 Re: Separate sit and down
[Re: Duane Hull ]
#384766 - 10/21/2013 02:31 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 10-01-2013
Posts: 343
Loc: nyc
 Offline |
|
The "theory of distractions" was not created by a singular person. It is an observation repeated by millions of dog trainers over countless years, and has come to be accepted as common knowledge. These trainers determined that devaluing the distraction resulted in better focus for the dog.
You can experiment with this on your own, and I suspect that you will come up with the same conclusion.
eta: If that math analogy didn't work for you, let's try another.
On Monday, you teach addition to a group of six-year-olds. However, in the corner of the room is a clown making and handing out balloon animals while you teach. Do you think the children would learn better if you had their undivided attention? If you gave them a quiz on Tuesday, what do predict the results would be?
I'm not arguing with the theory, I already said that I'm following it because my way didn't work.
I'm strictly trying to get an answer to something that makes no difference in how I will go forward.
Your example, yeah, kids won't learn as good. But if one kid managed to, does this mean his knowledge is less stable (for lack of a better word)? Like if someone learned something under distractions, what does it mean? Knowledge won't stick?
Again, I'm not advocating for starting with distractions. Trying to solve a puzzle that bothers me, that's all
|
 Top
|
|
Re: Separate sit and down
[Re: Duane Hull ]
#384767 - 10/21/2013 02:34 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 10-01-2013
Posts: 343
Loc: nyc
| Offline |
|
My sincere apologies to the board for beating this dead horse, but there are some points here that I think would be better addressed than ignored.
Food for thought...
If you're going to take algebra in high school, is it really necessary to learn math in elementary school? What would be the reason that you don't skip straight to algebra and geometry? Why not just skip all the way to calculus, for that matter?
Bad analogy. Each math level is a new level, you learn different things.
Dogs learn the same commands. It would actually be logical to assume if you can get them to sit with distractions then you skipped steps.
It might not be correct but it's definitely logical
Each level in math builds on the previous level. You can't learn algebra until you master basic math. You can't learn calculus without first knowing algebra.
If all you're ever going to teach your dog is basic commands, then following a sequence may not seem critical to you. However, as most of us here do, our training goes beyond the basics, and more advanced behaviors build on the fundamentals learned in the foundation building steps.
If I want to teach my dog to sit whenever we stop during heeling, then I must have a reliable sit before I start training the automatic sit. Based on my experience, the only way to make sure that she is ready is to reinforce and proof my dog's sit. It is terribly hard to reinforce that sit if my dog is worried about the other dog over there.
I understand this concept and the concept of layers, that the foundation has to be stable first. So that's my question, if a dog managed to learn a sit under distractions does it mean it's not as stable and can't be built on?
That's the part I'm stuck at and I'm not talking about my dog, his sit is not reliable
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Separate sit and down
[Re: Natalie Rynda ]
#384770 - 10/21/2013 02:49 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 09-23-2011
Posts: 2692
Loc: Marrero, LA
| Offline |
|
That's up to you, Natalie. Do you want a dog that sits immediately every time, which makes it easier to move on to other areas of training, or do you want a dog that sits slowly if he feels like it, and is looking everywhere else, instead of focusing on you and waiting for the next command?
As you have seen here, we advocate focus and engagement because it forms a stronger foundation.
As far as kids and math, is it your goal to teach a group and hope that one kid gets it, or do you want to teach in a way that guarantees success for every child that you interact with??
Sadie |
|
Top
|
|
Re: Separate sit and down
[Re: Natalie Rynda ]
#384775 - 10/21/2013 03:27 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 12-28-2005
Posts: 2316
Loc:
| Offline |
|
My sincere apologies to the board for beating this dead horse, but there are some points here that I think would be better addressed than ignored.
Food for thought...
If you're going to take algebra in high school, is it really necessary to learn math in elementary school? What would be the reason that you don't skip straight to algebra and geometry? Why not just skip all the way to calculus, for that matter?
Bad analogy. Each math level is a new level, you learn different things.
Dogs learn the same commands. It would actually be logical to assume if you can get them to sit with distractions then you skipped steps.
It might not be correct but it's definitely logical
Each level in math builds on the previous level. You can't learn algebra until you master basic math. You can't learn calculus without first knowing algebra.
If all you're ever going to teach your dog is basic commands, then following a sequence may not seem critical to you. However, as most of us here do, our training goes beyond the basics, and more advanced behaviors build on the fundamentals learned in the foundation building steps.
If I want to teach my dog to sit whenever we stop during heeling, then I must have a reliable sit before I start training the automatic sit. Based on my experience, the only way to make sure that she is ready is to reinforce and proof my dog's sit. It is terribly hard to reinforce that sit if my dog is worried about the other dog over there.
I understand this concept and the concept of layers, that the foundation has to be stable first. So that's my question, if a dog managed to learn a sit under distractions does it mean it's not as stable and can't be built on?
That's the part I'm stuck at and I'm not talking about my dog, his sit is not reliable Quite possibly. The less foundation work that you do the more likely it is that your training will fall apart as you move on. And once again keep in mind the fact that just because a dog learns something in one environment (low or high distraction) that doesn't mean that they are solid on it or that they'll *know* it in every environment.
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Separate sit and down
[Re: Mara Jessup ]
#384778 - 10/21/2013 03:58 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 10-01-2013
Posts: 343
Loc: nyc
| Offline |
|
Quite possibly. The less foundation work that you do the more likely it is that your training will fall apart as you move on. And once again keep in mind the fact that just because a dog learns something in one environment (low or high distraction) that doesn't mean that they are solid on it or that they'll *know* it in every environment.
Yes, I understand the need for multiple environments but it'd still seem like lots of work is skipped. I still have to teach him to sit at home but that's easy because there's no distractions.
I think I get it now though. It'd be nice if Ed gave the reason in his article. I like his articles but he sometimes says things and expects people to take them as fact without explaining the reasoning
For example, he said that the reason clicker training was created as a no corrections style of training was because clicker people came from the world of sea training and you can't correct a killer whale.
Wouldn't it mean that if you can train a killer whale with no corrections then so can you a dog?
These are the things I wonder when I read his articles.
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Separate sit and down
[Re: Duane Hull ]
#384779 - 10/21/2013 04:00 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 10-01-2013
Posts: 343
Loc: nyc
| Offline |
|
As far as kids and math, is it your goal to teach a group and hope that one kid gets it, or do you want to teach in a way that guarantees success for every child that you interact with??
This angle explains it, thank you)))) this is what I was looking for.
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Separate sit and down
[Re: Natalie Rynda ]
#384782 - 10/21/2013 04:19 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 09-23-2011
Posts: 2692
Loc: Marrero, LA
| Offline |
|
There's a difference between clicker training and marker training. That is why I like verbal markers. With verbal markers, and especially in a balanced system, the dog not only learns what he does right, but understands when he is wrong.
Sadie |
|
Top
|
|
Re: Separate sit and down
[Re: Natalie Rynda ]
#384785 - 10/21/2013 04:46 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 12-28-2005
Posts: 2316
Loc:
| Offline |
|
For an in depth look at clicker/marker training read Karen Pryor's book "Reaching the animal mind". Personally, I like to use a clicker instead of verbal. It's highly consistent. And when a dog is highly engaged, NOT rewarding becomes a form of communication. I'm not against corrections or a "nope" and do use them but have found the more I rely on engagement, the better my dogs perform. Right now when training a new behavior I do not use corrections. When proofing a learned behavior that my dog has demonstrated a good knowledge of in multiple environments I'm probably at 90-95% positive 5-10% corrections
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Separate sit and down
[Re: Natalie Rynda ]
#384787 - 10/21/2013 04:56 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 10-01-2013
Posts: 343
Loc: nyc
| Offline |
|
The problem I had with clicker training back then was that clicker purists don't believe in correcting a dog. In fact they don't think corrections have a place in dog training. I totally disagree with this line of thinking and because of that I refused to look into what the marker system was really all about. I knew from experience that there are times when a pack leader has to correct his dog. I also knew (because of the kind of dogs that I trained - high drive tough dogs that were trained to do handler protection work) that there are also precise places and times in a training program where a dog has to experience a correction for disobedience (we will discuss this in detail later in this article).
With this said many of the people who brought clicker training to the world of dog training came from training sea mammals and birds. You can't correct a killer whale or a parrot when they disobey. It just doesn't work. These people thought they could apply the same exact training principles to dogs and they convinced a lot of new dog trainers that they were right. Well in my opinion they were wrong.
When I began to see marker trained dogs that were energetic well trained animals who loved working with their handlers I started to explore exactly what marker training was all about. That's when I realized how foolish I had been to poo poo the such a great training system.
i was just wondering about the reasoning for this. the logical bridge. if killer whales can be trained with no corrections then why can't dogs?
again, disclaimer, i choose to follow ME and Ed because i believe in balance and i believe there should be corrections. i'm just wondering about the logic in that statement.
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Separate sit and down
[Re: Natalie Rynda ]
#384791 - 10/21/2013 05:55 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 12-28-2005
Posts: 2316
Loc:
| Offline |
|
Dogs can be trained without corrections (I know people who don't use corrections) however dogs also have the ability to take a correction and learn from it. They have a high level of pack drive that those other species do not. Correct a killer whale and they'll be done with it, correct a dog (in a straightforward, fair manner) and they learn from it. Dogs are also routinely trained to a much higher/more precise level than those other species.
|
|
Top
|
When purchasing any product from Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. it is understood
that any and all products sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. are sold in Dunn
County Wisconsin, USA. Any and all legal action taken against Leerburg Enterprises,
Inc. concerning the purchase or use of these products must take place in Dunn
County, Wisconsin. If customers do not agree with this policy they should not
purchase Leerburg Ent. Inc. products.
Dog Training is never without risk of injury. Do not use any of the products
sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. without consulting a local professional.
The training methods shown in the Leerburg Ent. Inc. DVD’s are meant
to be used with a local instructor or trainer. Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. cannot
be held responsible for accidents or injuries to humans and/or animals.
Copyright 2010 Leerburg® Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. All photos and content on leerburg.com are part of a registered copyright owned by Leerburg Enterprise, Inc.
By accessing any information within Leerburg.com, you agree to abide by the
Leerburg.com Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Previous Topic
Index
Next Topic
