|
Post by willow on Sept 7, 2006 14:33:36 GMT -5
Here is a website I found, which explains her training methods/ ideology. www.takingthelead.co.uk/2/ChatHist/jean_donaldson.htm Her answers to these questions were not what I would call ''having a balanced approach to correction", because her idea of correction is time-outs etc., which is all positive approaches. I also found her comment on why male dogs mark in the house interesting. I'm not so sure she is correct on this though. I think a male dog marks in the house or on vehicle tires and every thing else, because he simply has not been taught not to. On the opposite side, however, none of the male dogs I raised from puppies (neutered or intact) ever even tried to mark in our house or anyone else's, or on visitors car tires. ? Good question for the debate section?
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 7, 2006 18:40:21 GMT -5
Hi Willow - ok I'll bite
I have just finished her Dogs are from Neptune book and I thought it made pretty good reading. Interestingly she does discuss non positive options in many of the scenarios and gives fairly detailed reasons why she would not recommend them. In one instance she does discuss a shock collar as an option that might have a reasonable chance of success. She points out the possible side effects, and states that she wouldn't use that option herself and why, but recommends that the author of the question seek out a local trainer who has experience of using these collars if they decide to go down that route.
Obviously she is a purely positive trainer, and is well known and respected as such, but in listing possible solutions to training issues she doesn't completely ignore the possibility of positive punishments. I prefer this approach as we do get to hear her reasoning for rejecting those approaches rather than some positive writers who are more inclined never to mention punishments at all (ostrich act?).
Ultimately we all make our own decisions as regards to training solutions, but whatever your view it is great to read an articulate and intelligent trainer clearly explaining the reasoning for her own preferences.
|
|
|
Post by Am on Sept 7, 2006 22:47:04 GMT -5
I've only read "culture clash".
I thought the content of the book itself was excellent. It put the case for positive, operant based training in a really clear way. I learnt a lot from it, and I'd recommend it to any dog owner or trainer.
However, I didn't like the tone the book was written in. In several places she downright insulted people who choose to use physical punishment or believe in pack theory, calling them stupid and insinuating they were sadistic. That's not only very rude, it's also hypocritical. Why is it verboten to punish dogs, but OK to insult/verbally punish her readers and other trainers for not agreeing with her methods?
I didn't like the way she pushes the halti as "humane" as opposed to "cruel" spiked collars and strangle collars (her term), while rather conveniently forgetting to mention that the halti works by making the dog uncomfortable when he pulls - just like any other correction collar.
Also, she never explains exactly why she thinks negative punishment is so much worse than positive punishment. It's not necessarily more humane - I know plenty of dogs that would rather be told "uh-uh" or even collar corrected, rather than being deprived of dinner or sent to "time out". And anyway, I fail to see how the regular use of mild positive punishment risks damage my relationship with my dog, since dogs use it between themselves all the time.
JMO. I guess on the whole, I liked the book. I just didn't like the tone it was written in.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 7, 2006 23:26:22 GMT -5
'she never explains exactly why she thinks negative punishment is so much worse than positive punishment.'
I think you mean that other way round...
'It's not necessarily more humane - I know plenty of dogs that would rather be told "uh-uh" or even collar corrected, rather than being deprived of dinner or sent to "time out".'
That is true, but I think she makes the point that positive punishment has more chance of having the dog associate the positive punishment with the wrong thing eg in the case of dog aggression a leash pop can come to be assoiciated with the presence of another dog rather than the growling or lunging for which it was intended.
'And anyway, I fail to see how the regular use of mild positive punishment risks damage my relationship with my dog, since dogs use it between themselves all the time.'
I didn't think she set out so much to argue against positive punishment as to argue in favour of positive reinforcement - ie positive punishment is not necessary in most instances and positive reinforcement is her prefered option. I guess in the end this is a similar debate to the whether it is ok to smack your kids - they may, given the choice, prefer a quick smack than to being 'grounded' for a week or losing their mobile phone privileges but many people think that the latter is ok and the former not ok.
'I guess on the whole, I liked the book. I just didn't like the tone it was written in.'
That is interesting. I didn't find that but I have heard several other people say the same so may have to re-read.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 8, 2006 7:47:08 GMT -5
Masha, I have to agree with you. It's not so much the content of her book(s), because there are quite a few points she makes that I agree with, but it is the "tone" they are written in, and her insinuation that anyone who uses negative reinforcement or punishment is barbaric/cruel/un-intelligent. One of the things I agree with her on, however, is the issue of breeder accountability for aggression. On page 114 of "Fight", she asks the question why breeders cannot be held responsible when it can be ascertained that an individual deliberately bred an aggressive dog and it offended. This is her explanation, and I quote: "Part of the reason lies in the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) of behavior that has guided human sociology and psychology for several decades. For well meaning political reasons, the contribution of genetics to behavior has been too hot a potato, and so the model of an absolute or nearly absolute tabula rasa has become official doctrine. SSSM ideas have influenced public policy toward dogs as well..."It is not the dogs "fault", it's how he was raised/trained/not trained/abused/neglected that is to blame, i.e. the owner's fault. Aside from the unsupportable stand that genes do not influence behavior, it's not the dog's "fault" either that he has been bred for characteristics that make it more likely he will harm someone at some point. An obvious example is pitbulls. Decades of breeding for intense, efficient and persevering aggression toward other dogs has resulted in a dog that is, unastonishingly, often extremely aggressive to other dogs. Similarly, decades of breeding "aloofness", "wariness of strangers," "one man" or "one-family" dogs has resulted in, equally obviously breeds that are harder to socialize. They're fine with familiar people but much less comfortable around novel social stimuli. Breeders then expect owners to compensate with extensive socialization, rather than contributing another line of defense by selectively breeding for sociability. If we really want fewer dog bites, redundancy is a good place to start. Genes and rearing. (unquote). I have been saying this all along and not getting anywhere with most of todays behaviorists/trainer's, because most don't take breeding/genes into account in a dogs basic temperament. Kaos: There are a lot of similarities between children and dogs, but the difference between them is that since children understand verbal language, we can reason with them, (usually) ;D but we cannot with our dogs, and this is the mistake most people make, thinking our dogs understand us like our children do when we talk to them. The second mistake they make is using human psychology on them. I do not, and will not accept that a dog understands the reason for a "time-out" the way our children do, but they do understand a quick verbal or physical correction, which has been programed into their genes. I do agree, however, that giving a physical correction in the form of an e-collar or pop on a pinch collar for aggression is effective, for the reasons you stated, but only because most people don't know how to correctly execute the physical corrections, which leads the dog to misinterpret what caused the correction. However, I also do not agree that a dog understands a click/treat or other positive punishment or distraction as well. Very interesting discussion, ladies!
|
|
|
Post by Am on Sept 8, 2006 15:20:08 GMT -5
I think you mean that other way round... I do mean it the other way round - I'm sorry! Late night. She thinks positive punishment is bad, negative punishment is acceptable. But that's not the fault of the form of the punishment - it's being applied wrongly. That can happen with any consequence for an act - even mistimed rewards can be misinterpreted by the dog and reinforce the wrong behaviour. I wouldn't mind at all if she had written a chapter about how vital it is to time positive punishment properly, but I feel by vetoing it completely she's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But you see, this is kind of my point. I don't regularly smack or collar correct my dog. I do regularly tell him "uh-uh" when he's about to do a bad thing, or pull a disapproving face at him. That doesn't hurt or scare him. It merely discourages him from doing what he wants to do. I bet most parents do the same thing with their children. It's not inhumane - it's just part of canine & human communication. I would have been happy if she had written about keeping a good ratio of reward to punishment, or if she had written about how to ensure you don't use punishment that is too harsh for the dog's temperament, or anything like that. But I don't agree with her equating all positive punishment = bad. Positive punishment can be mild, humane and very effective. I do have one more complaint about the book now that I've thought about it - the way Jean Donaldson tried to debunk any use of pack theory or dominance theory, calling it "too stupid for words". Now, I agree that some people overuse the idea of dominance/submission to the point of absurdity (I have seriously talked to trainers who believed that any problem behaviour would be automatically cured if you were only " dominant" enough. If only it were so simple! ) However, IMO, unless you have a respectful relationship with your dog (insert the " d" word here if you like), your dog isn't going to find your praise reinforcing, or your grimace of dismay punishing. If you want to use relationship based consequences such as these, instead of producing food every nth time you ask the dog to get off the sofa, you do IMO need to build a respectful relationship with your dog. That generally means "pack based" methods such as NILIF. This is an interesting discussion. How about the halti thing, Kaos? (Not trying to pick a fight, genuinely interested in what you have to say). To me, it just seems a little hypocritical for her to debunk the idea of positive punishment and training collars, then promote the use of a "humane" halti.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 8, 2006 15:45:49 GMT -5
This is an interesting discussion. How about the halti thing, Kaos? (Not trying to pick a fight, genuinely interested in what you have to say). To me, it just seems a little hypocritical for her to debunk the idea of positive punishment and training collars, then promote the use of a "humane" halti. Am, oops! I apologize...I called you "Masha". Very valid and good points you made and I agree about the Halti. This is the point I am trying to make about Ms. Donaldson too. She says any form of negative punishment is bad, yet some of her methods are very questionable to me, because in her rehab sessions, she does subject other dogs to potential physical and emotional injury from a dog/dog aggressive dog! Is this not cruel also? She also advocates taking your puppy to puppy classes and letting them free play with the other puppies in the class to "socialize" them. She is also all for dogs parks for the same reason....both bad ideas IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Aussienot on Sept 8, 2006 20:51:41 GMT -5
I typed a reply to this thread, previewed it, and thought, wow, there must have been cynic powder in my coffee this morning. So I posted it in Temper Temper instead.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 10, 2006 1:24:26 GMT -5
'There are a lot of similarities between children and dogs, but the difference between them is that since children understand verbal language, we can reason with them, (usually) ;D but we cannot with our dogs, and this is the mistake most people make, thinking our dogs understand us like our children do when we talk to them. The second mistake they make is using human psychology on them.'
Willow, I agree with this statement. I only used the child anology to explain that some people feel that is is inately wrong to positively punish their child or their dog - not for a minute suggesting they should be treated the same way.
'But that's not the fault of the form of the punishment - it's being applied wrongly. That can happen with any consequence for an act - even mistimed rewards can be misinterpreted by the dog and reinforce the wrong behaviour. '
In many cases this is true, but I think Jean goes further than just discussing bad timing and believes that even a well timed leash pop for example in the case of a dog aggressive dog can actually add to the negative feeling the dog has when another dog is in the area. There is also the issue of suppressing warning signals such as growls potentially leading to full blown bites instead. You are right that positive reinforcement can be mistimed too but I guess the consequences are not usually very serious.
'How about the halti thing, Kaos? (Not trying to pick a fight, genuinely interested in what you have to say). To me, it just seems a little hypocritical for her to debunk the idea of positive punishment and training collars, then promote the use of a "humane" halti.'
Yup, I have to agree that I don't think using a halti is a purely positive thing to do strictly speaking, and perhaps this was glossed over somewhat. I would imagine (only guessing) that this is Jean (and some other positive trainers) being a bit pragmatic. Some clients will always struggle controlling their dog on just a flat collar, and I guess the halti is to her the lesser of many evils?
For me personally, I have used a gentle leader on occasions and found it very useful. I have read all the arguments for and against. I don't see them as 'purely positive', and I don't use that label for myself anyway. I think they need to be used carefully, and never misued eg dog on flexi or long line etc.
'I don't regularly smack or collar correct my dog. I do regularly tell him "uh-uh" when he's about to do a bad thing, or pull a disapproving face at him. That doesn't hurt or scare him. It merely discourages him from doing what he wants to do.'
Yup, me too. And to be honest I think you would have to be super-human to stop yourself from changing your tone of voice or body language somewhat. I honestly don't know anybody in 'real life' who doesn't say 'uh uh' and frown at their dog from time to time. I do try not to overdo the disapproving voice with one of my dogs as he is very sensitive and hates being in the wrong, but the other is much thicker skinned, and yes, I admit I do from time to time get a little 'gruffer' with him. Having said that, these days I am making a conscious effort to try to tell my dogs what I do want them to do rather than just saying 'no' or equivalent which is much more effective (when I remember to do it).
I am going to stay out of the 'dog park' debate since I don't really use dog parks. I tend to walk my dogs out in a large forest / beach area as they need long off lead walks and I really can't be bothered with the politics in parks (which are generally too small for my purposes anyway). I do let my dogs meet other off lead dogs they meet out walking unless the other owner indicates a preference not to, and I generally don't walk them in any 'on lead' areas as it seems a bit pointless and neither I nor the dogs enjoy it much. I do think it is important that dogs meet other dogs or they can't learn social skills, and I guess outside of dog parks this is not always easy to arrange. Obviously the downside of dog parks is out of control dogs / aggression / bullying etc.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 10, 2006 1:44:46 GMT -5
Now, I agree that some people overuse the idea of dominance/submission to the point of absurdity (I have seriously talked to trainers who believed that any problem behaviour would be automatically cured if you were only " dominant" enough. If only it were so simple! ) However, IMO, unless you have a respectful relationship with your dog (insert the " d" word here if you like), your dog isn't going to find your praise reinforcing, or your grimace of dismay punishing. If you want to use relationship based consequences such as these, instead of producing food every nth time you ask the dog to get off the sofa, you do IMO need to build a respectful relationship with your dog. That generally means "pack based" methods such as NILIF. Whoops, forgot this bit. I think you are largely right, dogs need leadership and need to have respect for their owners in order for any training regime to have maximum effect. But, I don't think this has to be related directly to pack theory, and in fact doesn't really relate to how dominant your dog is either. I believe that it is actually even more essential that your dog sees you as a leader if he is naturally timid. Without that trust that you as a good leader will look out for his best interests, training in a strange environment for example would probably be impossible. I don't agree that anybody's relationship with their dog is not based on consequences though - NILIF for example relies entirely on consequences, as does training with or without treats?
|
|
|
Post by masha on Sept 10, 2006 4:24:28 GMT -5
Hi - the actual Masha this time!
Its very interesting to read your responses - It shows you how you can read a book and get something completely different from it than some one else. As a person not that experienced in dog training, I had a different experience from reading this book. I have only read Culture Clash, so that is the book I am speaking about.
Firstly, yes, I found her tone sometimes quite offputting. She seems to have a (possibly completely justified) irritation with many dog owners, and often she comes accross as being arogant, and that people who dont agree with her are not just wrong, but stupid, pigheaded and cruel.
But about her attitude to punishment - what she had to say here I found very helpful
"remember, punishment must be:
1) Immediate 2) big 3) doled out every time he misbehaves, without exception 4)associated only with the behaviour."
And goes on to explain why this makes it difficult to use, and also that one needs not just to punish, but to offer an alternative behaviour that can be praised.
Now the way I interpreted this was, OK, I know I have a dog who cannot only be trained using positive techniques. They work (extremely well) up to a point for certain things like agility training, retrieves, etc.
But some behaviour just HAS to be punished using positive punishement (I find the terminology confusing. Am I using it right?) Because of the kind of dog she is, or because I have failed in the way I have trainer her up to now I dont know, but there is no way around the fact that sometimes I have to use positive punishment to correct her. All of these situations I train as much as I can using other techniques to give her alternative things to do, but if she misbehaves, I have to correct her.
Because I am a softy, I do the classic wrong thing. I know I have to correct her, I start too soft, am not consistent, and my timing is bad. What I get from Jean Donaldson (whether or not she means this!) is not that I should not correct my dog, but that if I DO need to correct her (which I can decide for myself) then I must be Effective in the correction, Consistent, and time it well.
Which is what I am working on at the moment!
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Sept 10, 2006 7:51:58 GMT -5
Sorry, gotta jump in here: Whoops, forgot this bit. I think you are largely right, dogs need leadership and need to have respect for their owners in order for any training regime to have maximum effect. But, I don't think this has to be related directly to pack theory, and in fact doesn't really relate to how dominant your dog is either. The paragraph above is a pivotal point in this discussion and in fact, represents almost 100% of how I live and exist with my dogs - as do a few others around here. I agree, dogs need to respect thier owners for training to work properly or for that matter, for the overall human/dog relationship to function properly. BUT, I have to disagree with your statement above that says it's not related to pack theory and how dominate your dog is either. Whether a dog is timid or dominate, a pack theory based structure is essential to make the relationship work. Until some breeder has figured out a way to breed "the pack mentality" out of a dog's DNA, no one can say that it's not important to a dog to have some structure in his/her life based on thier natural needs. Some dogs need structure (i.e. pack mentality) more than others but even then, having any type of structure in palce that the dog is familiar with is important, once again, to the relationship. NILIF is based upon a strong pack leader and setting rules and expectations. To me you can't have it both ways. You can't be laidback with a dominate dog and be a leader with a timid dog. A dominate or timid dog (or any dog in that matter), needs to know you're in charge all the time, that you'll handle any problems and that his/her best interest will be looked after. They also know that you're in charge and don't bother thinking of challenging that authority nor the his/her place in the pack. The strength of leadership should be equal to how strong the rules and expectations need to be enforced. It's not whether the dog is timid or dominate, the pack theory has to be the basis of the relationship and then modified as needed. Consequences need to be set and known by your dog if rules are broken. So if I make the consequences clear to my dogs about what will happen if they bust a rule, they will remember what they can and can't do around the house. They know it's in thier best interest not to try to push thier way through the pack nor cause any problems. I made the mistake of being laid back with Rocky (a very headstrong sheppy) and it almost caused some major headaches. Once I figured out how he thinks and how I needed to address that need, things got a whole lot better - for him and me. Consistency in leadership and understanding what my dogs need to function properly in the pack is how it works best. Having said that, understanding what type of personality your dog is and making adjustments is always necessary to keep a pack functioning properly as well. The problem with some PP people is that they'll always avoid (gloss over) dog problems if they can't be answered within the PP training method and if I can turn a dog around using the pack theory, NILIF, and strong pack leadership, I must be a barbarian or something. I just need to step outside my front door to see the difference when someone has taken the time to understand (pack theory) and train thier dog properly and those who haven't - and lemme tell ya, there is a lot of the latter types around my neighborhood for sure!
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on Sept 10, 2006 10:18:37 GMT -5
I think that the reason that extremist pp dismiss the existence of pack structure and all that goes along with maintaining it, is because the pp hypothesis that dogs do not need correction or "positive punishment" would fail if they admitted its existence. In a wolf pack, if you challenge the alpha or a higher ranked member, you are corrected...quickly and severely. Have you ever seen a pack of wolves. They spend a large part of the day reenforcing their status in the pack by aggressing on underlings and the underlings submit. The entire pack does this to omega. It is hard to watch. Omega is there to release the stress of the higher wolves so they stay as a harmonious pack. Pack structure requires assertion, reinforcing your leadership status and invariably correction to keep the pack together and harmonious. If we agree that dogs have the instincts of their ancestors you cannot say that this isn't necessary in their lives. But, this is inconsistent with extremist pp and so they say there is no such thing. You don’t want facts to get in the way of a hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 10, 2006 10:36:30 GMT -5
Good point!
I also recently watched a program on a wolf pack and after the mate of the Alpha male wolf died, he chose the least likely of the remaining females to be his mate. I don't remember if she was the Omega, but I seem to remember she was, and the behaviorists studying the pack were all very surprised!
So it doesn't hold true what a lot of people think/say either, that the next in line is the next " dominant" etc.
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on Sept 10, 2006 12:04:57 GMT -5
I saw that one too!! There were two females that he was to choose from. One was constantly after him catering to his every need. The other was aloof. She really could care less. She went off on her own a lot. He chose the aloof one because her personality was strong and alpha like. The other one was too desperate and needy. Is that the show you saw.
Also I saw one where the humans moved the pack to a better location. Omega was too afraid to get out of his cage. The pack was walking away and alpha stopped and then they all stopped. Alpha then went back to the cage and gently coaxed omega to come. Alpha is also very kind. It was very cool.
|
|