by susie on 14 December 2018 - 17:12
A big to apple...
by apple on 14 December 2018 - 17:12
by emoryg on 14 December 2018 - 18:12
Apple, thank you for taking the time to explain 'how to to teach a dog to learn' and 'defining compulsion'. I am a scientist by education, so anytime there is a debate or discussion I try to neutralize my opionins and beliefs and listen to the different participants to form my own unbiased conculsions.
by Prager on 14 December 2018 - 19:12
Apple:, which is analogous to exposing pups and young dogs to compulsion when it is much better to teach them how to learn and use positive reinforcement.
Hans: as I said abusing hickory stick on 1st grader is not analogous to all training under stress. Also, I have not said training under the stress is better I have said that it is more memorable and faster retaining. At least that is what the scientific study says and what to me my common sense said. What is "better" is too conversational and not based on truth but based on personal opinion often influenced by political correctness.
Rather than a "hickory stick" I had on my mind a negative reinforcement of teaching let say down while pushing on the leash which is adding stress and it is not abusing like a hickory stick on 1st grader ( your example) would be.
A statement that positive reinforcement is" much better" is indicative of PC + only crowd and is indicative of total lack of understanding how balanced training works. Proper training uses positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment and uses is as needed and not as PC agenda prescribes to the PC trainer. The balanced training does not a priory and arbitrarily prefer any part of conditioning and uses it instead as needed and required by the need which training demands at any given time and training stage.
BTW I am still waiting for the answer to my question. Whom will you remember faster and for a longer time? A person who just walks by or person who while walking by kicks you in genitals.:)?
by Prager on 14 December 2018 - 19:12
The second post you made above is just a PC crap laced with lies and deception and misrepresentation of what +/- training is. That is especially when you need to justify + only approach accusing of anyone who disagrees with you, that they are using "punishing of dog for not doing something, especially when the dog hasn't even learned what you want, you create conflict and damage the relationship." Or saying " You won't see this with a foundation of compulsion/negative reinforcement/punishment." Who does such nonsense?! Nobody sane. Thus by such RIDICULOUS statements, you are basically deceiving an independent reader indicating that the "other trainers' besides you and the ones of your ilk, are using only (- ) like a Hickory stick on a 1st grader. i.e and I quote: "compulsion/negative reinforcement/punishment". Such is a wilful misrepresentation of +/- training which you are conducting here to justify + only training as YOU ARE DESCRIBING IT.
At this point, in order to understand what I am saying, I will strongly urge an independent leader to learn and understand what is "negative reinforcement" - it is not a correction. I will stress out that negative reinforcement i.e. removing something usually less than pleasant upon the response of the dog is absolutely necessary for the establishment of the leadership position which is quite different from being a "boss" as you inadequately and falsely state.
The truth about +/- training which you are conveniently omitting to mention, while misrepresenting what +/- training is, is irresponsible and basically a bald-faced lie. In case you did not notice let me alert you to 2 symbols which are part of +/- . They are plus (+) and minus (-). These symbols are indicating that what you call Old style trainers besides (-) uses (+) just as much as (+) only trainers which you erroneously and intentionally omitted to state. It is total fallacy to say that through (+) only trainer can establish a leadership position. Anybody who denies that as you do is teaching falsehood. All 4 quadrants of operant conditioning MUST be part of any balanced training and it must be used as necessary as a part of the learning which includes learning of negative consequences. That is of course, ONLY(!!!!!) AFTER THE DOG UNDERSTAND THE COMMAND.
In the end I will say that if you do not understand the difference of term "leader" which is my term and "Boss" which is your term yet again falsely ascribed to what I am saying, then please go back to square one of understanding dog training before you address me again
by Prager on 14 December 2018 - 20:12
The problem with such training is that dogs in everyday life are not in drive and do not respond in the drive akin to the dog in IPO field competition.
The dog in everyday life must respond to our commands when he is not in drive. And If you teach as apple describes which is in drive then why should the dog respond when he is not in drive?
On top of it, training with treats makes the dog be motivated by the reward of treats. Such motivation, however, is not enough when the dog encounters something which motivates him more than our stupid treats. Like deer. Then our training with treats is overridden by new more enticing motivation and we have a dog chasing deer across the freeway.
Thus is it not important to have a dog to be happy but to be reliable. For that you must not succumb to PC training wich eliminates any pillar of operant conditioning for sake of the dog looking happy.
In training, the foremost and THE FIRST thing you need to teach the dog is that you are the leader. To push this to later date as JJ or Apple is suggesting is not enough. If the dog learns that like in apple's explanations we are some kind of a partner in a fun, joyous happy go lucky game while the dog is in the drive, then that will be an impression the dog will have for rest of his life. He will see you you as a partner in training man who feeds me and picks my shit but not as a leader. There is no way you can make a second first impression on such dog and establish leadership at later date. Not very easily anyway. You want to from get go IMPRINT on the dog that you are a leader and there is no better way to do it then through obedience out of the drive.
by Prager on 14 December 2018 - 20:12
example of stress training:
many may wonder what am I talking about when I am talking about training while under stress. Apple painted here a RIDICULOUS example of "teacher beating a 1st grader with a Hickory stick:" Or "punishing him for not responding for something he does not know. " Or learning by falling of the roof(?!?) Well, read further and you be the judge if joyous, nonstress, nonpressure cookie training in a drive is better then what I am describing below.
Go to the shallow creek and jump over it and call the pup to come and to ford the creek. You do so while you are walking away from the pup further and further while repeatedly calling the pup to "come!". You do so until the stress of the being left behind will override the stress of fear of fording the shallow creek and the pup eventually fords the creek and comes to you, while you are vigorously praising him with pet and voice while the pup is totally happy "joyous" and elated that he is with you. This way you teach a very strong come out of drive(!!!) and build in the pup response based on packing reflex and you do it via stress of mild separation anxiety which in this case is triggered by command "Came!" this exercise besides teaching the dog to come is also teaching that you are the leader due to reflex triggering instinct following you - the packing member and thus to the pup's a natural leader. It also teaches him that he can overcome obstacles and that builds confidence, courage and dexterity and desire to overcome any obstacles in a future life. This is all done through negative reinforcement which Apple would make you believe should be eliminated from teaching a dog. Please take notice, that in order to induce a stress we did not use apple's "hickory stick" or any other kind of abuse and the dog was trained under stress to respond while not in drive,...which is exceedingly important. And on top of it, the dog learns to work for us and with us. This is an example of dog working with us since he fords the creek with us as a team member. This is exceptionally important for a future working dog. Such teaching of "come" under stress is infinitesimally stronger than calling a pup to food reward and has many other redeeming values.
by Prager on 14 December 2018 - 21:12
There is also training using 2 stresses.
The example of creek fording is such 2 stress training. Let say you have pup or dog who is afraid of water, high bridges, shiny floors or gunfire and so on. You can teach the dog not to be apprehensive of these environmental stresses and you do it by inducing other stronger stress which eventually overrides the fear of the stress of water, high bridges, shiny floors or gunfire and so on. In the creek example, it is stress by inherited instinct of separation anxiety on command. There are other ways to stress dog to do this and I assure you that you do not need to beat him with a hickory stick or throw him from the roof as Apple suggested that that is a way I would do it. Such elimination of the original fear by double stress exercise is quick and permanent. Now you can do this with cookies - your choice. I prefer training with double stress because such dog then works for me and with me and not for the cookie and not for himself. But that is just me. :)
Think out of a box of bumper sticker cliches training. Happy training.
by Koots on 14 December 2018 - 22:12
Prager - what makes you think that dogs learn the same way as people do? You say that scientific studies prove your assertions that learning under some stress is retained better, but those studies are on HUMANS, are they not? Dogs learn by association - action/reaction - which is different than the many ways people learn.
by Jessejones on 15 December 2018 - 00:12
So I‘ve been gone for several days....and just checked the thread again....and low and behold, Prager is still arguing like a maniac.
Some of what Prager is saying is such crap. I don‘t even know where to begin.
Therefore, I would find it incredibly funny, if we all left him here along to argue with himself. He has made several 180 degree turn arounds in this thread....and yet still, some of what he is saying in his last 3 or 4 comments is just ludicrous.
I can‘t even begin to copy and paste some errors in order to reply.
Prager, you are a disrupter and not much else.
One thing I do see, is that you have boned up a bit on Marker Training...but not quite enough yet, to see the error of some statements.