Lynn,

 Quote:

Come to a cue = "there might be food", responding to a cue to find game = "there might be leftovers". Dogs hang around human habitation because there is more a chance to scavenge.

I would agree if food was sometimes used after a "recall", but it never is. When the humans are eating, the dogs are nearby already. They don't get called to be fed. They get called when they've scared away cattle from their territory far enough, for example...recalled from strong predatory stimuli.

 Quote:

Other cues the dog responds to would be in the end of self preservation to scavenge another day.

How would a dog figure out that there is "another day"?

Greg,

 Quote:

I bet you wont see the human out doing an ob demo with that kind of dog.My point being a command is only given when it is NEEDED and the dog instinctively understands that.
Its just a natural form of obedience.

Is there a natural form of obedience, that works instinctively?

Jeff,

 Quote:

A dog that does not go along with the owners wishes is not likely to get fed

So...have dogs self selected to respond to human needs?

Mongrel dogs spend large amounts of time doing things with their owners...and have for eons.

Dogs are hardwired to some things, right? They don't like heights for example, whereas birds don't mind at all. Birds don't like shadows, but dogs don't mind them at all.

Why would mongrels attack people on cue? And leave other people alone, on cue?

The essence of my query is this...
Are any canine responses when within a human environment...hardwired?

Obviously, almost anyone can train a dog using classical/operant conditioning, but is there anything additional to classical operant conditioning? If yes, What is it? How do you access it? How do you use it? Can reinforcement take place MUCH later than the operant it reinforces?

So...have dogs self selected to respond to human needs?

They don't have to humans do it for them, ie shooting, not feeding.

 Quote:

1)How mongrels all over the world learn these sets of behaviors and perform them (with a passing grade) in the midst of incredible distraction?

I'll take a stab at this.

The dogs you observe have probably self-selected. You don't see those for whom this setup doesn't work. They either wander off to do something else, may be shot by the "owner" if they tried to bite the hand that fed them, etc....

Whatever reinforcers/punishers are in play work for those particular dogs you are seeing. You don't see the dogs in that environment for whom whatever reinforcement that does exist isn't sufficient.

Over time, the behavior becomes more instinctual. Only those dogs who stick around breed and contribute to the pack. Those without the temperament for the work self-select out and the instinctual component becomes stronger over time.

T

Andre,

 Quote:

Is there a natural form of obedience, that works instinctively

You bet there is.Genetic obedience.Youll hear herding folks talk about it.Its the dogs willingness to please.Its genetic,so its hardwired.

IMO I believe that dogs are drawn to man instinctively.Be it by domestication or whatever.Wolves are at the other end of the spectrum.They reject human contact normally.I may be wrong,just my opinion.

I don't know Andre - I think I see what you are getting at, but are you talking modern day mongrels(mixed breed) or back a few eons? I don't think dogs have self selected to human needs, just that the ones that did things not in line with humans interests became the humans dinner or his fur-hat.
Eons back human interests(hunter-gather) were probably in line with dogs being useful as bark sentinels or hunting activities. Agrarian societies the dog might be seen as useful if it didn't chase and kill your cattle - therefore the more biddable dogs were the ones that got to live. Maybe I am thinking about a different "mongrel" than you are - are you talking native bred or indigenous dogs? - if so some of your points wouldn't apply. If you think of Inuit Dogs you probably have dogs that won't bite on command and aren't real good at being called off a strong predatory stimuli, but are useful at finding game and as a draught animal. Dogs from more settled society, different selection is going to happen. The only canine response that I can see that would be common in all dogs in a human enviroment is some degree of submission to humans, and the ability to work within a pack structure, any hardwired behaviours in the dog would come from this.

Tracy:

 Quote:

You don't see the dogs in that environment for whom whatever reinforcement that does exist isn't sufficient.

 Quote:

Those without the temperament for the work self-select out and the instinctual component becomes stronger over time.

So there are some dogs that genetically REALLY want to obey man?

Lynn:

 Quote:

but are you talking modern day mongrels(mixed breed) or back a few eons?

I don´t think we can undo - although we try HARD - what has taken between 50,000 and 100,000 years to accomplish with the "domestic dog". It's like Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.

 Quote:

Agrarian societies the dog might be seen as useful if it didn't chase and kill your cattle - therefore the more biddable dogs were the ones that got to live. Maybe I am thinking about a different "mongrel" than you are - are you talking native bred or indigenous dogs? - if so some of your points wouldn't apply. If you think of Inuit Dogs you probably have dogs that won't bite on command and aren't real good at being called off a strong predatory stimuli, but are useful at finding game and as a draught animal. Dogs from more settled society, different selection is going to happen.

Dogs may have developed hardwiring geographically, according to the survival skills needed in each location.

 Quote:

The only canine response that I can see that would be common in all dogs in a human enviroment is some degree of submission to humans, and the ability to work within a pack structure, any hardwired behaviours in the dog would come from this.

Do dogs see us as part of their pack, or are they hardwired to see us as PROVIDERS?

Are there any hardwired reinforcers - primary ones - in addition to IMMEDIATE food, play, hunt, sex? Not necessarily in that order... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Is banishment a hardwired "positive punishment"? That is to say, it "happens if the dog performs anti-human things", thus decreasing their likelihood.

I don't think that dogs see us as pack memebers but their own social structure is such that it adapts well to interaction with or adaptation to human social(or pack) structure. Humans as hunters developed the behaviour patterns and skill sets needed for co-operative hunting and group living(as do canines). Banishment as a hardwired "positive punishment" to dogs would be held in common with humans. If a social structure is such that the survival of an individual is enhanced by belonging to that structure, then banishment would definetly be a positive punishment particularily to co-operative hunters(2 or 4 legged...) <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I'm so confused - yet so amazed, that there's a 2 page discussion about a post that I don't really understand what the purpose was. Was it creative literature? Observations about certain dogs you see? What prompted it? Was there a question I missed?

I've lived all over the world, from Spain to Dubai in the middle east to Curacao in the Carribean, and visited more places than I can count on 2 hands and a foot... I've seen my share of mistreated and stray dogs... most seem to be at peace with the general public and like to follow you around and stick their noses in trash cans, you almost want to pet them and feed them if it weren't for the fear of rabies or other diseases.

That said, I'm still confused what this thread was intended to be about.

Quote:I'm so confused - yet so amazed,

Yes beginners often are <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />
I took it as a discussion on how we get kinda carried away making sure "baby" gets all the love, and expensive food, and check his poop, and go spend rediculous amounts of time and money training "baby".
Then you go to some backwater country and the dogs eat dirt, have no shelter, are treated like crap, but most of them behave better than "baby" ever will.

How does classical "operant conditioning theory" work in this scenario?



Exactly like it does in any other situation.