Talk:Dog training/Archive 3

An argument that clicker training uses punishment

Note I've copied the following discussion from my talk page to the section below -- which is where this discussion belongs...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your inability to see that punishment is used in clicker training. Actually punishment is in use in every method of dog training that exists. Your inability to see this is not unusual.

Let's review the basics of OC, Operant conditioning. (Here paraphrased from Skinner).

• If something is added to the situation, it said to be POSITIVE, abbreviated with a (+)
• If something is removed from the situation, it is said to be NEGATIVE, abbreviated with a (-).
• REINFORCEMENT is something that will tend to make a behavior repeat.
• PUNISHMENT is something that will tend to make a behavior NOT repeat.

And so we get four quadrants of OC.

• +R where something is added to the situation that will tend to make a behavior repeat.
• -R where something is removed from the situation that will tend to make a behavior repeat.
• +P where something is added to the situation that will tend to make a behavior not repeat.
• -P where something is removed from the situation that will tend to make a behavior not repeat

Extinction is part of OC and I'll discuss it towards the end of this.

Some trainers, Karen Pryor among them, have perverted the use of these terms. That perversion is responsible for a great deal of confusion in the dog training world, particularly among those who practice clicker training and/or claim that they are "purely positive."

Ms. Pryor discusses this in her "Don't Shoot The Dog!" She writes, "I must apologize to any professional behaviorists who are annoyed at my cavalier use of the vocabulary of reinforcement theory. ... I have sacrificed technical precision in favor of a vocabulary I think people can understand."

I guess Ms. Pryor thought that people who read her book were too stupid to learn the terms of OC. I don't agree.

What she did was to change the term "positive" to mean something that the dog would like. She changed the term "negative" to mean something that the dog would not like. Neither of these terms, used like this, have anything to do with OC but it has caused much confusion among lay people who think that it does. They hear "negative" training and think it has something to do with something that the dog doesn't like. They don't understand that it has to do with removing something from the situation. They'll bounce back and forth between trying to sound scientific and talking gibberish.

To compound this, trainers who claim to be "Pure Positive" have successfully demonized the word "punishment" to mean , as you wrote in one of your messages on the Talk:Dog Training Page, "most readers will think of punishment in terms of hitting or scolding or a loud negative sound, not simply withholding a treat. "

Those things MAY or may not be punishment. It depends on the dog, how he perceives those things and most importantly their effect on the behavior. If it tends to make the behavior not repeat, they are punishment. If it tends to make the behavior repeat, and it's rare but it's the case with some dogs, with some of these things, it's reinforcement.

But the true meaning of "punishment" in the scientific sense of OC has not changed one bit. I find it hilarious that these trainers tell their clients, as a selling point, that their training is based on science, as if other training methods were not. But then they try to pass off, as you did, improper definitions of the terms used in OC.

If (for example − we're talking about training a dog to sit) and he does not obey the command, withholding the treat will have the effect of tending to make the behavior of NOT sitting on command, not happen again. It's –P, negative punishment, the removal of the treat from the situation. Please note that the word "PUNISHMENT" is right there in front of you.

A NRM (No Reward Marker) used by many clicker trainers (I don't know if Mr. Klein uses them, but it's immaterial) is intended to let the dog know that he's not going to get a reinforcement, a reward. A trainer says "sit" but the dog does not sit. The trainer says, "wrong," makes a noise or otherwise lets the dog know that he's not getting the reinforcement. That will tend to make the behavior of not sitting, not repeat. That is +P, positive punishment. Something is added to the situation that will tend to make a behavior not repeat. A NRM is punishment. I don't give a damn if someone claims that it's not, it EXACTLY fits the definition of punishment and so it is punishment. Calling it something else, as some trainers do, to avoid using the word 'punishment,' does not change what just happened − punishment.

Earlier you referred me to Klein's website. There he simply does not address what he does if a trained dog that knows how to sit, refuses to do so. More than likely, he'll either give a NRM, which I just showed you is punishment, or he'll withhold the treat, which I've also just showed you is punishment.

The fact that the so−called pure positive trainers don't agree that they use punishment, means nothing. The definitions of OC are pretty much set in stone. If something tends to make a behavior not repeat, it's punishment. You can claim that "most readers will think of punishment in terms of hitting or scolding or a loud negative sound, not simply withholding a treat." all you want, but it doesn’t change the definitions of OC. If something is done that makes a behavior tend not to repeat, it's punishment.

But don't believe me, read what Karen Pryor has to say about this, "I have a video clip of a trainer ... working with a big yellow shelter dog that jumps up a lot. Twice, the dog offers a sit, and she clicks and treats. The third time, the dog sits, but the trainer waits a bit longer, and the dog jumps up on her. She folds her arms and turns her back. As she does that, the dog cringes backward to the floor, as if it had been struck.

"Was that "punishment"? To the trainer, no; she just briefly removed her attention and what's so bad about that? To the cowering dog, yes: that really hurt.

Punishers, like reinforcers, are defined by the receiver, not the giver." Beanyandcecil (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmm. This thinking strikes me as original research, shifting around the common understanding of the word punishment to mean, essentially, withdrawal of a treat or inattention (eg such as folding arms). My understanding of the term 'punishment' is infliction of pain, like hitting or striking, or depriving of freedom (eg the convicts were locked in solitary confinement as a form of punishment); my sense is that your effort to extend the sense of punishment to mean "not giving a treat" is dubious. Check out Google's definition of punishment which reads "the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense." Or check out Wikipedia's definition of punishment: "Punishment is the authoritative imposition of an undesirable or unpleasant outcome upon a group or individual, in response to a particular action or behaviour that is deemed unacceptable or threatening to some norm". So, is not giving a treat a "punishment"? No; to conceive it as punishment is really stretching the sense of the word like pulling taffy. Just to be sure -- I will ask people who follow the article Clicker training and see what they think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Well you're wrong that this is original research. Wikipedia defines OR as "... facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

"To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

To fulfill that requirement I've cited articles from several of the premier experts in the world on this topic, including Karen Pryor and Gary Wilkes, both of whom were pioneers in the field and popularized clickers for use on dogs. This definition of punishment is accepted as fact by both of them. I've done this several times now but you seem not to notice. Do you contest that these people are "reliable, published sources?" Both have written and published (by major publishing houses) several books. They've given seminars, blogged, and have websites that teach people how to use the tools and methods of clicker training. They EASILY qualify as experts, FAR MORE so than Mr. Klein, who you've championed since we began this discussion. Has he published any books outside of self publishing? I've not been able to find any. Does testifying in lawsuits and being interviewed on TV on a couple of puff pieces qualify one as an expert by your standards? He doesn’t even guarantee his own training! This, from the FAQ on his website, "[Question #]9. Do you guarantee your training? [Answer:] It is impossible to guarantee a training program that has the variables of your dog’s temperament, previous life experiences, and the input of different people who interact with your dog." There are trainers who will refund your money if you're not happy with the results they've given you, yet Mr. Klein offers no guarantee at all!

The real issue is that you've bought into the marketing and advertising of people who claim that they are "pure positive" trainers, who pretend, as part of that marketing, that they don't use punishment. As part of that scheme they've demonized the word punishment, to mean, as you've stated, "hitting or scolding or a loud negative sound." They've convinced many people that punishment must hurt the dog. IN FACT one of the main reason, that Ms. Pryor and Mr. Wilkes stopped doing seminars together was that he used a rolled up towel to correct undesired behavior by hitting the dog with it. He called it his "bonker." IN FACT Mr. Wilkes had trained about 1,000 very difficult dogs before Ms. Pryor started her work with dogs.

Using either of the common definitions of punishment that you referred us to is completely inappropriate. Your "understanding of the term 'punishment' " is actually a MISunderstanding of the term as it's used in dog training, the topic of this article. We're talking about dog training in this article, and so it's appropriate to use the jargon of the field, as opposed to using terms that may be in common use. It's telling that clicker training is the one method whose adherents OFTEN boast that it's based on 'science,' yet here, you want to get away from the science and go to a common use term. We should be using the scientific, technical meaning of those words, NOT the common usage that will lead to confusion. The purpose of this encyclopedia is education of the readers, not marketing. Not by perpetuating the lie that clicker trainers do not use punishment. Using the appropriate (jargon) definitions of terms when discussing technical aspects of dog training is the correct way to do that.

The main article even includes a section on Operant Conditioning. I'll refer you to that entry, "Punishment is operationally defined as an event that lowers the probability of the behavior that it follows. It is not 'punishment' in the common sense of the word," and does not mean physical or psychological harm and most certainly does not mean abuse. Punishment simply involves the presentation of an undesired consequence (positive punishment) when the wrong behavior is performed, such as a snap of the leash; or the removal of a desired consequence (negative punishment) when the wrong behavior is performed, such as the owner eating the cheese that would have been the reward." " (The bold emphasis is mine). This section should clear up any confusion among people who don't understand the definition of punishment, as it's used in dog training, and for you, as well.

You seem to be one of those people, who as Mr. Wilkes described, "... many of the people who flocked to clicker training were entranced in all-positive training and dismissed any information that conflicted with their ideology." Beanyandcecil (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's wait for others to weigh in on this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Beanyandcecil is entirely correct in their scientific interpretation and presentation of these terms. The problem is that when Skinner defined these terms, he took an every-day term, "punishment", but used this in a technical way. Beanyandcecil is also correct to say that punishment relates to the receiver. Consider human behaviour. Most of us would not like to be caned or whipped - we would say this is a punishment. However, some humans gain sexual gratification from being caned or whipped and will pay money for this - would we call this exact same action a "punishment" for these people? DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dog training. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426054730/http://www.societyandanimalsforum.org/jaaws/full_articles/6.3/laule.pdf to http://www.societyandanimalsforum.org/jaaws/full_articles/6.3/laule.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.suzanneclothier.com/the-articles/relationship-based-approach-training

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Lede

The current lede dates from an edit in 2013, which accompanied a move to applied animal behavior. This move was later reverted, but the changed text mostly remained. Suggestions on how to improve this are welcome, as I don't believe this introduction does a good job of summarizing the contents of the article. Any thoughts? – bradv🍁 04:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: I agree it needs work, but I suggested to GymnasioArgos that they concentrate on the article first, then we can make the lead fit the article. 12:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to be polite about this as , but the dog training page reads like a love letter to ABA

Hello everyone.

My first edit on this page was intended to ensure that the wikipedia page reflected the dog training industry and research as a whole. I wanted to make a deeper edit, but I can only speak from the parts for which I am well-versed. Frankly, this page reads like a love-letter to ABA, which does not reflect the dog training industry. Cesar Milan believes in emotional contagion, which is cognitive psychology, not behavorism. This article went viral in punishment-inclusive and force-free dog training communities. "Is ABA Really “Dog Training for Children”? A Professional Dog Trainer Weighs In." I literally couldn't go anywhere without running into it. Many dog trainers are not comfortable being associated with Applied Behavior Analysis. Moreover, a Behaviorism and it's child ABA are not the only schools of psychology in use by dog trainers. Please actually read the citations in the edits I included. They are reputable and I understate things rather than overstate them. A lot of them are from high-impact journals which means the results are exciting, but also rigorous. Nothing I've included in my edits is my original thought. While it would be fun, that's not the point of Wikipedia. --GymnasioArgos (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree this article needs some improvements, but I'm not sure the edits mentioned above actually accomplished that. The lede in particular needs to be entirely rewritten, neutral of any individual theories or methods. Cat training is a good example. – bradv🍁 03:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are not editing instead of just deleting. That's hours of my life you've just taken away. If you're concerned the edit is not representative of the current landscape, then it follows that you're aware of it and can collaborate. I've already contributed significantly and I don't see what you see.--GymnasioArgos (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Theaspergian.com link is interesting but it fails WP:RS. But you're asking about your edits. Your list of trainers doesn't belong there, although a separate section listing those with their own articles would be great. The list of institutions with links is inappropriate (although I like the fact that the first one is to my alma mater and the second to where a lot of my family went). I think the problem with your approach may be that you are focusing on how dogs learn while this is an article on how dogs are trained. I don't blame you because the article does the same thing and I don't think it should. I'd probably remove the whole section. Articles on how dogs learn would be useful and could be wikilinked with the types of training. We don't actually have an article on non-associative learning, we only have Learning with summaries of the articles on habituation and sensitization. Are these reflected in different schools of dog training? So each subsection on training would refer to a particlar concept of learning. Does that make sense? Doug Weller talk 12:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Clicker Training Section

It seems that the entry made about Jonathan Klein is spam for his privately owned dog training business. His sources are promotional TV news pieces, not scholarly articles that support the statement he makes in the article. As he says during one of the puff pieces "We're here to promote positive dog training." "We're gonna be at the Pet Expo ..."

Unless someone objects, I plan to delete that information. Beanyandcecil (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Your problem is with this line ... Clicker training teaches wanted behaviors by rewarding them when they happen, and not using punishments, according to dog trainer Jonathan Philip Klein. -- it does not look like spam to me; CBS News is a solid reference, not sure how many "scholarly articles" there are for a subject like dog training, and Klein is a nationally recognized expert in dog behavior -- a perfect source for this type of article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The line that is credited to Mr. Klein is gratuitous and wrong. Clicker training uses punishment, as do all forms of dog training. Many clicker trainers, for marketing purposes, claim that they do not use punishment, and this appears to be the case with Mr. Klein. In fact, according to the definitions of OC (operant conditioning) they do. No less an authority than Karen Pryor agrees that clicker trainers use punishment.

Regarding the first source, while CBS may be a solid reference, this video is a puff piece for a traveling dog food truck, a sales gimmick. The second reference is another puff piece, and it's hardly a "solid reference." It appears to be nothing but a blog.

As far as being a "nationally recognized expert" in dog behavior, I can find no articles in any peer reviewed journals credited to him. His "national recognition" seems to come from self promotion and advertising, as is the case with many dog trainers. By this standard, virtually any dog trainer who ever appeared in the media, could quote himself and appear in the article as an "expert."

If you prefer, rather than delete the objectionable sentence, I could add several quotations from Karen Pryor that put the lie to the "no punishment" statement. Beanyandcecil (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure add material about Pryor (please reference it) and discussion about whether clicker training is or isn't punishment is of course welcome (again, referenced). My sense is that clicker training, itself, isn't punishment (it is operant conditioning) -- it is simply rewarding wanted behaviors -- but that some advocates of clicker training combine it with punishment -- is that what you're getting at? About self-promotion -- everybody self-promotes (including Pryor), but what is key is whether there are secondary sources such as Parents Magazine or CBS News which quote the source as being valid and true -- that's what's important. And both Klein and Pryor are seen as experts in this area. And the line Clicker training teaches wanted behaviors by rewarding them when they happen, and not using punishments, according to dog trainer Jonathan Philip Klein -- simply not spam or puff, just a statement about what clicker training is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Further, watching this video, I don't see any punishment going on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I never said that "clicker training is punishment." I did say that Mr. Klein's statement that clicker training does not 'use punishments' was wrong. I think that you are mistaken in your statement that "... clicker training, itself, isn't punishment (it is operant conditioning)" It isn't OC, but it uses it, as do most forms of dog training. And it is far more than merely "simply rewarding wanted behaviors."

Using the names Klein and Pryor in the same sentence and comparing their expertise, is absurd as to their contributions to dog training, but it appears that you're a Klein fan, so I'll not go into it.

Punishment is not in use all the time but anyone who thinks that it's possible to train a dog without using punishment, is either misguided, involved in marketing or is simply lying. If you'd like to have a debate about the use of punishment in this context, I'm happy to show you where it is in clicker training, but this is not the place for that discussion.

I'll do some reorganization and add material from a couple of trainers who realize that punishment is used in clicker training, despite Klein's denial. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Your additions and changes strike me as thoroughly dubious, with "references" to specific dog trainers' websites, which are not reliable sources; for example, this is not a reliable source but constitutes refspam. Further, it seems like an essay to make the point that clicker training uses punishment, with the argument being that withholding of a treat is "punishment"; most readers will think of punishment in terms of hitting or scolding or a loud negative sound, not simply withholding a treat. There is too much material as per this guideline. But at this point I think we should wait for the views of others on this subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Saying that Karen Pryor, whose website hosts two of the comments added, is "not a reliable source is absurd. ESPECIALLY when you previously linked to one of her videos to support your statement that you "d[id]n't see any punishment going on." Melissa Alexander who authored those two comments is probably more of an expert on clicker training than Mr. Klein, and you were quick to defend him, even though his sources are more spam than substance. Just because someone says something on a puff piece on a TV news show, does not mean that it's true or accurate. They were not quoting him for truth or accuracy, they were promoting the appearance of a dog food truck. And in fact, Mr. Klein is wrong. Clicker trainers DO use punishment, as shown by three articles and two widely known experts at the training methods, one of whom is a true pioneer in popularizing the training method.

There's a bio about Ms. Alexander on Karen Pryor's website that states, "Melissa C. Alexander is a writer and pet dog trainer in the Seattle, WA area." And "[S]he and her friend Debbie Otero founded the clickersolutions mailing list and Web site." That is one of the earliest (if not THE earliest) of discussion lists about clicker training.

It's EVEN MORE ABSURD to say that Gary Wilkes, the author of the last comment that I added, is not reliable. HE IS ONE OF TWO FOUNDERS OF THE CLICKER MOVEMENT, and, as the article states, along with Karen Pryor introduced and popularized training dogs with clickers.

Arguing that withholding a treat is not punishment displays an astonishing lack of knowledge about OC, (Operant conditioning). I should not be surprised since previously you wrote that "clicker training itself ... (is operant conditioning)." Punishment is doing anything that will tend to make a behavior not repeat. That's EXACTLY the reasoning and the desired effect behind withholding a treat. It's the exact definition of punishment. It is completely irrelevant what "most readers" will think constitutes punishment. It only matters what the reality is. We're not having a training discussion here, this is an encyclopedia. We should not be basing entries on popular thought, but on science.

Clicker trainers love to tell us how the method is based on science, but here, you're denying the science and seem to prefer the demonization of the term 'punishment,' that so−called positive trainers have, with help from those who ignore the science, as you're doing now, have tried to apply. Such a common usage of the term, especially when it's in conflict with the science should not be allowed in an encyclopedia entry. I'm sorry that you don't understand the simple definitions used in OC but that's not my problem.

Your reference to this constituting refspam is pretty funny. That is NOT one of MY references. But in any case, the references that I DID MAKE are hardly refspam. That "typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation." If you can find me making that "particular citation or reference" elsewhere on Wikipedia, please show it to us. Beanyandcecil (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

And too much of a quote from Alexander in any case, in part a copyright issue. Doug Weller talk 20:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

My quotation from Ms. Alexander is nowhere near long enough to become a copyright issue. Nonetheless, I'll remove some of it to avoid the issue. Beanyandcecil (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes it would become a copyright issue. I still don't see how clicker training has punishment -- Klein describes how it works here and I don't see the word punish anywhere in the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Klein is apparently one of those trainers referred to in the second article by Ms. Alexander, who pretends that they are "purely positive." It's a marketing tool, it's not reality. You might also want to read the comment from Gary Wilkes, one of the pioneers of clicker training. As I said this is not the place for this discussion, I'll head over to your personal talk page. Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The term "punishment" is widely believed to mean something harmful (yelling, hitting, jerking, etc.). And "positive training" is widely believed to mean that no punishment is used. Anyone who wants to write/edit about this aspect of training definitely should read up on the concepts of "negative punishment" (the punishment is withholding a reward), "positive punishment" ("positive" means adding something that the dog doesn't like, such as jerking, scolding, etc.), "negative reward" (the reward is by removing something unpleasant or that the dog doesn't like), and "positive reward" (adding something that the dog likes). Punishment_(psychology)#Types So, yes, "positive training" typically really means positive reward plus negative punishment as needed, although the goal is often to break things down into such small steps that the dog can succeed most of the time. Elf | Talk 18:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal:Obedience training

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. Cavalryman (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

---

I propose to merging obedience training into this article per WP:FORK. Cavalryman (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I think that could work well. Things to deal with:

• Some of what's in obedience training should be merged into Obedience trial.
• "Obedience training" or a similar title should be a main header within Dog Training--most of the rest of Dog Training discusses training methods, but the most common type of training that any and all dogs have for any purpose is obedience training. "Obedience training" is used generally (at least in the US as far as I know) for things that make them pleasant and helpful dogs to have around. I could also see it called "Basic training" or "companion dog training" or "foundational training", as many or all of those commands form the foundation for dogs to go on to the Specialized Training mentioned here. The list of common commands from Obedience training should go here, possibly with an explanation of the difference between typical obedience training like these and training for obedience trials (or at least mentioning it clearly). Could go before "Individualized training".

• • Where to redirect Obedience training? Probably here. Elf | Talk 18:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• Merge - Both articles commenced in 2004 and the topics cover the same subject, so a content WP:FOLK. Obedience training receives on average 100 visitors per day and Dog training 280 visitors per day. William Harristalk 08:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Merge An obvious WP:FORK. Jerm (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note about merger – there was a surprising lack of sourcing at obedience training and so it was hard to merge much from that page, I believe the basic concept of obedience training is now reflected in this page with the few sources I was able to find. Cavalryman (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)