Are you slicing a chunk off your tofurkey?

Rules are often cited as justification for continued use of any method.

"Why are you [insert human training behavior]?"

"Because it works. Because you are supposed to. Because this is how my family always did it. Because it is my preference."

When I hear this language, I get a chill up my spine. These "explanations" often reveal that the speaker has not the slightest clue about why they are doing what they are doing.

Reminds me of the joke about the woman who slices a chunk off her turkey... it's my joke now... tofurkey... before putting it in the pan. When her child questions this behavior, the woman responds, "I think it has something to do with the moisture content. It's how your grandmother always did it." Turns out, that mother had to cut the chunk off of the turkey... tofurkey... to fit it in the pan.

Humans have a remarkable capacity for what could be described as "supertitious" behaviors. If I do X, and then Y happens, X must be causing Y.

If I cut the chunk off the tofurkey, and the tofurkey is (arguably) edible, clearly the chunk-cutting is the reason why. I've always cut the chunk off. The food has always cooked properly. You can't argue with success.

Although this train of thought is called "superstitious" (meaning the cause only appears to be related to the effect, even though it isn't) for humans, transitive logic is the standard for dogs.

If I lower my bum to the floor, the door of my crate will be opened. If I place my front feet on our guest's shoulders, I will be acknowledged. If I walk towards a boundary, I will catch someone's attention, they will call me to come, and I'll receive a cookie for coming to them. For dogs, it doesn't even have to happen EVERY time! As long as the outcome (opened door, acknowledgement, attention-command-cookie) is more likely than not, the dog believes there is an association there. From the dog's perspective, this is undeniable.

In one of her books, Temple Grandin describes the behavior of pigs at feeding time. (I'm under the impression that pigs may be even more environmentally aware than dogs with regard to what behaviors result in food.) The pigs repeat whatever behaviors appeared to work when feeding time first came around. "Let's see.... I was rocking back and forth and angled to the left, and then I saw food. So obviously, the rocking back and forth and angling makes the food come to me."

As the human, we realize that the feeder is responsible for the food coming to the pig. Yay! What a clever human!

Don't get too excited.

What makes human learning of new behaviors difficult is that our brains are less adept than animals with the concept of probability. One of many areas where we are "dumber" than animals. Dog definition of IQ must have a lot to do with food-finding abilities. Put a sandwich in the middle of a cornfield. Simulateously release hungry dog and hungry human. Who eats the sandwich? Clearly, by dog definition, the eater is smarter!

We assign more weight to whatever we heard first (serial position effect), even if it was a single event. We have a hard time sorting out patterns that include both successes & failures. We have very little intuition regarding probability, which is frankly child's play to animals. "Your dog has jumped up on 55% of the people who come thru the front door. Someone is at the front door. What is likely to happen next?" Your dog finds this a significantly easier question than you do.

Where is this leading? The problem with teaching humans to do something different or new is a) they love rules, and b) any apparent failure causes them to throw out the baby with the bath water.

The rule-lovers say, "Ah! This isn't working because I wasn't using the right rule. The old guy told me A, this other guy is telling me B. I just have to switch rules, and then it will work!"

Those who have switched rules will likely experience failure. Now the entire approach is at fault: Cookies don't work! Tug causes aggression! Choke collars don't stop pulling!

The point that this raises is that, whether we like it or not, as trainers, we have to understand the subject matter that we are teaching to a level that is beyond superstitious. Why is the rule the rule? What is going thru the dog's mind in the situation when this rule applies and works? What about when the rule doesn't work? Why doesn't it work?

Question everything.