I think treat training is cruel. - Page 41

JJ; If you use force in the teaching stage...what will you get?
You’ll get a dog used to force.



Hans: if you consider negative reinforcement "a force" then you will not get the dog used to force as you are erroneously saying, but actually you will get a dog who will learn to avoid force and that way gets a pleasant reward of removing the force and praise with voice and pet. \
It is absolutely improper training to avoid one or more quadrants of operant conditioning during training. Such training leads to potential problems and it is unnatural.
FYI Negative reinforcement is an actually positive( likable) way to train because you are rewarding the dog with the removal of opposing ( unpleasant) force. Dog at the same times learns that you are in a leadership position because you are controlling his action without the dog's ability to refuse. This isan extremlly important in future social situations. There is nothing more important than to teach the dog that they do not have the option to refuse what you are asking them to do. that is a default we are striving to have in a reliable dog. This is more important than any specific command by itself.
The problem here is that opposing view here does not consider that the commands themselves are unimportant if the dog doesn't recognize you as a leader and you allow him to give him first impressions where they learn that he does not need to obey if stimulus in front of him is more important to him then the pleasant reward in form of food or toy in your hand. That is a fact regardless of what PC, evolved, enlightened, crowd would like you to believe.

I don’t know what kind of dogs you have. I know what you like in a dog though, through your comments.

unfortunately at present i don't have dog but still (seems hopelessly) looking for one.

honestly i don't like when dog described as "tough" in meaning as main good trait of that dog.
that term did become sort of perversion, placed on anything acting in the rough/aggressive manner, without paying an attention to motives behind of that acting.
in first place the german shepherd dog should be (physically and mentally) strong.
strong enough to become tough when needs arise.

in other circumstances it's just normal intelligent dog, who's calm, not thriving for attention, mostly indifferent to neutral surrounding and do not carving for affinity from everyone around him.

As for stress and learning. This is why I like negative reinforcement. You can induce an opposition reflex and the dog has to work through the stress and give into the handler and therefor pay respect and gets paid on top of it. It is THE most powerful tool in dog training that is available. You can take control back that has been given to the dog for way too long and set boundaries. This is incredibly valuabe with insecure dogs that do not want to be in control and have become reactive. It's also incredibly valuabe with dogs that have learned they can get away with shit if they throw a good enough tantrum. It also works with dogs that learned aggression is a way out.

All these dogs have to work through stress and negative reinforcement is one of my favorite tools to use to teach a dog how to learn to walk on a loose leash, give into the handler, learn some respect, and you can condition the heck out of it and mark it with the clicker as soon as the dog gives in.

It's so powerful I've turned dogs around within an hour and a half of working them through tantrums just by not giving into the dog.


As for the comment that some people know training and some people know dogs. In order to train the dog you have to know the dog... it never either or. It's always a mix of both. You can't just know training without knowing dogs. At least I can't. For me it goes hand in hand. That being said, there are some textbook trainers that know training theory without knowing dogs for sure. But training theory itself isn't effective.

Right now I'm getting an influx of Hounds that are imported from the south. A lot of Coonhounds. Strong minded dogs. Different from our shepherds but overall really nice dogs with a strong mind and confidence. I love the way a confident Coonhound carries itself and have yet to see a shitty one. Shitton of Beagles and I could also hold an entire class with just Great Danes.

And I love me a field bred Lab. One day I really want a Lab, they have seriously grown on me. And let's not talk aobut the Huskies... everyone here, especially military, wants a Husky because it's the darn Northcountry.

BE, I support what you are saying there about one of the best tools at our disposal is the 'never give in to the dog' one !

On the 'some people know training, and some people know dogs' thing, raised by Rik, actually I disagree with your saying it HAS
to be both ... or rather, I think what happens is that there are 'trainers' operating who can Train,-by-the-book; but will never be really good at it because they DON'T know dogs. Same applies to a fair few 'Behaviourists' (who invariably seem to subscribe to the 'new' training principles), they have done the study qualifications but try to practice (and charge) for something they have never actually experienced. These often don't actually 'know people', either - and I think most here would agree that at least 50% of Training, or more depending on circumstances, rests around understanding of, and patience with, the owners, yes ?

Prager,you still confound "teaching" with "training"...
As far as I understood NOBODY participating in this topic denied the sense of the 4 quadrants, and NOBODY denied that it's crucial to establish a leadership position ...go figure.

Marker training is about trial, error, confirmation - the ability to learn without pressure during the TEACHING process (NOT the training process ), and the possibility to "mark" certain behavior later on in time as a perfect confirmation (now we are talking about "training process")...

But any kind of "training" presupposes already learned and understood behavior (teaching)...

And right here is the main difference between marker training and classic training -
The marker trained dog figured out by himself, he "understood" because of action, whereas the classical teached dog is able to react only...

In case you still don't understand I give up 😣

Off topic right now, but modern, very successful schools do teach children pretty similar...

The result of 40+ pages?
None, besides the overwhelming majority saying :
Treat=cruel? What the f...

Hans: if you consider negative reinforcement "a force" then you will not get the dog used to force as you are erroneously saying, but actually you will get a dog who will learn to avoid force and that way gets a pleasant reward of removing the force and praise with voice and pet. \ It is absolutely improper training to avoid one or more quadrants of operant conditioning during training. Such training leads to potential problems and it is unnatural.

Prager-

I did discuss the forced sit..instead of the forced down...true. But same prinicple and my comments on 38/9 still apply.

Out of one side of your mouth you are now lately agreeing that marker training uses all 4 quadrants....and out of the other side of your mouth, you still keep saying is it just like “all positive training” and doesn’t show leadership. Well, which is it? 

Suzie is calling you out once again too. There is no way this should have gone on for 40 pages. MT is for teaching and is not an “only positive training” method for sissies. 

Negative reinforcement:

Neg. reinforcement is a very powerful tool if used in the right way. Very effective if done right. Yes, BE, Great for dogs that have learned to throw tantrums. But you have to know your dog and base the level on the dog.

There are many ways to do it, and many levels of correction➡️relief when the behavior is accomplished, that are possible.

But, if it is used too often....incorrectly, or too strongly, you might just get something you do not want....

Like a dog going into avoidance, going into fear, going into aggression, shutting down....or, and this is what I see most from poeple that think they know how to use it, but don’t...is simply a dog that has lost a spark in the eyes, might hold the head lower, might go into eye-contact avoidance, bad body posture, no joy in the eyes, or robotic movements, or jumpy movements.

So this is a powerful tool for sure...but also to be careful of depending on level of punishment (in the old sense of the word)...and only used correctly... and with careful observation of the dog while using it. So as to not over use it and get side-effects like the showing frustration or shutdown from the dog. (at whatever level - the devil is in the details)  

Some will say, ‘well, then it was a weak nerved dog anyway! Maybe...maybe not, we can’t say as each case is different, but, many people do have pups/dogs without the best nerves - which can’t, nor should, be swept under the carpet.

Leadership comes from much more than just physically dominating a dog, and that is another whole topic.

 

 

Prager says:

The problem here is that opposing view here does not consider that the commands themselves are unimportant if the dog doesn't recognize you as a leader and you allow him to give him first impressions where they learn that he does not need to obey if stimulus in front of him is more important to him then the pleasant reward in form of food or toy in your hand. That is a fact regardless of what PC, evolved, enlightened, crowd would like you to believe.

Prager-

What opposing view? Who? Who are you talking about? Surely not one person on the thread claims that.

Who, on this thread, ever said that the dog does not need to obey?
 

When has the “opposing” view on this thread ever said ANYTHING REMOTELY like “the dog need not obey”? 

 

No trainer/teacher worth their salt would allow a dog to get away with non compliance when training already taught behaviors. Again, sheer over the top generalization.

 

If you are taking novice pet owners, of course there are many that don’t know how to train effectively, a la big box Pet store training... or any training at all. But don’t equate any one here with that. ...as the ‘opposing’ PC view.

 

Susie: The result of 40+ pages?
None, besides the overwhelming majority saying :
Treat=cruel? What the f...



Right On !!!!!

valK Tough or hard dog, in my opinion, is a dog which does not give up easily to adverse pressure. I think that is a useful characteristic.