OK, Van Camp, but what about using 100% inducement for the Teaching Phase? I would imagine that if you do it right, there will be little need for compulsion in proofing. Purely positive advocates would tell you that there is no need for compulsion in proofing, if you're doing it right. Would you say that it's just an opinion that it's neccessary to use both? I mean, if dogs learn through repetition, and your dog always wants to please you, where is the need for compulsion?

I'd also like to take issue with the idea that a correction for non-compliance is a "correction". Wouldn't it actually be a punishment? Can it be both?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, don't pounce on me. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

 Quote:

Originally posted by L Swanston:
I mean, if dogs learn through repetition, and your dog always wants to please you, where is the need for compulsion?

Hi there..back into this I go again..

I don't think dogs do much of anything for "us." I think they do it for themselves. They get satisfaction, reward, avoid of discomfort, etc doing it for them not for you or me. While they learn from repetition, it is for them to do something for them. Egomanics on 4 feet... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

That's a good view Josh. I think that holds true for every living thinking thing...we all avoid discomfort and seek praise and reward.

Intresting post.. that will make you think... I'm sure we all like to think it's because the dogs love us, but it really is because they want dinner later, and them some ball after. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
Very insightful of you.

VanCamp
I think that was an excellent explination of compulsive vs inducive. The bottom line is you have to understand whats in a dogs head, and understand the individual dog. Some trainers are tempermentally suited for one type of training over the other. Some dogs do better with more of one type training than the other. Most dogs can be taught with both and I think a good trainer can be effective using both. There are little fluff dogs out there(and lots of terriers) that can take any compulsion you want to give them. There are probably big, bad working dogs that can't handle a hard correction. I think you can physically make a dog do anything. Some will do it with no problem, some will fall apart. I trained my first dog when I was twelve, with books by Wm Koehler and blanch Saunders (still have them). That's all that was avalable then. Thank goodness Taffy was a very tough Shep/collie cause I was an onry little asshole at twelve. I hope I've come a long way since then. You have to be able to read the dog. Whatever one, or combination of both works for you, and the dog stays happy, go for it.

I certainly agree that dogs are in it for themselves, for the most part. I guess when I said "please you", I really meant "getting goodies", as pleasing the human equals good stuff.
That being said, I do know that there are many dogs out there who do have an earnest desire to please. I think it's part of the dog's pack drive, in that survival is very closely tied to having harmonious relationships with other members of a social group.
I know in my mind that when I praise my Lab, he's reacting to the praise and affection that I'm showing him, which is a reward similar to a treat or a toy/play session. In his mind, he's getting a goody, my praise and affection. However, when he responds by showing affection back to me, then I know on another level that he's happy to have pleased me, not solely because he's getting goodies, but also because it's in his nature to please.
I think different breeds of dogs (and individual dogs within the breeds themselves) have different levels of "willingness to please". When folks are generalizing about what makes a dog tick, it's from frame of reference related to the particular breed and/or individual dogs that they have, or are accustomed to. I'd venture to say that a dominant working line intact male GSD probably could care less if he pleased his handler, while a cupcake of a Labrador does, to a certain extent, want to please.

I would never rely solely on my dog's willingness to please in training him. For one thing, the things I ask of him in scent work are very difficult and demanding, and he has to get something out of it besides an "atta boy" and a pat on the head. Sure, he enjoys the work itself, but he also likes the reward that he gets when he does it right.

Am I wrong in my thinking?

Originally posted by L Swanston:
there are many dogs out there who do have an earnest desire to please. I think it's part of the dog's pack drive, in that survival is very closely tied to having harmonious relationships with other members of a social group. I agree with this, but I think the name for it is submission. It's not that they enjoy pleasing you, it's that they seek the peace that comes from reaffirming that you are the boss and that the social relationship between you and the dog is healthy. The dominant dogs don't care much about submitting to or pleasing their handlers cuz they don't see their relationship as being clearcut boss and subordinate.

That makes sense (both posts, actually, but I'm referring to the one above). But, do you really think it's simply a matter of submission/dominance? Do you not think that dogs are capable of more multidimensional emotional interaction? I'd like to think, in my human way, that my dog truly loves me, not that it's simply a matter of submitting so that he can survive. I acknowledge that I'm probably projecting my human emotional needs upon him, but I do think (want to think) that dogs are more complex than that.

In all cases your response to the dog has to be a function of the dog. Level of correction/compulsion has to be tailored to the dog. If the dog "shuts down" as a result of the correction/compulsion it is too strong. There was a series of studies done in an attempt to "cause" "depression" in mice. The method that produced the desired behavior was to provide negative stimulus at a random schedule independant of behavior. If the correction is too strong, the dog will be so busy trying to avoid the corretion that it never makes the association.

I think any time you limit your use of tools, you weaken the program. If you look at the entire process as providing consequences for behavior it is easier to see the total picture. Whether the consequances are positive or negative makes no difference, both will have an effect on behavior if presented properly.

As I said before the trainer has a lot to do with it. If the trainer doesn't believe in the method, or the method doesn't suit the personality of the trainer, it won't be effective. In many cases this becomes a function of the experience of the trainer, old habits die hard.