by apple on 28 May 2019 - 18:05
by Centurian on 28 May 2019 - 19:05
Apple two thumbs up .
Great post . But I will add , not entirely . We need to bring in classical conditioning sometimes when we teach . Many times we teach an Instrumentaly or Operantly Conditioned Behavior / Response , but a better performance of with some** Behaviors is when we transform that taught Operantly or Instumentally Conditioned Behavior into A Classically Conditioned Behavior .
Apple I have to talk to the people sometime , not meaning you ** , about their terminology that they put out as a business and promote : I am talig about the 'punishment bit' terminology . I know Apple , you are probably thinking as some reading this : " do you think you know better than these people " ... I am not being cockey , but with humility and humbleness , my reply to them would be : " Yes , I do " . For I spent many decades in my life and I earned the right to be able to say that . This is not the BEST way to describe what is being done or should be done . BTW - I also need to tell them that the laws of learning , the learning fundamentals are just that .. learning fundamentals , not pillars. Those fundamentals have been around academically for more than 70 years. And they didn't call them pillars decades , a half century + ago either . But Apple , I know you are simply stating the buzz lingo that is currently being used for communication sake.
If you want what to know what my thoughts are you are more than welcome to PM me. I write this because I pontificated in previous posts : People in the dog industry , they love giving the impression that teaching a dog is so difficult- like everybody needs some special secret knowledge.
by ValK on 29 May 2019 - 15:05
apple, i don't give a damn about terminology and don't care about assessment of imaginary dog. in the past we simply don't have access to tons of books about dog training. now i can read them and become aware - 90% of writing is highly sophisticated BS with sole purpose to impress readers through ornate verbiage and not much of substance.
in real life everything starts through goal oriented breeding with following selection of suitable specimens and washing out failures.
dogs very early in their life shows their potential. the truth is simple - if dogs been bred to be a pet then use them as such. don't pretend that after training that dog will become something else. if dog do become excited from seeing moving object, you can teach him to abstain from chasing but some day it will fail. if dog live for bite, it will last in dog for rest of his life, regardless how good dog been trained.
by Juno on 29 May 2019 - 15:05
No I really don’t care about the Spanish walk. I am more disappointed in my lack of ability to instill the proper obedience in him. Strong genetics (in this case I am referring to strong willed and handler hard combined with high hunt drive) can be great if the handler is skilled enough to channel it but can work against you if the handler (such as I) is not skilled enough to control a dog such as mine. I have control over him for “most” commands, but when it comes to activities he really enjoys- biting, chasing prey objects, etc then the control diminishes exponentially. So that is what I am referring to - the weak point is me in this team.
by apple on 29 May 2019 - 16:05
In the past, state run lotteries were a moral outrage and some physicians thought smoking cigarettes was the best way to relieve pregnancy constipation.
Valk wrote-"If dog live for bite, it will last in dog for rest of his life, regardless how good dog has been trained."
Saying a dog lives for biting is an empty statement and anthropomorphizing. A fear biter might "live for bite." Dogs that "live for bite" are very rare. They might have true social aggression, dominance behavior, and/or even rage. Social aggression has been selected away from and dominance behavior is not manageable except in the right amounts. Rage is generally not selected for in breeding. All dogs are different and are a combination of different drives, traits, and thresholds that are promoted and manipulated through training. So there are many combinations of components that make up a dog that through training result in a dog that is willing to fight a person. You have to be able to identify those components accurately in order to know what to promote and manipulate. Training isn't rocket science but it is also not pouring piss out of a boot with the directions on the heel.
by Juno on 29 May 2019 - 18:05
by Juno on 29 May 2019 - 18:05
by ValK on 29 May 2019 - 20:05
apple, sorry, i'm not expert on pregnancy and lottery, so will abstain from discussing that matters.
but agree with you, aggressive dogs indeed have become rare.
i already mentioned - at border they weren't bred dogs with consideration that some of them will be settled in family environment.
they bred dogs for own needs and purpose and selected suitable dogs among dogs, in whom prevailed active aggression.
no one was care what will happen to dogs, who failed. in my time at least things did move to more humane solution. before that, dogs, who fail, was simply killed.
in regard of "fear biter, living for bite" another BS. priority of such dog always lays in avoiding direct physical interaction with possible opponent, at least if it's not clear for dog that target had been already afraid or dog have been cornered with no way to escape.
you can classify aggression whatever you like. for me it's just that, an aggression, divided only into two types - active and passive. everything else depends on many other traits, which trigger and support that state of dog.
to be honest, i was dazed, when first time saw widely practiced in the west trick - agitate dog with following demonstration of fear and run away.
goal is obvious and does serve it's purpose but i really don't wanna a dog, who in need of such exercise.
by Juno on 29 May 2019 - 20:05
by Juno on 29 May 2019 - 20:05
You must be logged in to reply to posts