PREDICTABILITY? RELIABILITY? PROOFING?

Description of your first forum.

PREDICTABILITY? RELIABILITY? PROOFING?

Post by Jerry How » Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:47:08




Subject: Re: Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.behavior
Date: 1999/07/26



Quote:


>> >  I've not yet heard of a completely compulsion free method that
>> > does produce reliablity in every dog (or nearly every dog).
>> That's very interesting to me because the 2 dogs that I thought
>> had been trained to very reliable retrieves without force belong
>> to your sister.  Did she use some compulsion in proofing those
>> retrieves?  That's where I would expect it to be required, no matter
>> how purely postive the method used to teach the command was.
>> Lynn K.
>Hello Lyinglynnm,
>Hello Lyinglynn,
>Like a necklace made of diamonds and gold, you cannot wear it without
>all parts of the chain. A failure of one link will lose the entire
>chain. Where is the clasp when one link breaks? The clasp is greedily
>holding onto two links to nowhere, doing it's job, the mentality of the
>the clasp.
>What is incomprehensible to me is, if you trained a behavior properly,
>the proof would be that the behavior were performed properly under all
>circumstances. When we set up the situation for (failure) the proofing,
>is it your training that failed (?) when you endeavor to "correct" the
>behavior? I'm not against setting up situations for the dog to learn.
>But I refuse to set up a (proofing) situation for failure. When we ask
a
>command, it should be enforced without force, but by using the proper
>training tools.
>That is one of the challenges in dog training. Understanding what
>motivates the dog to do something other than what he wants to do, and
>getting him to want to do it our way because that is what makes us want
>to work with him. It is a balance in the working relationship that you
>may never understand, because you are not willing to give up your false
>sense of control, in order to perpetuate your desires. You don't even
>trust yourselves.
>If the training were done properly, the proof would be the dog would
not
>fail.
>Thus, according to your temper, and according to howe important or
risky
>the behavior, justifies howe much of a correction is warranted to
>demonstrate to the dog the consequences of his actions. This doesn't
>make any sense to me or the dogs.
>If the behavior is minor, you may give less of a correction than if the
>behavior is dangerous, like eating poison, or chasing livestock, or
>trying to bother a snake, or getting up on the couch. The dog does not
>choose which of these behaviors is more risky, he has no value judgment
>of whether the poisoned hot dog is good or bad, or whether the
livestock
>is any different by value or nature than a birdie or bunny, that
picking
>up a snake is any different than picking up you're ballroom dance
shoes,
>or any other concept we as humans have.
>All he needs to know is whether dad or mom appreciates that behavior,
>and if everything in the relationship is in proper order, the behavior
>will be effected properly because of proper handling and training.
>Proper training breeds respect and and affection. Nobody wants to
>violate the trust and respect of the ones we value most.
>Seems dogs have more character than some humans.
>Ones actions are in keeping with ones character because proper
>leadership has been established.
>Properly performing commands is not necessarily a matter of character.
>But when one's character is in keeping with one's demonstrated actions,
>and the proper leadership has been established, then the consequences
of
>the actions are self evident, and predictable. That's how the army gets
>men to charge into a machine gun nest, and kill that sob that threatens
>his buddies and his unit and his country.
>Predictability is reliability.
>You set an example of being unpredictable by means of corrections and
>coercion.
>I set an example of proper leadership and self discipline and
>demonstrated predictability through consistency and understanding what
>the dog is thinking. He does not think in human terms. We need to think
>in terms of what their instinct and innate ability are, and capitalize
>on praising split seconds, of canine thought, strategy and timing.
>The proof is in the pudding.
>Jerry.

I'll give $50 to Cindi's favorite charity if the "other side" will
actually respond to this marvelous post with something as well thought
out and presented.  Here's your chance.  No *** words.  No ***
talk.  Just thoughts and experiences presented in a grown-up manner.

I've locked this one up with some of Canis' and Marilyn's stuff.

Robert
Aside to Jerry:  Do more of this.  It may not be as much fun, but it
sure is more beneficial.