Message Sent by: (Simone and David Ross) >Introducing any cue that is not directly related to the learning experience >itself (in other words, a "command") is tinkering with the O/C theory. No doubt - but how is the word "wrong" in response to an undesired behaviourany different than the "click" in response to a desired behaviour? Both, IMO, are related to the learning experience in precisely the same way - thedog performs a behaviour, and the trainer gives feedback via a signal thathas no intrinsic meaning to the dog, but that has come to have meaning forthe dog because of the way it is used in the training process. Let>me give you a quick example: I was conducting a seminar on c/t from a stage in >front of about 60 dog trainers. I was working with a rescue Dalmation, a >dog >with absolutely no training (trust me, LOL). In about three minutes, I had >the Dal sitting for the c/t to my pointed finger (I do not use verbal cues). >Something interrupted the dog's train of thought (it took a millisecond) and >the dog turned toward the audience before sitting. I now had a dog trained >to >turn its back to me before sitting down!! I'm sure most of us who have used clicker training for any length of timehave a story or two like this to tell, where we unintentionally trained insome behaviour we were not looking for. However, I do not see how this is inany way analogous to the use of a specific signal to give the dog a definitepiece of information regarding its current behaviour. >The idea "wrong" does not exist in the dog's mind. Very true - but neither does the idea "right" exist in the dog's mind. Yet we use the clicker to transmit the information that the dog has performed a behaviour we consider "right". Actually, in my mind I tend to think of theword "wrong" not so much as a signal to the dog that it has done somethingwrong, but that it has done something that isn't going to pay off for thedog. To me, it makes perfect sense that if the dog is capable ofunderstanding - and generally very quickly - that the "click" means "payoffon the way", the dog is also capable of understanding that the word "wrong",or any other arbitrary signal for that matter, means "no payoff on the way".I use "wrong" not because I think it makes some mystical connection in thedog's mind, but because it's easy for me to remember and it comes out moresoftly than "no" or "ah-ah". If for some reason the dog makes a "mistake" despite this, the >only >behavior the trainer can use is non-reward (turning one's back, or picking >up >one's cookies and leaving). This is a very powerful tool. Dogs become >quite >distraught when the trainer does this. Absolutely true - but perhaps it's not neccessary to make a dog become quitedistraught every time it makes a mistake? Why not simply let the dog knowvia a preconditioned signal like the word "wrong" that there will be nocookies forthcoming for this particular effort? Personally, I'm afraid Idon't take my training quite seriously enough to want to make my dog upsetevery time it makes a mistake. I find when I have a dog that is eager and willing to work, letting it know it's on the wrong track with the leastamount of stress is generally quite sufficient to get things back on track.I save the "pick up your cookies and leave" routine for the times when thedog is really uncooperative - which is rare indeed once a good working relationship has been established between dog and handler, IME. Introducing a word or visual cue to indicate "wrong" >confuses the dog. It simply is not a productive or correct tool. > I haven't found this to confuse the dog any more than introducing a clicker confuses the dog. Both convey information to the dog if used consistently.It may not be a "correct" tool - whatever that may mean - but as to it not being a productive one - I humbly disagree. If it works, it's productive -and I've seen it work often enough, both in my own dogs and in others', to feel quite comfortable that it does, in fact, work. Simone Ross Barrie, Ont., Canada

Home