Komo TV interview about CM and correction compliance method

[runlikethewind]

Has anyone read this article but more importantly, Tammies' response underneath? It's well written and the arguments are well constructed. What do you think?

http://companionanimalsolutions.com/blo ... ar-millan/

[Mattie]

How can anyone who is supposed to love dogs treat them like that? That isn't love.

[runlikethewind]

I've just come back from my walk and spent a great deal of time, thinking about Tammie's arguments in support of the correction compliance theory.

Needless to say I am preaching to the converted here but her response, despite being well written, is seriously flawed and I've come up with the reasons why:

1. The general dog owner cannot easily read body language and will not know when to apply correction 'safely' if there ever was such a time
2. Applying corrections is naturally stressful for both dog and human. Who wants to have that sort of a relationship with their dog? Not I
2. Any aggression toward humans or other dogs is almost always fear or threat generated. Applying a correction in these circumstances would only result in more anguish for the dog
4. Whilst I understand her arguments that reward training is good for teaching tricks etc, she says it is not good for teaching appropriate behaviour and that in the wild, dogs would correct each other for rude behaviour and such like. This is often true ONLY if other calming measures or alternative non-aggressive methods have not previously worked for the dog- and these are the VERY methods the reward- based trainers use!!!
5. A very simple example showed me her theory that correction compliance is a natural thing for dogs to do to each other is not correct. A bunch of dogs were on leads being held by the one owner. My dog walked up to them but was met my an instant loud barking. My dog turned away and that was the end of the meeting. Now, if Tammie's theory is to be applied, my dog would be saying to himself, 'no I want to meet those dogs, I will meet those dogs and I will make them want to meet me too' thus he would have continued in his attempts ie applying compliance. It just doesn't happen, so why should we apply it?

I thought of a whole load of other reasons why her response was flawed but I can't remember them now! I'd love to see one of VS's trainers respond to her article.

[Fundog]

Hmm... it was interesting.

As an example of my own dogs, sometimes Annie will "correct" Dottie for barking unnecessarily. But the way she does it is so subtle, you would miss it if you blinked: She just leaps over and gives her what might be interpreted as a kiss, by someone who doesn't know them. That's not "punishment," but a physical way of saying, "Hush-- you don't need to bark." All I know is, it works.

As a human analogy, I'm currently going through some drama at work. If I make a mistake, my supervisor will correct me gently by saying, "Okay, so and so is supposed to have such and such, did you know?" Then she will either show me where the dietary order (I work in the kitchen of a nursing home) is written and posted, or she will make a sign and post it so everyone knows. She's very nice about it. And conversely, the next time she might ask, "Did you remember so and so's such and such?" And I will triumphantly exclaim, "YES! I did!" My boss's eyes will go all crinkly as she grins and says, "Oh, good job!"

In contrast, I have a co-worker who constantly nit-picks at me, deliberately looking for things I did wrong. Then she will "bite my head off" for it, raising her voice and speaking in a very nasty tone. If I point out something I got right, she will reply, "I didn't even notice. It doesn't matter."

Needless to say, I love it when my boss is in the kitchen! She is just so pleasant to have around, and I thrill at getting things right!

As for the other lady... I've decided I'd rather have a bone marrow biopsy or a root canal, than to have to work with her again.

Why wouldn't it be the same with dogs?

[Wicket]

I read through the article and some of the responses; I might respond tomorrow morning.

[wholisticdogtraining]

Hello Fellow Dog Lovers!

Thank you for asking for a VP trainer's response to Tammie's post. Where better to respond than right here, in my new, well-loved home with Victoria Stilwell.

Victoria is absolutely on the right track, make no mistake. Just look at her list of Expert Bloggers that include the Big Dogs in Veterinary Behavior, in Animal Behavior and Dog Training.

There were many wonderful responses Dr. Ha's broadcast by trainers who I know and respect, and though I don't have time to sift through them all, I trust you will find great arguments there as well that support what we're doing here at PV Team.

If you're here, rest assured, you're in the right place. No worries, you don't need to learn all the science to let your heart lead you to the right method.

I have not read the other CM supporter's response but nevertheless, since one poster in particular had what appear to be, on the surface, some valid arguments, I want to speak to that post alone and try to support what I believe per the prevailing scientific evidence and logical thinking. Here's my take on it.

Biggest errors in the poster's logic:

1.The foundation for one of the most interesting argumentsis taken from an ethological perspective, that is, animals interacting with each other in the wild. For the poster's theory to be valid, we must accept her assumption that the behaviors in the wild apply across the board to training pet dogs. Not so. Ethology is the study of Animal Behavior, not Animal Learning. We want our dogs, although they are a subspecies of wolf, to learn new behaviors that may be counter to their natural drives. However we want to use those drives to our advantage where we can. How do we go about teaching our dogs, that is, how do they learn behaviors? How do we modify behavior?

Although ethology is an area that professionals, such as CPDT-KA's are required to study, that being so, understanding how animals in the wild behave toward each other does not mean humans should use that as a model of what's available, appropriate, or most effective to us in training our dogs. The systematic study of how animals learn is correctly in the field of Psychology.

2. The author is not well-versed by virtue of her post, with the field that is cogent to training, that is Psychology. Although we borrow from ethology in order to understand modal action pattern (drives that are genetically based), in order to modify those behaviors, we thus turn to Psychology.

Part of the "fund of information" absent in the post is a basic understanding of associative learning which is fundamental to all learned behavior in all animals , see Pavlov, a pioneer in understanding "How animals learn". Bell rings, dog salivates because the dog has "learned to associate" the sound of the bell ringing with the delivery of food.

3. Importantly, the author discounts or does not mention the drawbacks of administering positive punishment. I say, "The cure is worse than the disease", that is, punishment "treatment" for aggression is often the cause for more intense aggression, or suppresses aggression temporarily. This is something Dr. Ha alludes to with his brief discussion of Learned Helplessness. Although in Learned Helplessness, there is a shut-down of fruitless attempts to escape the punishment, even after the punishment is removed.

The side-effects of punishment may be more damaging than the curative effects, including the likely erosion of the relationship with the punisher and development of mistrust of all humans. This is really bad news. Trust is easily eroded, then difficult or impossible to regain because fear is adaptive to survival and deep-seated in the brain.

If anyone trains dogs with no accountability for the damage done by punishment, in my opinion, it is not what I consider training. Can they get Instant results? Well, of course. By definition, punishing decreases behaviors. That's not the issue! Of course, punishment works...sort of.

We need to understand learning theory, both the operant quadrant and classical conditioning, that is, CER's conditional emotional responses. The examples given by Tammie make sense for animal behavior in the wild, ethological sense, but not in the larger sense of dog training and ethics. Yes, ethics! The people I work with have companion animals because they want to have a great relationship with their dogs, with the possilbe exception of those who find inflicting punishment reinforcing on themselves because of the instant results and resulting feeling of power over the dog who had been frustrating that person's goals for the dog. I'm not impressed with anyone who uses any aversive method. I believe it's sometimes an excuse for not knowing what else to do and arises out of frustration and then is "justified" by the handler, because, naturally we all need to justify our behaviors to ourselves and others or we couldn't live with ourselves

As far as dog trainers "using science" without understanding it, perhaps many dog trainers aren't schooled in the science that supports using positive methods, but that does not discount all of the scientists, veterinarians and professionals who do support positive methods on whom they base their practice. They're on the right track although they may not be able to make the arguments hold up. Not everyone wants to become a psychologist.

To call psychologists, "artists" as opposed to scientists is a misunderstanding of the field of psychology, and the systematic scientific principles which bind it. I'll leave it up to other scientists to debate her on that one.

The poster says, "it ignores one of the most profound and intriguing elements of domestic dog – the fact that it is not just *any* species. It is a species designed by man, in man’s image – which is derived from their wolf ancestor’s genetic based need to subordinate to a wolf authority figure." In "man's image?" Is this a religious argument?

"Man" has not designed species as yet...we have honed the skill of artificial selection, but artificial selection is not what caused the domestication of the wolf. Artificial selection created all the variety of canis familiarus, yes, but did not bring about domestication. The question is, did the canine species domesticate itself in order to gain the warmth of the fire and the throw away tidbits from the humans? The answer to that question will most likely never be known. It's a mystery hidden in evolutionary history. Besides, dogs are a subspecies of the wolf, not a separately "designed" species. It appears the author contradicts herself in promoting the notion that dogs should be treated as wolves treat each other, but conversely argues that dogs are "special". Which is it?

The poster states, "Dogs have a "keen genetic-based desire to subordinate to human authority". Show me the research! This is her opinion, or at best her untested hypothesis. It is not a theory or if it is, I'd like to see some peer-reviewed scientific evidence that even trends in that direction. Again, the inherent contradiction--if that were true, why would people have such difficulty with dogs and need to resort to violence and choking to get a behavior to stop? Much of her argument is based again, on this faulty, unprovable assumption.

The wolf hierarchy is not based on a "desire to subordinate", but on a social structure that places the "fittest" on top, in line with Darwin's theory. It's survival instinct...choosing leaders that lead animals toward reproduction. People don't help dogs to proliferate on the evolutionary ladder...or maybe we do and that's why there are so many dogs! But that's an entirely different story. Additionally, to believe that dogs confuse us with their own species is....well, I believe all species recognize themselves vs others. That's rather basic in nature.

The old "alpha" wolf, wolf authority figure" is based on bad science, that is, studies of wolves in captivity which was used to extrapolate to wild wolf behavior. It's an obsolete notion nowadays which is pretty commonly know by those who examine wolf research. It's an "old wives tale" to think differently.

Indeed, the scientist responsible for publishing the original studies, has apologized and retracted his use of the term "alpha", now knowing that there exists an "alpha pair" of benevolent leaders in a wolf pack, aka the mating pair. One male and one female who travel in a pack of mostly direct family-related members. Yes they give warning signals,which rarely, go beyond warning signals. Actual violence or physical harm to another pack member is a rarity.

Besides, we as higher cognitive functioning creatures ought to be able to come up with a better model for human-canine interactions, than what the canines practice among themselves... or at least I would hope so.

Regarding the poster understanding of positive-method training, the over-simplified, "incentive and ignore method" fails to recognize other critical tools in a "positive" trainers tool-box...removal of rewards for example. When the dog jumps on you, you move out of the way, removing the opportunity for a reward, plus it is "punishing" for the dog to hit the air. Hitting the air does not feel good. Positive trainers use their skills, knowledge and imagination to prevent the dog from being reinforced, but without using force or aversive method. Additionally, a good trainer might then ask the dog to sit, pet it, give it attention, which is what the dog wanted in the first place. Simple Counter-conditioning.

I'm afraid the poster has only a rudimentary understanding of what defines a good non-aversive trainer.

It is my hope she might explore it further and then come back to argue another day! Or better yet, join us.

I've written an article that may be viewed on my website and which I will be posting on PV called, No Jump. Also, My YouTube video of the Labradors shows big-time jumpers calming themselves in order to get the real-life reward of release from the pen...and access to the cookies...(and I thought he wanted to see me!) http://www.WholisticDogTraining.com

The poster does in my opinion, make some valid secondary arguments about treat dependence, but this in no way supports her larger conclusion. Treat dependence needs to be addressed within the framework of Positive Method training, which Dunbar, I, and some others regularly do. It's in every private and class training manual I work from. It's one of pet parents reservations about using food. The five methods I outline to prevent treat dependence are common knowledge to dog trainers: Removal of the lure, linking behaviors, real-life rewards, random reinforcement and transition to affection when affection is reinforcing for the subject dog.

The argument posed for operant learning vs associative learning, misnamed and understood by the writer, as it manifests in the real world, cannot be separated so neatly, and although they may be identified as separate entities they are most often expressed as combined forms of learning.

Thus, the argument about "wild animal learning" being different than "social animal learning" is moot.

Dolphins are known to be one of THE most social groups on the planet. Learning principles apply invariable to all living creatures, that's why we can train a goldfish to play soccer and a once fear-aggressive dog to love people. The same principles apply, that's why Skinner and Pavlov are giants in classic learning history, they discovered the common threads.

The fact is that punishment has many ramifications, but generally only works as long as the threat of continuing punishment or the fear of punishment is close at hand. It does not produce lasting change or address the underlying motivations for drives. It is based in producing fear. Is that what we want for our beloved dogs?

The poster says, "reward for the absence of behavior" which is not a scientifically correct phrase. There is never an absence of behavior as long as we or dog are breathing. This is an important piece of the puzzle she is missing. Modifying the emotional response is what will modify the manifest behavior.

Reward for the absence of the undesirable behavior is possible, for example, if the dog is not jumping but is instead standing... the reward marks relaxation. It's not nothing....it's everything.

Rewarding standing behavior teaches impulse-control. Self-control behaviors are rewarded and in time, with consistency become "default", habitual, first-choice behaviors. If the dog wants to touch the human and standing is the only way the dog gets the person to touch, in the case of jumping, the dog will stand to get petted. Reward for the absence of the undesirable behavior AND the performance of a desirable behavior is another option, that is, counter-conditioning.

All animal species have the fight or flight response.

We all look to our leaders for direction...many people as well as many dogs. Looking to others for leadership doesn't place dogs in some "special" subordinate category or give us a license to hurt them in the name of training.

However, we only voluntarily look to benevolent leaders we trust...same with dogs, although we may all obey those we fear.

Dogs may remain loyal to even the most abusive owner--after-all they're completely dependent upon us for survival. It's not a "desire to be subjugated". Leadership in social animals must be seen in the context of evolution,

If a successful leader helps the species to survive in the wild, it will be followed. We're NOT in the wild and there's no abuse involved with the animals. Even the most intense intra-breed confrontations, for mating privileges, most often do not produce lasting damage to the subordinate member of the group or the interloping singleton.

Suffice it to say, in my opinion, the poster in question made a couple of interesting points however her conclusions are largely not supported.

Wags to all,
Linda Michaels, MA Psychology, CPDT-KA
Research Behavioral Neurobiology
Victoria Stilwell Licensed Trainer #0011

[Mattie]

Very interesting and lots of thinking to do.

I know I often relate a dog to a child, I ran and worked in a pre-school playgroup for 7 years, we took children from 2.5 years old until they went to school at 5 years old. The similarities of children and dogs at their various stages of growing and maturing are very similar, as they are different species they do need different ways to work with them. Children have much better brains than dogs, they learn to communicate the same way we do if given the chance to do this. I once took in a 3.5 year old girl who couldn't talk, her parents worked full time, dad was a bank manager mum worked in the same bank so were educated people. This little girl hardly every heard her parents talk because they would sleep all the time at home, the result, we had to teach her to speak which she did in 1 term with us. She had been to another place were they tried to force her to speak, it didn't work. How we taught her was to let her interact with the other children, she had to talk to communicate, when we worked with the children making things, I always worked with her, usually there was 1 adult to 3 or 4 children for this. I would chatter away, had all the chatterboxes with me and gradually she started to talk. Many words were not pronounced right, instead of correcting her the word would quickly be brought up again by me with the correct pronounciation. By the end of the first term this child was chatting away like she should have been, all positive reinforcement as we know it with dogs.

All animals, including ourselves, first instinct is to survive, this shows up better with dogs that are lost, give then chance most soon learn to hunt and kill to eat, if they don't eat they die. A friend works with Dog Lost so I get to know all the stories, I do sometimes help out. It doesn't matter what the breed is, most soon learn how to feed themselves. The very young do have problems of course, but the old dogs are the ones that find it difficult because they don't have the speed to catch and kill, many have teeth missing as well because of the way we feed our dogs etc. You do get some breeds that you know won't be able to survive because they have been so changed by humans that they are not only mentally not able to but physically as well, their shape does not allow them to catch and kill food.

Anyone who has taken on a dog that has been abused, whether in the training or just because their owner wanted to, knows how difficult it is to teach these dogs to trust again, it took me 4 years to find the key to Joe coming back to me thanks to his previous owner, he was 10 months old when I got him. Merlin had been beaten to make him run faster, he refused to go off the lead for many years, Gracie was fear aggressive to both dogs and humans, Tommy was shut down when she came, we had never seen this before and didn't realise what was happening, we called her the lodger because all she did was eat and sleep. The day she came out of this and we saw the really Tommy was wonderful, all she had known with us was positive reinforcement, we didn't realise that we were training that way, we didn't have that knowledge. All were turned round by positive handling and training, they had been made that way by being punished when they did wrong.

These people who train their dogs by punishment it would be interesting to know how they were treated as children, I suspect that they were also taught by punishment and is all they knew. As they were taught this way they will have problems getting their head round positive training methods. There is a very strong link between child and animal abuse, also in how they were brought up and how they treat their own children which goes over to their dogs.

[wholisticdogtraining]

Hi Mattie!

What a great idea...
You said,"These people who train their dogs by punishment it would be interesting to know how they were treated as children, I suspect that they were also taught by punishment and is all they knew. As they were taught this way they will have problems getting their head round positive training methods. There is a very strong link between child and animal abuse, also in how they were brought up and how they treat their own children which goes over to their dogs." It's hard to say what we might find. Perhaps we might also find that people who were punished harshly were so put off by it and understanding the emotional pain involved, would be attracted to +R methods. Data might surprisingly support both ends of the continuum.

I love this. Your idea is the type of original thinking that we need to push the science forward. This would make a great thesis or dissertation project (studious) and significantly add to what we can say about the methods people are using to "train" dogs. I'd love to see someone look at these correlations to see what can be predicted about a dog trainer's choice of method as it relates to their upbringing. If you should ever consider researching this topic or doing a casual survey, whole lot of other dog professionals would want to know what you find.

I especially appreciate what you add to the conversation because it speaks to the fact that there are all these similarities and common threads that run true for all living creatures. You give good examples and that makes it real for me. Plus, I started out in psychology not ever thinking that I would become a "dog trainer" but when I realized that much of what I was learning could be applied to working to help dogs, I could not have been more thrilled. It felt like the breakthrough of me "finding Victoria". A great fit for me Thank you so much for your kind response.
Linda

[Mattie]

Linda, I first learnt of the connection between child and animal abuse in the early 90s when someone came from the USA to give lectures on it to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in the UK, Social Services were also involved.

When these got together with their "At risk" registers over 90% of people on them were on all of them. The information is already out there, it is finding it.

[Nettle]

Careful here.

Let us remember that until very recently, almost all children were brought up in a punishment-dominated system, where there was no reward for getting things right, pain and distress for getting things wrong (often when they didn't know what was wanted because nobody ever bothered to explain) and the best they could hope for was to shut down and keep schtum and hope the unpleasant attention went elsewhere.

Some of us overcame this, some stayed there.

You will find if you do a survey that the vast majority of people, up to a certain age, were brought up negatively. Therefore when you collect your data, don't forget to include a control of positive trainers/animal keepers. You will probably find that THEY were brought up by punishment too.

I certainly was.

[Mattie]

I think most at one time was brought up with more punishment than reward Nettle, but some had more rewards than others which when we look back we realised that we responded better to the rewards than the punishment. The punishment also had to fit the crime, I saw many children who's punishment they didn't deserve, ie. a good beating because they didn't say please.

The information that I am saying is already out there is the excessive treatment, children are on the at risk register and the family are also on the at risk register with the RSPCA. These are not the normal families who get a mixture of punishment and reward, I was punished and for somethings I was rewarded for but it wasn't like it is now, there is a much better understanding of how we learn as well now.

[Fundog]

Slightly off-topic: Mattie, your story of the little girl that could not talk reminded me of my own son, but on the opposite end of the spectrum. He started speaking at just six months of age, beginning with a five word vocabulary! By just ten months of age, he could speak full sentences! When people asked how this was possible, I replied, "Because I chatter to my children constantly, and I never shut up!" (Now I still chatter, but it's just to myself, lol)

Back to positive reinforcement: yep, Mr. Fundog and I were both punished heavily, even beaten. But we broke the cycle, and managed to learn from our parents' mistakes. Yes, our children have had to be "punished" now and then, but certainly not harshly. And since we've had our poor little Dottie Monster, she has actually gotten a little bit smarter in our care--- all due to positive treatment!