Discussion in 'Dog Training Forum' started by Laurelin, Jul 15, 2012.
I go with the above. :thumbsupsmileyanim:
That is not to say that occasionally I don't get riled up myself and speak a little harsher than usual. "Hey!" "Quit!" (never to Chulita....she's way too sensitive) But usually, it's a re-direction to something else if they're doing something I don't like or an interruption and getting them to focus on me...things that have been taught, which.....occasionally need sprucing up because behaviors do regress from time to time. I'd like to be able to say I always maintain my cool, but that is not true. I'm a primate and definitely will get uptight.... or my patience level can be low from time to time, as I'm kind of a nervous nelly.
Yesterday, when on a walk with Jose`, he picked up a piece of poop left there by some unknown dog. I was so grossed out, I forgot to speak politely to him. He would have just dropped it if I told him in a normal speaking voice, as he's been trained this way. But being extra horrified this time, I kind of spoke harshly/nastily, in an extra nervous sounding tone, "DROP IT!!! YUCK!!!!" He did and I dropped a few treats on the ground for him which I carry in my pocket. (wasn't about to hand feed him right after he had poop in his mouth.) Then went home and scrubbed his teeth and gums.
I'm not sure this is NRM exactly, but I realized today that I have also inadvertently taught Squash that "Sir" means "seriously, I'm really serious." As in:
Me: Squash, sit.
Squash: lalalalala lololololderp OH LOOK SHINY
Me: ... sit!
Not really in training I don't think. I will occassionally if it's something they know well, but even that's not common. I used to use them a lot with Tango during training as she'd throw a hundred different behaviours at me and not focus on what I actually told her. An NRM brought her back to reality. But with these guys they're generally not necessary. And if I'm teaching something new I definitely don't.
But I for sure do in real life scenarios. If I catch them doing something they shouldn't be, it just comes out of my mouth. I've been trying to be better about it though. Sometimes I feel like I'm too quick with verbal corrections, so lately I've been trying to catch myself beforehand to see if I actually need to be telling them anything or not rather than being implusive. When I do verbally correct them it's just an "ah ah", or "hey!", or "stop it/knock it off".
Verbal corrections are often and useful with Rosey
Usually, a "that's enough!" or "dont even..." will get the message across, though.
Ahaha I do that with the curs too! A command followed by "sir" is a super duper mega serious suggestion.
During training, eh, just depends. I might say a quick "nope" or "eh eh" to let her know that isn't what I want, but it is more like just talking....kind of like if I were teaching someone to do something, I'd be giving them feedback on what they were doing, not just standing there with my mouth shut watching them.
In real world situations, definitely. "Hey!", "Uh uh!", "NO!", "Knock it off!" are pretty common. lol Course, in real world situations I'll also give physical corrections if the situation calls for it, so I don't view a verbal correction to be a bad thing.
I will use a verbal interruptor in an emergency situation, as a means of management... but I don't consider it TRAINING. My dogs are way too smart & understand me too well for NRM to be necessary. Doing that quickly shuts Gonzo down, and makes Fozzie disengaged and stubborn. Not giving them a marker/reward/praise is enough to let them know they didn't do what I wanted. I feel schizophrenic going "yesss good!" "nooo bad!" "yesss good!" "nooo!" "yesss!"
To me, training is teaching commands and making them as reliable, motivating and solid as possible. I'd much rather give my dog an actual command and tell them what to do, rather than what not to do. Unless it's an emergency and my brain just stops and all I can do is scream. Being that I never raise my voice at my dogs, if I do, they stop dead in their tracks and shrivel up.
I try really, really hard not to when training. It's totally something I have to train myself not to do and, as always, I'm a work in progress. Bailey is really soft and wants so much to please that it's just not necessary or effective. Sometimes when he blows me off I use a firmer tone of voice, but he's so sensitive that I try to avoid even that. It's harder with Grace, since she's going through a puppy/teenager phase (and isn't exactly soft, though she naturally has a biddable, eager to please disposition), but our training is more effective without verbal corrections.
I do use verbal corrections in everyday life (some version of "eh eh" or use of the dog's name). Rarely necessary for Bailey, though sometimes he acts up a bit. Happens more than I want it to for the puppy, even though I try not to do it too much. That girl is always into something.
ETA: I forgot, I do purposely use verbal corrections in one instance with Grace -- to interrupt her when she is humping her brother. It happens super fast (Bailey always moves away pretty quickly, but his subtle corrections aren't enough to extinguish the behavior), and I immediately remove her from the situation after giving the verbal correction. I absolutely want to extinguish the behavior as soon as possible, because it is so rude, and redirection/removal doesn't work fast enough in this case.
I don't like to speak really stern because she spooks so easily but sometimes in frustration you will hear " SOPH, HEY STOONITZ, WHERE ARE YOU???" echoing through the reservation. Of course she drops the chipmunk and comes bounding back.
Yes, I do, I also pair the NRM with a direct consequence so it's not actually a verbal correction. It's a 'nope, wrong' then game is over. Or a 'nope, wrong' then back in your crate etc. I used to have a dog that barked in stays ALL the time, problem was solved very quickly with a NRM. I let her know exactly what behaviour caused her to lose the opportunity to earn the reward. So far it has proven to be very effective, no downsides in our training that I can see.
Yah... the reason why they ARE necessary is cause she's too **** smart and understands me too well XD
I don't understand the idea that telling your dog that x behaviour does not gain reward is a bad thing. Many dogs learn differently so what would work for one dog may not for another. I also find this is a flaw in the idea that you always set your dog up to win - sometimes I set my dog up to fail so I can proof the behaviour even more.
I donâ€™t know about anyone else, Iâ€™m not saying its â€œbadâ€, Iâ€™m just saying that for us it was unnecessary. My body language coupled with not getting a reward is enough information for my dogs. I donâ€™t need to add an â€œoopsâ€ or even â€œnoâ€ to make it more clear to them. Some dogs need more information.
I feel like thatâ€™s kind of the point of the thread, to see the different ways people do things no?
Just my take, but to me upping criteria or adding in distractions is about challenging the dog, not setting him up to fail.
Setting the dog up to fail, to me, means you KNOW the dog is going to get this one wrong and you correct him for the mistake you know heâ€™s going to make. Thatâ€™s not cool.
Challenging a dog is just that - a challenge. Iâ€™m challenging the dogâ€™s understanding of the behavior with the intent of building the dogâ€™s confidence with that behavior. The dogs says â€œoh yeah, I got this one, I KNOW the answer here!"
And that's the difference - one builds reliability through confidence, the other just builds reliability - and sometimes not even that.
Now, how quickly you up criteria and add in distractions is going to be different for each dog. Boring your dog to tears can be just as detrimental as eroding their confidence. As always its about knowing your dog and reading your dog.
Sure, and I don't see anywhere that I pointed out specifically that you said it was bad?
Why? Just playing devil's advocate here. To give you an example when I am proofing stays (incl for recalls) I WANT my do to get to a point where she breaks out of anticipation for the reward. I set her up to get to the point where she will 'fail' and break because she can't contain her excitement any longer. This is an important element of stay training for me because 1) I want to know my dog is giving 110% and 2) I want to put them in a position where they will break so I can teach them what happens when they do. That is a simple NRM in my case but when you have a dog that has so much value for the reward that they break, a NRM can actually increase confidence and make them try even harder next time. It's not a bad thing for the dog to learn x behaviour does not gain reward.
Honestly, I didnâ€™t see where anyone said it was bad.
I donâ€™t think we mean the same thing by NRM and setting a dog up to fail.
I donâ€™t need a dog to break for them to know that stay means stay. Because I can say stay...
- even if I throw your favorite toy,
- even if I toss your favorite treat to you,
- even if Iâ€™m playing with another dog next to you,
and reward each time they get it right.
IF they break there is a consequence, sure, but if Iâ€™m doing it right, and reading the dogâ€™s learning curve right, the dog wonâ€™t make a mistake.
How can you ever be sure a dog won't break a stay? Can you say with 220% certainty that your dogs stays are 100% reliable?
For me it is also about engagement. If my dog hasn't broken a stay in drive then I don't think they want the reward bad enough. It is that moment when the dog can no longer contain themselves. I proof with all of those kinds of distractions you mentioned and more, but I also know I have taken my dog to the point where their desire for the reward over rides their self control and shown them what happens if they break or do the wrong thing when they want something that bad. It also boosts their confidence because they become more determined to have the reward and try harder next time.
Another example - I will get someone to hold my dogs favourite food reward under her nose in an open palm. I'll set her up right next to them. When I first started running this exercise I wanted my dog to break and try and get the food on offer, I wanted to her to fail so I would walk away. The person holding the food would immediately close their fist and my dog would realise there was no food to be had. She'd look around for me and see I was half way across the field, she would start running to me and I would encourage her then play and reward her when she got to me. She "failed" but learnt rewards that look free or cheap or come from elsewhere than me aren't actually available.
LOL nope But I can also chain my dog to a tree and not know with 220% certainty that freak lightning wonâ€™t strike the tree and turn him loose anyway.
Nothing in life is 100% reliable. Nuclear clocks arenâ€™t 100% reliable. I certainly donâ€™t expect a sentient being with a mind of his own to be 100% reliable.
I see what youâ€™re saying, but thatâ€™s not how I define engagement.
Yes, thatâ€™s not setting a dog up to fail, thatâ€™s teaching the dog that all good things come through you.
Setting a dog up to fail is putting the dog in a stay and creating a scenario that you know will make him break, then correcting the dog for the mistake you knew he was going to make. What youâ€™re doing above is not correcting the dog for a mistake, youâ€™re showing her where rewards come from. One is learning the other is â€œgotchaâ€.
Susan Garrettâ€™s blog here is a good explanation IMO:
I don't really see the difference? In both situations you want the dog to break so you can teach them the consequence of that behaviour. Both give the dog a feeling of losing a reward. I want my dog to break a stay so I can say whoops, look what happens now, I also want to know the dog is giving 110%. I am not saying you can't train a reliable stay in other ways, I was just using it as an example of how I don't always set my dog up to win. Sometimes I want them to experience the loss of a reward.