Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
I just watched this video of some Finnish dog training people (obedience and protection and such and likely not all positive in the end...) discussing what are some of the biggest problems with training dogs/people and they said it is that people try to do what the trainer says and don't take the dog in front of them into consideration. So even though the trainer is saying for you to do something you should still think with your own head. Every dog is different and what works with some doesn't work with the next one even if the breed is the same. They are all personalities.
As for commenting something I guess you could just say it does not suit your dog. And if they don't get that, then do the smile and nod.
The drive question and revving dogs up for a task are of interest to me. I've started doing agility more seriously (or agility with more serious people ) and drive has come up. Now I don't rile up my pup as if she is too hyped up she just bounces all over the place, and once I say "go" she is eager to go and fast anyway. I guess this means she has good drive for agility?
And then I was in this special training where the trainer said to a kelpie owner, who explained using treats and not toys to not get her dog all crazy riled up, that "no, no you use the best reward possible so the reward is better than the act of doing the agility obstacles". I sort of get it as it could be that they dog would just jump all around the course getting rewarded for not listening, but really the dog was like really out there hyped up already. (I'm never getting a kelpie...) I didn't get involved in the conversation as I was the newbie. But it really bothers me that some of these dogs are super hyped and then in the start the handlers are majorly yelling at them to stay before they get set up in the right place. Ansa is not that good at staying in the start right now, but yelling at her is not going to make it better, training it up is.
So yeah dog sport training can be a bit questionable. (But also fun!)
We don't do real obedience as Ansa likes keeping her space when healing and I don't really mind as I don't want to step on her toes either.
Ok, just a quick "preview" of why I think there are the problems with "drive/drives".
Drive/Drives theories (note the plural) are an attempt to explain why someone does something. there is more than one drive theory, but a very common one is the drive reduction theory that says some kind of "energy/need/urge" builds up in side you that needs released. Thirst, hunger, sex, sleep are a couple examples. The idea is that the need to eat slowly builds until you JUST HAVE TO EAT. but what about when you eat for other reasons than hunger?
So far in my looking into this, the built in life needs (thirst, hunger, sleep, sex, etc) seem to be explained...mostly...sort of.
At a high level the problems with "drives" is, definition. which theory are you referring to? Then there is the question. did you drink that drink to address a "drive" (thirst that HAD to be quenched) or did you do it for some other reason. such as oh maybe Pavlovian conditioning?
In the morning you like to have a cup of coffee to start the day. do you have a "coffee drive" or do you drink coffee due to a CER (conditioned emotional response) through the paring of morning predicts coffee, coffee makes you feel good, so you drink coffee in the morning to feel good.
Or were you just reinforced to drink coffee...mom/dad/spouse/partner offers you a cup of coffee after you get out of bed, and since coffee makes you feel good you are reinforced for getting out of bed by the coffee so you drink the coffee because you got out of bed and have a CER for doing so. Keep in mind skinner and Pavlov are always at work in all that we do.
another problem with "drive theories" is if you don't know the details of the theory and you start just assigning drive to everything your dog does did you even use the concept correct? But if you did, does it really help improve our understanding of why our dogs are doing what they are doing? it needs to or there is no value to it. Does saying your dog has "ball drive" really explain why our dog likes to play fetch? or does the combination of the "runner's high" effect + reinforcement + Pavlov do a better job? Like dominance the value of the principle becomes diminished through over/incorrect use.
Like dominance, to be of value we all need to be on the same page as to what we are trying to say when we say my dog has x drive.
Drive can't be a description of behavior, label for behavior, or explanation of behavior. it can do one, but not all three.
then do any of the "drive" theories better explain behavior vs X behavior is reinforced for Y reason.
And if drives theories really explain behavior, how does it account for learned behavior or behavior that is done for when there appears to be no need to...drinking coffee when you are wide awake, drinking water but not thirsty, sleeping when not tired, consenting to sex even though you feel no need to produce babies, running simply for the fun of it etc, etc.
I am still studying up on this, so some of what I share may not be 100% spot on, and some of my thoughts and questions may change, but it illustrates some of the problems/questions/short coming I am finding and thinking about in relation to trying to explain dog behavior through the idea of "drives". from what I can tell, drive theories are not all all that widely accepted as doing a good job of explaining why one does what one does and have or are falling out of favor.
I am doing my best to go back to the source on the concepts we encounter in the dog world, dominance, positive reinforcement, positive punishment, Pavlovian conditioning, drives and such. it is really very interesting what you find.
Elisa, I agree with the 'to not get too riled up' lady. With Scout food treats work a treat, but balls will get her glazed over, incapable of thinking of anything beyond the ball, and certainly not able to do anything that involves moving her body in a way that's not 'positioned to go and get that ball'.
In agility it actually DOES work quite well, I think because 'moving' is easier to do than 'not moving' (eg. tricks like play dead, or just waiting) and also because if we're ever on a walk near children's play equipment I would often have her jumping on / over / around stuff between each ball throw, so it's part of the game already.
and Jacksdad: Those concepts are far too high falutin' for me to comment on after one early morning read through!
