote below is rubbish!!!! Oh… I should have mentioned, the concept of “leadership” or “pack leader” is rejected by those who teach Operant Conditioning / Clicker Training)/quote]He also assumes that positive is permissive, which certainly isn't the case either. Gah his ignorance is intolerable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Rusty Bucket Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 He makes a whole bunch of invalid assumptions about what clicker training is and then proceeds to rubbish something based on a big stack of nothing. And I couldn't find anywhere that he offered up some alternative method. Operant conditioning applies equally well to negative consequences as positive ones. Yet another attack on "educated" people. Ie if it's based on scientific study it must be crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddy Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 This article lost me at the inane list at the start but judging from what others here have said, I didn't miss a whole lot. 4. Animals are just specimens to be poked, experimented on, caged, and eventually dissected for examination. The hell does this have to do with clicker training or the principles behind it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavik Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 He also lost me at the list at the start. Very strange. Almost sounded like he was going to say clicker training and training in general was cruel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 Even discussing how ridiculous the article is gives it more attention than it deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussielover Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 The only thing I don't believe in are those who are close-minded enough to exclude training regimes, practices and tools that they don't believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovemesideways Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) What a idiot. There is a whole bunch of other wanky articles, like when your dog should be allowed to bite...which I just find a really strange thing to write about. He also believes any dog he deems to be "vicious" should be put down. Like say, a fear biter? Nope, no training, kill it! http://samthedogtrainer.com/articles/when-...-a-dog-to-bite/ But a dog who mauls someone that tries to touch his food? (as long as its someone elses dog, not yours!) that is ok, because its the dogs stuff... Maybe I'm reading it wrong? Even discussing how ridiculous the article is gives it more attention than it deserves. Ditto. Edited October 23, 2010 by lovemesideways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koalathebear Posted October 24, 2010 Author Share Posted October 24, 2010 Even discussing how ridiculous the article is gives it more attention than it deserves. I thought it was interesting because it was so anti-clicker. All of the stuff I've been given/told has always been so pro-clicker so for me it was interesting to hear such strong opposition towards it. I don't agree because I actually like using the clicker but I always do like reading what The Other Side has to say even if I don't agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 (edited) I suspect the author is anti- B.F. Skinner, and probably thinks Karon Pryor is all of clicker training. When I was younger there were some 'operant conditioning' fanatics around who seemed to be of the mindset he ascribes to clicker trainers. Maybe they still exist somewhere. And I have met some people who carry the 'all positive' attitude to an extreme and/or use it as an excuse for leaving their dogs pretty much untrained; and some dogs whose behavioural problems would be pretty hard for the average Joe with the average low level of comittment to training to fix using clicker training. Edited October 24, 2010 by sandgrubber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now