Training the same way as Dogs train each other? - Page 4

I'm 200% sure because we throw the Frisbee and not the paper plate. Because they know what the Frisbee is by taste, smell, having it in their mouths and chewing it. And I'm pretty sure without jumping in their minds that they know what  a Frisbee is and the difference, (at least the fact that the paper plate is not a Frisbee).

I don't usually play "Devils' Advocate" or talk "What if's, could've , would've, should've" till I/we are blue in the face. But I'll bite a little on some of your comments. When one reads things there could be multiple methods working towards the same goal/outcome. Multiple Authors with their "version" of what is the right way and what is the wrong way. And we all know what works for one might not work for another. I have read somewhere that SOME words are not in a dogs vocabulary and that SOME commands/instructions are (something to the effect, can't remember verbatim) the dog(s) have already either understood or complied solely to the START of the word. And I can agree with that aspect.  But your comment was that dogs don't (can't go back to PG 1 or I lose my entry) understand words or the word as a command.

Now, in your example of your K9s going to person A or person B, I could understand in that scenario. BUT, if when you state the K9 goes to the designated person, by command. He/she is going to the person by the person's name. Thus knowing the word/name and who it belongs to, which contradicts the initial statement that dogs don't understand words.

Another point; And it can be for any type of K9, a working K9 all the way to a pet with OB. This is just ONE example of many. And I'm not here to but heads or split hairs. Another OP stated that any dog barking anytime for any reason and that met that dog was being aggressive. Some people have ideas in their heads and are seriously fixed on it being the truth. I just wondered either where he/she got the information, why he/she honestly believed the information and how long he/she was believing the information. Okay, we'll say my K9, with English commands. We'll use the commands SIT, STAY AND SEARCH. Each command requires a different action so if those three commands start off sounding alike then how does the K9 know how to comply if he doesn't understand the word? And as I stated in an earlier post. For bite work, the K9 is ___ ?  ft away, engaged in either sleeve, suit or actual perp. ONE WORD and only one word is used. no hand gestures, no sound from the beginning of the word. One word and the K( understands. And look at all the languages across the board? A foreign language? The K9 understands.  

Also, a while back, maybe a couple of years on a show? "Amazing Animals' or something like that. A horse could tap his hoof to answer math problems he was asked and he was correct.

  

    

GUY... oh, well, I would answer that about Shaun Ellis if I knew who the heck he was...my best guess is he is that guy who made a documentary and acted like a wolf? 

Look, Silly is because, I would not be sending my clients off with the idea that if their 8 wk old pup plus a few weeks or so,  gets cranky, they just need to bite its ear, and show some pearly whites with a convincing growl. Well, because that is what the breeder did. Get it?

Got it lol. Well, I wouldn't be sending clients off doing that either. WIth my clients or puppy buyers I've always given "human techniques" lol in regards to training to help them overcome any problem they may face.  

Great points. Let me think on this some more. ----- GSDguy, ;-). Big smile. I did not think about passing what I do to the dog's owner. Up until now, I have only trained my own personal dogs. ------

Question for those that enter into competitions. What is expected regarding commanding the dog verbally vs. hand signals? ------- if a competitor gave all commands by hand signals only, would that count against them?

Understand (definition) - a). Mental grasp power of comprehending; especially: the capacity to apprehend genteral relations of particulars. -------- b) the power to make experience intelligible by applying concepts & categories. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Back to the frisbee vs. paper plate. If the dog truely understands the word "frisbee," and you threw the paper plate as you would the frisbee...... Your dog will not go after the paper plate, correct? This is because your dog "understands" the concept of a frisbee and knows what you just threw was not a frisbee (by sight and smell). -------- Am I correct? How did you get your dogs to understand the concept of the frisbee?

Using the definition of "understand" - Yes, my dogs know me by my name, but if I introduce them to someone else with my same name and work on the name association (NOT the command "go to fawnda") only...... Then someone gives my dogs the command "go to fawnda." They come to me only still. ------ Why does the dog not go to the new person named "fawnda" if they truely understand the name "fawnda?"

You are misinterpreting for the dog, IMHO. Your command, using your name, is all about you. Another person with the same name won't have your scent, your sound, whatever. The dog knows the difference just as you would use your own sensory cues to differentiate from a dozen different people who are Bob's. You are thinking in a box, IMHO.

And about the frisbee, I also think you should rethink this. You tossed similar shaped objects. The dog doesn't care what you called them, if he has the right drives, he'll just want to retrieve them. He can be taught to differentiate between the similar objects, if you teach him that to you, the master, you see them as different (because you named them differently). Your dog is in tune with you, because of your bond, he is reading you. He can pick out one over the other if he is taught the words for them. 

It isn't that a dog can't understand, he does, but compared to the way you think, he's more on par with a seven year old. I think as a trainer, that will help you with a frame of mind to use as a reference, since you like to break things down, empirically.

Have you studied, Theory of Mind in dogs? Here's something to read: http://www.cogs.indiana.edu/spackled/2011readings/Horowitz.pdf

 

I propose that the dogs’ behavior in play and in the target article may best be described as showing a rudimentary theory of mind. This concept fills an explanatory gap. It is important to acknowledge the rather broad territory between an animal who acts with a theory of behavior (learning that certain behaviors lead to certain outcomes) and one who has a theory of mind. In particular, if the animal seems to be operating with regard to some mediating element between others’ appearance and their behaviors, this behavior could be described as a rudimentary theory of mind. 

I find it interesting to watch my dogs interact.  One is clearly dominant and the other subordinate, although he's completely happy about it.

I see the dominant one doing things to the subordinante that my trainer has taught me to do.  I see the dominant one stop at doorways and give the subordinant one a chance to go out before him and correct if he does.  I watch the subordinant one grab a toy the dominant had left behind to get a drink of water and get corrected for it.  Then the dominant drops the toy and walks away from it only to stop to see if the subordinant one takes it, and when he didn't, the dominant one grabbed the toy and left the area.

However, I think it's tricky to get on to their level.  They are picking up on things that we don't.  I think the old picture of the dogs playing poker isn't far off - they can pick up on the most subtle tells really quickly.

Wonderful beetree. Truely, for myself, this is what I was after. Someone/ outsider from my daily life, to question my thinking with a solid argument. I acknowledge that I get into my own box sometimes. Being in a rural community sometimes makes it difficult to pull me out of my own box. I have not read the article yet, but I will this week.

I'll agree with Bee to an extent, if not totally. I'm not here to say what is right and what is wrong but for Fawndallas I'm questioning your "Concept" or "perception" of either dog behavior, reading a dogs' behavior, training or training methods. Your initial post stated a dog does not understand words. That was debunked but then you "alter' or continue a different path saying or trying to say the same thing. Then if examples are given to further debunk your statement we go down a different road.

I don't usually have these types of conversations, mostly because they don't really make me think. (parts do but for the most part no), but make me think how a person can honestly think the way they do? I'm not being mean but HOW, HONESTLY do you think a dog, any dog does not understand words??? And your dictionary definition is for humans.............not dogs, not animals. The frisbee is not a concept...it is an object. Now as stated the other objects are for training, play, work etc. I'm saying this nicely.......It appears that some of your thoughts or training or the whole ball of wax is something like tunnel vision? I try to tell people that you can have 10 doctors lined up all with PhDs. There's no way that all 10 are at the top of their game, the most knowledgeable, the best. That's a fact and the Nature of the beast! You can go to a bookstore and look for a certain dish and there's ten recipes for that same dish. What I see here is you have a belief, not sure if it was self learned/taught or information you receieved? Not sure if you have felt this way for a long period or just recent? Not even sure if you have grasped the bigger picture of how really intelligent our breed is let alone other breeds, let alone working breeds?