Hmmm... I have a clicker... and I tried this w/Beast.
We didn't even get to the treat part, because he turned into a complete maniac and tore through the house "looking" for the sound. As soon as he hears it he loses his mind.
katiek0417 wrote:amazincc wrote:How do you guys teach the dogs to equate the clicker w/"a job well done"?
Pavlov's Classical conditioning. (Although, I've heard it referred to as "loading the clicker.")
So, you continuously pair the click with the food. (and, for what order, you click, then give food; click then food; click then food...do it continuously). I do it about 30 times twice a day.
Then, I use the click in replacement of a "good job." The purpose of the click is to mark the behavior when it occurs, and it lets the dog know a reward (like food) is coming even if it's not coming that second. A benefit of clickers is that they never sound different...
BritneyP wrote:I also think I already whole-heartedly agreed with you about this statement.
Oh Christine, don't take this the wrong way, but I actually think furever_pit could probably learn alot from this entire thread. It may have gone off on somewhat of a tangent, but it's all valuable information, atleast I think so.
katiek0417 wrote:amazincc wrote:How do you guys teach the dogs to equate the clicker w/"a job well done"?
Pavlov's Classical conditioning. (Although, I've heard it referred to as "loading the clicker.")
When you say you GO TO something it means you are leaving one thing, and going to a different thing. Then, she said INSTEAD OF. The word "instead" is an adverb meaning "to substitute or replace." So, essentially, the meaning of that phrase is "going from primarily motivational and replacing/substituting it with compulsion." That is the meaning of that surface structure (if you look at the meaning of the words). Maybe she worded it wrong, and meant it to imply: why did he INCLUDE compulsion, rather than substitute it for something.
katiek0417 wrote:amazincc wrote:How do you guys teach the dogs to equate the clicker w/"a job well done"?
Pavlov's Classical conditioning. (Although, I've heard it referred to as "loading the clicker.")
katiek0417 wrote:Ellie, it's funny that you mention using the toy as a reward.
DemoDick wrote:When you say you GO TO something it means you are leaving one thing, and going to a different thing. Then, she said INSTEAD OF. The word "instead" is an adverb meaning "to substitute or replace." So, essentially, the meaning of that phrase is "going from primarily motivational and replacing/substituting it with compulsion." That is the meaning of that surface structure (if you look at the meaning of the words). Maybe she worded it wrong, and meant it to imply: why did he INCLUDE compulsion, rather than substitute it for something.
Correct, however consider the context and personal history in which you have discussed these terms. I have seen you refer to "frying" a dog on the e-collar when describing what many refer to as "escape training", or -R. Not something I would advocate or defend in most cases, including teaching a retrieve. You will either create a half-hearted retrieve or simply RUIN a dog. When you advocate using a primarily negative (and stressful) method of teaching behaviors expect to encounter some resistance. Very, very few people are able to integrate rewards and punishments into a cohesive plan of attack to create and proof behaviors. Many fewer can start with compulsion to do the same. And to put it bluntly I don't know anyone here who could watch someone train a dog to the point of screaming in pain and simply "walk away".
If one has to resort to using compulsion to teach behaviors one loses the ability to reliably to self-label as a motivational trainer.
Demo Dick
BullyLady wrote:[
And Christine, we have since switched to using a verbal cue. We say "yes" in a clipped manner in a high happy voice. We loaded it the same way as a clicker. Say "yes" repeatedly and immediately after hand the treat. We did it so that we have both hands free in case we need to guide the dog, but our clicker training trainer recommended this for dogs who are irritated by or scared of the clicker. Maybe give that a try if you are interested in it? It's a really excellent way to teach new behaviors, and shaping exercises are alot of fun too!
amazincc wrote:BullyLady wrote:[
And Christine, we have since switched to using a verbal cue. We say "yes" in a clipped manner in a high happy voice. We loaded it the same way as a clicker. Say "yes" repeatedly and immediately after hand the treat. We did it so that we have both hands free in case we need to guide the dog, but our clicker training trainer recommended this for dogs who are irritated by or scared of the clicker. Maybe give that a try if you are interested in it? It's a really excellent way to teach new behaviors, and shaping exercises are alot of fun too!
That's what I've been doing and it works for us.
Hundilein wrote:I know this isn't technically a +/- Punishment/Reinforcement question, but this would be an example of the Premack Principle, right? A behavior that is highly likely to happen becomes the reward for a less likely behavior (or what the dog wants becomes a reward for what you want?) Not the actual toy as the reward, but playing with the toy? I've used this with my dog for loose leash walking by rewarding nice walking with the opportunity to sniff (something she loves to do), and it's worked wonders. I can still remember the first time I told her, "okay, go sniff" and she just hung around and looked at me, like, "thanks, but no thanks, I'd really rather just walk with you mom". Just trying to brush up on my training terms.
katiek0417 wrote:I thought about doing that with my new dog...using the voice marker...however, I'm only concerned that it will over-excite the crazy idiot even more.
You're basically right, the "technical" behaviorist definition states that more probable behaviors will reinforce less probable behaviors. Furthermore, any high-frequency activity can be used as a reinforcer for any lower-frequency activity (taken from one of my "Learning" textbooks). The example that I always use: Let's say you want your child to eat his/her vegetables, if you say "you can have ice cream if you eat all your vegetables" you are applying the Premack Principle.
Demo, more than half (in fact, a vast majority) of field trial competitors with titles have been trained using -R for the forced retrieve. These are dogs that make a career out of retrieving. And this is not some silly 20 foot retrieve you do on the trial field, these are 150-200 yard retrieves. However, these dogs weren't ruined nor are they doing a half-hearted retrieve. I don't know if you've ever seen a field trial, but if not, I'd highly recommend going to see one (the people are very cool, too). These dogs are quite amazing, and some of the happiest dogs while they're working that I've ever seen! So, your statement that you will do one of two things (create a half-hearted retrieve or ruin a dog) simply isn't true.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users