James Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Neither agreeing nor disagreeing, but can we not go through this again? Agreed, it will go on forever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bec Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Why did you bring it up then James? If you or anyone else want to discuss e collars further, feel free to start a new thread or PM me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 because you condone others for their methods, whilst yours are if anything slightly contraversial themselves... I think its just abit hypocritical tbh anyway to lighten this up some Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bec Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 So because I use a tool you don't like or have any experience in using, that means that I can't have an opinion about other training methods? I asked why you bought it up if you weren't willing to discuss it further. Were you doing it just to antagonize me? Seems pointless to cause trouble like that for no genuine reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 of course you can, the same way its my opinion that your abit of a hypocrit and the reason I didnt want to really discuss this further is because we have now totally veared off topic for someone asking advice (this happened way way ago) and I assume Al didnt want to turn this into another flame war, though it does seem to be going that way, so please feel free to continue. but its the way you put your opinion across more than anything, but hey ho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bec Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Oh - so this isn't about the topic or even about e-collars. It's about your issue with me personally. Now we've cleared that up, please feel free to PM me if you want to discuss your personal issues with me in private rather than clogging up what has until now been a good discussion thread about various training methods and philosophies. IMO it's entirely inappropriate to attempt to have a discussion with me when it's really a thinly veiled attempt to attack me personally - not my methods or opinions about dog training - on an open thread like this. In the future it would be a lot easier just to PM me. I'm happy to discuss my opinions, experience and training methods openly but I have no desire to make it personal especially in a thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 ' I was just saying that opinions can be expressed, I was just being honest with you, I'm not attacking you, please calm down. And I was merely making a point. I don't agree with e-collars, same way I don't agree with choke chains. this has gone to far, we seem to be annoying each other tonight, clash of peronalities methods whatever, but I think we can both just take a deep breath a chill dafuq out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raindog Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 I think the last few exchanges between James and Bec are a good example of what is wrong with discussions about dog training theory at the moment. Too often people take up entrenched positions based not on practical knowledge and experience, but on some kind of moral/theoretical/philosophical basis. When, for example people ask me what I think of shock collars, my answer is simple - I have no opinion on them because I haven't seen one used and the reports I have read have been totally mixed from total approval to total disapproval. On that basis it would be ridiculous for me to say that I did or did not like them. On check chains, I have a strong opinion based on 20 yrs experience (both my own and others) - they can be an extremely effective and non-cruel tool as long as the user understands how and when to use them. Like any tool, in the wrong hands they can be at best ineffective and at worst dangerous. Too many people take up entrenched positions on training theories without fully understanding what they actually represent. In my opinions and experience, huge amounts of what passes for knowledge in the dog training world isn't knowledge at all but fashion. Every few years someone comes up with a new, fashionable theory and all the old stuff (whether it was effective or not) is thrown out of the window. Currently we are going through a period of this with the celebration of positive reward training (much of which is based on Pavlovian and Skinnerian behaviourist theories which have been laughed out of court for fifty years in human psychology) and the demonisation of the use of negative reinforcement (punishment for want of a better word). Negative enforcement is the big no-no in today's dog training mainstream (as it has been in western social life for the past 30 years. We have seen the results of that on our streets over recent days with hordes of feral youth who have never been taught that actions have consequences and that acquisition of wealth involves hard work, literally running riot). The reality is that IMHO the best way to look at dog psychology is to see what works, try and find out why it works and use it, no matter what theoretical perspective it comes from. Pack theory is a good example - for years people have taken the work of theorists like David Mech as gospel, when in reality some of it was flawed in several respects. Instead of retaining the useful and ignoring the rest, people want to throw the whole thing out - losing the baby with the bathwater! We need to be very careful in how we use theories. It is foolish, for example, to directly compare the social behaviour of a pack of wolves in the wild with a pack of domesticated Siberians. In a wolf pack, the Alpha is a WOLF and that wolf controls the resources of the pack in a variety of ways - usually completely non-violently. A pack of sibes may have an alpha dog/bitch, but they also have something that wolves don't have and which affects the whole pack structure enormously - a human leader (or leaders) who controls the resources of the pack in a more complete way that an Alpha wolf ever could. So the nature of a Siberian Husky "pack" is very different from that of a group of wolves - primarily as it is based, not around survival in the wild, but about their relationship with their humans and with each other. It is still very much "pack" behaviour nevertheless and the fluidity of the relationships within it and the changes which occur as a result of additions or subtractions to the pack are fascinating to watch. Having a pack of 12 dogs of our own and an endless procession of rescue fosters joining and leaving the pack, we have been privileged to observe the pack behaviour of Siberians at close quarters for many years. In my opinion, humans are not part of the pack and human leadership of the pack is totally different to the "internal" leadership of the pack leader (or alpha dog). Human leadership is (or should be) separate from and above canine pack leadership. You can see this clearly when I or Terry walk into the pack - immediately everything changes and our laid back alpha will be trampled in the rush of the younger dogs to greet us, despite his grumps. Yet when we are not around (but observing from a window) he will keep order amongst the youngsters with a look, or by putting himself between youngsters spoiling for a fight, or if it is really serious, with a bloodcurdling growl. He has never needed to bite or attack one of the other dogs to keep order - his natural alpha status does it for him. Every pack will be different because it contains different personalities. A pack like ours will be more fluid than most because we have a constant flow of fosters in and out of it, but even a more static pack will still be fluid as dogs' personalities change with age and experience just like peoples.' As I said above, our pack leader, Ute is very much the alpha in the home territory. Merlin is his deputy and backs him up most of the time (he did challenge for alpha position for a while but soon realised he was on a loser and settled into his subordinate role). Anya is the female alpha, despite being incredibly laid back, although she is currently being challenged by foster bitch Mia whose confidence has grown enormously in the 9 months we have been fostering her. When we get out in the forest and get the dogs in harness, however, the roles change. Merlin is my top lead dog, paired with Summer (a low status girl until she gets in harness). The whole "dominance" issue is a bit of a red herring. If you are showing appropriate leadership to your dogs, they will love you and want to please you above all. Things like going through the door before your dog are common sense, not signs of dominance. Similarly feeding yourselves before the dogs is a nonsense. Our dogs get fed first thing in the morning - even before I have had my first coffee. Again, nothing to do with dominance, simple convenience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 As always a very good read Mick and has made me think somewhat. I guess the reason I dislike chokechains and shock (or e-collars) as I've only had a few encounters with them, one was a woman who had her sibe on a choke chain, he didn't do anything majorly wrong, but she gave him about 6 very strong checks consectutively the dog looked very uncomfortable, and I met a guy with a Rottie on the e-collar, the rottie did something the guy didn't like and "shocked" him and the rottie went abit mental thrashed his head side to side for a few seconds, then pawed at it. I guess I've let my bad experiences with them put me in a predisposition into making judgements on them without actually seeing a proper trainer use them, Which I shouldn't have. Also Mick, did you recieve my e-mail yesterday? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raindog Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Also Mick, did you recieve my e-mail yesterday? Yes - Cheers James! I'll let you know when it comes in! Thanks Again!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiler Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Good post Mick! Have you read Miklosi or Dunbars book - that the conclusions they both draw are similiar to your experience... One quick point though - I'm not aware of classical and operant conditioning (Pavlov and Skinner) being laughed out of human psychology, as it is far from it in my experience...can you elaborate? Best regards, Smiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raindog Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Good post Mick! Have you read Miklosi or Dunbars book - that the conclusions they both draw are similiar to your experience... One quick point though - I'm not aware of classical and operant conditioning (Pavlov and Skinner) being laughed out of human psychology, as it is far from it in my experience...can you elaborate? Best regards, Smiler When I did my degree in psychology back in the early '70's, behaviourism was being challenged in every sphere of human psychology, primarily because it missed the obvious fact that learning was not a simple (or even complex) question of stimulus/response conditioning, but an interactive cognitive process which neither classical nor operant conditioning theories could hope to understand or address. Behaviourism has been largely replaced by schools of psychology which emphasise the subjective social and cognitive aspects of learning and decision making rather than assuming that the target of learning/decision making strategies is a more or less passive entity to be manipulated. This is as true for canine psychology as it is for human. Mick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 When I did my degree in psychology back in the early '70's, behaviourism was being challenged in every sphere of human psychology, primarily because it missed the obvious fact that learning was not a simple (or even complex) question of stimulus/response conditioning, but an interactive cognitive process which neither classical nor operant conditioning theories could hope to understand or address. This is as true for canine psychology as it is for human. Mick Indeed, wasn't the Cognitive theory derived from the Behavioral theory? I thoughroughly enjoyed the 1 year of A level psychology I studied ^_^ we learned abotu the 4 main branches Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BingBlaze n Skyla Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Beautifully written input Nix, as always Pmsl. Stacey xxx but ofcorse - nothing but the best from me might aswell get straight to the point I agree with that part! Except I walk through the front doors out of the house first, she doesnt until she's invited, I have to try and train her to not just walk out of the front door left open, Living with 4 other people who arent always aware it can happen ' Kita eats, when it seems shes hungry, usually around 6ish my family doesnt tend to eat til 8+ so it'd be unfair for her to wait til then, she's aloud on my bed, though rarely does unless she wants to look out of the window , shes not aloud on the sofas, but thats my mums choice, i would allow it if it was up to me wheres the fun in that james - we try n race each other up the stairs too LOL - dont get me wrong - they dont run out the door if i open it they sit on the stairs jut watching - n listen to my wait command - mean when they are allowed to go out for a walk on leads on the belt they go thru b4 me its easier lol - specially if i have all 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosemary Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Excellent post Mick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 but ofcorse - nothing but the best from me might aswell get straight to the point wheres the fun in that james - we try n race each other up the stairs too LOL - dont get me wrong - they dont run out the door if i open it they sit on the stairs jut watching - n listen to my wait command - mean when they are allowed to go out for a walk on leads on the belt they go thru b4 me its easier lol - specially if i have all 3 haha! its not the racing Kita upstairs that I dodgey, but down stairs, she usually dives into my legs! haah you'll have to try and walk out backwards! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BingBlaze n Skyla Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 haha! its not the racing Kita upstairs that I dodgey, but down stairs, she usually dives into my legs! haah you'll have to try and walk out backwards! lmao n end up on my butt - no thanks lol i dont race them downstairs just say kitchen n let them thunder down stairs first Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiler Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Hi Mick, cool response, and the speed of response show how much of your degree stuck!! Good work fella! If in the 70’s it was being challenged, currently behaviourism has generally been put to one side almost completely by cognitive and SL theories. It is worth noting that these theories take and build on classical and operant conditioning, rather than standing alone. The law of contiguity is still proposed, drawing on classical and operant conditioning theories and adding to them with cognitive and SL theories. What I have found from studying psychology is that one area of research builds on the past, not necessarily replacing it, and instead building on it (and sometimes standing beside) – and that doesn’t make some component parts such as classical and operant conditioning obsolete – it just adds detail. Neuroscience has rocketed forward in research, helped by modern technology, and my opinion is that it is shaking up psychology quite roughly. I started studying psychology but quickly found much of the current teachings were superseded by developments in neuroscience, so I’ve switched to studying that and cross referencing between. I would suggest that neuro-psychology is the way forward to get a more complete understanding, it is what I would be studying to start with if I had my time again. Neurology also explains quite nicely the way that operant and classical conditioning work – even more so when you add in the SLT and cognitive theory components. The brain and its connections are so plastic, and associated connections in our neurology are so easily made. One set of neurological firings becomes paired with another. I actually find the neurological explanations of behaviour far easier to digest than the opinions in psychology, that often stand behind a figure head. This is less so in neurology because the scans stand for themselves. Here’s a good anecdote for you and James to think of – the popular neuroscientist Ramachandran has recently carried out a series of studies where people had a choice to make and then acted on it. The brain scans nicely show that the areas responsible for the chosen action lit up BEFORE the choice was made! Does this mean our consciousness is just a commentary following our unconscious lead? Where does this leave free will vs determinism? Cool thoughts… Best regards, Smiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raindog Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Ramachandran's work is really interesting. Neuroplasticity and the discovery of "mirror neurons" has really opened up our understanding of the brain's operation and some aspects of the body-mind dichotomy. I'm not too sure it has yet been able to shed much light on the nature of human consciousness and our ability to synthesise egocentrism and allocentrism within it. Exciting stuff though!! Better stop this now - it's getting a bit heavy and is likely to put people off! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosemary Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 No way - don't stop on our account - I find it very interesting ................. don't understand most of it, but it's great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiler Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Mick, I'm sure we'll end up having a pint (well me an orange juice and lemonade) and sending everyone else to sleep as we get all excited lol! Ah, and don't get me started on mirror neurons...so much read into them yet so little research - yet at the same time what a massive potential! I'm wondering if they are there in dogs as well, and if they are whether they fire with humans and vice versa - I actually think that they might, due to the closeness of development between us and dogs - and we have so much empathy for dogs that I think ours will fire when we see a dog do an action...be years before the research lets us know... Ramachandran rocks - thanks to his mirror box simplicity many of my soldier friends have said goodbye to phantom limb pain...and interestingly he's getting some great results in creating improvements in motor skills with those who have suffered a stroke And if anyone wants want to learn more about the way your brain works read Rita Carter's 'Mapping the Mind' or the slightly outdated (only by about 7 years!) John Ratey's 'A Users Guide to the Brain' - or anything by Ramachandran - all are incredibly accessible and have multitudes of "ah, that's why!" moments on every page, without delving into deep stuff. Both Carter and Ramachandran have books out this year which are really current - a hard thing in neurology presently! ***************************************** NOW BACK TO THE DOGS! For those of you still awake, of relevence from neuroscience directed towards dogs, just remember this neurological saying - "neurons that fire together wire together" and you have 'associated learning' in a nutshell. ***************************************** @BingBlaze'n'Skyla Nixy, get us off our applied academia and get us back on husky track lol!!! Best regards, Smiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Here’s a good anecdote for you and James to think of – the popular neuroscientist Ramachandran has recently carried out a series of studies where people had a choice to make and then acted on it. The brain scans nicely show that the areas responsible for the chosen action lit up BEFORE the choice was made! Does this mean our consciousness is just a commentary following our unconscious lead? Where does this leave free will vs determinism? Mind Blown! Does this mean, that during the brain scan, they could accuratley determin the choice made by the person before they vocalised it!? :eek: almost into the realms of mind reading now . I may just have to pick up one of those books, I love psychology and I wish I had stuck with it, I'd really love to be a therapist, but alas I gave up 6th form because I hated the place and my 4 other subjects ' haha If you and mick do go to the pub I think I'd have to come along with a pen and pad! ahhh its a shame your stopping I was hanging on every word! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiler Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Lol, you and Rosemary liked it too! Saddo's lol!!! Not quite how you described it - they were looking at the brain activity. The brain activity responsible for making the movement lights up before the area of the brain that makes the conscious choice. So the thought follows the action... Those books are definitely the place to start as they don't skimp on info but are so easy and fun to read - after you've read them, come back, and I'll lead you deeper into the abyss lol! One of my businesses is hypnotherapist, and it is through understanding what is happening with people on a base level that I have really been able to work elegantly, hence why I study psychology, neuroscience, cognitive linguistics... Here's another anecdote for you - it has only been in the last 10 years that they can show hypnosis actually exists - the brain states are completely different in hypnosis to being out of hypnosis, or when carrying out an act under a post-hypnotic suggestion compared to just doing that act. And if a hypnotherapist tells you hypnosis is like a state of deep relaxation hit them, or that you can't be made to do anything against their will, hit them again - they're setting back my work years! I do lots of work with psychosomatic conditions so have extensively studied how the brain controls the body. Combine this with my applied neurological knowledge of hypnosis, and you can really have some fun. A couple of weeks a skeptic in the gym suffered at my hands, and now he's a sports performance client of mine singing my praises! He'll probably be on my facebook later saying how I 'mind raped' him at training today lol! So I walk in the gym, and it goes like this. "Kyle, you know I'm a hypnotist right." "Er...yeah..." I raise my hand (several feet away) and close my fist around his imaginary neck. "Can you feel that?" "No." I very slowly start to squeeze. I see his emotional response on his face change - I've got him. More commands and a whole lot of technical level work and within 10 seconds he can't breath or talk, and taps to submit. (He's an accomplished fighter and training partner - I wouldn't do that with just anyone!) Now he really understands that I can do what I say I can do for him lol! Its a technique known as 'Force Grip'. Stick 'force grip hypnosis' into youtube and at the end of the clip you'll see one of my mentors, Anthony Jacquin, apply the same technique. I then stuck a 116kg 6'8" sparring partner's feet to the floor during sparring as I didn't like him moving so much lol, too hard to hit! So much fun... Wet your whistle yet James? The fun is applying it to dogs - all the base principles apply, the dog has less cortex but still has brain stem and limbic system just like ours. Think of a dog as having a hind brain which works on instincts, and a forebrain which works more considered. Seen a cat and Harley wants to chase - he goes all instinctive and hind brain as his prey drive kicks in. I'm working to wire his neurology together so that the moment he sees a cat he looks to me for guidance - keeping forebrain - a conditioned response. I'm working 'not this, this!' repeatedly until the result just happens - neurology that fires together wires together... We're such geeks lol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Force Grip?????? Its Sith Lord Turner! I am very intrigued, I would love for you to try that on me, I'll put my hands up and admit i'm rather skeptical on the subject of hypnosis and being able to do stuff to peoples minds like that. I'd love to come and watch you work lol, seeing in action would definitley give me a better insight into it and in all honesty Hypnosis is not something i'm all that informed about. Well actually I've only scratched the surface in my understanding of psychology, but it is a great interest to me and something I really want to keep learning about. hence why I love programs like Criminal minds . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staceybob Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 I can't understand what micks trying to say Stacey xxx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.