Caucasian Ovcharka

[Barbara!]

Originally Posted by Danefied

Except that the principles of learning theory ARE universal.
Saying that X dog doesn’t respond to positive reinforcement is like saying X object doesn’t respond to gravity. A feather and a rock may look very different in how they respond to gravity, but they are both most certainly responding to gravity.

There is not one way to train every single dog. There just isn't. As a simplified example, I have four dogs and I trained each one of them very differently.

[Pops2]

Originally Posted by Danefied

Except that the principles of learning theory ARE universal.
Saying that X dog doesn’t respond to positive reinforcement is like saying X object doesn’t respond to gravity. A feather and a rock may look very different in how they respond to gravity, but they are both most certainly responding to gravity.

i'm gonna disagree. each dog is an individual and will respond differently to different stimuli. some are stubborn and simply refuse to accept certain conditioning/training techniques.
the rock & feather don't choose how they respond to gravity, in effect dogs are like the rock & feather having a choice so that one feather drifts normally but another zooms down faster than the rock.
besides all training is some combination of positive & aversive training the names only serve to identify degrees & methods of encouragement & discouragement.

[Greenmagick]

It most definitely IS universal. No, not all dogs respond the same to everything...dogs are all motivated by different things and are unique individuals. BUT, the brain works the same in all of us. Positive and Negative Reinforcement, Positive and Negative Punishment. HOwever, NO DOG (nor child) needs to be hit or physically hurt to do something. It just is NOT true. They may seem to respond faster or better but that doesnt mean its needed.

To clarify...no, there is no ONE way to train a dog...BUT, the way aversives and reinforcement etc work is universal.

[Danefied]

Originally Posted by Barbara!

There is not one way to train every single dog.

That’s not what I said at all.

I said the principles of Learning Theory are universal. Otherwise it would not be a scientific theory “Theory" has a different definition when used in science. Its not “hey this is a neat idea”, its a hypothesis that has been proven to hold true over numerous, diverse tests and challenges. Gravity is a scientific theory, but no one jumps off a cliff thinking anything other than gravity is going to apply to what happens next.

And before we go assuming that I mean all positive, lets not forget that Learning Theory includes the punishment quadrants as well as the reinforcement ones.

They may be applied differently in practice, depending on the individual, and the desired result, but the principle is still the same.
Just as a kid using gravity to drop water balloons off a balcony is using gravity every bit at much as an aerospace engineer who uses it to get an airplane in the air. The application changes, but the force of gravity does not.

[Romy]

I think where the differences come in, is different dogs find different things aversive.

For some dogs, the cross your arms and turn away move is aversive. They stop jumping up or whatever because to that dog, losing your attention is a negative consequence. So a positive trainer doing that to those individuals is really using negative reinforcement.

Some dogs find slapping highly rewarding, or at the least non-aversive. I can actually slap Kaia pretty hard with the flat of my hand when we play slappyface and she gets really amped up and loves it. Now, I'd never do that to her as a correction. Instead of correcting her I just tell her to leave it, or lay down, or whatever, and she does it because she's already trained to listen when I tell her to do something and she wants to.

I do think that correctly used positive reinforcement is effective with every dog. But not every dog finds the same things rewarding and aversive. Some dogs love chasing squirrels more than they love hot dogs. Some dogs love playing slappyface and hate when you stop petting them. That's where knowing your individual dog, drive building, etc. come into play.

And while I don't like using aversives, there are situations that some dogs need to be proofed against because they are life threatening and dogs can't reason and understand consequences the same as a person. I'm not against very harsh aversives for it stuff like rattlesnake aversion, breaking a dog of chasing stock, etc. My dogs would probably chase cars and I choose to manage it by keeping them leashed all the time, but for some dogs the safer option is aversion training so that they will never try it.

I feel that it's only appropriate for life saving training though. I don't agree with forced retrieves and the like. There's something wrong with the direction retrieving breeds are going if e-collars are necessary to teach them how to work, since those tools weren't available or necessary when the breeds were developed.

[Danefied]

Originally Posted by Romy

I think where the differences come in, is different dogs find different things aversive.

For some dogs, the cross your arms and turn away move is aversive. They stop jumping up or whatever because to that dog, losing your attention is a negative consequence. So a positive trainer doing that to those individuals is really using negative reinforcement.

Some dogs find slapping highly rewarding, or at the least non-aversive. I can actually slap Kaia pretty hard with the flat of my hand when we play slappyface and she gets really amped up and loves it. Now, I'd never do that to her as a correction. Instead of correcting her I just tell her to leave it, or lay down, or whatever, and she does it because she's already trained to listen when I tell her to do something and she wants to.

I do think that correctly used positive reinforcement is effective with every dog. But not every dog finds the same things rewarding and aversive. Some dogs love chasing squirrels more than they love hot dogs. Some dogs love playing slappyface and hate when you stop petting them. That's where knowing your individual dog, drive building, etc. come into play.

And while I don't like using aversives, there are situations that some dogs need to be proofed against because they are life threatening and dogs can't reason and understand consequences the same as a person. I'm not against very harsh aversives for it stuff like rattlesnake aversion, breaking a dog of chasing stock, etc. My dogs would probably chase cars and I choose to manage it by keeping them leashed all the time, but for some dogs the safer option is aversion training so that they will never try it.

I feel that it's only appropriate for life saving training though. I don't agree with forced retrieves and the like. There's something wrong with the direction retrieving breeds are going if e-collars are necessary to teach them how to work, since those tools weren't available or necessary when the breeds were developed.

Yep... application may differ, but the theory remains the same. It just doesn’t work to try to get a behavior to repeat by applying an aversive to it. Just won’t happen. If the behavior repeats it has been rewarded in some way. You may not be able to figure out how, or what, but you can sure bet that the dog is repeating it because it is rewarding.

Using aversives is a personal choice, I don’t want to be told how to train so I’m not going to tell others how. Where I get cranky is when the reasoning behind using aversives places the responsibility/blame on the dog. The “I use aversives because this dog “needs” it or this dog “makes me”. Nope, you choose aversives, fine. Just don’t blame it on the dog, because I assure you, the dog is not some freak of nature who is immune to the power of reinforcement.

And yes, now we can have fun talking about who’s dog is a freak of nature

[Emily]

Originally Posted by Danefied

Using aversives is a personal choice, I don’t want to be told how to train so I’m not going to tell others how. Where I get cranky is when the reasoning behind using aversives places the responsibility/blame on the dog. The “I use aversives because this dog “needs” it or this dog “makes me”. Nope, you choose aversives, fine. Just don’t blame it on the dog, because I assure you, the dog is not some freak of nature who is immune to the power of reinforcement.

*nod*

As for certain breeds "needing" a heavy/punishing hand... It scares me that people own these breeds and that's the only way they can conceive of to control them. Yikes.

[Laurelin]

Honestly, I am not dead set against aversives or harsher methods if they are necessary. so far for me and my dogs and the training we do (sports) it is not only unnecessary but it is imo detrimental to what I want. That's all I need to know. What people do with their own dogs is their choice. I just hope people are educated enough when making those choices. BUT...

That's not the point I was trying to make. I wasn't trying to say training with cookies is the only effective way to train. It's not.

I was just saying this:

We chatted about training and I explained progressive reinforcement to him (dog doesn't want to do something - dog doesn't have to do it) - he laughed out loud and put it quite succinctly:

And this:

Most of what I've seen in person of "positive training" has been:

"Down Fido"
Fido: *looks at person*
"Ok, you don't wanna down, that's ok. Sit - you're sitting! good!"
F: *barks*
*person turns back to dog and ignores*
F: *barks again*
*During the silence in between barks...*
"Good job boy!" *gives cookie*

I've probably just seen it executed in improper manners/never had it explained to me correctly - thus the confusion/wrong impression.

Is a wrong impression of 'positive' training.

Train how you want to and for what you want to but don't say the above is what 'positive training' is and then scoff at it.

I'd definitely recommend trying to find some good trainers who employ positive or mostly positive (I don't know any trainers that are really purely positive) to see what they do and how it works with various dogs.

[Barbara!]

I'm wondering when it was that I ever said positive reinforcement didn't work?

To me, positive reinforcement is a foundation. The dog either does well with the foundation, or you build on top of the reinforcement to help them learn. Some dogs do need corrections, yes, they do. I have witnessed it myself and no one can tell me otherwise because it's just bologna that every dog ever only needs P+ without anything else. It is just not true.

[Pops2]

Originally Posted by Greenmagick

It most definitely IS universal. No, not all dogs respond the same to everything...dogs are all motivated by different things and are unique individuals. BUT, the brain works the same in all of us. Positive and Negative Reinforcement, Positive and Negative Punishment. HOwever, NO DOG (nor child) needs to be hit or physically hurt to do something. It just is NOT true. They may seem to respond faster or better but that doesnt mean its needed.

To clarify...no, there is no ONE way to train a dog...BUT, the way aversives and reinforcement etc work is universal.

if this were true there'd be no such thing as dyslexia nor special education. brains are living tissue and have general functions in common but ultimately each one is individualized and continues to individualize throught the life of the being.