Don't use 'no'?
- Thread starter Southpaw
- Start date
Mine don't hear "No" all that often . . .
What they DO hear, though, is "What do you think you're doing?" or "What the Hell is that all about?" "Are you doing something you shouldn't?" or "Don't even think about it!" "I hope you've got a good reason for doing that!" or some variant.
Literally makes 'em stop and think, lol! You should see the backtracking that starts happening . . . But, as I've said many times, I'm an absolutely horrible trainer . . .
What they DO hear, though, is "What do you think you're doing?" or "What the Hell is that all about?" "Are you doing something you shouldn't?" or "Don't even think about it!" "I hope you've got a good reason for doing that!" or some variant.
Literally makes 'em stop and think, lol! You should see the backtracking that starts happening . . . But, as I've said many times, I'm an absolutely horrible trainer . . .
W
why try and mind screw this??? No means stop what you're doing. If people can use OK for general stuff, ok to break a sit, ok to break a down ok to meet somebody, ok for this and ok for that, surely No can mean stop whatever you're doing
If off can mean off the couch, off the guest, off the chair, off the top of the picnic table.
surely your dog can learn that. Mine knows off very well. I can call her up into bed, and tell her off one minute later, and she doesn't come back on. If in a haste she's really excited and goes to jump on the bed, If NO comes out, she knows what it means... I'm not allowed to do that action im' doing.
If off can mean off the couch, off the guest, off the chair, off the top of the picnic table.
surely your dog can learn that. Mine knows off very well. I can call her up into bed, and tell her off one minute later, and she doesn't come back on. If in a haste she's really excited and goes to jump on the bed, If NO comes out, she knows what it means... I'm not allowed to do that action im' doing.
The thing with that statement is, what if their doing more than one thing? What if you said "no" to no bone on the couch, but didn't mean "no, your not allowed on the couch?"
My trainer hates it but I talk to my dogs like humans. "Roxy, come on, get your bone of the couch! You know better than that!"
I have specific "no" commands for certain things, and in the situations where Roxy will understand just "no", I use it. But only if she knows exactly why I'm telling her "no". Ex) Roxy knows she's not allowed to lick the kids TOO MUCH! LOL, If I say "no" she understands that.
If Hades stole Roxy's kong, and I just said "no!", he would probably get confused and think he wasn't allowed to have a kong period, and go to his kennel and sulk.
I think "no" is ok to use in certain circumstances, but in others, specific direction as to what they've done wrong works much better than just plain old "no".
My trainer hates it but I talk to my dogs like humans. "Roxy, come on, get your bone of the couch! You know better than that!"
I have specific "no" commands for certain things, and in the situations where Roxy will understand just "no", I use it. But only if she knows exactly why I'm telling her "no". Ex) Roxy knows she's not allowed to lick the kids TOO MUCH! LOL, If I say "no" she understands that.
If Hades stole Roxy's kong, and I just said "no!", he would probably get confused and think he wasn't allowed to have a kong period, and go to his kennel and sulk.
I think "no" is ok to use in certain circumstances, but in others, specific direction as to what they've done wrong works much better than just plain old "no".
The whole movement against "no" is almost as silly as teachers using purple to grade because it is friendlier than red.
http://www.boston.com/news/educatio...ness_of_red_marks_has_students_seeing_purple/
http://www.boston.com/news/educatio...ness_of_red_marks_has_students_seeing_purple/
That's just weird.
Hmm I don't know...I say no to get them to stop. Maybe 2 hours later they'll go back and do the same thing, but at least I can get them to stop. Today when I had Lucy outside, she saw a chipmunk and went running after it, well my neighbors have a hole under their fence that she can very easily fit under and the chipmunk was running right towards it. As she ran off I immediately said "no", she stopped dead in her tracks and looked back at me, and I was able to call her back to me. I'm sure in most cases, "stay" would do instead, but she is still very shaky on "stay" and I haven't introduced too many distractions, so that would not have worked.
Meh, I don't know...I'm horrible when it comes to training dogs, so it's rather shocking that Lucy is actually obedient lol. But, I don't think I'm hurting anything by saying no and I definitely get the results I want from it, so it can't be all that bad?
Hmm I don't know...I say no to get them to stop. Maybe 2 hours later they'll go back and do the same thing, but at least I can get them to stop. Today when I had Lucy outside, she saw a chipmunk and went running after it, well my neighbors have a hole under their fence that she can very easily fit under and the chipmunk was running right towards it. As she ran off I immediately said "no", she stopped dead in her tracks and looked back at me, and I was able to call her back to me. I'm sure in most cases, "stay" would do instead, but she is still very shaky on "stay" and I haven't introduced too many distractions, so that would not have worked.
Meh, I don't know...I'm horrible when it comes to training dogs, so it's rather shocking that Lucy is actually obedient lol. But, I don't think I'm hurting anything by saying no and I definitely get the results I want from it, so it can't be all that bad?
W
RedyreRottweilers said:
Using NO is using NEGATIVES to modify behavior.
Some of us prefer to use more positive means, meaning direct the dog to the desired behavior, instead of pointing out the UNdesired behavior all the time.
Some of us prefer to use more positive means, meaning direct the dog to the desired behavior, instead of pointing out the UNdesired behavior all the time.
But just so I'm seeing things your way, by only directing dogs to the desired behavior and not pointing out undesired behavior I'm only using "positive" means. So when I tell my dog to "off" of the couch, she see's that as a positive??? I'm sure most dogs would rather be on the couch than off, be chasing the squirrel instead of sitting, be begging for food at the table rather than being in a down somewhere else.
Sure I can see the benefit of telling my dog to down when i'm going to the mailbox and don't want her by the road, and I can certainly see the benefit of telling my dog to "out" to quit biting on the bad guy, but sometimes NO means STOP, for crying out loud its no freaking different than saying "watch me" EXCEPT in our minds. When I say NO the behavior stops, and she instantly looks to me for direction and maintains eye contact however far away she is. YOu tell me the difference between NO and WATCH ME to the dog, there is none in this case its all in our mind what's positive and negative.
Why do people have so many mental hang ups when it comes to dog training?
No one ever answered something I posted a while back in this thread. You catch your dog chewing the table. You don't say no. You give the dog a toy or chewie to distract them from the negative action. What prevents the dog from associating the bad behavior with getting a reward? "If I chew this table, I'll get a treat". When you talk about the dog being in a situation like on the couch with a bone, and thinking the dog is confused, why would it be confused if you say no vs saying off? If your dog is allowed on the couch, but isn't allowed to have bones on the couch, he's going to know when you say no to him that it means no bone, not no couch, unless you are not reinforcing the no bone rule all the time, or being inconsistent about allowing the dog on the couch.
Sorry, call me a negative reinforcer, but No is a good word for the dog to understand.
Sorry, call me a negative reinforcer, but No is a good word for the dog to understand.
W
BEAUTIFUL!! I've tried making that point before, but this one seems pretty easy to follow.
The best I can tell is that nothing good can come from being negative, and nothing bad can come from being positive. according to some. You can't reinforce an unwanted behavior when you use positive methods, and you'll only "break" your dog if you use something else.
Just like when you tell your dog to down, and it does and chews on grass sticks or anything else it can gets its mouth on, its not a displacement behavior from being stressed or anything, its just a happy dog because I train using "positive" methods.
and yes there is a heavy dose of sarcasm in there especially for a monday
The best I can tell is that nothing good can come from being negative, and nothing bad can come from being positive. according to some. You can't reinforce an unwanted behavior when you use positive methods, and you'll only "break" your dog if you use something else.
Just like when you tell your dog to down, and it does and chews on grass sticks or anything else it can gets its mouth on, its not a displacement behavior from being stressed or anything, its just a happy dog because I train using "positive" methods.
and yes there is a heavy dose of sarcasm in there especially for a monday
DanL My dogs know that bones aren't allowed on the couch. If they try to sneak a bone onto the couch I could say "Super-cali-fragilistic-espialadocious" or however it goes, and they would probably take the bone elsewhere.
I don't think we're giving the dogs enough credit here though. Of course the dogs understand our different commands. Would just plain simple "no" work?? Of course it would, but what happens to the kid who hears "NO" all the time? One day he just freaks out and does all those things that he go "NO" to. I'm not saying that because you just use "no" your dogs going to flip out, but it's a good comparison.
By using different words, and giving other routes for them to go: dogs chewing on table. "ah ah", and than give them a toy. They'll see that, and they probably already know that chewing on the table is an undesirable behaviour. "ah ah", is kind of like saying "hey there!", and the toy is the allowed behaviour.
Dogs are always going to be doing something wrong. I think the "positive reinforcement" side is just because, you know their going to mess up, sometimes a lot so why not take on a happier tone with "corrections". With the negative way, that would be a lot of negative in a puppies life! Puppies are doing "bad stuff" ALL the time! I can only see a day full of "NOs!" and pointed fingers. When instead, a soft "ah ah" and than playing with a toy. It seems like a lot more fun for a puppy.
I don't think we're giving the dogs enough credit here though. Of course the dogs understand our different commands. Would just plain simple "no" work?? Of course it would, but what happens to the kid who hears "NO" all the time? One day he just freaks out and does all those things that he go "NO" to. I'm not saying that because you just use "no" your dogs going to flip out, but it's a good comparison.
By using different words, and giving other routes for them to go: dogs chewing on table. "ah ah", and than give them a toy. They'll see that, and they probably already know that chewing on the table is an undesirable behaviour. "ah ah", is kind of like saying "hey there!", and the toy is the allowed behaviour.
Dogs are always going to be doing something wrong. I think the "positive reinforcement" side is just because, you know their going to mess up, sometimes a lot so why not take on a happier tone with "corrections". With the negative way, that would be a lot of negative in a puppies life! Puppies are doing "bad stuff" ALL the time! I can only see a day full of "NOs!" and pointed fingers. When instead, a soft "ah ah" and than playing with a toy. It seems like a lot more fun for a puppy.
Gunnar's puppyhood was not filled with "no" and pointing fingers. I used redirection, like if he was playing and decided that biting your fingers was fun, he got a toy put in his mouth. But once he learns what behavior is acceptable and what is not, you shouldn't have to keep redirecting. If he decides to take a chomp out of my hand when we're playing now, he is told no.
Can we get off of comparing dogs to humans? By the time a child has the faculty to process language and reason, it can't be compared to a dog. If I caught my kids doing something wrong, I can say no to get their attention, and then explain why what they did was not acceptable. Kids have the brain power to comprehend reasoning, so when you explain it to them afterwards, they understand and hopefully won't write on the walls with crayons again or whatever caused them to hear no in the 1st place. Sure, if you always told a kid no and never explained yourself, you might be looking at a time bomb, but if thats how someone decides to raise their kids then there are bigger problems.
By saying no to Gunnar when he gets that look in his eye just before he takes off after the cat isn't going to cause him to eat the cat when I'm not around. I can say no, hah, hey, Gunnar, whatever- it gets his attention and he focuses on me rather than the cat. It's a distraction but one that can be administered from a distance. You can't always be right on top of him to give him a physical redirection to a toy or something when he's about to go full tilt at the poor cat who is 20' on the other side of him from you.
Using words like hah is the same as saying no (hah is used a lot in my house- for more of a minor correction, with no being used when something is really being done that is wrong- hah when he decides to break his down/stay command, no when he chases the cat or tries to make Bruzers leg a chew toy). I can't see how substituting any word for no is any better or worse than telling the dog exactly what you mean. You say hah or whatever to your dog all the time, it's just like saying no, and in your example, then the dog is going to explode anyway.
Can we get off of comparing dogs to humans? By the time a child has the faculty to process language and reason, it can't be compared to a dog. If I caught my kids doing something wrong, I can say no to get their attention, and then explain why what they did was not acceptable. Kids have the brain power to comprehend reasoning, so when you explain it to them afterwards, they understand and hopefully won't write on the walls with crayons again or whatever caused them to hear no in the 1st place. Sure, if you always told a kid no and never explained yourself, you might be looking at a time bomb, but if thats how someone decides to raise their kids then there are bigger problems.
By saying no to Gunnar when he gets that look in his eye just before he takes off after the cat isn't going to cause him to eat the cat when I'm not around. I can say no, hah, hey, Gunnar, whatever- it gets his attention and he focuses on me rather than the cat. It's a distraction but one that can be administered from a distance. You can't always be right on top of him to give him a physical redirection to a toy or something when he's about to go full tilt at the poor cat who is 20' on the other side of him from you.
Using words like hah is the same as saying no (hah is used a lot in my house- for more of a minor correction, with no being used when something is really being done that is wrong- hah when he decides to break his down/stay command, no when he chases the cat or tries to make Bruzers leg a chew toy). I can't see how substituting any word for no is any better or worse than telling the dog exactly what you mean. You say hah or whatever to your dog all the time, it's just like saying no, and in your example, then the dog is going to explode anyway.
That's exactly what I do. I SPECIFICALLY tell my dog what not to do. Instead of just saying, "NO", I say "off", off of those people, do not jump. "off" is a more specific command that just no. SO, it's exactly what you just stated a more specific command doesn't do, tell the dog exactly what you mean, that's exactly what more specific commands are intended to do.
So you even redirected your pup, redirection isn't always the answer, like you mentioned if the dog knows what it's doing is wrong, sometimes you don't even have to say no, like my previous example with the bone on the couch. If the dog knows what it's doing is wrong, than yes, I will say no. Also like with my previous example of licking the kids.
I never stated that I NEVER use no, but I do try to refrain from it, by giving more specific commands. This way, if I do use no, it's meaning isn't lost by ridiculous usage. "no chewing the table" "no leaving the yard" "no eating Hades kong" "no off the couch right now" "no dont suck the pillow" "no don't jump on the people". As you can see that would be a lot of "nos". And perhaps one day, when she goes to dart across the street at the cat and I say "no", it's lost it's meaning when I could've used it the most.
I do agree that redirection isn't (edit) always the answer.
Do I think that we should limit the "no"s in our dogs life? Yes I do.
Do I think it's appropriate to use "no" if the dog knows exactly what it's doing wrong? Yes, and I did mention that in a previous post.
So you even redirected your pup, redirection isn't always the answer, like you mentioned if the dog knows what it's doing is wrong, sometimes you don't even have to say no, like my previous example with the bone on the couch. If the dog knows what it's doing is wrong, than yes, I will say no. Also like with my previous example of licking the kids.
I never stated that I NEVER use no, but I do try to refrain from it, by giving more specific commands. This way, if I do use no, it's meaning isn't lost by ridiculous usage. "no chewing the table" "no leaving the yard" "no eating Hades kong" "no off the couch right now" "no dont suck the pillow" "no don't jump on the people". As you can see that would be a lot of "nos". And perhaps one day, when she goes to dart across the street at the cat and I say "no", it's lost it's meaning when I could've used it the most.
I do agree that redirection isn't (edit) always the answer.
Do I think that we should limit the "no"s in our dogs life? Yes I do.
Do I think it's appropriate to use "no" if the dog knows exactly what it's doing wrong? Yes, and I did mention that in a previous post.
I see where you are coming from. For me, no is reserved for more serious needs. Other attention getting words are used quite a bit. I use "off" as well- a multi purpose word that can mean don't jump on people, don't get on the bed because I didn't invite you, please get off my lap because your elbow is right in my privates, etc. I use "leave it" a lot when he's going after something he can't have, like the cat or a toy that is not his, or one of the other dog's food. Bruzer has a little stuffed turtle that is about the only toy he plays with and Gunnar will take it- "leave it" works great for that. I can use that when he wants the cat too, but sometimes the prey drive is powerful, and if he ignores the "leave it" then he gets a no.