NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

Today's article on the main site: Should you say NO to your Labrador A look at the use and relevance of the word NO in modern dog training

 

Re: NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

As always, Pippa, an interesting and thought provoking article. I want to ask lots of questions!!

But I'll stick to just one.

You categorise 'no' in three ways
As a correction
As a punishment predictor
As an interrupter

Could there be more? What about as an indicator of displeasure? Or would that be correction? But is that not acceptable when they're puppies? I use 'aaah' to indicate I don't like it, e.g. a over enthusiastic bite, withdraw my attention, then reward by resuming play after a moment or two.

 

Re: NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

Great article.

We use 'no' when we don't want her to touch something.

Apart form shoes and leads : Tatze doesn't try to pick up anything which is not hers. But if anything unusual is on the floor or chair, she does. A calm 'ah ah, no' causes her to put her nose on it, look at me, then come away.

(I can't remember how we trained for it, it just happened!)

 

Re: NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

Hi Gordon, I'm categorising here by the way in which this word acts on or influences the dog's behaviour. Whereas your example is one of many potential ways, in which you might express your emotions.

I guess any expression of displeasure could fall into any of those three categories I listed.

I am not trying to pass judgement on the use of no, I use it myself sometimes, but rather I'm trying to be objective about what it achieves and how useful it is, if that makes sense

 

Re: NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

We use a magic word now, which is cheese!

Benson adores cheese, so we started to say cheese with a big (cheesy smile.. ;D) then he gets big hunk of his favourite cheese, not initially a reward, but to mark a high value treat that we very, very rarely give.

We found by accident really when we say "cheese!" in a cheerful, high pitched sort of voice he stops what he is doing, and looks to us. We now add a bit of cooked chicken/lamb etc.. and extra praise plus a tummy rub! This is a now an extra special reward, so on a particular (rare) good recall, when he actually comes back he get the word "cheese!" and gets a high value treat, not sure if that is how you are supposed to do it though, but it seems to work for us.

 

Re: NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

[quote author=editor link=topic=6131.msg80174#msg80174 date=1400738846]
I am not trying to pass judgement on the use of no, I use it myself sometimes, but rather I'm trying to be objective about what it achieves and how useful it is, if that makes sense
[/quote]

Yes, I understand what you're trying to do and I think an interesting, objective discussion on what lies behind it would be good. It leads the discussion to setting boundaries and consequences. I personally don't buy in to the fad (and it is a fad I think, in 10 years time we'll be doing something different I'm sure) that everything has to be a positive experience. In fact I think I could outline a very good case to support the times that a negative consequence is effective and perhaps better.

We humans do have a tendency to think we can not only improve on previous ways but we persuade ourselves the previous ways were just 'so wrong', hence the introduction of a whole new vocabulary to demonise the 'old ways'. Words like aversive, punishment and so on. All emotive and in most cases, just plain wrong.

As we do for our children, it is our duty to love them and teach them boundaries & consequences. Isn't the same true for our dogs?

 

Re: NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

I use "no, no" in a neutral tone for Charlie but it is only meaningful when we are training or playing (he can't tell the difference) and for him it simply means "try something else, because that doesn't get you a reward". It all other circumstances, it is pretty meaningless to him.

[quote author=gad link=topic=6131.msg80196#msg80196 date=1400747119]
I personally don't buy in to the fad (and it is a fad I think, in 10 years time we'll be doing something different I'm sure) that everything has to be a positive experience. In fact I think I could outline a very good case to support the times that a negative consequence is effective and perhaps better.
[/quote]

When you say "everything has to be a positive experience" you mean positive only training methods - with positive reinforcement and negative punishments? This does not mean everything is a positive experience.

Positive only training is not about a lack of boundaries. For me, it's a better way. I don't believe it's a fad.

It might depend on the human though, not the dog, and a view of what is "effective". Using positive punishment ruins my relationship with my dog - because of how it makes me feel - but since I can only use very mild forms of positive punishment, and my dog is robust, it has more effect on me than the dog.

I can and do use negative punishment, although try to keep it to a minimum - as my dog finds the withholding of positive experiences he expects very frustrating, even distressing. So I need to be careful what I do. But it is a lot more effective than any positive punishment I am able or prepared to impose.

[quote author=gad link=topic=6131.msg80196#msg80196 date=1400747119]
We humans do have a tendency to think we can not only improve on previous ways but we persuade ourselves the previous ways were just 'so wrong', hence the introduction of a whole new vocabulary to demonise the 'old ways'. Words like aversive, punishment and so on. All emotive and in most cases, just plain wrong.
[/quote]

It's called progress. Yes, people are often enthusiastic for new techniques, and there can be a rebalancing over time. It's also true that new use of language can annoy and make new things less than accessible. But it's a positive process in many fields and disciplines, it's how things get better.

An aversive is an aversive, a punishment is punishment. It's less objective to call them something else. There are some really thoughtful threads on the forum about effective use of aversives and mild punishments - no-one is demonising them, but being intelligently aware of what they are, and using them thoughtfully (if they choose). That's not a bad thing.

 

Re: NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

Hi Gordon, I think your post raises a couple of important issues. I only have a few minutes, so I’ll come back later

For now, I’ll just address the question of positive reinforcement training being seen as permissive

I wanted to say, “this goes without saying”. But obviously it doesn’t. This is really what dog training is all about isn’t it?

Setting boundaries, or rules as to what you are willing to allow your dog to do, is really important. People often struggle because they haven’t actually considered where they want their dog’s boundaries to lie. Or even that he needs any.

Consequences are the bedrock of training, and controlling consequences is the key to successfully controlling any dog.

I tried to convey in the article, that training can be effective using both traditional or modern methods. I think that the theme throughout the Labrador Site is that training is the key to a happy and well adjusted dog.

Is there anywhere in the article, where you get the impression that boundaries and consequences are not a good thing?

 

Re: NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

I have to whole heartedly disagree that positive training is a "fad". It would be very interesting to hear what Emily Larlham thought. Take a look at her on You Tube https://www.youtube.com/user/kikopup

I can't see how firm boundaries (by firm i mean unwavering) and consequences can't be a part of a positive only training regime. Her dogs seem to know precisely what's expected of them.

 

Re: NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

Julie, interesting points. I think we're on the same page to be honest. Maybe I wasn't expressing myself clearly enough. My use of 'no' is exactly the same as yours - stop what you're doing and do something else, even if that's nothing. In time, then 'no' pretty much becomes redundant as they mature. But they know it means stop what you're doing. Unlike Charlie, I've found this work in whatever the circumstance.

Of course, each dog and it's human is different and they have to find what works for them, I agree with you on that too. So we are just talking broad brush principles.

You mention 'progress' - just a tad patronisingly I thought as you qualify it by 'balancing over time' so I think we're thinking on the same lines. New ways doesn't always mean progress although I also believe that being positive is better in the main, so we're in agreement here too. I merely wanted to explore the adherence to that school of thought above all else, no exceptions and the alternative. I'm open minded but confess I'm coming from it does no harm to add in something negative, the equivalent of the naughty step for example.

Terminology is important though and it's just not true to say an aversive is an aversive and a punishment is a punishment, you first have to define what they are. There's a huge difference in beating your dog with a stick and saying 'aah' to express displeasure and thus indicating he's stepped over the boundary. The 'aaah' sound and the consequence of I'm not playing with you anymore is negative but in a good way I think, and I know that sounds contradictory. No different to what dogs would do to themselves so it's a behaviour they recognise innately, e.g. older dog softly growls, gets up and walks away.

Pippa: you're right, I think the obvious sometimes does need saying. Boundaries and consequences I mean. We assume (know) that training is synonymous with setting boundaries and consequences but you must see the evidence daily that it's not the case with some people?

I wasn't saying positive only training doesn't set boundaries, I merely wanted to discuss the use of negative in the mix. I'm not sure what the difference, Julie, between positive and negative punishment is? Wouldn't all punishment in itself be negative, the revised behaviours being the positive outcome? Didn't you say a punishment is a punishment?

I'm not arguing the case for or against - just wanted to expand on Pippa's thought provoking article in an objective way. Dialectic does facilitate progress.

 

Re: NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

[quote author=hd link=topic=6131.msg80229#msg80229 date=1400753879]
I have to whole heartedly disagree that positive training is a "fad". It would be very interesting to hear what Emily Larlham thought. Take a look at her on You Tube https://www.youtube.com/user/kikopup
[/quote]

OK, OK, 'fad' was a poor choice of word. Contemporary more accurately conveys my meaning. And in ten years, it will be Emily who? Remember Barbara Woodbouse? or should we all be following Cesar Milan? She's got a good method, no argument there, is she right about everything - most definitely not.

No need to be so protective, I'll I was trying to do was have an objective discussion and explore different training methods, sparked by an informative, well written and objective piece on saying no. Maybe this isn't the place to do that.

 

Re: NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

I see nothing wrong with saying NO to your dog, but I think that is as much to do with the tone we use rather than the actual word. It is hard to say NO in a jolly voice and therefore when we use the word NO the dog realises by the tone we are using that it has done or is about to do something wrong.

The firmness with which I say NO depends on the dog and the situation. Ruby is a sensitive girly and doesn't do much wrong, therefore my NO is often said quite softly and has the desired effect. Bella is more resilient and responds better to a firmer NO.

Chloe

 

Re: NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

Gordon you can have positive and negative reinforcement as you can have positive and negative punishment.

I think this explains it quite well

http://bcotb.com/the-difference-between-positivenegative-reinforcement-and-positivenegative-punishment/

 

Re: NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

[quote author=bbrown link=topic=6131.msg80256#msg80256 date=1400758807]
Gordon you can have positive and negative reinforcement as you can have positive and negative punishment.

I think this explains it quite well

http://bcotb.com/the-difference-between-positivenegative-reinforcement-and-positivenegative-punishment/
[/quote]

Very interesting, the comments on the article made interesting reading too - even the behaviourists disagree! I'll need to read it several times more to really understand the distinctions as they are quite subtle, if I'm understanding this correctly, positive punishment is adding a stimulus, e.g slapping, negative punishment is taking a stimulus away, e.g, my playing time. Is that right?

I think I was getting confused with the everyday definition of 'positive', i.e. Positive = good thing

Thanks.

 

Re: NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

[quote author=gad link=topic=6131.msg80251#msg80251 date=1400756761]

You mention 'progress' - just a tad patronisingly I thought

[/quote]

You are quite right, it was.

 

Re: NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

[quote author=gad link=topic=6131.msg80262#msg80262 date=1400760070]
I think I was getting confused with the everyday definition of 'positive', i.e. Positive = good thing
[/quote]

Yes I definitely had that problem when I first got involved in these kind of discussions too

 

Re: NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

[quote author=gad link=topic=6131.msg80254#msg80254 date=1400757665]
[quote author=hd link=topic=6131.msg80229#msg80229 date=1400753879]
I have to whole heartedly disagree that positive training is a "fad". It would be very interesting to hear what Emily Larlham thought. Take a look at her on You Tube https://www.youtube.com/user/kikopup
[/quote]

OK, OK, 'fad' was a poor choice of word. Contemporary more accurately conveys my meaning. And in ten years, it will be Emily who? Remember Barbara Woodbouse? or should we all be following Cesar Milan? She's got a good method, no argument there, is she right about everything - most definitely not.

No need to be so protective, I'll I was trying to do was have an objective discussion and explore different training methods, sparked by an informative, well written and objective piece on saying no. Maybe this isn't the place to do that.
[/quote]

I'm sorry you felt i was being protective. i'm not sure what i was being protective of.

I think Emily would suggest that she is just one dog trainer in an evolutionary process of dog training where we learn from those who've gone before and we improve things for the future. I do remember Barbara Woodhouse (I'm old) and indeed Cesar has been useful in showing us how methods of the past have become unnecessary as our methodologies have improved. What would you say Emily (or kikopup as I know her!) is wrong about?

Another forum had a video on of a labrardor trial 20 - 30 years ago. the standard of dog handling wouldn't get you a win today. Those changes have occurred due to improvements in training. In 20 years the dog trailing standard will be better than today but will be built on the building blocks of the type of training that people like Emily Larlham are doing today.

 

Re: NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

I think it's a lot like having toddlers.

Engineering things so that the times when 'no' needs to be said are as few as possible works well. So, making the house and garden puppy proof, putting temptation out of the way and being sure that you know what your pup is doing and where s/he is at all times.

I am a teacher and I try to say 'yes' to all questions unless 'no' is absolutely necessary. So things like 'please may I have a drink of water' always get a 'yes'. It simply makes for a more positive atmosphere. Some teachers say 'No, you should have had one at playtime' - then, straight away, they are engendering a negative atmosphere imo.

At the same time they all (dogs and kids) need to know that 'no means no' - so say what you mean and mean what you say.

Consistence works works works ----- dripping water wears away a stone.

 

Re: NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

This is one of the advantages of the using behavioural language, there are clear definitions to these terms and they are widely understood by all canine behaviourists, and by all dog trainers who are acquainted with learning theory. Before too long, that will indeed include all professional dog trainers. We’re nearly there already.

Of course, there is a whole spectrum of punishment. From a mild verbal rebuke, to extreme violence. It is a question of degree. And I think this is widely understood by the general population

You can punish a child by sending him to sit on a naughty step, or by confiscating a favourite toy. No-one would argue that this is not a punishment, even though it is clearly not cruel or harsh. It is the same with dog training. People generally understand that punishment is not necessarily synonymous with cruelty.

All punishment however, works in the same way, to diminish behaviours, and all punishment has its downside, particularly for dogs: The downside of using punishment. See also The use of punishment in dog training

I think it is important that people understand that they are using punishment (however mild) when they do so, because this knowledge is useful. Many people using the word NO or AH-AH as a punisher, are unaware that that is what they are doing.

I spoke to a lady the other day who is committed to training without aversives. It is something that is important to her. Yet she was using Cesar Milans Tsst tsst noise (effectively I might add) and had no idea that this was an aversive. She was trying to figure out how it worked and was quite disconcerted when I explained!

Absolutely, consistency is essential for effective training.

 

Re: NEW article: Should you say NO to your Labrador

[quote author=JulieT link=topic=6131.msg80270#msg80270 date=1400761225]
[quote author=gad link=topic=6131.msg80251#msg80251 date=1400756761]

You mention 'progress' - just a tad patronisingly I thought

[/quote]

You are quite right, it was.
[/quote]

That'll be helpful then