There is a school of thought, unfortunately all too common among positive trainers, that denies the very existence of a social hierarchy among dogs.
I believe there are several reasons for this mistaken perspective:
1. They genuinely don't see it
Women, especially, seem to fall prey to this idea, which may be related to their own human social experience. Women do not form hierarchies in their own social interactions!
There are men, too, who don't see the social hierarchy, possibly because dogs tend to yield rank to individuals possessing testosterone, eliminating the need for the canine(s) in the household to establish a hierarchy among themselves.
Finally, if you have not owned multiple dogs, you don't get the same perspective. Yes, dogs can and will form loose lead-follow relationships at the dog park, during play dates, and the like, but the leadership role is not quite the same as the type of leadership role exhibited with the family.
2. There is motivation to make the claim
They don't want to support "dominance" techniques. Recognition of a social hierarchy absolutely does not constitute endorsement of practices like alpha rolls, scruff shakes, stare-downs, muzzle grabs, etc, that present serious risk of "miscommunication". If your dog learns that no amount of appeasement will make you stop aggressing, you can effectively ELICIT aggression.
A stable, effective leader dog elicits cooperation from the follower dogs through performing the duties of a leader. Owners often misinterpret growls from a low-ranking dog protecting resources from a higher ranking dog as evidence that the growler (low rank) is actually the leader!
Aggression has been linked to canine leadership in the minds of many humans. Aggression is neither a tool nor a communicator of leadership. Aggression is, by definition, a strategy for handling social conflicts, which result from MISSING or INEFFECTIVE leadership.
3. Not as much as as we need to know has been researched in DOGS
One of the common assumptions made is that canids are canids, and that foxes approximate wolves approximate dogs. Well, in very general terms, this is correct, just as it is to say that primates approximate humans.
But in specific terms, humans are not monkeys, and dogs are not wolves.
While I argue that there is evidence to support the idea of dogs understanding a social hierarchy among dogs, there is even less research that explores how dogs (and other species who form social hierarchies) frame the inclusion of other species.
My point is simply this: keep an open mind, and look for what is really there, not evidence that simply weighs for or against a social hierarchy.
I have very strong feelings about the importance of what I call good leadership, but there are many possible explanations for why the recommendations I make work, which may or may not have anything to do with a social hierarchy that may or may not include humans.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
300 Word Limit?
I was reading the blog of another writer, who suggested that blog posts be about 300-400 words long.
What do you think? Would you find my blogs more useful or readable if there were shorter posts?
(that was 37 words)
What do you think? Would you find my blogs more useful or readable if there were shorter posts?
(that was 37 words)
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Cue-Elicit-Release-Reward Model
All effective dog trainers, regardless of "technique", provide a standard framework for learning. Some very successful trainers do so without even realizing it! Whether intentional or accidental, the presence of this framework provides a predictable pattern for the dog, which is key to providing successful learning experiences to dogs. By contrast, the absence of a standard framework creates unpredictable experiences. A missing or variable framework can be responsible for the failure of otherwise very excellent training.
It is predictability that allows us to communicate. "Predictable", a word often used by dog trainers, has a similar meaning to "consistent", the word often used by dog owners. No matter which word you use to describe the idea of presenting an identifiable pattern, you no doubt recognize the importance of presenting a pattern, and the potential confusion (& stress, the end product of confusion) of failing to present an identifiable pattern.
The interesting thing about this framework is that it describes what dogs are looking for in any interaction:
The reactive, stressed, unmotivated, or frustrated dog? She'll probably just shut down.
By taking the "confusion" on-board the human circuitry instead of dumping it on the canine, the dog's learning experience is greatly simplified. Make no mistake, shifting the thinkery to the human is very taxing for the human! The amount of focus the human is able to sustain is often not much more than what the canine can.
When designing or assessing a learning experience for a dog, I use the terms "cue", "elicit", "release", and "reward" to refer to the concepts expressed by the 4 questions above. These elements, successfully applied, occur sequentially, not simultaneously. For beginning dogs, the sequence must be so rapid that it can look to novice observers as if it is simultaneous. It is not.
The most "controversial" aspect of dog training, among dog professionals, anyway, is the "elicit" step. Getting the dog to actually do what you are looking for. There are ways that are acceptable and there are ways that are not, and those vary dramatically, depending on who is doing the accepting or rejecting!
Chances are, you think that the elicit step alone is what determines the success or failure of "training". For many people, "elicit" = training.
OWNER: "How do you get him to sit?"
TRAINER: "Well, you just wait for him to do it... raise a treat over his head... push down on the rump... pull up on the collar... pinch his ear (!)... [insert "trick" or"technique" here]"
OWNER: "Ohhh...."
This is absolutely NOT good training. Does the elicit step work? YES! That's why we use it. And, unfortunately, that is why it has become synonymous with "training". All those little tips and tricks we use to get the dog to get the right answer are effective in the moment they are applied, but no matter how often you repeat them, your
And, if you want to keep doing them forever, that's your decision to make. It's just that you won't really have a "trained" dog, you'll have good handling skills. Really good handlers can take a completely untrained dog and make it look marvelous in about 20 minutes. Of course, when the dog is handed to YOU, the dog has not thought about or deliberately selected any behaviors, so it's still completely untrained!
In too many training classes, the focus is on those little tips and tricks that elicit desirable behavior. Without following through and teaching students how to incorporate those tips and tricks and "techniques" into a framework, well, ... students end up with the kind of results that are too often seen.
This phenomenon applies to just about every elicit technique out there. The good ones all WORK for someone, which is why they exist. There's absolutely nothing ineffective about simply waiting for the dog to lay down, but it is frequently ineffectively applied.
Choke chain communication can be highly effective, and NOT aversive, but it's frequently used as a handling tool, rather than a training one-- meaning, it works as long as you are yanking away, but the dog never gets the right idea. Food lures also fall victim to the same issue. Luring the dog around with cookies--fantastically effective as an elicitor, but often falls apart when it is used only as a handling tool. Although, if you have a super-food-motivated dog for whom it never stops working? Why not use the food forever? Who cares why your pet dog behaves? Distractors like noisemakers, squirt bottles, and tickle-touches work extremely effectively for even the most severe behavior problems -- but they only elicit cooperation. They do not teach!
Engaging the dog's brain, using your tool of choice to help nudge the behavior in the right direction, is TEACHING. Teaching is training. Repetition is important, but repeated application of elicitors is NOT TEACHING.
In training your dog, by focusing on making the CUE-ELICIT-RELEASE-REWARD framework a habit FIRST (training the human behavior first), to later add any elicit "technique" for any behavior you like or need is a piece of cake! It is the framework that engages the dog, establishes communication, and ultimately enhances your relationship and partnership performance.
It is predictability that allows us to communicate. "Predictable", a word often used by dog trainers, has a similar meaning to "consistent", the word often used by dog owners. No matter which word you use to describe the idea of presenting an identifiable pattern, you no doubt recognize the importance of presenting a pattern, and the potential confusion (& stress, the end product of confusion) of failing to present an identifiable pattern.
The interesting thing about this framework is that it describes what dogs are looking for in any interaction:
- What do I do? What is expected of me?
- How do I do that?
- When am I done?
- Why should I do it again?
The reactive, stressed, unmotivated, or frustrated dog? She'll probably just shut down.
By taking the "confusion" on-board the human circuitry instead of dumping it on the canine, the dog's learning experience is greatly simplified. Make no mistake, shifting the thinkery to the human is very taxing for the human! The amount of focus the human is able to sustain is often not much more than what the canine can.
When designing or assessing a learning experience for a dog, I use the terms "cue", "elicit", "release", and "reward" to refer to the concepts expressed by the 4 questions above. These elements, successfully applied, occur sequentially, not simultaneously. For beginning dogs, the sequence must be so rapid that it can look to novice observers as if it is simultaneous. It is not.
The most "controversial" aspect of dog training, among dog professionals, anyway, is the "elicit" step. Getting the dog to actually do what you are looking for. There are ways that are acceptable and there are ways that are not, and those vary dramatically, depending on who is doing the accepting or rejecting!
Chances are, you think that the elicit step alone is what determines the success or failure of "training". For many people, "elicit" = training.
OWNER: "How do you get him to sit?"
TRAINER: "Well, you just wait for him to do it... raise a treat over his head... push down on the rump... pull up on the collar... pinch his ear (!)... [insert "trick" or"technique" here]"
OWNER: "Ohhh...."
This is absolutely NOT good training. Does the elicit step work? YES! That's why we use it. And, unfortunately, that is why it has become synonymous with "training". All those little tips and tricks we use to get the dog to get the right answer are effective in the moment they are applied, but no matter how often you repeat them, your
And, if you want to keep doing them forever, that's your decision to make. It's just that you won't really have a "trained" dog, you'll have good handling skills. Really good handlers can take a completely untrained dog and make it look marvelous in about 20 minutes. Of course, when the dog is handed to YOU, the dog has not thought about or deliberately selected any behaviors, so it's still completely untrained!
In too many training classes, the focus is on those little tips and tricks that elicit desirable behavior. Without following through and teaching students how to incorporate those tips and tricks and "techniques" into a framework, well, ... students end up with the kind of results that are too often seen.
This phenomenon applies to just about every elicit technique out there. The good ones all WORK for someone, which is why they exist. There's absolutely nothing ineffective about simply waiting for the dog to lay down, but it is frequently ineffectively applied.
Choke chain communication can be highly effective, and NOT aversive, but it's frequently used as a handling tool, rather than a training one-- meaning, it works as long as you are yanking away, but the dog never gets the right idea. Food lures also fall victim to the same issue. Luring the dog around with cookies--fantastically effective as an elicitor, but often falls apart when it is used only as a handling tool. Although, if you have a super-food-motivated dog for whom it never stops working? Why not use the food forever? Who cares why your pet dog behaves? Distractors like noisemakers, squirt bottles, and tickle-touches work extremely effectively for even the most severe behavior problems -- but they only elicit cooperation. They do not teach!
Engaging the dog's brain, using your tool of choice to help nudge the behavior in the right direction, is TEACHING. Teaching is training. Repetition is important, but repeated application of elicitors is NOT TEACHING.
In training your dog, by focusing on making the CUE-ELICIT-RELEASE-REWARD framework a habit FIRST (training the human behavior first), to later add any elicit "technique" for any behavior you like or need is a piece of cake! It is the framework that engages the dog, establishes communication, and ultimately enhances your relationship and partnership performance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)