"What Is Real Clicker Training?"

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

http://clickandtreat.com/wordpress/?p=884

The above article was recommended to me by a friend who is a breeder of Champion Poodles...Championship Titles in Obedience and Agility, not just Conformation, although they have those too. 

Since putting an AKC Obedience Title on multiple dogs speaks volumes to me about a person's knowledge and abilities, I tend to respect her opinions on the topic of dog training.

Clicker training, and "purely positive" training methods in general, have never made much sense to me. I started training my own dogs back in the late 70s, when aversion methods were all I ever saw anybody use, and some of what I saw (and I'm ashamed to admit, did) was pretty harsh. However, it worked. I had a dog who could be relied upon under any and every circumstance, distraction, and temptation to do the things I needed her to do, the kinds of things that would save a dog's life...which to me is one of the most important reasons for training. 

Then I got JD and met a "positive methods only" trainer. I couldn't understand how you could effectively train a dog using only rewards for good behavior and simply ignoring (not correcting) "bad" behavior, but I gave it a try. JD is generally a submissive, timid, tractable dog, so we did okay with these methods. (Especially since with JD there never really was any bad behavior, unless you count dropping a slobbery tennis ball in the lap of every guest who entered my home, lol.)

 But he isn't anywhere near as well trained as my first dog was, and I would not trust that in a real crisis, he would respond as well as necessary. 

I know of another dog with severe behavioral issues who was passed from home to home and mishandled every step of the way. His final owner believed only in positive training methods, and did in fact use clicker training with him, with disastrous results. He certainly learned a lot of tricks, but in the end, he was humanely euthanized for extreme aggression which had no physical basis or cause. It actually seemed to me that his behavior was worse after the clicker training than before it. While that was an extreme case,  it left me with an even more skeptical view of clicker training than ever.

After reading this article, I think I understand more about clicker training, and I also think I understand more about it than a lot of the people who use it, lol. 

This part of the article pretty much sums it up: 

"So, the real problem with clicker training is that there are two separate views of the process. One side sticks to the Skinner/Breland preference for positive reinforcement in all things and places a taboo on investigating, discussing or using aversive control. The other perspective assumes that neither reinforcement nor punishment can possibly be good or evil, without a reference to a specific task or goal. Only in the context of a specific application can any behavioral effect be judged as beneficial or damaging. For example, hundreds of thousands of dogs are destroyed each year because they greet humans by jumping on them. This behavior is taught to them by humans when they are infants – with positive reinforcement. To stop a dog with a long history of jumping on people a non-dangerous punishment procedure can quickly inhibit the behavior. In this example, positive reinforcement causes the deaths of many dogs while positive punishment could save them. It is the choice of the trainer to select the tool that is most likely fix the problem. For effective clicker trainers, the key is to find the right combination of behavioral effects that are likely to teach correct behavior and make it dependable in the real world. If you follow the punishment with clicks and treats for correct behavior an inhibition can be created that leaves a lasting absence of the unacceptable behavior with only beneficial side-effects – a loving, polite dog that will stay in the home."

Thoughts? 

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

I think this is very well put, Jen. 

[Adina P]

One key difference between kids and dogs is what you're training/raising them to be.  In raising kids, as much as it would be nice to get 100% obedience in all circumstances until they are 18, realistically, that's not the ultimate goal.  The ultimate goal in raising kids is to help them to become free-thinking, independent adults who can make it on their own and hopefully make wise choices and contribute to society.  Not necessarily to defer to me in all their choices or make the same choices I'd make. 

That's NOT my goal for my dogs.  My dogs will be forever under my care and will forever have to defer to me and the hope is to get better and better obedience as they 'grow up.'  Ideally, right?

And of course to have a good relationship with both. 

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

That's a good point. 

[Jen, Lachlan, and Declan]

I couldn't agree more, Adina, as far as difference in overall goals. As a parent, your most important job is to prepare your child to become a successful, independent adult. Not so much with your dogs, who are permanently young children who must defer to you in order to remain safe and happy for their entire lives. (Hopefully that was in English - I'm on my second glass of wine. ;-) )

[Susan & Randy's Kate]

: }

[Jane, Guinness and Murphy]

Wow....this is an excellent article and so thought provoking.  I've been on this "training journey" for six years now.  I've read so many books, watched more videos than I can count, worked with several different trainers (each with different styles) and I've landed in a place where I believe it's really just about focusing on YOUR DOG...learning what motivates them...and being their leader who is clear about how you need them to behave and communicates to them when they're doing a good job and when they're not.   It's not so different with kids if you really think about it.  They all come to us with their own issues and strengths, so they all need to be loved and taught in a way that they can understand.  My Guinness is as smart as they come, and he knows it.  It's all about "what's in in for him".  He really doesn't care much about being corrected because he assumes that I'm just "screwing up" and not recognizing that he's way above all that.  But he LOVES being told he's "Mr Wonderful" and especially loves rewards (pets, treats, anything really).  He'll do just about anything for that positive reinforcement....because he feels he deserves it.  I don't use actual "clicker training" with him but I do use the premise that it's based on.  I immediately reinforce a behavior with an enthusiastic "yes" and give a treat or a "love".  He gets that and it truly motivates him.  Then there's Murphy.  I tried everything with Murph and I truly regret that due to my own failure to recognize what he was feeling I wasted lots of time and put him through so much confusing training.  Murphy is an insecure boy who really just wants to please....but when his fear takes over he "loses it".  He's very afraid of some other dogs and he used to be fearful of some people as well.  We've been working on that.  Positive only training is confusing to a dog like Murph....and strong aversive training is also the totally wrong approach for him.  We now have a relationship where we can read each other so well that we can almost exclusively rely on verbal queues and body language to communicate.  He gives me body language queues when we're approaching a dog who he is worried about....and I immediately turn him around or pull him off to the side....I don't force him to confront that dog because I know that he's not okay with that.  I used to try to walk him right past the dog waiting to correct if he showed fear by reacting....I now understand that was unfair to him and only made things worse. 

I'm kind of talking in circles here, but what I'm trying to say is that there's nothing better than throwing out the manuals and just really getting to know your dog....and learning to communicate with each other and trust each other.  My guys watch my face to see if I'm happy with them or not.  I always tell them when I observe them doing something that I think is great....like a dog walking past our house...and only a little soft "woof".  That means we have a party...and they know exactly why we're celebrating.  That said....if there's barking or lunging at the front door for the same reason....they're verbally corrected and it's into a down stay until they are totally calm.  They "get that too".....they have this whole "sorry, didn't mean it" attitude and they know they will be in those beds for awhile.   For many of these past six years with my Doodles I've tried to find the "perfect" training method.  I now understand there isn't one. 

Thanks for sharing this article, Karen.  So much to think about.

[Susan & Randy's Kate]

When we got Kate I made her sit when I petted her.  She was good until 8 months and now she is so exuberant and excited she will jump or plop on top of your legs.  She is sweet but I no longer have my bluff in...  I need to read up on method to address the jumping without ruining the goofiness.  

I had a dog that had to be put down because of behavioral issues.  Becky was a wire haired terrier and was great for about a year when she changed.  She was so nervous and snappy.  She probably could have been on a treadmill for 8 hours a day to calm her.  Anyway, after taking her to the vet there seemed to be no solution.  One day she was laying under the TV stand.  I made eye contact and she ran across the room and snapped at me.  She became totally unpredictable.  I guess dogs can have mental issues too. Anyway, we put her down.  The gentlemen thought she was so cute and said, "oh let me take her home to my little girl" and she bit him.  Maybe she could be fixed now but now then.  

[Adina P]

I haven't finished the article but love what I've read so far.  Especially the pointing out what the problem with the 'science' is.  Clicker-training is only 'scientific' in the sense of theory and being connected to behavioral science (Skinner, etc).  But it is not scientific in the sense of peer-reviewed trials.  I'd love to see a researcher compare various big name methods in the real world with real owners and their dogs: All positive clicker training vs. XYZ method vs. Cesar Milan vs. ABC method.  Then, at the end of 8-10 weeks, have each group show off their dogs skills in the real world.  Or even have the top trainers of each common method take 3 randomly selected dogs under their wing and in compare results after so many weeks.  That would be pretty tricky study, but would yield much more useful results.

[Susan & Randy's Kate]

The one thing I say watching Cesar Milan is that each dog is different and what works for one may not work for another.  

[Wynnie & Jim]

Karen, thank you for posting a very thought provoking article that has helped clarify my thoughts on training. I have been an advocate of "positive reinforcement" and "clicker training" in a couple of posts on this site. Upon reflection, I have used clicker training in the very early months of my puppy's training but also some discipline for bad behavior.

I found some "reinforcement" in Gary's article and in his comment section. The points are:

From the article..."By comparison, Paws With a Cause, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, switched to clicker training about 20 years ago. They graduate almost 200 working dogs per year that are the finest examples of assistance dogs anywhere. The difference is they do not use the Skinner-Breland model of “all positive” training. Punishment and compulsion are deftly used to create happy, reliable working dogs along with clickers, treats and a wealth of positive reinforcement."

From the comment section, Gary says..."Laurie, when I went back to find Linda’s post I couldn’t find it. I didn’t trash it – it would have stayed in the “trash” folder. However, I use about 98% positive reinforcement to solve problems. When someone tells me that there is an advantage to using 100% in the real world, I’m going to call them on it. Otherwise, the Seeing Eye is somehow cruel. I think not. I wouldn’t go under a blind-fold with a dog that has no negative consequence for walking a blind person into a man-hole."

Rather than take a position in one camp or the other, my experience would say, "Use positive reinforcement with some firmness and above all love your doodle."

[Susan & Randy's Kate]

Like.....

[Jane, Guinness and Murphy]

Absolutely!