# The “psychology” of disobedience



## Obabikon (Jul 1, 2009)

Just read the recent “How Should I Handle This” thread, and it got me wondering something that I'm hoping some of the trainers here can clear up for me...

I’ve heard/read several times that when a dog doesn’t follow a command, it’s not because it is being willfully disobedient and CHOOSING to do something other than what we’ve commanded. Rather, it’s because the dog “doesn’t understand the command” or that it “thinks the command is a request, not an order.” Something to that effect....

What’s the true, accepted “psychology” for lack of a better term at work here??? I imagine that the above explanations are accurate and that the vast majority of obedience breakdowns are the fault of the trainer (as I'm sure my dog's are my fault). But as far as professional trainers can tell, do dogs ever _mean_ to disobey??

I ask because at times, my dog seems to deliberately disobey or ignore what I thought were deeply engrained commands (and not necessarily in high-distraction situations). I’m not talking about complex hunting behaviors—I’m talking about fundamental commands (like sit and come) that have been taught and reinforced every single day since the day I brought him home.

When you tell a 2-plus-year-old dog that’s been through obedience training and collar conditioning to “come,” and he doesn’t even blink, even while just dawdling around the yard after going to the bathroom, what’s going on?

He obviously knows what the command means, because he follows it 95 percent of the time (100 percent with reinforcment from the e-collar). So what's going on in his head on the remaining 5 percent, and how do I eliminate those refusals?


----------



## Jennifer Teed (Jan 28, 2009)

I would also like to hear people's opinions on this.

I have a similar problem where my dog listens in certain situations but not in others. For example if we're just sitting in the living room, and I say 'here', Quest wont even budge. It might be because she knows I want to maul her with kisses and she is just way to comfortable where she is. If we were anywhere else she'd JUMP up and obey instantly. Especially if we're visiting someone, in public or at an outing somewhere... 

....might be selective hearing?


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Obabikon said:


> I’ve heard/read several times that when a dog doesn’t follow a command, it’s not because it is being willfully disobedient and CHOOSING to do something other than what we’ve commanded. Rather, it’s because the dog “doesn’t understand the command” or that it “thinks the command is a request, not an order.” Something to that effect....


1 “doesn’t understand the command”

2 “thinks the command is a request, not an order”

These are two distinctly different things.

And whoever told you this:

"when a dog doesn’t follow a command, it’s not because it is being willfully disobedient and CHOOSING to do something other than what we’ve commanded."

is pullin' your leg. Sometimes we just love our dogs so much that we _want_ to think they are "perfecter" than they are and we start to make excuses for their poor behavior. ;-) Just like our kids. Make no mistake, that cute little rugrat may someday be gettin' into your liquor cabinet when your back is turned and it won't be because he didn't understand or thought your order was only a request.  It's because he thought he could get away with it without any repercussions or the repercussions were worth the chance to sneak a buzz or he just felt the need to challenge your authority or .....

The dog may not be consciously planning on disobeying you for fun but they do what will make them feel the best at the time. Without getting into a game of semantics, disobedience is by definition _not obeying_.

That's the problem with the "all positive" approach. It works fine until there is something the dog would rather do and then they do what makes them feel best. Often we can inadvertently teach them they can do _both_ ... do what they want and then do what we said later. All the "jackpot" rewards in the world will not correct that behavior.

Obedience training is a life long process.

JS


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> "when a dog doesn’t follow a command, it’s not because it is being willfully disobedient and CHOOSING to do something other than what we’ve commanded."
> 
> is pullin' your leg


JS, think it could be a little stronger? How about, "Slingin' bullshit," instead of, "Pullin' your leg"?


----------



## Obabikon (Jul 1, 2009)

Thanks for the insights, JS. That helps clear up what's going on in my dog's head--I don't want to anthropomorphize what he's thinking, but I don't want to give him too little credit either. I would think that both mindsets would put someone at a disadvantage while training.

To clarify: 


JS said:


> And whoever told you this:
> 
> "when a dog doesn’t follow a command, it’s not because it is being willfully disobedient and CHOOSING to do something other than what we’ve commanded."
> 
> is pullin' your leg. Sometimes we just love our dogs so much that we _want_ to think they are "perfecter" than they are and we start to make excuses for their poor behavior. ;-)


When I'd read/heard these things, it wasn't so much in the context of letting the dog off the hook as it was NOT letting the trainer off the hook. In other words, those sources seemed to be saying that if the dog didn't do what you wanted, it wasn't because he was being a smart ass, it was because you hadn't trained the command enough.

Also, for the record, I'm absolutely NOT arguing for "all positive" training....far from it.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

Great post JS. 

I think that was the best explanation I have seen regarding disobedience.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Come on down to my house and I'll give you a true lesson in the "I can't hear you" dis-yomomma-obiedent dog. In the winter, during hunting season, less training-Ryder has made an olympic sport out of blowing me off when he is in the yard airing. And I swear to pete he waits until it is 40 below, with 52mph winds to pull his I can't hear you stunts. Dominant males are a constant lesson in training.......

freezin in my jammies regards,


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Obabikon said:


> In other words, those sources seemed to be saying that if the dog didn't do what you wanted, it wasn't because he was being a smart ass, it was because you hadn't trained the command enough.


Could also be because they overuse it. If you're sitting around the house calling your dog to you every 10 minutes for no real reason, well ... give him a break.

And remember what someone said about not giving a command you can't, or aren't going to enforce.

JS


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

It isn't just dominant male dogs. It's conniving little divas as well. I am considering checking out Evan's DVD's I've heard about to really ingrain the "come" on my little gal. (If her come is weak, it probably isn't the only thing.)

We were at the dog park today. She went totally "stone deaf". Way too many other fun partners to romp with.

Obviously we need to revisit this whole respect issue.


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

I'm gonna tip-toe into this discussion because it's a topic I have spent a lot of time thinking about, which is not meant to imply, by virtue of my extensive cogitation, that I have arrived at 'THE ANSWER' (everyones knows the answer is '42' anyway). 

I don't think dogs are capable of being disobedient simply because being obedient implies a sense of duty to obey - some expectation placed upon the dog that they don't grasp, or agree to. So, I don't think dogs have any sense of duty to obey.

I do think dogs are quite capable of understanding that you are delivering a 'cue' that the dog has been conditioned to, and weighing the possible consequences of responding to that cue as conditioned, and the consequences of not responding to the cue. That's a little awkward, but it it's meant to convey that dogs are not blind respondents to a conditioned stimulus.

Since 'obedience' is not a part of my view, 'commands' are not really 'orders that must be obeyed' from the dog's viewpoint. I prefer to use 'cues' for which the dog is more or less reliable in response.

If the dog does not reliably respond to a conditioned 'cue', then more training really is the answer. But, I'm not automatically opposed to using any of the four quadrants of operant conditioning for helping the dog to understand the consequences of not responding to a 'cue'. As long as the response from the trainer is humane, and as importantly, is understandable by the dog, it is not excluded simply because it's not from a 'positive' quadrant of OC.

If nothing else, viewing a dog's so called 'disobedience' as 'unreliability to given cue' in need of more training (could include 'proofing' against distractions), keeps me from getting into an ego inflated pissing match with my dog.

Snick


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Snicklefritz said:


> I don't think dogs are capable of being disobedient simply because being obedient implies a sense of duty to obey - some expectation placed upon the dog that they don't grasp, or agree to. So, I don't think dogs have any sense of duty to obey.
> Snick


I am not sure I agree. In a pack, canines do have "a duty to obey." Pack leader is in charge. All gamma dogs have to toe the line or there will be consequences. Much of our training is predicated on us (handlers) being the alpha.

Am I misunderstanding your point?


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

1tulip, I don't subscribe to pack theory. My dog is not trying to dominate me, and I don't need to dominate my dog. I teach, I lead, I maintain training and behavioral standards by not accepting less than the standard.


----------



## Grasshopper (Sep 26, 2007)

This question fascinates me, and I'm still not exactly sure what I think about it. My gut feeling is that dogs do what works for them at the moment. Safe vs. not safe. Exciting pay off vs. not exciting pay off. I'll probably be thinking about this when I'm awake at 3am . . .

Kathryn


----------



## D Osborn (Jul 19, 2004)

Kathryn, I think you are right about some dogs.
One would never do anything wrong, in fact he works so hard at being right he is sometimes wrong.
One weighs the if I don't come she will come get me-and yes I am at fault as when I say Carbon Damn-it come, he comes.not the Carbon comes. 
But why do I only have to say it once to his sister?
A friend once said when Whistler dies he will haunt me just to prove he was right all these times, and I was wrong
I don't know the answers, just know they change.


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Welcome to the 3AM Club, Kathryn.  

I hope any serious dog trainer thinks about this a lot, if for no other reason than during training you have to read the dog and try and determine whether the dog is simply confused, or has made a decision to do something 'other'.... How you answer the question is really important.


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Walt, I don't totally disagree. But, my reading says that 'dominance' is not a quality of an individual dog, but is a description of a relationship between two dogs. The relationship is 'dyadic' (between two dogs) where in one circumstance dog A is in a dominant relationship with dog B. If dog A were dominant by disposition, he would be dominant, or would try to be, in all situations.

But, curiously, field research with dog packs shows that dog A is dominant over dog B, and dog B is dominant over dog C. But, dog C can be dominant over dog A. It's between two individual dogs - no hierarchy is seen, or required.

We don't know how that carries over to dog/human relationships ( no studies to date). But, research over the past two decades finds no 'hierarchy' in dog packs, hence, no need to dominate and climb the social order.

Your own example suggests your dog is not dominant all the time - the mat -vs - the bed. If your dog were dominant by nature why would it change depending on the circumstance? Sounds pretty fluid to me.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

I think I'm going to throw up... Seriously

Dogs like people do what they need to do to keep their comfort level. Like people they will manipulate their environment to be Happy/Comfortable........

Teach a dog what it needs to do and then fairly hold them accountable....

KISS.... Not that hard....

Kinda like kids.... Lots of work and they make you nuts....

Angie


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Yes, Walt, even in wolf packs. More recent research views a wolf pack as a family composed of a breeding pair, the current year's pups and older siblings. All work cooperatively to insure the survival of the pups and therefor the pack, and therefore the species. There is very little dominant behavior exhibited in the wild, and therefore very little submissive behavior either.

When the older siblings mature, and the next litter comes along, they leave to form packs of their own, thus diversifying the gene pool. Pack Theory was developed from observing wolves in captivity where dogs that would have left, are forced to stay and fight for everything they get, because they cannot leave.

Think about this - how could a species have evolved as a social species if all the members of the species were twilling to fight to the death to be the top dog.

It seems to me that all social species need some order, some structure, in order to be social. And, that's why (me thinks) dogs living with humans need, and inately appreciate structure and rules they can understand. Most behaviorists believe misbehavior by companion dogs occurs because the structure and rules aren't clear. So, the dogs start experimenting with behavior, trying to determine where the boundaries are. And, that's where they get into trouble.

But, that does not require a rigid pack hierarchy, or a struggle for dominance. Perhaps the dominance displayed is a dog trying to fill a void in leadership and structure that they need to be in a state of equilibrium.


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Sorry you're feeling poorly, Angie.  I agree - dogs do what they need to do, and they do manipulate the environment (meaning me and you). But, it's not because they want to dominate, or flip us the finger. Like you said, they're just doing what they need to do. 

Part of what they need to do is be in relationship with humans - that's what makes them dogs, and not wolves. And, that's why they are so successful in filling their niche.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

You all are making this way too complicated.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> [Your own example suggests your dog is not dominant all the time - the mat -vs - the bed. If your dog were dominant by nature why would it change depending on the circumstance? Sounds pretty fluid to me./QUOTE]
> 
> I always thought dogs were contexual,,,, hmmmm


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Yes, Pete! You've got it by Jove! Whether a dog is in a dominant relationship with another dog, or maybe a human, is both fluid and contextual! So, it's not in the dog - it's in the relationship and the context.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> I don't think dogs are capable of being disobedient simply because being obedient implies a sense of duty to obey - some expectation placed upon the dog that they don't grasp, or agree to. So, *I don't think dogs have any sense of duty to obey.*


:lol: :lol: :lol: 
FORCE FETCHED DOGS DO!!!

Snick, don't you remember ANY of those discussions from a couple years ago. I KNOW you were told 100 times, that is the purpose of FFing a dog.

So if you refuse to try it, I'm not surprised you believe the above. ;-)

JS


----------



## DrCharlesBortellPhD (Sep 27, 2008)

Snicklefritz said:


> Yes, Walt, even in wolf packs. More recent research views a wolf pack as a family composed of a breeding pair, the current year's pups and older siblings. All work cooperatively to insure the survival of the pups and therefor the pack...
> 
> It seems to me that all social species need some order, some structure, in order to be social. And, that's why (me thinks) dogs living with humans need, and inately appreciate structure and rules they can understand. Most behaviorists believe misbehavior by companion dogs occurs because the structure and rules aren't clear. So, the dogs start experimenting with behavior, trying to determine where the boundaries are. And, that's where they get into trouble.
> 
> But, that does not require a rigid pack hierarchy, or a struggle for dominance. Perhaps the dominance displayed is a dog trying to fill a void in leadership and structure that they need to be in a state of equilibrium.


Snick,
Again we have the same outlook...
Most "defiance" in dogs stems from lack of understanding. The dog does not understand CLEARLY what is expected/asked/required or the dog senses a lack of leadership (note not Dominance - not a "fan" of the Alpha Theories).
The domesticated dog NEEDS consistency, clairity, and concise direction.
They want structure & direction...and if the boundries are "fuzzy" or expected consequences are varried, the dog will "Test" those boundries.

Charlie


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> I think I'm going to throw up... Seriously
> 
> Dogs like people do what they need to do to keep their comfort level. Like people they will manipulate their environment to be Happy/Comfortable........
> 
> Teach a dog what it needs to do and then fairly hold them accountable....


Very insitful Angie,,, ding ding chicken diner 
now this may be the first hint to packleaders method of e collar teaching methods


----------



## DrCharlesBortellPhD (Sep 27, 2008)

"I don't think dogs have any sense of duty to obey.-
(but) FF'ed dogs do"

Wrong. It is not a "sense of duty" but a fear of consequences.
Classical Operant Conditioning...


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

DrCharlesBortellPhD said:


> "I don't think dogs have any sense of duty to obey.-
> (but) FF'ed dogs do"
> 
> Wrong. It is not a "sense of duty" but a fear of consequences.
> Classical Operant Conditioning...


Hogwash!! 
A sense of duty can't be instilled?? 

JS


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

DrCharlesBortellPhD said:


> "I don't think dogs have any sense of duty to obey.-
> (but) FF'ed dogs do"
> 
> Wrong. It is not a "sense of duty" but a fear of consequences.
> Classical Operant Conditioning...


It is just semantics

You say toe mah toe
He says toe may toe

You say "fear of consequences"
He says "duty to obey"

Toe may toe, toe mah toe, po tay toe, po tah toe, 
Let's call the whole thing off


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

JS said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol:
> FORCE FETCHED DOGS DO!!!
> 
> Snick, don't you remember ANY of those discussions from a couple years ago. I KNOW you were told 100 times, that is the purpose of FFing a dog.
> ...


*Balderdash!*

Force fetched dogs drop birds, mouth birds, and refuse casts, have no-gos, and just about everything else. I've been watching for too long to believe that FF makes a dog bullet proof with regard to obedience. If what you say were true, all you would have to do is FF a dog, and you wouldn't need an e-collar to enforce 'GO, SIT, COME!' If what you say were true, there would be no need to enforce FF by 'pinching' a dog into picking up a bumper - after being FF. I've seen enough of it to be convinced that FF is clearly not bullet proof, no matter how many times I've been 'told'!


----------



## DrCharlesBortellPhD (Sep 27, 2008)

JS said:


> Hogwash!!
> A sense of duty can't be instilled??
> 
> JS


NO. Not in the true meaning of the concept...
Consider you have a "sense of duty" to provide, protect, care for your family.
Now if someone "Forces" you to do that, that is not of your own free will and choice...simply there is no Sense of Duty because that requires an innate value you place based on feelings/emotions.


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> It is just semantics
> 
> You say toe mah toe
> He says toe may toe
> ...


Nonsense. You're equating dogs emotional and coginitive abilities with humans. Semantics is a verbal skill that dogs don't have or understand.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> Nonsense. You're equating dogs emotional and coginitive abilities with humans. Semantics is a verbal skill that dogs don't have or understand.


You think "fear of consequences" implies neither emotional or cognitive elements, and that "duty to obey" does

What difference does it make in the end, anyway?

I think you suffer from paralysis by analysis

You are making this way too difficult

And I am going to heed my resolution and stop feeding the trolls

Spock out


----------



## Redgolden (Nov 21, 2008)

In addition to that contextual principle, dogs are also opportunists. Sure they know how to avoid corrections by adopting the right behavior. At the same time, a dog can also adopt the same behavior if it's rewarded and the other (the wrong one) is ignored. Repeating the positive reinforcement makes the behavior far more interesting to the dog (this builds on its opportunism). When a wrong move is done by the dog, I get back one or two steps back and rebuilt from where it was ok and split the steps to advance because I may have done something too fast (and the dog didn't understand what I wanted from him). So, when a dog is showing to be "desobedient", it is more likely it didn't understand what it was told and his opportunism may have not been reinforced enough in that action.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

DrCharlesBortellPhD said:


> NO. Not in the true meaning of the concept...
> Consider you have a "sense of duty" to provide, protect, care for your family.
> Now if someone "Forces" you to do that, that is not of your own free will and choice...simply there is no Sense of Duty because that requires an innate value you place based on feelings/emotions.


Pack leadership is never won by force. Even if you are arn't a dog trainer you are teaching the dog somthing about yourself each time you interact each other. Pack leadership is won or lost by how we interact with our dogs on a daily basis. Not by how much pressure we put on them.


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> You think "fear of consequences" implies neither emotional or cognitive elements, and that "duty to obey" does
> 
> What difference does it make in the end, anyway?
> 
> ...


Wow, Ted! You've really stretched what I said to way beyond what I said. And, you're not making any sense at all. Disappointing...

But, speaking of Trolls, you're the one who jumped into a discussion, that was much more in depth than your snide little remark about making things too complicated - without, I might add, an explanation or justification for your remark. You really are desperate.

But, by all means, stop feeding the 'trolls', or just plain go away until you have something constructive to offer. Your choice!


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

This has been interesting, to see how people interact trying to figure out how our dogs learn to interact with us. 

We all learn by watching other, more successful trainer/handlers, we read books and buy videos. We all use similar techniques... or at least our methods frequently overlap. Meanwhile the dogs (who are all different) read us and adapt to and learn from us and we will never know how they process all this in their little brains. We humans want to have a conceptual framework for almost everything we do in our lives and we bring this very human need to our dog relationships.

(Forgive me... I'm into my 2nd glass of Shiraz. Or maybe it's the third. Pffft! Whatever.)

Of course, dogs need to be taught, and will get confused and anxious when they "don't understand". But at some point... GET REAL! They can give you the finger on a school blind they've run a jillion times. They reliably do mark selection a hundred times flawlessly until there is that ONE temptation they can't resist and BAM!... they're running the test by their own rules, (almost always in the third series when it's all on the line... know what I mean?)

I dare anyone on this thread to tell me that dogs don't have larceny in their souls!!!!


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Sorry, I can't resist. But, dogs don't have larceny in their souls. But, my Chessie is a pirate and will pillage and plunder the countertop at every opportunity 

And, with that, good night!


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Snicklefritz said:


> Sorry, I can't resist. But, dogs don't have larceny in their souls. But, my Chessie is a pirate and will pillage and plunder the countertop at every opportunity
> 
> And, with that, good night!


Had a friend that put a 13 pound turkey on the counter to thaw. When she returned home a few hours later, the turkey had vanished and her Chessy had frostbite on his lips.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

This is a good video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSv992Ts6as


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> *Balderdash!*
> 
> Force fetched dogs drop birds, mouth birds, and refuse casts, have no-gos, and just about everything else. I've been watching for too long to believe that FF makes a dog bullet proof with regard to obedience. If what you say were true, all you would have to do is FF a dog, and you wouldn't need an e-collar to enforce 'GO, SIT, COME!' If what you say were true, there would be no need to enforce FF by 'pinching' a dog into picking up a bumper - after being FF. I've seen enough of it to be convinced that FF is clearly not bullet proof, no matter how many times I've been 'told'!


Pay attention, Snick. No one said FF produces a "bullet proof" dog.  I said it will instill a sense of duty to obey. And if they have a sense of duty to obey, all that other stuff is a whole lot easier.

The original post is talking about a dog that won't come back in the house when called, for God's sake.



DrCharlesBortellPhD said:


> NO. Not in the true meaning of the concept...
> Consider you have a "sense of duty" to provide, protect, care for your family.
> Now if someone "Forces" you to do that, that is not of your own free will and choice...simply there is no Sense of Duty because that requires an innate value you place based on feelings/emotions.


Dr Charles, you can tell your story to the Marines. 

JS


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

JS, you post some really good stuff. But, this is weak. Have a good night!


----------



## Redgolden (Nov 21, 2008)

IMO, I really find intersting when we go back on basis in canine psychology. Behavioral contexts, opportunism, principles about what was called "the pack" now seen more and more in a constant movement instead of a static picture in the daily interaction with the dogs, are paths for better understanding and bring their tools to work with. On a more "formal psychology", the learning system in all spicies are amazing. For instance, the way dogs acquire certain behaviors by imitating their mother or father is fascinating.

1tulip,
A glass of Shiraz ?! Hmmm... I have a bottle of Balvenie somewhere... I'll join for a glass !


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

Angie is right IMO.

One of my mentors has it as an axiom that "dogs do what works for them"; a very simple phrase but with profound implications. If in all our training we make it worthwhile for the dog to do what we want, things go reasonably well. 

The fact is that all the recognised commands are well known to the training community and can be seen in successful action every day; there isn't anything outlandish in what we are asking for from any particular dog. We can train for it and it works.

So in the case of your or my dog deliberately ignoring a known command, the training we've put in has obviously been faulty. Personally I don't think that if FF has been faulty, Amish has been faulty, or whatever method used, makes any difference. If the dog goes wrong it's our fault not his.

Yes, all dogs are thieves and they'll grab grub when they can; but folks we train for that at meal times. So a dog doesn't recall ... because it's not in his interest to do so. Train for it, make sure he thinks it's worth his while.

En passent I think the pack theory thing has been worked to death and for me it doesn't hold much water. Our domesticated dogs have been out of a true pack environment for thousands of generations.

Eug


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

I'll go with Angie and Ted...................Great marking retriever,put in the time to win blue......me happy camper !!!!


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Sorry, I can't resist. But, dogs don't have larceny in their souls. But, my Chessie is a pirate and will pillage and plunder the countertop at every opportunity


 
Explain why your dog does that

Pete


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> I’ve heard/read several times that when a dog doesn’t follow a command, it’s not because it is being willfully disobedient and CHOOSING to do something other than what we’ve commanded. Rather, it’s because the dog “doesn’t understand the command” or that it “thinks the command is a request, not an order.” Something to that effect


When I'm watching football ,,but not soap opera's and my wife starts talking to me I can hear her I really can,,, but quite often my responce is not quite fast enough or my answere isnt pertinent to her question or command. 
Then the voice changes to a more urgent tone with the wife moving in closer and wala she breaks my focus. but because men are so VISUEL a certain portion of our thought process is used to figure out what we are looking at. Stratagies and all those things that run through a guys mind when he is watching something that highly interests him.

Thats really all I can say about dogs


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Hah, what fun. I find myself agreeing with Chuck and Colonel Blimp. IMHO pack theory has caused more misunderstandings than it has solved, and is in most cases a red herring. And even though it's a tautology, it's still worth reminding ourselves that the reason a dog doesn't do something in a given circumstance is that we haven't adequately trained him or her to do that thing in that circumstance.

The issue I haven't seen mentioned is that dogs generalize a lot less than we do. Compared to us, they see actions and commands as situation-specific. We think, "I've taught the dog the 'here' command," while the dog understands that in certain training settings, when we say "here," the consequences of coming are a lot better than the consequences of not coming. Of course they do go on to establish the habit of coming, and become less dependent on enforcement _in that setting_. Where communication goes awry is in our assumption that they will respond the same way anywhere. I think a lot of the times, the dogs we think of as "smart" are the ones with a bit more tendency to generalize, but for the most part, they don't until they are taught.

Others have mentioned obedience around the kennel yard. A few years ago I noticed that, in the yard, our dogs seemed to think "here" meant "load up" or else "kennel." Call them and they would run to the truck, or to their runs, but not to the person calling. (Since then I've made sure to teach them to come when called in the yard.)

If we don't teach them to respond to the command in a particular situation, many times they won't.

Amy Dahl


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

So I'm wondering now if dogs are really even pack animals,,,after all now in the last 5 years we have become so smart about dogs with all the scholars doing experiments and such and recieving government money...We now know which part of the 99.98 genetic portion of the dog thats identical to their ansesters has been eliminated. The pack gene

Cool
we learn something new every day thats why I love this forum its very informative

Pete


----------



## Obabikon (Jul 1, 2009)

Wow, I just checked back and see my initial question really took on a life of it's own 

More than anything, I was just curious if, when what you thought was a thoroughly engrained command is ignored, is it an indication of some fundamental flaw in training/conditioning--a problem requring more than just the sporadic reinforcement that most dogs receive here and there till the day they die? 

Or is it just the fact that your dog is a living, breathing, imperfect animal like all of us that will make mistakes, miss cues, etc.?

The practical gist of my question was that, having never trained a dog to be anything beyond a maginally bearable housepet, I don't know how much to reasonably expect out of my current dog, and how much RTFer's reasonabl'y expect out of theirs.

In other words, if my dog refuses to come when called 5 percent of the time (distractions or no distractions), do I need to totally go back to the drawing board on that command, or can I just reinforce it with the collar when I get a refusal and keep refining it as the dog ages?


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> do I need to totally go back to the drawing board on that command, or can I just reinforce it with the collar when I get a refusal and keep refining it as the dog ages


Nope
carry a sling shot and just nail him every time you say here time the marbel and the command at the same time and very soon he will understand that here in the yard is equal to here in the field
no collar needed

p


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Obabikon said:


> In other words, if my dog refuses to come when called 5 percent of the time (distractions or no distractions), do I need to totally go back to the drawing board on that command, or can I just reinforce it with the collar when I get a refusal and keep refining it as the dog ages?


What would it take for you to drive within the speed limit in a given town?

I would enforce with something other than the collar. It is more important that he learns to expect you to follow through on your commands than that your response be instantaneous, and it would be nice if he doesn't get the idea that you only follow through when the collar is on.

Amy Dahl


----------



## Grasshopper (Sep 26, 2007)

I would go so far to say that your dog is always learning whether you are actively "training" or not, so it is important to think about what messages you are sending. Your dog will rise to meet your expectations, so know exactly what you want and set the bar high. I think that the more specific you can be about what you want, the less confusing it is for your dog to understand and the easier time they will have in complying.

Kathryn


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

Grasshopper said:


> I would go so far to say that your dog is always learning whether you are actively "training" or not, so it is important to think about what messages you are sending.


I think Kathyrn hit the nail on the head. If you look at the total time spent with your dog, I'd be willing to bet that you only consider very little of that time to be "formal" training. The dog, however, is learning and observing all the time. Tell me they don't know whats going on when you jingle your car keys.

Most dogs are place oriented or situational. They understand "Here" in the field when you are training, but act like they've never heard it before around the house or at a park. Why? Because they have been "informally" trained, by our random acceptance of this behavior, that those situations don't necessarily require instantaneous response or absolute compliance.

If an owner is extremely astute and trains absolute compliance in all situations, compliance to commands can be generalized just about anywhere. It's all in what you want. I think they need down time to just be dogs at times too. I don't expect perfection all the time and try to be cognizant not to issue commands in those situations where I don't intend to enforce them.


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> What difference does it make in the end, anyway?
> 
> I think you suffer from paralysis by analysis
> 
> ...


Amen brother!!!!


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Dan Wegner said:


> Because they have been "informally" trained, by our random acceptance of this behavior, that those situations don't necessarily require instantaneous response or absolute compliance.
> 
> I I think they need down time to just be dogs at times too. I don't expect perfection all the time and try to be cognizant not to issue commands in those situations where I don't intend to enforce them.


I think these two ideas are worth chewing on. When my dog is tear assing around the front yard wielding a great big stick, dancing playing and grr grr grrring, if I say "here dog" and he continues playing, I have turned his game into a training session. So if I really want him, I turn away back into the house and he will join me. It is hard to learn, but never give a command that you arent prepared to enforce. And don't make the dog buckle down 24/7.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Most dogs are place oriented or situational. They understand "Here" in the field when you are training, but act like they've never heard it before around the house or at a park. Why? Because they have been "informally" trained, by our random acceptance of this behavior, that those situations don't necessarily require instantaneous response or absolute compliance.


I think this is really pertinent to the posted question and an excellent comment. We require obedience in the field but in informal settings we may not require the command be obeyed, or we will repeat the command, and the dog tunes it out. I was reminded of this by my trainer and I didn't realize I was doing it. A command should only have to be given once no matter where you are, or issue a correction until there is compliance.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> When I'm watching football ,,but not soap opera's and my wife starts talking to me I can hear her I really can,,, but quite often my responce is not quite fast enough or my answere isnt pertinent to her question or command.
> Then the voice changes to a more urgent tone with the wife moving in closer and wala she breaks my focus. but because men are so VISUEL a certain portion of our thought process is used to figure out what we are looking at. Stratagies and all those things that run through a guys mind when he is watching something that highly interests him.
> 
> Thats really all I can say about dogs


Dogs are like men in that it is hard to get through to them when they have there "nose to the grind stone" to much concentrating going on

p


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

2tall said:


> never give a command that you arent prepared to enforce.


Sound advice.


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

Way to deep for my dog training! Just train your dog to "YOUR" standards. Myself, a good marking dog that thinks on the run. He might get a little loose at a trial, so what if he is bringing home the ribbons. When we train, my standards and his(her) are held to a higher level. Remember - 4 feet and black heart. They are DOGS.

I am the Pack Leader. I tell them when they can train, how to train, how much to train, how much to eat, when to air, when to play ass grab, when to breed, when to hunt, when they can come into the house, how much time in the kennel. I controll their lives.

Do they listen all the time. "NO".


----------



## T Farmer (Aug 27, 2008)

Will the real pack leader please stand up? I thought you were Mark Sehon


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

Standing tall!!!


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

AhAAhhAAAAAAA I knew it was really you.....HHHaaaaaa


----------



## DrCharlesBortellPhD (Sep 27, 2008)

afdahl said:


> The issue I haven't seen mentioned is that dogs generalize a lot less than we do. I think a lot of the times, the dogs we think of as "smart" are the ones with a bit more tendency to generalize, but for the most part, they don't until they are taught.
> 
> Others have mentioned obedience around the kennel yard. A few years ago I noticed that, in the yard, our dogs seemed to think "here" meant "load up" or else "kennel." Call them and they would run to the truck, or to their runs, but not to the person calling. (Since then I've made sure to teach them to come when called in the yard.)
> 
> ...


Amy, Besides not generalizing, dogs tend not to initiate behaviors...
they do not make "assumptions" or "second guess" what you mean/request.
In a dogs mind, there is "concrete thinking" and little room for abstract thinking. Everything is by "association" - that there is a specific cause and effect. This applies to 'commands' and 'reactions to those commands'.

In the "here" example, I train using CUE words to avoid confusion.
Often the 'same result' is required/expected, but the dog associates a specific term or command with a specific reaction to comply with.
For example, "here", "come", or "by side" have the same wanted results, but are given in different situations. So if the dog becomes unfamiliar to a specific situation or not accustoned to a certain environmrnt or situation, the dog will understand exactly what is wanted/required. This also has an additional benefit - you do not Confuse the dog "retraining" or enforcing prior learned commands. Example, using "come". If the dog does not understand clearly in a certain situation what is expected, and you try to re-enforce the command (come), the dog may disassociate from that term and not associate prior "connections" what the term was applied to. Simply the dog Learns new associations (remember dogs do not generalize) to the command and abandon previous connections to that term. However, a "new term" is viewed by the dog as "seperate" and the dog now is only "obligated" to learn and make a connection of this new term and response...

Charlie


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I really can't take someone position on a point seriously, who when arguing it, uses the word semantic..... then gives as an example of semantics, examples of varied _pronunciation _of a few words.

Semantics is the study of meaning..........

pronunciation is the manner in which one utters a word........



john


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

*Dr. Charles said:*



> ...Amy, Besides not generalizing, dogs tend not to initiate behaviors...
> they do not make "assumptions" or "second guess" what you mean/request.
> In a dogs mind, there is "concrete thinking" and little room for abstract thinking. Everything is by "association" - that there is a specific cause and effect. This applies to 'commands' and 'reactions to those commands'...


If I've understood you correctly, I'm going to have to disagree. 'Shaping' seems a clear example of a dog thinking creatively and initiating a response when the intitial response is not reinforced. Put a dog in a 'Sit', and then give a 'Sit' cue. In many cases the dog will begin to try his whole repertoire of known responses in his attempt to comply. He may 'down', or 'stand', or as you seem to be suggesting he may just squirm around a bit for lack of a better answer. Either way, the dog is initiating after the conditioned response has failed to produce reinforcement.

Additionally, at a recent 'Started' hunt test I saw the following: A water mark was thrown in driving rain and high wind. Beyond poor visibility, the ducks were drifting about 20-30 yards out of the area of the fall by the time the dogs got there.

A Golden Retriever marked well and swam directly to the area of the fall, but the duck was long gone, and downwind at that. The Golden wasted no time swimming to the bank and climbing a 10 foot high mound of earth where he promptly turned back toward the water, spotted the duck, and retrieved it straight-away. Taking advantage of that mound of earth to get a better view seems a clear example of abstract thinking.

I agree with Amy that dogs don't generalize very well. That's why, it seemes to me, it's important to train on as many different grounds as possible, or why it might be wise to NOT repeat marks when trying to introduce a new concept.

Each time a dog views a mark, he is using his 'working memory'. Included in that working memory, are all the clues from the environment plus previously stored memory. The dog retrieves from his 'long term memory' looking for a similar scenario and makes a comparison, and then after all the pieces are recalled, responds. If I understand correctly, that's the dog's hippocampus coordinating memories from different areas of the brain. So, there's 'long term memory' input from the olfactory, visual and somatosensory areas, as well as emotional imput from the amygdala.

If it all comes together, and the dog succesfully negotiates the mark, what is now in 'working memory' will be transfered to 'long-term' memory when the dog enters REM sleep. This causes the brain to grow new neural networks that strengthen the long-term memory (Long Term Potentiation). Hence, generalization occurs.

Apologies for the tech talk, and I'm probably in way over my head. But, I'm talking to Dr. Charles in language I know he'll understand, and then may use to chew me up and spit me out  No disrespect intended to anyone.

Snick


----------



## Redgolden (Nov 21, 2008)

Snicklefritz said:


> *Dr. Charles said:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree. What you wrote is mostly how it works (building mental structure) for all animals (including humans and dogs) ! The brain is a beautiful system and can be complex. It is not just a matter of "input-output or action-reaction". There is a scheme that builds up. If there is a lack for reinforcement somewhere, it is clear that the behavior won't happen as reliably as if it is imprinted with a positive end.


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

Snicklefritz said:


> *Dr. Charles said:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't mean to derail this thread but---

Chuck, I heard about that test. Evidently the judges did not take the weather forecast nor the layout of the pond when setting that test up. For a started dog to have to leave the area of the fall and proceed up on to a mound to be able to see a mark and then re-enter the water to make the retrieve that is 20 or 30 yds downwind of where it was thrown is a travesty in determining what a STARTED dog is.

I would be willing to bet all that I own and all 4 of my dogs that the Golden did not reason that if it climbed up the hill it would have a better vantage point to spot the bird!! In my view the dog was lost after not finding the bird, hunted through the area of the fall, hit the top of the mound,looked back all confused and HAPPENED to see or wind the bird.


----------



## DrCharlesBortellPhD (Sep 27, 2008)

Snick,
"If I've understood you correctly, I'm going to have to disagree. 'Shaping' seems a clear example of a dog thinking creatively and initiating a response when the intitial response is not reinforced. Put a dog in a 'Sit', and then give a 'Sit' cue. In many cases the dog will begin to try his whole repertoire of known responses in his attempt to comply. He may 'down', or 'stand', or as you seem to be suggesting he may just squirm around a bit for lack of a better answer. Either way, the dog is initiating after the conditioned response has failed to produce reinforcement" 

Agree...you misunderstood my point although...I'll explain...
That explanation makes my point. "In many cases the dog will begin to try his whole repertoire of known responses in his attempt to comply." Why I use different "cue" words to prevent this. However, this process of "thought" the dog projects is not malleable, ie having a capacity for adaptive change.
Dogs live in the "here and now". Everything is "black & white". Concrete...
A dog will draw on prievious experiences to 'evaluate' (for lack of a better word) a situation, but reliance is "fixed" to ONLY what was previously learned.
A dog cannot "reason" abstractly to ponder, well if I do this...or if I do that...
Only what previously learned. This phenomenon is seen in Chessies (as you know) so extensively that I call it the "Tried & True Syndrome".
Chessies rely on WHAT WORKS. They tend to draw on that permanently.
Good or Bad, Wrong or Right, a Chessie will always try to do things that "worked" before. In their mind, once "something" worked, to them it will always work. This is often the challenge training them. It is concrete thinking

"Besides not generalizing, dogs tend not to initiate behaviors...
they do not make "assumptions" or "second guess" what you mean/request."
The inability to reason "if I do this..." is the core to my statement. There is no assumptions or evaluations made, only reliance on experience. 
The dog will not "initiate" a new behavior based on 'reasoning'...
only what previously learned or experienced.

Charlie


----------



## DrCharlesBortellPhD (Sep 27, 2008)

Captain Mike D said:


> I would be willing to bet all that I own and all 4 of my dogs that the Golden did not reason that if it climbed up the hill it would have a better vantage point to spot the bird!! In my view the dog was lost after not finding the bird, hunted through the area of the fall, hit the top of the mound,looked back all confused and HAPPENED to see or wind the bird.


Right...dogs cannot "reason" abstractly.
They do not "evaluate" "If I do this...or If I do that..." to problem solve.
Dogs draw on what previously learned/taught. Here it would seem the Golden was Confused because the situation did not comply or resemble prior experiences. 

Charlie


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> The dog will not "initiate" a new behavior based on 'reasoning'...
> only what previously learned or experienced.


I always wonder about those dogs who have never been in a kennel run who may have anxioty problems and then are faced with being in a run

First they may pace back and forth looking for an opening,,,then the may bounce up and down thinking they can try jumping it,,,,,then they may try digging out if its a dirt floor ,if its concrete most wont try ,,, and maby last the'll try to chew through the chain link. I always wonder who taught them that stuff. what a terrable thing to teach a dog,,,unless they are generalizing things they havelearned,,, which we know so they say is impossible
interesting stuff 

p


----------



## 1NarlyBar (Jul 10, 2008)

DrCharlesBortellPhD said:


> There is no assumptions or evaluations made, only reliance on experience.
> 
> The dog will not "initiate" a new behavior based on 'reasoning'...
> only what previously learned or experienced.
> ...




So when did my(at the time) 12 yr old mutt learn or experience the act of "Chimny Crawling" between an Oak and an eight foot fence. 

Yes she is the Houdini Hound and had always been a fence jumper(hence the eight foot fence at the new home),

but where Oh Where did she previously learn this acute skill? 

Old dogs DO learn new Tricks, and they are often self taught too(unfortunately). 

Get away from Chessies, go get a mutt or God forbit a Chihuaua. 
Learn through experience not just books.


----------



## DrCharlesBortellPhD (Sep 27, 2008)

Pete said:


> I always wonder about those dogs who have never been in a kennel run who may have anxiety problems and then are faced with being in a run p


Pete,
there is not a "learned" behavior in play here.
It is an Instinctual Behavior/reaction - Fear.
Same as a wolf (or other animal) caught in a trap that "panics" and frantically tries to escape...even biting off its own leg...
No one "taught" the wolf to 'get away' by self canibalism.
It is a survival instinct.

Same as if you whack a Chessie on the head with a 2x4 (Oh I see the training jokes here now)...
Guess what happens next??
You start telling everyone How Many Stitches You Had...
The Chessie was not "taught" to bite... 
Nor was the Chessie "reasoning" that IF I sink my teeth in your arm, I will get this result...
And the Chessie is not "generalizing" that biting a biscuit in half will happen to your arm too...

Simply Instinct, emotion, & enhanced state of consciousness is to blame...
(and the "fool" who picked up the 2x4...)

Charlie


----------



## DrCharlesBortellPhD (Sep 27, 2008)

1NarlyBar said:


> So when did my(at the time) 12 yr old mutt learn or experience the act of "Chimny Crawling" between an Oak and an eight foot fence.
> 
> Yes she is the Houdini Hound and had always been a fence jumper(hence the eight foot fence at the new home),
> 
> ...


Trial & Error learning is LEARNING...
I said "The dog will not "initiate" a new behavior based on 'reasoning'...
only what previously learned or experienced."Everything HAS to be "learned" at some point....why we 'train'...

"she is the Houdini Hound and had always been a fence jumper but where Oh Where did she previously learn this acute skill?"

The "tried & true syndrome" 
Simply the dog "found" that xxx works to get a certain result, so now that
a "solution" to that problem is to rely on xxx...relying on past/previous experience.

Charlie


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

*Mike said:*



> I would be willing to bet all that I own and all 4 of my dogs that the Golden did not reason that if it climbed up the hill it would have a better vantage point to spot the bird!! In my view the dog was lost after not finding the bird, hunted through the area of the fall, hit the top of the mound,looked back all confused and HAPPENED to see or wind the bird.


Actually, the dog did not hunt _through_ the AOF. The dog swam directly to the AOF, _then made a hard left turn_, climbed the dirt mound and spotted the bird. It was quite deliberate, and I saw no sign of confusion in the dog. I'd hunt with that dog any day. But, I guess you had to be there to see it.

I don't have room for all 4 of your dogs. But, I really like 'Cricket'...and your boat


----------



## Redgolden (Nov 21, 2008)

Snicklefritz said:


> Actually, the dog did not hunt _through_ the AOF. The dog swam directly to the AOF, _then made a hard left turn_, climbed the dirt mound and spotted the bird. It was quite deliberate, and I saw no sign of confusion in the dog. I'd hunt with that dog any day. But, I guess you had to be there to see it.
> 
> I don't have room for all 4 of your dogs. But, I really like 'Cricket'...and your boat


It would be interesting to know if that dog did that before in training. May be in the past, a similar situation happened, the dog was "lost", hunted in the area, climbed on something and saw the bird. So, the dog learned that having an overview helps to spot the bird. This could be why he did it straight away in that test, recognizing the situation and similarities in the environment from a past experience where he understood by himself something that paid off. On the other hand, it has been seen in different situations that a dog takes a deliberate "decision", certainly based on some past experiences (or observations), to work out something. Behaviors are not only a matter of something being taught, it also can be a self understanding. I agree it cannot be based on a complex assembly of elements but it can be on a few simple ones.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> It is a survival instinct


 
Very neat I like that,,,,
so survival instinct can cause a dog to choose or invent multiples ways of solving a certain problem?

Pete


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

Speaking of black and white? Your view of dogs and their mental capacities seems pretty black and white. I do not believe dogs have the ability for abstract thinking at anywhere near the level humans do. But, humans begin life 'concrete operational' and in late childhood gradually begin to develope abstact capabilities until they are fully developed in the teen years. It is not a light switch that just turns on. It is a continuum of nueral developement over a number of years.

I believe that dogs can develope some ability for abstract thought, as a contiuum that goes somewhat beyond concrete operational thinking.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> believe that dogs can develope some ability for abstract thought, as a contiuum that goes somewhat beyond concrete operational thinking


Thats a cool concept,,,, tell me a little more about it

Pete


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Gawd, and to think I used to believe LVL when she claimed, "this ain't rocket surgery". :shock:

JS


----------



## Redgolden (Nov 21, 2008)

I believe that we all agree that dogs have a sense of observation, don't we ? Would this sense of observation be limited to what we do toward them (teaching) ? No. This capability of observing other behaviors, habbits, environmental elements, etc. certainly leads to some sort of "self understanding" of different things. Dogs are able to make a certain level of associations thru what they observe. Is may be based maily on their opportunism but certainly leads to some levels of decisions.

That story I wrote in another thread, about one of our goldens, shows part of that principle. In the dog's experience, he learned that "no" means an undesired behavior. What happened was that one of my friends was here for supper on a nice Summer evening. Just at the other side of the patio door screen, his 2½ y.o. son was playing on the patio and dogs were around there too. The boy went toward the stairs leading to the garden. My friend went out 2 or 3 times to catch his son, saying "no" and braugh him back close to the door. A little later, we heard the boy scream, we all went to the door thinking that he fell down and saw one of the dogs pulling the boy away from the stairs by his belt. The dog knew the "no", associated the boy had nothing to do near the stairs and replicated an action that he observed.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> That story I wrote in another thread, about one of our goldens, shows part of that principle. In the dog's experience, he learned that "no" means an undesired behavior. What happened was that one of my friends was here for supper on a nice Summer evening. Just at the other side of the patio door screen, his 2½ y.o. son was playing on the patio and dogs were around there too. The boy went toward the stairs leading to the garden. My friend went out 2 or 3 times to catch his son, saying "no" and braugh him back close to the door. A little later, we heard the boy scream, we all went to the door thinking that he fell down and saw one of the dogs pulling the boy away from the stairs by his belt. The dog knew the "no", associated the boy had nothing to do near the stairs and replicated an action that he observed


Thats an incredable story

I heard one time that a house was on fire and the family pet went into their bedroom to bark I wonder if thats anything like the family pet coming into the bedroom to bark when it cant hold it bowels any longer

There might be a corralation or even a deeper meaning,, maby someone can expound on that,,, very intriging

Pete


----------



## Dan Boerboon (May 30, 2009)

IMO dogs don't 'disobey' intentionally. That would require a level of thought that dogs don't have. Dogs generaly know the difference in training, hunting, working, etc. in those situations they know what the expected behavior is. I do my best to always maintain the same level of expectations from my dogs. There is no difference between working and not working when it comes to obedience. "Here" always means "here" and "sit" always means "sit". 
If the dog doesn't obey a command, I cannot sit on the couch and allow the dog to refuse the command. I go to the dog and with an ear pinch or other type of pressure I demand obedience. It doesn't take long and the dogs know that the same standard is expected always.
If as a handler/trainer we don’t always mean what we say, enforcing a command or not. How does the dog know the difference between really meaning it and not? It doesn't unless they are consistent. Inconsistency on the handler/trainers part can translate into working situations. If expectations are not consistent the dog doesn't know the difference. 
If a handler/trainer only demands compliance with the e-collar on the dogs can become collar wise. And only obey with the collar on.
I also make sure that anyone that gives one of my dogs a command follows through. I get the response from them that 'I don't care if he/she comes'. Well I do a command is a command and follow through is always important.
As I have developed the attitude that a command is a command when ever it is given my dogs have developed the same attitude. Our youngest pup 11 mo old golden female is the most obedient as we have had this attitude with her from the completion of formal OB.

The short answer keep the expectations of the command at a high level at all times never accept a refusal get up go to the dog and get compliance and the dog will learn what is always expected.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> If the dog doesn't obey a command, I cannot sit on the couch and allow the dog to refuse the command





> The short answer keep the expectations of the command at a high level at all times never accept a refusal get up go to the dog and get compliance and the dog will learn what is always expected. Today 02:36 PM


 Very interesting,,, I wonder if you being in the sitting position had anything to do with it,,,just thinkin out loud here,,,,my dogs seem to know whats comming next by the way I move and the direction of my purpose,,,but those are my dogs I dont know if all dogs do that,,,,


Here is a stupid little game I play with my dogs,,,,,I lay on the ground and command sit or I scratch on their rump and command sit,,,,,just fun stuff to see how the dog reacts,,,not very scientific of coarse,,,,,but still enough info can be gathered to write a theises I think,,,I always apply stuff like that with retriever training,,,its fun and easy,,,,no rocket science what so ever


cool stuff



> [ also make sure that anyone that gives one of my dogs a command follows through. I get the response from them that 'I don't care if he/she comes'. Well I do a command is a command and follow through is always important/QUOTE]
> 
> That also very interesting,,, I'd like to know how or why that works that way,,,and what effect on the dog it has,, being an outside family member (pack) I know its a dirty word these days) is controlling it maby someone it doesnt know at all, manipulating it,,,,
> Thanks Id appreciate a more thouro understanding of this
> ...


----------



## Obabikon (Jul 1, 2009)

This might be a rather simple question in light of all the deep, psychological comments on this thread, but here goes...

Red retrievers just said that if you only enforce commands with the collar, then the dog might become collar-wise and only obey when the collar is on. And several others have said the same thing here.

Well, what do you do to enforce all the other times??

For example, my dog's most common (pretty much only) refusal is when I let him out to go to the bathroom before I leave for work each morning. There he'll be in an empty, quiet yard--no people, no distractions--and I'd bet that 5 times out of 10, when I tell him to come, he'll totally ignore it.

Whatever the reason, there he is--perhaps 40 yards away from my back door--and my attempt to call him in failed. So if I shouldn't "come-nick-come," then how do I enforce without chasing him around the yard?


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Obabikon said:


> Whatever the reason, there he is--perhaps 40 yards away from my back door--and my attempt to call him in failed. So if I shouldn't "come-nick-come," then how do I enforce without chasing him around the yard?


pocket full of bacon


----------



## 1NarlyBar (Jul 10, 2008)

DrCharlesBortellPhD said:


> Trial & Error learning is LEARNING...
> I said "The dog will not "initiate" a new behavior based on 'reasoning'...
> only what previously learned or experienced."Everything HAS to be "learned" at some point....why we 'train'...
> 
> ...



Sorry Chuck, but all you did was repeat yourself, again. 


_ "The dog will not "initiate" a new behavior based on 'reasoning'...
only what previously learned or experienced." _

Sorry but One could not REASON without utilizing previously learned experiences. Otherwise you would not be able to generalize, compare or infer. 


_The "tried & true syndrome" _


HA.... So when A+C has always equalled X, I guess A+B will also equal X. 

It worked before. 




Also,

I can't understand why you few feel that dogs do not have a sense of obedience. Children are not born obedient to their parents, it must be taught(conditioned). You are using a finite definition of obedience. 

BLACK & WHITE: To be obedient is to obey an order or command given by a superior. Generalize THAT.



And when a dog weighs the consequences/benefits of not complying with a command, is that not demonstrating rationale through comparison? \
Your child does the same thing. 


Leaving you in shades of grey,

Richie G


----------



## D Osborn (Jul 19, 2004)

Ken is right. Again
Cookies by the door. My puppy at 11 weeks old comes in and sits at the cookie box. Pretty sit. He will leave anything to come in. If I am not fast enough, he runs to the kitchen to look for food, and then to the crate. 
I have never understood people whose dogs won't come in from the yard. 
If I shake a cookie box even the chocolate lab I baby sit for comes.
There are other ways, but why make this hard?


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

Obabikon said:


> This might be a rather simple question in light of all the deep, psychological comments on this thread, but here goes...
> 
> Red retrievers just said that if you only enforce commands with the collar, then the dog might become collar-wise and only obey when the collar is on. And several others have said the same thing here.
> 
> ...



If your pup goes crazy for the bumper, keep a bumper close to the back door. If you call him and he does not come, take the bumper and swing it around. This should get his attention and hopefully, he would come running to you.

Or, as Ken suggested, ALWAYS keep good treats at the back door (or on you when ready to call him in the a.m.). If he knows he is going to get a treat for responding to the "come" command to return after airing in the a.m., it will work. My pup is a chicken hound. If he knows he is going to get chicken (compared to just the good old dog treat), he will do back flips for the chicken (if only I could train him to do that)

Just a thought.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Not all dogs work for treats! When my dog was 5 to 9 months old I came very close to shooting him or giving him away! He would pull the same stunt as Obabikons dog every day. Once out of "rope range" he would race around the yard and ignore every call. I could have a McDonalds hamburger or a t-bone steak in my hand, and he would not get within reach until it suited him. He thought it was a tremendous game. This nearly always happened when we had somewhere to go. I never did find a way to deal with this until he was collar conditioned. 

We never had this problem with the next pup and they were raised the same in the early days. They are different, and some really seem to need a Dog Whisperer!


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Carol,
when you first got Indy did you even know what end of the dog to give the bacon to?
and the 2nd is a chessie right? not much more to say there  You got better even if you did not know you did.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> pocket full of bacon


Hey Ken, is that not _luring/bribing _as opposed to _training_? I know, we're just trying to get an untrained in the house but still ...

Anyway, be careful with that. Got a friend who's a professional show dog handler, got back to the hotel after a tough day in the ring, threw his $250 blazer (from which he had forgotten to remove a couple leftover pieces of liver) on the bed, and headed for the bar, knowing his trustworthy "truck dog" would be fine alone in the room.

You can guess the rest of the story.

JS


----------



## Dan Boerboon (May 30, 2009)

D Osborn said:


> Ken is right. Again
> Cookies by the door. My puppy at 11 weeks old comes in and sits at the cookie box. Pretty sit. He will leave anything to come in. If I am not fast enough, he runs to the kitchen to look for food, and then to the crate.
> I have never understood people whose dogs won't come in from the yard.
> If I shake a cookie box even the chocolate lab I baby sit for comes.
> There are other ways, but why make this hard?


That might be nice for an 11 week old but IMO a dog that is done with formal OB should not always be rewarded with a treat. What happens when you don't have a treat with you? What about the situation where you are on a walk with your dog off lead and you don't have a treat?



Pete said:


> Very interesting,,, I wonder if you being in the sitting position had anything to do with it,,,just thinkin out loud here,,,,my dogs seem to know whats comming next by the way I move and the direction of my purpose,,,but those are my dogs I dont know if all dogs do that,,,,
> 
> 
> 
> p


I just used the example of sitting on the couch it could be any position any place. The point is I need to put in the effort to ensure that the dog obeys always.



Pete said:


> > [ also make sure that anyone that gives one of my dogs a command follows through. I get the response from them that 'I don't care if he/she comes'. Well I do a command is a command and follow through is always important/QUOTE]
> >
> > That also very interesting,,, I'd like to know how or why that works that way,,,and what effect on the dog it has,, being an outside family member (pack) I know its a dirty word these days) is controlling it maby someone it doesnt know at all, manipulating it,,,,
> > Thanks Id appreciate a more thouro understanding of this
> ...


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

When you guys decide the answer lies beyond Skinner, check out Kurt Lewin ... topological psychology, AKA "rubber sheet geometry.

JS


----------



## Leddyman (Nov 27, 2007)

Angie, Ted, and JS are right. You can make this too complicated and they do know the difference between what they MUST do RIGHT NOW and what they can safely blow off.

For instance my dog will come to me every time I call him because he knows what is going to happen if he doesn't. I purposely let him out without a collar because I want him to know that collar isn't what he should fear. It is only there for a reminder of what I want. I am the one he should fear. I always put my shoes on before I let him out. I stand at the door and watch. When he is finished I say here once. If I know he heard me and he doesn't come it is on. I go get him. If he runs I chase. If it takes an hour to corner him, it takes an hour and the punishment is commensurate. He knows this and he comes. If there comes a time when he needs a repeat of the lesson we do it over. 
I make a very big impression when it must be done and then it is over. It hasn't needed to be repeated in over a year.

My wife on the other hand refuses to use the collar and won't chase him down. It took a while for him to figure this out, but now he blows her off if he is really distracted. In her case he has a larcenous heart. He knows the command 100%. But he looks at her and says I don't think so, not right now and goes about his business.

Because dogs do what works for them.


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

> Because dogs do what works for them.


:idea:

The gentleman wins a coconut!!

Eug


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Ken is right. Again
> Cookies by the door. My puppy at 11 weeks old comes in and sits at the cookie box. Pretty sit. He will leave anything to come in. If I am not fast enough, he runs to the kitchen to look for food, and then to the crate.
> I have never understood people whose dogs won't come in from the yard.
> If I shake a cookie box even the chocolate lab I baby sit for comes.
> There are other ways, but why make this hard


*Thats* incredable
So are you saying the dog is choosing treats at the door over different interesting things in the yard,,,,




> For instance my dog will come to me every time I call him because he knows what is going to happen if he doesn't. I purposely let him out without a collar because I want him to know that collar isn't what he should fear. It is only there for a reminder of what I want. I am the one he should fear. I always put my shoes on before I let him out. I stand at the door and watch. When he is finished I say here once. If I know he heard me and he doesn't come it is on. I go get him. If he runs I chase. If it takes an hour to corner him, it takes an hour and the punishment is commensurate. He knows this and he comes. If there comes a time when he needs a repeat of the lesson we do it over.
> I make a very big impression when it must be done and then it is over. It hasn't needed to be repeated in over a year


Thats unique from what I understand,,, lots to think about
So you train out of fear,,,,,, Didnt know those tecniques were still used especially in retriever training,,, but I do respect your ability to make that work for you.

Then off course my next question might be ,,that after chasing your dog around for an hour and finally catching up with him your punishment is commensurate. I'm not quite sure what that means but it sounds like a good method..

Dog behaviors are alot of fun,,,I'm seeing alot of new stuff now here becuase of this thread and slowly the pieces are fitting together I think Terry that if your wife keeps treats at the door that could solve the obedience problem,,that seems to be the concenses I think,,
Thanks guys

Pete


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

Just like I said" They are Dogs".


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Pete said:


> *
> .....
> * So you train out of fear,,,,,, Didnt know those tecniques were still used especially in retriever training,,, but I do respect your ability to make that work for you.
> .....


Do you think maybe Leddyman was using the term "fear" in the same way some talk about the "fear of God" or "God fearing folks"? ;-)

JS


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I think his fear can be equated with respect. Why can trainers accomplish what owners can't? It's not fear (usually) but it's respect. Dogs are not stupid- they know who has the drivers license. I don't think Leddyman chased him for an hour, he was just figuratively saying he would not give up until he got compliance.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Do you think maybe Leddyman was using the term "fear" in the same way some talk about the "fear of God" or "God fearing folks"?


No 
because he chases his dog down and then does what people here have said is ,,,,a very confusing thing to do to a dog , You know chase it for an hour than after you corner it, comensurate it or something like that ,fear is what it is and can be brought out in a dog by how we do things,,,,,thats what I've been told anyway

I thought this was a scientific topic,,,,so when people choose words I tend to take them at face value,,,,,, except me of course with my limited vocabulary sometimes I have to use words with unknown meanings to me just to fill in the gaps

Pete


----------



## D Osborn (Jul 19, 2004)

> That might be nice for an 11 week old but IMO a dog that is done with formal OB should not always be rewarded with a treat. What happens when you don't have a treat with you? What about the situation where you are on a walk with your dog off lead and you don't have a treat?


Oh goodness, I am talking about my back yard. And yes, this puppy leaves food, digging, my other dog, the dogs next door to come running. It is called conditioning. And that sets up the later conditioning. Called Collar
conditioning. 

My dogs know to come, but this is what sets up the come no matter what. The OP does not even have the come when you are called and you get rewarded part-which is why we suggested food. 

When I teach my dogs I teach the basics, with rewards. Consequences occur when they are truly making a choice, and the correction is fair and quick.For my puppy, I will go out and tug him by the ear. If I miss an opportunity, I can always set it up. 

I won't dog sit for dogs that won't come, so in one case the owners had me take the dog and teach her to come. She got treats or praise every time she came with help from a long line. When she came off the long line she made a choice not to come and there were consequences.Fair, relatively painless corrections. She comes now, and she loves me to death. Her owners adore her. It is not rocket science.

Right now, my 4 year old golden is going through a stage where he thinks he has a choice. I am figuring out how to fix this, as he is a smart little guy. It will not take much, but I don't want to over correct either.SO I am NOT going to jump straight to a strong collar correction. My job as a trainer is to make the right choice for this particular dog.

I generally stay out of these training threads, but I really cringe when someone talks about correcting when it is not obvious from their post that the basics have not been taught. And I am bored while my kids take tests.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

D Osborn said:


> .....
> 
> The OP does not even have the *come when you are called* and you get rewarded part-which is why we suggested food.
> 
> .....


Better reread the OP. Dog comes when called *95% of the time*. ;-)

JS


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Leddyman said:


> My wife on the other hand refuses to use the collar and won't chase him down. It took a while for him to figure this out, but now he blows her off if he is really distracted. In her case he has a larcenous heart. He knows the command 100%. But he looks at her and says I don't think so, not right now and goes about his business.
> 
> Because dogs do what works for them.


I have the same problem. It was one thing when we got married and she taught my 9 YO retired dog that he didn't really have to do what she said if he didn't feel like it. It is another thing with my 18 month pup. 

I have tried the pocket full of bacon, but the dog would just eat it and my wife doesn't really respond to bacon anyway. She is already collar-wise enough that there is no way I could even get one around her neck. Perhaps if I kept a heeling stick in my back pocket and whacked her across the legs when she is letting Little Terror get away with something?


----------



## Dan Boerboon (May 30, 2009)

D Osborn said:


> Oh goodness, I am talking about my back yard. And yes, this puppy leaves food, digging, my other dog, the dogs next door to come running. It is called conditioning. And that sets up the later conditioning. Called Collar
> conditioning.
> 
> My dogs know to come, but this is what sets up the come no matter what. *The OP does not even have the come when you are called and you get rewarded part-which is why we suggested food.*
> ...


I agree with most of what is stated. I agree with the treat method to initally get the dog to come, sit, down etc. But for the OP the next step wasn't mentioned. This could lead the OP or someone inexperienced to believe the only part of training is to give treats, no corrections after the behavior is learned.

I don't jump right to a collar either. I generally do not use the collar often for OB after formal OB is completed. I don't use the collar 100% of the time in training either. When the collar is used it is to correct not punish and the setting is low. I do not believe in BURN the dog for corrections.


----------



## DrCharlesBortellPhD (Sep 27, 2008)

Snicklefritz said:


> I do not believe dogs have the ability for abstract thinking at anywhere near the level humans do. But, humans begin life 'concrete operational' and in late childhood gradually begin to develope abstact capabilities until they are fully developed in the teen years.  It is not a light switch that just turns on. It is a continuum of nueral developement over a number of years.
> 
> I believe that dogs can develope some ability for abstract thought, as a contiuum that goes somewhat beyond concrete operational thinking.


But consider the "mental developmental capacities" of dogs...
Depending on the study (medical, psychological, etc), the dog is determined to be functionally equivalent to to a 2-4 year old human toddler...
Mental capacities in a dog do not develop past this point...so the "abstract reasoning" abilities do not carry over. Also the ability to utilize language has been proven to foster abilities for abstract thinking. (along with mental capacities to differentiate words which a dog cannot do - ie example words like "here" and "hear". Used in context, a human KNOWS what is inferred to, but a dog cannot.

Charlie


----------



## DrCharlesBortellPhD (Sep 27, 2008)

afdahl said:


> The issue I haven't seen mentioned is that dogs generalize a lot less than we do. Compared to us, they see actions and commands as situation-specific. We think, "I've taught the dog the 'here' command," while the dog understands that in certain training settings, when we say "here," the consequences of coming are a lot better than the consequences of not coming. Of course they do go on to establish the habit of coming, and become less dependent on enforcement _in that setting_. Where communication goes awry is in our assumption that they will respond the same way anywhere. I think a lot of the times, the dogs we think of as "smart" are the ones with a bit more tendency to generalize, but for the most part, they don't until they are taught.Amy Dahl


Amy, Oh so close...
My observations is the "smart" dogs have an ability to "recall" previously learned behaviors and apply them to a situation more quickly, efficiently, and
instinctually. I'll explain...

I mentioned a phenomen retrievers have (Chessies more so - their "holy Grail")
I termed the "Tried & True Syndrome". Simply, a dog relys on What Works. If a dog "tries" something and It Works, that dog will rely and draw on that behavior or "solution" everytime thereafter. Alternatives are not "considered" or "accepted" easily by the dog. (Often making training difficult if "learned" incorrectly or innapropriately). Simply, the dog now has a "base point" in which the dogs' responses/reactions are centered on.

"Smart dogs" display the ability to "recall" previous tried methods to any given situation and apply these methods/behaviors to "something new".
Not generalizing a behavior but rather applying the same behavior, but
more efficiently/quickly. Merely "smart dogs" in my experience have the ability to "put into practice" what they Learned and Internalized faster, easier, and instantaneously.

Charlie


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

After a command is learned and reinforced with positive reinforcement. It must be proofed under distraction using corrections.

If your dog blows off a known command it must be enforced the next time its givin.

If you start to decide when you are going to enforce and when you are not the dog is going to learn he doesn't have to listen all the time. In the end you end up with a dog that needs to be managed by a collar the rest of it life.


A dog can love you and still not respect you. I don't give a command unless I mean it and my dog knows this is not a question its an order.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

During the distraction phase the fun never ends. They still get plenty of praise and rewards. I will often use the distraction as the reward system during training. If I know they like something enough to break my command then that becomes the reward. 

First day it might be 10 minutes of solid obedience work for 4 minutes of playing with your buddy, or whatever the reward is. Next day 20 minutes of work, dogs are like people they will NOT work for free. 

Now my corrections don’t have to be higher than the distraction. The dog is conditioned from the start that if they want the reward they have to work for it. Classical Conditioning 101. 

Every good e-collar trainer needs a great reward system. This is different for every dog, but they will tell you what it likes during the distraction faze. READ THE DOG>


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> I mentioned a phenomen retrievers have (Chessies more so - their "holy Grail")
> I termed the "Tried & True Syndrome". Simply, a dog relys on What Works


In your studies Dr charles ,,what were your numbers for your case studies,,,for instance 100 chesies comparied to 100 non chessies.

About how many chessies relied on what worked compared to how many non chessies relied on what worked.
Thanks 
Pete


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

If the pigeon had an open food container in the cage, it would never learn to peck the sign. Environment..


----------



## DrCharlesBortellPhD (Sep 27, 2008)

Pete said:


> About how many chessies relied on what worked compared to how many non chessies relied on what worked.Thanks Pete


Pete, Labs are at the bottom of the totum pole...about 50% do...
Goldens are about 65-70%, and Chessies are 100%...

There are varing degrees, but ALL chessies show this trait/ability...
It is what makes training Chessies "different"...
You really have to have a different mind-set with Chessies. You have to be prepared and on guard with any training to make sure there is no "misintrepretations" that the dog can internalize. If a Chessie tries it once and it works, you can easily get frustrated because that Chessie now found a "reference point" to base ALL behaviors off of. 

This is probably why the terms "hard-headed", "stubborn", and "difficult" originated and are attributed to Chessies. However, reality is Chessies tend to be "soft" and "opinionated". If you "understand" the Chessie (as a breed), you have no problems...however, if you mis-read and are unprepared for a Chessie, Life will Be Hell...

Charlie


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Pete, Labs are at the bottom of the totum pole...about 50% do...
> Goldens are about 65-70%, and Chessies are 100%


Thanks Dr Charles
So in your opinion what could be the reason that the labrador is so successful in different performance events. 

And on the other hand



> There are varing degrees, but ALL chessies show this trait/ability...
> It is what makes training Chessies "different"...
> You really have to have a different mind-set with Chessies. You have to be prepared and on guard with any training to make sure there is no "misintrepretations" that the dog can internalize. If a Chessie tries it once and it works, you can easily get frustrated because that Chessie now found a "reference point" to base ALL behaviors off of.


What exactly could be holding back the chessie breed from dominating field trials. 
In your opinion is it the trainers who train chessies that are lacking understanding of the breed? 
I know this is off topic ,,,but your studies are interesting

Pete


----------



## DrCharlesBortellPhD (Sep 27, 2008)

Pete said:


> What exactly could be holding back the chessie breed from dominating field trials. Pete


Statistically, Is there really a difference in Labs vs Chessies...
Consider at a FT, there might be 20 labs running (or more) vs 1 Chessie. 
Labs "Seem" to dominate because simply there are More Labs running compared to Chessies. But if you consider the # of Chessies and "success" vs #Labs and "success"... Numbers are fooling. (only 5-10% of Chessie owners participate to FTs compared to ?% of Lab owners??)

Look at the Nationals awhile back - Linda & Yakity (cbr)
Made it to the last series...
Entered was 100+ Labs, a few Goldens, and only 1 Chessie.
That Chessie "Beat" out the Labs "big-time" (considering 1vs100+)
Chessies actually "hold their own" well...

"what could be the reason that the labrador is so successful in different performance events."
See above - numbers are misleading.
However, a Lab can be re-trained easier. They are more apt and willing to "accept" new ideas, methods, tasks...
Labs are flexible in that they will not rely on "known" responses/reactions as a philosophy of Must Do... (Tried & True principles).
A lab if learned something "wrongly" will switch gears easier - that they will accept alternatives to do something else quicker. A Chessie "Holds" onto what learned must always apply philosophy. A Chessie dedicates 100% to something once the dog accepts whatever. This is why Chessies "Bond" strongly to people, moreso than a Lab.

Charlie


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Statistically, Is there really a difference in Labs vs Chessies...
> Consider at a FT, there might be 20 labs running (or more) vs 1 Chessie.
> Labs "Seem" to dominate because simply there are More Labs running compared to Chessies. But if you consider the # of Chessies and "success" vs #Labs and "success"... Numbers are fooling. (only 5-10% of Chessie owners participate to FTs compared to ?% of Lab owners


Thanks dr Charles
I never thought about it in those terms,, In some ways its to bad that black is such a pretty color,,,funny how some things work out



> Look at the Nationals awhile back - Linda & Yakity (cbr)
> Made it to the last series...
> Entered was 100+ Labs, a few Goldens, and only 1 Chessie.
> That Chessie "Beat" out the Labs "big-time" (considering 1vs100+)
> Chessies actually "hold their own" well


Yes I have had the pleasure of training with Yakity a time or 2 and have watched her run trials a handfull of times,, she sure is an exceptional dog. I've seen her " beat" out other chessies too ,,, She is a dandy



> , a Lab can be re-trained easier. They are more apt and willing to "accept" new ideas, methods, tasks...
> Labs are flexible in that they will not rely on "known" responses/reactions as a philosophy of Must Do... (Tried & True principles).
> A lab if learned something "wrongly" will switch gears easier - that they will accept alternatives to do something else quicker. A Chessie "Holds" onto what learned must always apply philosophy. A Chessie dedicates 100% to something once the dog accepts whatever. This is why Chessies "Bond" strongly to people, moreso than a Lab


In your opinion does this have to do with trainability ?

Thanks 
Pete


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

DrCharlesBortellPhD said:


> But consider the "mental developmental capacities" of dogs...
> Depending on the study (medical, psychological, etc), the dog is determined to be functionally equivalent to to a 2-4 year old human toddler...
> Mental capacities in a dog do not develop past this point...so the "abstract reasoning" abilities do not carry over. Also the ability to utilize language has been proven to foster abilities for abstract thinking. (along with mental capacities to differentiate words which a dog cannot do - ie example words like "here" and "hear". Used in context, a human KNOWS what is inferred to, but a dog cannot.
> 
> Charlie


Charlie, I try very hard not to anthropomorphize, and I also try to stick with the Principle of Parsimony. I do so, in part, to keep from forming unreasonable expectations from the dog. But, what has been reported for dogs in recent research, and what I've observed on my own, causes me to question what is really a 1970's version of what dogs are capable of. It's simply not as clear as it once appeared to be.

The structure of the canine brain and the human brain are very, very similar with the exception of the size of the neo-cortex. One could reasonably infer some similarity in function, and that has been supported by recent research. But, you know all of that. So, how big does a neo-cortex have to be to support abstract thinking?

I just don't believe dogs are pure respondents. They are, in some undetermined sense, actors. They are complex adaptive systems that are capable of producing emergent properties that may exhibit more intelligence than a 'black box'.

Chuck


----------



## DrCharlesBortellPhD (Sep 27, 2008)

Snicklefritz said:


> Charlie, I try very hard not to anthropomorphize, and I also try to stick with the Principle of Parsimony. I do so, in part, to keep from forming unreasonable expectations from the dog. But, what has been reported for dogs in recent research, and what I've observed on my own, causes me to question what is really a 1970's version of what dogs are capable of. It's simply not as clear as it once appeared to be.Chuck


Chuck, Iagree somewhat...
Research, as you know, is severely lacking on important functionality issues.
Most research only gets funded IF there is application & benefit to the human population. Sad although... Consider DM with Chessies. Since DM is a canine form of ALS in humans, a better understanding of the disease eventually can be applied to human medical science so there is usually funding available. However, when there is no apparent application (to humans), it is sink or swim to get funding.

In the thread I PMed you, I mentioned how often researchers do not "rock the boat" and tend to conform to a "common belief" and rarely deviate from the current ideology of the time. This is also a cause for new insights NOT being brought forth. 

Human influence on canines is rarely investigated as research. Part of this includes if domestication affects mental abilities. There are 2 significant studies although. One basically shows dogs do not need to "survive" on their own and subsequentially, lost mental abilities. The other was on Dingos and other "wild dogs" that showed they possessed (demonstrated) an ability to "reason" more, although the parameters of the experiment was very limited and abstract reasoning was not considered to test for. (I think the motto "don't rock the boat" or "make waves" attitude was in play here.)

Charlie


----------



## DrCharlesBortellPhD (Sep 27, 2008)

In your opinion does this have to do with trainability ?Thanks Pete

In a way...
It is not so much what you train for but how.
The manner and methods have to be adjusted. 
Labs engage in "self-rewarding" behaviors more than Goldens & Chessies.
Goldens are more altruistic than Chessies & Labs.
Chessies are more "task specific" than Labs & Goldens.

Each can do and accomplish the same "whatever", but how you proceed from "point A to point B" must consider the innate differences of the breeds.

I mentioned before how I train SD's (Service Dogs).
Consider there is a Reason why Goldens are predominately used for assistance dogs (wheelchair/scooter) and with children. Labs prevail in the SE (seeing eye) guide dog applications (with Shepherds). 
Simply, each breed has unique traits that "match" the intended tasks and are "best suited" to train for that specific application.

So it is important to modify towards the breed as it is important to modify towards each individual dog within a breed.

Charlie


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> I mentioned before how I train SD's (Service Dogs).


Dr Charles
was that in this thread ,, I dont recall reading it
Can you please give me an overview

Thanks 
Pete


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

[QUOTEIn a way...
It is not so much what you train for but how.
The manner and methods have to be adjusted. 
Labs engage in "self-rewarding" behaviors more than Goldens & Chessies.
Goldens are more altruistic than Chessies & Labs.
Chessies are more "task specific" than Labs & Goldens][/QUOTE]

One more question I forgot to ask concerning this


> In a way...
> It is not so much what you train for but how.
> The manner and methods have to be adjusted.
> Labs engage in "self-rewarding" behaviors more than Goldens & Chessies.
> ...


In your opinion are there chessies that train up like labradors (Labs in a general sence) and are there Labs that train up like chessies ( in a general sense) same with goldens all of coarse in a general sence
sorry for the dual questioning but thought I'd get both of them in there before I take off training for the day
Thanks 

pete


----------



## DrCharlesBortellPhD (Sep 27, 2008)

Pete said:


> In your opinion are there chessies that train up like labradors (Labs in a general sence) and are there Labs that train up like chessies ( in a general sense) same with goldens all of coarse in a general sence
> sorry for the dual questioning but thought I'd get both of them in there before I take off training for the day
> Thanks
> 
> pete


Yes, why I wrote "So it is important to modify towards the breed as it is important to modify towards each individual dog within a breed."

Charlie


----------



## DrCharlesBortellPhD (Sep 27, 2008)

JS said:


> Gawd, and to think I used to believe LVL when she claimed, "this ain't rocket surgery". :shock: JS


It Isn't...
Just have to be "on your toes" and anticipate what the dog might do...

For example, with Chessies, you really have to be 2-3 steps ahead of the dog.
Not that "training" a Chessie is "harder" or "more difficult", but just different.
Sometimes, you have to be "psychic"...

What makes the "great trainers" is the ability to "foresee" potential flaws or problems "down the road" and prepare, address, and train for them now. 
The ability to "Read" each individual dog and react/respond accordingly. 

The "key" is Know the breed and "generally" what to expect.
Know the individual dog within the breed...all vary to expectations.
Be Clear, Consise, and Consistent...and plan for every contigency or possibility the dog may encounter...

Wow...It IS Rocket Surgery...tehehe...:shock:

Charlie


----------

