Linn's blog on animal behaviour and training

Semantics when it comes to teaching and training

2012-01-12T00:22:00.000+01:00

Lately I have been thinking a lot about the principals of learning. And semantics. How the words we choose to describe things greatly affects how we tackle a situation. More on this thought sson.

Some great links about learning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_learning

http://www.thiagi.com/laws-of-learning.html

http://www.intropsych.com/ch08_animals/thorndikes_puzzle_box.html

Proofing behaviour

2012-01-04T01:07:00.000+01:00

everything you wanted to know about proofing
http://www.clickertraining.com/node/2279

300 peck method
http://www.clickertraining.com/node/1557

http://www.clickertraining.com/taxonomy/term/579/9

Why Placebos work:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204720204577128873886471982.html

One of the best sites about dominance I've seen

2012-01-04T00:56:00.000+01:00

Dr. Sophia Yin "The Dominance Controversy"
I appreciate how she commments on Ceasar Millan's TV Show clips alongside explaining alternative and better methods.
http://drsophiayin.com/philosophy/dominance/?%2Fdominance.php

Bonus:

Ian Dunbar on TED Talks!
"Ian Dunbar: Dog-friendly dog training"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GOW0IKO_zfM#!

Other fun stuff:

"David Sobel -- New England Aquarium Lecture Series"
Climate Change Meets Ecophobia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzQbuLID7Hw

Interesting podcasts! Clarifying what clicker training is.

2011-10-30T22:08:00.001+01:00

How clicker training opens up a channel of two-way communication between animal and trainer.
"Karen Reads from Reaching the Animal Mind"
with Karen Pryor.

Link to intro page:
http://www.clickertraining.com/node/2285

Link to actual podcast:
http://www.clickertraining.com/files/KPCT_PC_0908_communication.mp3

"Are You Clicker Training, or Training with a Clicker?"
with Kathy Sdao.

Link to intro page:
http://www.clickertraining.com/node/1968

The actual podcast:
http://www.clickertraining.com/files/CT_or_TwC_0.mp3

Lots of great stuff (counter conditioning and obsolete dominance training)

2011-10-15T22:51:00.001+02:00

Victoria Stilwell tips on dog training: (dominance training is obsolete)
http://animal.discovery.com/videos/its-me-or-dog-top-tips/

Sophia Yin – excellnt explanation of how counter conditioning works! A concept that has taken me time to understand fully:
http://youtu.be/sI13v9JgJu0

trained goldfish

2011-09-17T00:51:00.002+02:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3JFmrlgWAk&feature=related

Penguin recognition software

2011-09-17T00:21:00.002+02:00

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/21028/

Lumpfish training

2011-09-17T00:07:00.004+02:00

New Wngland Aquarium blogs:
http://www.neaq.org/education_and_activities/blogs_webcams_videos_and_more/index.php

Book tip of the day - Barbera Handelman, Canine Behaviour

2011-09-03T15:38:00.000+02:00

A book I want to buy when I have the money and space to store it :)

Barbera Handelman "Canine Behaviour - A Photo Illustrated Handbook"
http://www.dogwise.com/SearchResults.cfm?Search=Barbara%20Handelman&SubSearch=author

It is filled with great images that are a mix of photos of domesticated dogs interacting and wolfs interacting. Se this example below of "obnoxious submission" (read more about it on her blog):

Link to her blog:
http://woofandwordpress.com/blog/?page_id=2

Do I have bad leadership when training my dog?

2011-06-12T02:10:00.000+02:00

Excellent article written for those who worry about "weak leadership" when it comes to dog training. Having trained Noch for some time now, I know that I mean more to him (i.e. am more reinforcing to him) than just "a treat dispenser". And yet, that is exactly what seems to horrify people who have only watched certain dog programmes on TV that use dominance-theory-methods and never heard of clicker training. It is strange because the same people can be horrified at the fact that I "only" feed Noch once a day and even fast him sometimes.

http://www.clickertraining.com/node/1104

2011-06-12T02:00:00.000+02:00

An article supporting my own belief that dogs are capable of so much more if trained positively. They are trained to interact, think and learn which is priceless in a companion dog (in my point of view).

http://www.clickertraining.com/node/324

Dog can decipher different recorded growls

2011-06-12T01:55:00.001+02:00

Fascinating article about how dogs can understand different types of growls without even having to see the other dog. For example a play growl versus a guarding-food growl.

http://www.livescience.com/6236-grrrr-means-dog-speak.html

Yet another article supporting the fact that dominance-based training can lead to aggression

2011-06-12T01:53:00.001+02:00

Articel:
http://www.livescience.com/3341-growling-dog-won-work.html

"In addition, dogs brought to the hospital for aggressive behavior towards familiar people were more likely to respond aggressively to some confrontational techniques than dogs brought in for other behavioral reasons.

"This study highlights the risk of dominance-based training, which has been made popular by TV, books and punishment-based training advocates," Herron said. "These techniques are fear-eliciting and may lead to owner-directed aggression.""

Platform training for positions!

2011-06-11T20:15:00.003+02:00

Looks great. I want to try this!

http://www.youtube.com/user/keikocdf#p/u/0/LNgFrQlKUxw

Shaping crows for the good of all mankind!

2011-05-29T01:15:00.002+02:00

http://www.ted.com/talks/joshua_klein_on_the_intelligence_of_crows.html

Varför skvallerträning funkar (why the "look at that" game really works)

2011-05-27T00:49:00.000+02:00

(To all english speaking people out there, sorry, this is in swedish).

Jag mÅSTE bara ha ekonomi att träna med en riktig klickerinstruktör snart!

Anti-vilt träning:
http://www.klickersmart.se/2011/04/19/inlarning-av-leken-ga-och-nosa-och-kom-tillbaka/

Kannonbra exempel av skvallerträning, hur det egentligen går till:
http://www.klickersmart.se/2011/04/25/titta-pa-grannen-inte-jaga/

Och här är en jättebra förklaring om känslor och varför skvallerträning funkar så bra!
http://fjodorochvixhen.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/forebygga-eller-atgarda/

Oerhört välskrivet:
"Ta exempel med hundar som är osäkra på andra hundar på promenaden och gör utfall. Utfall är beteendet som man vill få bort. Det första man gör då är att ändra hundens känsla för att se andra hundar genom klassisk betingning. Först när hunden har ändrat sin känsla går vi över på det operanta och vill ha ett beteende (fokus på föraren, sitt eller vad man vill) som vi kan förstärka. Men det går inge bra alls om vi hoppar över den klassiska betingningen och går för fort fram. Jag tror nog samma gäller med ljudande. Det gäller att i första hand ändra känslan hos hunden, sen arbeta med beteendet."

Today I found these new great everyday-manners-exercises that I want to try

2011-05-25T19:30:00.001+02:00

... all from Karen Pryor Clickertraining:

"Teaching You Puppy Impulse Control"
http://www.clickertraining.com/node/3263

"Dogs Like Kids They Feel Safe With"
http://www.clickertraining.com/node/3262

And then I also read:

"Tips for Preventing Dog Bites"
http://www.clickertraining.com/node/3261

... that had this incredibly important piece of advice:
"Train the dog — Take your dog to obedience classes where positive reinforcement is used. Never pin, shake, choke, hold the dog down, or roll the dog over to teach it a lesson. Dogs treated this way are likely to turn their aggression on weaker family members."

Dog claw/nail trim, good photos

2011-05-20T23:51:00.000+02:00

Although I promote positive reinforcement when it comes to teaching your dog to be OK with nail clipping, these photos I found helpful in identifying what cutting too close to the quick might look like.

They also show the grey oval that appears in a good cut in a black coloured nail (my dog unfortunately has black nails on all his paws).

http://www.pawsdogdaycare.com/dog_grooming/Clip-Dog-Nails.htm

How I cut my dog's nails using positive reinforcement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rcx-HG7kaGU

Saint Bernard story

2010-11-21T01:48:00.003+01:00

Lovely story about a Saint Bernard rescue.
A good laugh too(!)

http://www.clickertraining.com/node/2190

Thinking about end results

2010-10-02T01:48:00.001+02:00

Birdtraining, but can probably be applied to all kinds of animal training - great advice here!

http://www.birdtricks.com/blog/i-broke-my-own-rule/

Humane meat farming and consumer choice

2010-09-17T15:56:00.002+02:00

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Susan Garett -- tips for a great recall

2010-07-07T14:01:00.002+02:00

http://susangarrettdogagility.com/2010/07/first-you-gotta-lose-the-training-wheels.html

I thought this was a great training tip!
It's about one of the first steps to getting your dog to recall even if it sees a squirrel.

One of the steps on the way is to recall even if running at top speed with other dogs. Clever thinking I thought!

Email I got about how to potty train your parrot by Chet Womach from birdtricks.com

2010-06-14T14:31:00.001+02:00

birdtricks.com

How To Potty Train Your Parrot

Today I wanted to share with you a short and sweet lesson
sent in from one of my clients where she describes how she
potty trained your parrot to ONLY poop in designated
areas...

Kind of like a cat who only poops in it's litter box.

Here's her story...

Our parrot would poop on the floor when we have breakfast
with her in the morning. Yes, she sits at the table with us.
So we paper trained her.

We use a white paper towel. We realized she poops about 20
minutes into breakfast time so we put a white paper towel on
the floor where she tends to poop. If she wandered from that
site we would move it to where she was when she looks like
she is about to poop. She goes to the edge of the table. We
quickly moved it to be under her and success. After she was
successful…we would applaud her success. Within a few days
she would go to where we placed the paper on the floor and
aim for the paper. We still continue to applaud her success.

Be sure to pick something you can always use. Since she is a
little messy when she eats at the table we usually have a
blue towel under her plate.

Well, one day my husband wanted to use a paper towel so he
could throw it away. Well, you guessed it…she would not go
near her dish placed in the middle of the white paper towel.
I quickly realized what he had done and changed it to the
blue towel. She immediately went to her dish. So be sure you
use something that can always be used as her poop target.

Esta Kronberg

> My Comments: First off, let me just give a BIG thank you
to Esta for sending in this story and GOOD job on what
you've accomplished.

Secondly I just want to point out something...

Esta mentioned that her bird would NOT poop on the *NEW*
towel when it was changed.

I hear this a LOT from customers and have even heard how
some birds can be so well trained they will injure
themselves holding their poop in because they're trained to
only go in one spot so well they simply refuse to poop
elsewhere.

So keep that little safety tip in mind.

Hope this helps you keep a cleaner home and do less laundry
;-)

Chet

P.S. I currently am giving away a free eBook bonus, "How To
Potty Train Your Parrot" to anyone who orders a copy of my
Taming Training & Tricks course.

So if potty training is something you'd REALLY like to get a
handle on then you can learn more about that program here:

birdtricks.com

Orangutan doing DIY for her own enjoyment

2010-05-21T00:00:00.001+02:00

Capuchin monkeys and tool usage

2010-05-20T19:54:00.001+02:00

Monkey tool usage: Flint knife and probe

from:
BBC documentary "Capuchins: The Monkey Puzzle"

More information:
http://www.bucknell.edu/x30370.xml

Chimpanzee Problem Solving by Cooperation

2010-05-20T19:51:00.000+02:00

Ape laughter

2010-05-20T19:49:00.000+02:00

Capuchin monkeys helping the disabled

2010-05-20T19:44:00.000+02:00

Helping Hands with Capuchin Monkeys

Chimpanzee vs. human child learning

2010-05-20T19:27:00.000+02:00

Learning by imitation and the birth of culture

2010-05-20T19:26:00.000+02:00

Capuchin monkeys and a sense of fairness

2010-05-20T19:16:00.001+02:00

Bonobo cooking

2010-05-20T19:07:00.000+02:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK1-KL6sq_Y&feature=related

Sptting cobras track eye movement

2010-05-15T00:18:00.002+02:00

This is crazy amazing. And slighltly scary.

http://www.physorg.com/news193034314.html

Bonobo chimps will actively choose to share food

2010-02-21T15:02:00.001+01:00

Studies at Duke University show that Bonobo chimps will opt to share food even through adulthood, in contrast to chimps, who will share when they are young, but will turn selfish as adults. Fascinating stuff.

Article about the power of first experiences

2010-01-11T03:42:00.003+01:00

I know this isn't really animal behaviour, more psychology. But we humans are animals too. And this makes me wonder just how powerful an animals first experiences must be... puts in perspective something to consider when introducing eg. a dog to a novel situation when training. Making training a good experience seems to be very important when viewed in this light, especially if you are doing somethng for the first time...

Heartbreak and Home Runs: The Power of First Experiences
By caralynn
Created Dec 28 2009 - 12:35pm
Patricia was a 15-year-old high school cheerleader in her 10th year of Catholic school.
Chuck was a basketball star, a senior from the rough side of town.
One night after a high school mixer where everyone danced to jukebox music, Chuck and a friend offered Patricia a ride home. Chuck held Patricia's hand in the back seat, and when they got to her house, he walked her to the door. "Then he put both arms around me and kissed me gently on the lips," recalls Patricia. "I thought for a fleeting moment that I was floating with angels in heaven."
The next instant, their bubble was burst when Patricia's father turned on the porch light.
"It was 49 years ago and I still remember nearly all the details," says Patricia. "I was suddenly desirable," she explains. "I was kissworthy—and oh my goodness, that was enough self-esteem to propel me into a lifetime of feeling good about myself."
Love & Sex
Beginning in our late teenage years and early 20s, we develop and internalize a broad, autobiographical narrative about our lives, spelling out who we were, are, and might be in the future, says Dan McAdams, a psychologist at Northwestern and author of The Redemptive Self: Stories Americans Live By. The story is peppered with key scenes—high points, low points, and turning points—and a first experience can be any of these. "These experiences give us natural ways to divide up the stories of our lives—episodic markers that help us make sense of how our life has developed over time," McAdams explains.
Part of why firsts affect us so powerfully is that they're seared into our psyches with a vividness and clarity that doesn't fade as other memories do. You may not remember the 4th real kiss you ever had, or the 20th—but you almost certainly remember your first. This is known as the primacy effect.
When people are asked to recall memories from college, 25 percent of what they come up with draws from the first two or three months of their freshman year, says David Pillemer, a psychologist at the University of New Hampshire. What people remember most vividly are events like saying goodbye to their parents, meeting their roommates for the first time, and their first college class. In fact, when psychologists ask older people to recall the events of their lives, the ones they most often name are those that occurred in their late teens and early 20s. We're also better at recalling the world events, music, books, and movies—as well as the cultural events such as the Academy Awards or the World Series—that happened during the early parts of our lives. This "early-life memory bump" occurs because that's when we have the most first experiences, explains Jefferson Singer, a psychologist at Connecticut College who studies autobiographical memory.
Consider a first kiss or sexual encounter. These can generate sensations so new and unfamiliar that the experience feels almost unreal. "Someone can be a primitive neophyte when it comes to writing, but when you get them to talk about their first kiss, you see eloquence, poetry, metaphor, synecdoche, and hyperbole," says John Bohannon III, a psychologist at Butler University who studies first kisses. That sensation of disembodiment—pleasurable during a kiss, aversive when you first suffer the death of a loved one—is common in first experiences, as are feelings of heightened reality or unreality.
Intense emotional sensations etch first experiences deeply into memory, creating what psychologists call "flashbulb memories." Memories like our first kiss or tryst, our first glimpse of the ocean, our first day of school, or the birth of a first child engage all our senses simultaneously.
Besides emotional engagement, these experiences also pack a heavy dose of novelty. "Novelty drives up dopamine and norepinephrine, brain systems associated with focus and paying attention and rewards," explains anthropologist Helen Fisher, author of Why Him? Why Her?
A first romantic relationship has one critical novel element: "It's the only time you're ever in love where you've never had your heart broken," says Laura Carpenter, a sociologist at Vanderbilt University and author of Virginity Lost: An Intimate Portrait of First Sexual Experiences. "You can have better relationships after that, but there's never again one where you've never been hurt ."
"Powerful first relationships can stamp a template in your mind that gets activated in later interactions,"says Susan Andersen, a psychologist at NYU who studies mental representations of significant others. If you meet someone who reminds you even a little of an ex—whether it's a physical resemblance or a similarity in attitudes, gestures, voice, word choice, or interests—it may engage the representation you have in your memory, says Andersen. The effect is called transference. And since your first love, by virtue of its novelty and emotional significance, is potentially your most salient, it may well be the representation that's summoned when you meet someone new, forging the lens through which you see new relationships.
It's not just a person's qualities that get transferred in your mind—your old feelings, motivations, and expectations are also reactivated. If someone new reminds you of an ex you still love, Andersen's studies show, you'll like that new person more, want to be close to them, and even start repeating the behaviors you engaged in with your ex. "The behaviors I'm engaging in will lead this new person, temporarily at least, to actually confirm my expectations," says Andersen. "By interacting in a particular way, I will draw out of this new person behaviors my ex used to engage in. That's expectation becoming reality."
Loss
In Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita, the tormented antihero Humbert Humbert describes Annabel, a childhood neighbor who loves him passionately for one summer, then dies of typhus. "I leaf again and again through these miserable memories," writes Humbert, "and keep asking myself, was it then, in the glitter of that remote summer, that the rift in my life began?"
First loss differs qualitatively from later losses because it submerges us in the icy reality that we're in constant danger of losing the people we love most—a concept we grasp intellectually at a certain age, but which doesn't feel real until it actually happens to us.
"We're wired for attachment in a world of impermanence," says Robert Neimeyer, a psychologist at the University of Memphis who studies how people draw meaning from loss and grief. "How we negotiate that tension shapes who we become."
Early loss can poison your ability to trust or feel safe, or give yourself fully in subsequent relationships, explains Singer. There's a strong link between early loss and depression, and early loss is also associated with diminished ability to form later attachments.
But many people find that after surviving a painful loss, they emerge more resilient. Optimistic people take loss better than less optimistic people, as do people who grow up with strong, secure attachment to their caregivers.
But the biggest predictor of resilience in the face of loss is "sense-making," weaving the experience into a larger narrative about who we are and what our lives are about, says Mary-Frances O'Connor, a behavioral scientist at UCLA who studies grief. Robert Neimeyer's father committed suicide when Robert was a child, for instance, and he dedicated his life to studying how people draw meaning from grief.
People struck by loss or trauma at an early age—such as victims of crime or abuse—are at risk of drawing unwarranted conclusions about the world and their own place in it. Maybe your first boyfriend abused you. You may mistakenly infer that you're not careful enough—when the truth is that it could have happened to anybody.
That's the catch with first experiences. Because they're memorable, they come readily to mind and we overgeneralize when drawing conclusions about what kind of person we are. Positive first experiences can inspire us for a lifetime, but negative ones can be hard to get past.
So if you're overly focused on a negative event as a turning point in your life, ask yourself: Is what happened truly a reflection of who you are? Or would others have made the same choices given the same circumstances? "In repeated experiences, we understand the situational factors outside ourselves," says Singer. "But the first time, we don't have the context, so we're more likely to see it as a reflection on our own character."
Lies
Two women recounted the story of their first lie to Bella DePaulo, a psychologist at the University of California at Santa Barbara who studies deception. The first one told a story about how she wanted to go out one night as a child but was barred from doing so by her father. So she went anyway and lied to him about where she'd been. When he cluelessly swallowed the whole story, she realized she had a new talent. She lied freely from that moment on.
The other woman told a story about how, as a girl, she was very curious about her sister's boyfriend. One night she snuck into a room with a phone extension and listened in on their conversation. When her father walked in and caught her in flagrante delicto, she panicked, blurting, "I was just cleaning the phone!" Guilt-stricken over the lie, she immediately confessed and apologized, resolving never to lie again.
A first lie crosses a line. You recognize a capacity you didn't realize you had. For the extremely honest or the extremely dishonest, the lie may reveal character: a decision never to repeat the act, or the realization that this is a new way to behave. But for many people between these two poles, the consequences of a first lie depend on one's reaction to it, says DePaulo. If we do something we shouldn't—say, shoplifting—and get caught and punished, we're likely to internalize the lesson that stealing is wrong, incorporating it into our value system. But if no one finds out, we may decide it's no big deal.
"First experiences tell you something about yourself and what you're like in a new situation," explains DePaulo. "It's testing the social environment and seeing how other people react, but it's also testing who you are, how you think of yourself, and whether you want to be that person."
If you get a thrill out of lying, it's easier to cross that line the next time.
"It's called the abstinence violation effect," explains Singer. "If I'm willing to make that first slip, then what's the point in holding on? Now that I'm now no longer a dieter, I might as well have another cookie." The principle applies not only to straying from a diet but also to major transgressions. If you're a soldier, your first kill may force you to reflect on death and morality. But killing someone may not feel like such a big deal the second time around.
With transgressions, as with other first experiences, it's important to remember that one action doesn't define you. "When counselors treat addicts who have fallen off the wagon, they tell them, 'Look, you haven't relapsed, you've had a slip,'" explains Singer. "If you use the fallacy of saying, 'Oh, well, it's over now,' then you can easily rationalize taking the next drink and the next and the next and it will be a relapse. But a slip can be corrected."
Success
In 1982, before Michael Jordan was Michael Jordan, he was a student at the University of North Carolina. He played good basketball, but as a 19-year-old freshman, he was constantly overshadowed by upperclassmen. When North Carolina entered the NCAA championship game against Georgetown, though, something changed in Jordan's play. In the first three quarters of the game, he scored 14 points and grabbed nine rebounds.
It wasn't enough. Georgetown, led by freshman superstar and future NBA powerhouse Patrick Ewing, was winning 62 to 61, with only 17 seconds left in the game. Then, when it looked like the game was over, Jordan made one of the most famous shots in basketball history: a 16-foot jump shot that won the game and earned North Carolina the championship.
That first game-winning shot was a turning point, Jordan recalled in later years. It gave him the confidence that he could come through in a clutch. For the rest of his career, especially when he needed to muster the intense concentration and Zen calm necessary to shoot free throws, he would summon up that moment to bring him into a winning state of mind. "He used that shot, performing in that pressure situation, as the foundation for his confidence in taking other big shots," says Richard Ginsburg, an athletic coach and author of Whose Game Is It, Anyway? "He'd tell himself, 'I've done this before, I can do it again.'"
Game-winning shots and home runs—as well as the times you ace an exam, nail a job interview, or win a standing ovation—provide potent fodder for your sense of identity as a successful person. "You think, 'I succeeded in this clutch situation, now I know I'm a clutch player,'" explains Singer. "It's revealing something in your character that wasn't clear before, telling you, 'This is something I can do. This is who I am.'"
"I remember the time I first won a tennis match against my father," says Tim Gallwey, author of the classic book The Inner Game of Tennis. Gallwey's father had promised him a new racket if he won. Gallwey was 13 at the time, and had been playing in state tournaments. During the match, he was torn between wanting to win a new racket and not wanting to beat his father. When he won, he felt regret and compassion for his dad, who'd just been defeated by his own son, but was also elated by victory, glowing with a sense that his abilities had reached a new height. "That sense of self-worth is very precious," says Gallwey.
Of course, first failures can be as memorable as first successes. If you flunk a test or miss an easy pop fly, you may start to feel like a loser. And failure is always a possibility. But what separates world-class performers from the rest of us is the ability to put negative experiences behind them (see "Getting Past the Past" below).
"Once you can see yourself doing something—once you can experience it and feel what it's like—it changes you,"explains Ginsburg. "The best performers are good at forgiving themselves, dropping failure from their mental bandwidth quickly so that they can focus on the positive." If you can do that, you may strike out many times, but you'll always be the person who hit that grand slam—which in turn will breed further success.
First successes often take the form of "redemption sequences," wherein a bad event suddenly turns good, says McAdams—like when you defy the odds in a basketball game you're losing by sinking a winning buzzer-beater with seconds left on the clock. "The construction of redemption sequences in life is a very common narrative strategy," he adds, "and one that seems to bring with it a certain sense of resilience."
A single win may not be sufficient to boost your confidence permanently. True confidence comes from the gradual accumulation of self-efficacy over a long period of successes. But a dramatic first triumph can inspire and motivate you and transform your self-conception from "I'm a loser" to "I'm the kind of person who hits grand slams."
And a first success can also uncover abilities you didn't realize you had. Days before he died, I interviewed George Carlin. Toward the end of our conversation, I asked him about the first time he made his mother laugh.
"I noticed the moment something had happened," Carlin immediately recalled. "This was when Iwas very young. My mother laughed fairly frequently. But I knew the difference between her social laugh and her really spontaneous laugh when she was caught off guard and amused—I saw that in her and it registered with me. It meant Ihad said something witty. It was a little mark along the way, a little badge of honor." —Jay Dixit
Setup For a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Expectations about how an experience "should" feel can prime you for a lifetime of disappointment.
A negative first relationship can doom people to get trapped over and over again in self-destructive relationships. The reverse effect applies also. If your first relationship is healthy and positive, you may expect new people to be similarly friendly and safe—causing you to feel fondly, disclose your emotions, and build intimacy with that new person.
Losing one's virginity is an experience often subject to self-fulfilling expectations. People who consider their first sexual encounter to be a momentous turning point and find that it is indeed positive tend to wait for another loving relationship before they have sex again, says Laura Carpenter, a sociologist at Vanderbilt University and author of Virginity Lost: An Intimate Portrait of First Sexual Experiences. But if they're rejected by their partner, such people feel worthless—as if they've lost a special part of themselves. "A number of them felt they didn't have the right to say no to future sexual partners because they were already 'soiled' and 'ruined,'" says Carpenter. "They get involved in relationships they don't want and feel they have to have sex because they've already had sex. It's a spiral."
As with other first experiences, the loss of virginity can be a rite of passage—an irreversible transition from a state of ignorance to a state of knowledge. "Like a teen-ager learning to drive or a surgeon mastering her craft, you're knifing off the old self and building this new self," says Carpenter. "Whether it's what sex is about, a body of knowledge about religious mysteries, or medical skills, you've gained this special knowledge and you can never go back."
Getting Past The Past
You can't change the past, but you can look at it differently. Here's how.
Make a choice. Decide to stop dwelling, suggests Susan Nolen-Hoeksema. List the pros and cons of dwelling—an exercise that will feel absurd, since cons will vastly exceed the pros. Say to yourself, "I know it's hard, but I choose to move forward."
Contain your rumination. Schedule limited blocks of time to wallow—say, 15 minutes twice a day. You're compartmentalizing your grief—and you'll soon get bored of it and move on.
Do a reality check. Maybe you find yourself thinking, "I'll never be happy again." Stop. True, nothing will ever be exactly the same. But there's no reason you can't find happiness in the present and future, with new people and new experiences.
Do not confuse the path with the destination. Maybe you lost a youthful love and can't let go. Maybe you got fired and you feel like a failure. Clarify your values—creativity? Love? Recognize that you don't need that particular job to do creative work. You don't need that particular partner to have a loving relationship. Continue on your path.
Get present. Join a gym, take up a hobby, find a cause, and schedule time with friends. "The best way to break free of living in the past is to get focused on the present and the future," says psychologist Jefferson Singer. "Take risks and do concrete things to create new experiences for yourself in the here and now."
Highlights:
How early life experiences shape our character.
Author:
Jay Dixit [1]
From winning the science fair to losing a first boyfriend, certain youthful experiences cast a long shadow, revealing character and at times actually shaping it.
Copyright Year:
2009
Magazine Issue:
January 2010 [2]
Publication Date:
January 1, 2010
Editors Pick:
0Editors Pick
Exclude From Most Popular:
Included in most popular
Syndicate:
Available for syndication
Primary WebMD XPG:
1687: erectile dysfunction
Secondary WebMD XPG:
7007: grief
Relationships

angels in heaven

autobiographical narrative

back seat

basketball star

catholic school

clarity

first experience

fleeting moment

freshman year

high school cheerleader

mixer

oh my goodness

porch light

primacy effect

psyches

psychologist

rough side

teenage years

univer

vividness

Psychology Today Magazine

Feature Article

Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/36390
Links:
[1] http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/authors/jay-dixit
[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com/magazine/archive/2010/01

Djuren som blir vår mat smartare än vad vi trott

2009-08-29T18:02:00.000+02:00

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/artikel_3296043.svd

FOTO: LARS PEHRSSON

Katarina Lingehag Ekholm upptäckte att hennes får lät sig dresseras på samma sätt som hundar. Här får gutefåret Snäckan godis när han räcker vacker tass.

Djuren som blir vår mat smartare än vad vi trott

Publicerad: 3 augusti 2009, 04.55. Senast ändrad: 3 augusti 2009, 07.22

Får som klarar labyrinter och minns ansikten i åratal, grisar som spelar TV-spel och kor som oroar sig för framtiden. De senaste årens forskning avslöjar att djuren vi äter upp är mycket smartare än vad vi förstått.

Kalle sveper rutinerat mellan slalomkäpparna, sedan lyfter han framklöven på kommando och viftar glatt på svansen när han får beröm.

– Han kan lära sig all dressyr precis lika bra som en hund. Han är jätteduktig, säger matte, Katarina Lingehag Ekholm och kliar det femåriga Gutefåret bakom örat vilket får kompisen Snäckan att bräka lite avundsjukt.

Sedan visar Kalle och Snäckan att de kan dansa runt och därefter lydigt stiga i och ur en krubba.

Katarina Lingehag Ekholm på Framnäs gård utanför Trelleborg var van vid att dressera hundar och en dag fick hon för sig att använda samma klicker-teknik på fåren. Framgångarna lät inte vänta på sig och mest lättlärd av alla var Kalle.

Hon berättar att Kalle kan göra pyramiden också, men att han nu blivit så tung att det inte är bra för ryggen för fåret som han kliver upp på.

– Jag tror att alla får kan lära sig detta. De är väldigt läraktiga om man ger dem tid och uppmärksamhet. Men det gör ju nästan ingen. Jag möter till och med uppfödare som säger att fåren är så dumma att de bara duger att slå ihjäl. Det gör mig vansinnig. Då har de ju inte alls förstått sig på de här djuren, säger hon.

Keith Kendrick är professor i neurobiologi vid universitetet i Cambridge och en av de forskare som mest bidragit till att omvärdera vår syn på husdjurens hjärnkapacitet.

Bland de överraskande fynden finns att grisar tycker om att spela TV-spel och att kor gillar att lösa intellektuella problem.

– Vill vi egentligen veta om grisar gillar att spela TV-spel? Nej, anledning till den här forskningen är att de här djurens hjärnor till stor del liknar våra. Genom att studera fårskallar förstår vi mycket bättre hur människans hjärna fungerar, förklarar Keith Kendrick.

TV-spelet var visserligen enkelt, och "rätt" val med joysticken belönades med godis, men grisarna fattade - och gillade - vad spelet gick ut på.

Hjärnor hos människor och djur är strukturerade på ett väldigt likartat sätt och därmed kan storleken på olika områden antyda styrkan hos olika förmågor. Människans förmåga att medvetet känna igen sin omgivning använder, enligt Kendrick, exakt samma system som finns i fårens hjärnor.

Han tycker att det är en poäng att man studerat fåret, som i alla tider ansetts vara ett av de dummaste djuren.

– Vi har visat att det rör sig om intelligenta och kännande varelser med ett rikt socialt liv. Om nu fåren är så här smarta, hur intelligenta är då de andra djuren?

Keith Kendrick svarar själv att det inte råder någon tvekan om att vi kraftigt underskattat den mentala förmågan hos de djur vi föder upp för att äta.

– Jag tvivlar på att folk i allmänhet har en aning om hur mentalt avancerade kor, får och grisar är.

Kendricks forskning visar att får har en enastående förmåga att minnas ansikten och att deras sätt att fånga upp olika typer av känslosignaler starkt påminner om vårt.

När fåren fick se bilder på andra okända får kunde de minnas mer än 50 ansikten efter så lång tid som två år.

Enligt Kendrick vet forskarna inte var fårens maxkapacitet finns. Det finns mängder med historier om hur får efter många år springer fram och hälsar på människor som de mött tidigare och tyckt om. De kan se skillnad på ansiktsuttryck och gillar glada människor men backar för dem som är sura. Fåren kan också knyta livslånga vänskapsband med andra individer i fårhjorden.

Kor, hästar och getter har troligen ungefär samma förmåga att minnas ansikten som fåren.

– Alla dessa arter är intelligenta och ganska lika oss. Det betyder inte att de är exakt lika oss. De kommer inte att sitta och spela schack eller uppfinna bilar. Men vi måste vänja oss vid tanken att de har ett medvetande och kan minnas enskilda individer långt tillbaka. Det är också fullt möjligt att de kan sakna någon eller känna medlidande.

Keith Kendrick vill ändå inte kategoriskt avråda människor från att äta kött.

– Alla måste göra sin egen bedömning. För mig är det viktigaste hur den här insikten om att djuren har ett komplext känsloliv påverkar hur vi behandlar dem. Om vi vet att de kan känna lidande, vilken betydelse får det för hur vi föder upp, transporterar och slaktar dem?

HENRIK ENNART

08-13 56 29

henrik.ennart@svd.se

Fler artiklar | Blogg

Reaching the Animal Mind: The Clicker Training Method and What It Teaches Us About Animals.

2009-07-29T13:45:00.000+02:00

Reaching the Animal Mind: The Clicker Training Method and What It Teaches Us About Animals.

Excellent video about "alpha" wolves

2009-07-29T13:44:00.000+02:00

Two excellent articles about building play drive in dog training

2009-06-17T18:22:00.004+02:00

Increasing Play Drive in Your Dog
by Fanny Gott on her blog on April 3.
http://www.fannygott.com/increasing-play-drive-in-your-dog#comment-3723

Thanks to the very reinforcing comment from Russia in the last blog post, I decided to translate my latest Swedish blog post into English for my foreign readers. It’s about developing your dog’s love of tugging:

As we are seeing a lot of new students right now, we talk a lot about developing rewards and mainly tugging. It’s very hard to train a dog without rewards and we feel that you need more than one good reward. With our own dogs, we focus a lot on developing both food and play as a reward. This is something that we also want to share with our students. Food is a really good reinforcer if you want to give many rewards in a short period of time, maybe without dog breaking it’s position at all. Food is also often calming and is appropriate when teaching precision. Play is a good reinforcer when you want speed and intensity, or if you want to throw the reward a long way. Play increases arousal in the dog and brings out new sides to the dog compared to food. It’s therefore a great advantage to be able to switch between food and play depending on where you want to go with your training.

We often prefer tugging to chasing a toy, but often use both in combination. If the dog likes to chase a toy, but won’t tug, we try to develop the dog’s love for tugging so that the dog wants to end the chasing by grabbing, pulling and winning. At many times, we want the dog to grab the toy immediatly when it’s presented (or when the dog is cued to ”get it”). It could be because we want the dog to drive straight to the handler after a turn on the agility course, or to get full speed and focus towards the handlers left side on a recall. Games of chasing, where a toy is dragged on the ground by a piece of rope, can be a really good reinforcer in other situations, mainly as a jackpot for focus and endurance. But even then, the intensity and joy will be better if the dog really wants to grab the toy.

Not all dogs do automatically like a game of tug. It’s a reward that needs to be developed in many dogs. Our opinion is that it always is worth to teach the dog to play if you want to get the most out of the dog you have. The dog might not have to enjoy tugging as much as food, but he should play with high intensity when we present a toy. For some dogs, tugging will be the ”motor” in training, the thing that makes training worth while for the dog. For other dogs, food will be the ”motor”, but they can still learn to really engage in tugging between food rewards, so that you’re able to gain from all the great things that come with tugging. And with time and good training, the dog’s priorities might change.

Shejpa was a dog that often would not tug. Not while food was around, not out doors, not if she wasn’t in the mood… I worked a lot with her tugging and it’s really good now. I can use 90 percent tugging in training (but she still needs that occational chicken neck to keep the engine running) and most of the time, you can’t tell that it’s a ”trained” tug. I’m convinced that she wouldn’t run half as fast if I didn’t use tugging in training. I can also see how tugging is getting more and more reinforcing for her, that she really does enjoy it more and more.

When developing our young dogs, we always have a goal in the back of our heads. We want the dog to grab the toy immediatly when it’s presented (or cued), tug intensly with weight shift and a straight top line (from head to tail). We want to be able to be passive (moving equipment around, talking to the instructor or student, filling up with more treats) and still have the dog tugging on the toy. If we tell the dog to ”out”, we want the dog to drop the toy. If we throw a toy or let the dog win while tugging, we want the dog to come right into us and deliver it to hand (we use a hand touch for this). At the same time, we want the dog to have fun and find tugging reinforcing.

This is a long term goal. It does not mean that all playing must look that way from the start. If the dog prefers to just chase a toy, that’s where we’ll begin. If we have to be very active to get the dog tugging, we will be. Our first priority is to get the dog to have fun with a toy. I think that good dog trainers have the ability to have a lot of fun with the dog, while reinforcing behaviors that will bring him closer to the long term goal. To reinforce behaviors while playing does not mean that you have to click and treat. It could be that you get more intense when the dog pulls harder, that you let the dog win when he weight shifts. You can find out what your dog really finds reinforcing when playing and use that to reinforce glimpses of what you’d like to see more of in the future. If you reinforce increased intensity in that way, your dog will be more intense and then also enjoying tugging more.

We feel that playing is addictive. You can starve a dog and get him to work better for treats, but it doesn’t work that way with playing. Play regularly with your dog to increase his love for playing. But don’t play for long. Always end the game when it’s at it’s best and make sure that you are ending the game, not the dog. You want the dog to be a bit disappointed when the game ends, dancing after you to get it to start again. That might mean that the first sessions are so short that the dog doesn’t even get to grab the toy, just chase it with high intensity, before it goes away.

Pick the right opportunity to start playing with your dog. You don’t want to present a toy and fail in getting the dog to play. It’s a common misstake to give up way to fast if the dog isn’t immediatly turned on to the game. Some dogs are slow starters in the beginning, but don’t give up. Don’t try to force the toy on the dog, rather act as if the toy is really valuable to you and you’re having a lot of fun with it. Experiment with different ways to get your dog started. Pick really fun toys and make sure that there is a piece of rope or a long handle on it, so that you can drag it along the ground and get it away from your body. Turn away from the dog and drag the toy away.

You can absolutely use food to reinforce tugging and transfer the value from one reward to another. It does require good dog training skills and it isn’t my first choice. It is really important that the criteria is raised fairly fast and that the dog is really engaging in the game before the food is presented. To use few, but really attractive food rewards is better than to use many pieces of low quality food. Timing is also really important; make sure that the dog is really into the game of tugging before the reward marker is used. If you use food to reinforce play, it’s still important for you to be active and have fun while playing. You want the dog to find out how fun playing can be even without food rewards.

This blog post could go on for ever. I’m making it shorter by ending with a few tips in a list. These points has helped me to increase tug drive in my own dogs:

* Start all your training sessions with a game of tug.
* Tug with your dogs for every 3-5 pieces of food you give him in training
* Put running around with the toy on cue and use it to reward good tugging
* Let the dog tug with you before he can have his food at every meal
* Play in many different settings
* Find really good toys (sheep skin, real fur, braided fleece etc.)
* Snatch the toy away from the dog if he looses the toy. Tease him with it for a while before he can have it again.
* Check out Susan Garretts ”How to create a motivational toy”.
* Put sticky food (raw tripe, minced meat, liver pâté or similar) into a wool stocking and let your dog chase it. As he grabs the toy he’ll get a taste sensation directly in his mouth. (NB! Make sure your dog doesn’t get hold of the toy at any time, as it can be dangerous if he tries to swallow it).
* Encourage interest in objects, grabbing, holding and weight shifting in your regular training sessions – train picking things up, retrieving, pulling on dead objects etc. and reward with food. But don’t forget the unrestrained, fun play. This is just a complement.
* Don’t ever give your dog a treat if he refuses to play (rather put the dog away if you decide to give up).
* Get your dog aroused before presenting the toy. Do restrained recalls, let the dog chase you or wrestle with your dog (if he likes to).
* Believe that it really is possible to get your dog to tug. It is!

----------------------------------------

HOW TO CREATE A MOTIVATING TOY
Article by Susan Garett
From the site:
http://www.clickerdogs.com/createamotivatingtoy.htm

Many times in agility training the need will arise to use a toy to motivate your dog to move on without you (example: teaching a "get out" or doing weave poles or any sequence of obstacles for a gamble). People will ofren lament that their dog is not "into" toys. Some dogs will not innately want to play with toys but you can create the desire within them with a little work on your part. If your dog is really motivated by food and has never shown any interest in toys, an option available to you is to take the motivating toy you have chosen to work with and simmer it in a pot of liver, or chicken broth to make it more attractive to your finicky hound. BE LEERY--if you choose to go this route, be very careful your dog is never given an opportunity to be alone with this wonderful smelling toy or THEY MAY EAT IT. Surgery to remove this from their gut will be neither pleasant nor cheap. The key to training old Rover to play with you and your toy is that you are SINCERELY interested in playing with your dog. If you are truly not having fun, your dog will quickly realize this and will be even more reluctant to join in. So be sure that you are both enjoying yourselves. Now let's begin!

* Choose a throwable toy--i.e. one that you can toss, but won't roll too much, like a tug rope, or a ball in a sock or a stuffed animal.

* Attach this toy to a light line, string or lead that is about 3 meters long.

* Put the toy in a drawer in the midst of your living area--example, in the kitchen or somewhere else that is easily accessible at all times.

* Before each meal start to act a bit loony. While saying really fun things to your dog (like "oh no", "what is it", "do you want this", "where's your toy", etc.) walk, dance, skip...basically act goofy while you make your way over to the special drawer.

* S-l-o-w-l-y open up the drawer while continuing to say nutty things to your dog.

* Stop talking momentarily (a pause for effect) and then pull the toy out of the drawer, like you just unexpectedly came across a $50 bill and run with it into the next room.

* Swing the toy above the ground while acting nutty to show the dog what a great time you are having with this fun toy.

* Dance around for a few more seconds and then toss the toy out like a lure on the end of a fishing pole.

* Drag it around but BE SURE THE DOG DOES NOT GET HIS MOUTH ON IT.

* This whole process should only take 1-2 minutes the first time you do it.

* End your fun game, which didn't include your poor dog, by running ack to the drawer, yhour toy in tow snatching it up and quickly putting it back in the drawer with a phrase like "oh no, it's gone".

* You may then proceed about your regular routine as if nothing out of the ordinary just happened.

* Re-enact this bizarre performance 2-3 times a day. After the second day, allow the dog to get his mouth on the toy if he is really keen--but only for a few seconds. Pull on the line to try and steal it from him. Once you get it away (be sure you are taking it from him in a very informal, fun way), play with it a little more by yourself before quickly putting the toy away.

* Gradually progress, letting him play with you and the toy (tog of war style) a little more each time until you have a dog who loves to see the toy come out.

* Do not allow him to play with this toy at any other time except during this routine and, when he is ready, at agility class.

* Ideally, you should remove any other toys that are lying around the house during this time. Leave out only things your dog can lie down and chew on by himself, such as his chew bones.

* Be sure during this training/play session that you never give your dog any sort of verbal for anything he might do.

* Before you know it you will have a dog who is as nutty about this toy as you apparently have been!

* This method works particularly well on new puppies.

---------------------------

Thoughts on training with food rewards

2009-06-15T01:32:00.002+02:00

This weekend I was repeatedly asked the question whether it is a good idea to train with so many treats. The argument was that "if he [Noch] always gets a treat, won't he always be expecting a treat?". The worry here was that treats would forever be a training "crutch".

I understand this worry as it is one of the hardest things to grasp when one starts to clicker train. When I first started out trying to clicker train I treated too little and with too long intervals (a very common problem apparently). I also trained for too long periods of time. This resulted in slow learning and frustration and extinction of behaviour (extinction = when a behaviour stops entirely). I believe this reluctance to reward a lot is rooted in our way of perceiving learning and how to go about it (think: school).

The thing is we do is to fade out treats once the behaviour is learnt and only occasionally treat. We put the behaviour on an so called "intermittent schedual" (unpredictable and random) as it is called in more scientific terms. An intermittenet schedual is the best way to encourage a behaviour to be strong and long-lasting (think: casinos, they reinforce on an intermittant schedual).

Things (off the top of my head) that aren't regularly rewarded anymore: calm behaviour indoors, drying paws, putting on his lead (this has become self-rewarding), pooing outdoors, peeing outdoors, ignoring "normal" calm people walking by on our walks, following me after the command "come along now" (after he has been allowed to sniff an interesting patch of grass), sitting before allowed to play offlead (self-rewarding nowadays).

Back to the "won't he expect it all the time" part of treating often. I actually think this is an excellent and important part of clicker training. You are effectively shaping attention and becoming very exciting for your dog. You are pairing commands/praise from you with food. This eventually results in your dog excitedly waiting for opportunities to impress you so that you will praise-and-treat. Which is excellent! Why would I want things to be different? Every time I say "Yes!" or "good boy!" I am rewarded with a snap-turn of Noch's head as he focuses on me and the treat that is on its way.

This is excellent because:
a)I know he knows that he did something right
b) I can gauge how "difficult" and distracing he finds the environment. I do the "Noch" check. His normal behaviour when I call his name is to give eye contact and then come to me. So to do the little Noch "test" I call out his name and if he doesn't hear me, he is over-threshold, and I know then to avoid other triggers too and not to train anything at that point (he won't hear me anyway).

In the end your job is to find what motivates your dog. You find it, and you use it. Some people are lucky that their dogs will happily work for pats or toys. But for many dogs (the majority) pats and toys aren't really worth much, especially in the beginning when you are still building your relationship with your dog.

Play with toys sometimes has to be taught to be enjoyed (as is the case with my dog Noch). Noch and I have only recently come to the stage where I can reward ball fetching with a toss of a new ball. It used to be that this would result in the break down and finally the extinction of the fetching behaviour. For him, and many other canines, food is number one on the motivation scale.

There are of course some things that can top food: chasing cats, chasing squirrels etc. but these things are hard to systematically reward with. If I could, I would, for it is even better than food when it comes to motivation!

Another aspect of the food-worry is that the dog gets spoilt. Which is indeed a unnecessary worry as the food, even though given very frequently, is never given "for free". It is always given with the thought "reward good behaviour". (Anyway, define "spoilt" if you have a well behaved dog it surely isn't spoilt in a bad sense! Read Pat Miller's article that I posted just before this post, she does talk about how clicker dogs behave differently to coercion trained dogs and how this can be seen as misbehaviour to a coercion trainer).

In my case I wish I didn't have to use it as much as a lure. But in some cases here in the city I have to as it is the only thing that sometimes can break him out of his "trance". But even this is something that I do less and less as he gets better and better.

And that brings us to the last aspect of this. Which is that our dogs are the ones to decide when they are ready to be "weaned" off food rewards. Personally I prefer to always be challenging Noch mentally so I will always train using many treats or anything else he find motivating. The biggest difference is that I will be using less treats on our walks (happily, this is already happening). Also, as Leslie McDevitt points out in her book "Control Unleashed" there are plenty of life-rewards and other rewards that are not food that can be used once the behaviour is learnt.

'Why" Positive Training? - article by Pat Miller

2009-06-15T01:09:00.004+02:00

Brilliant article by Pat Miller:
Source:
http://ptfordogs.blogspot.com/2009/05/why-positive-training.html

'Why" Positive Training?

© 2007, Pat Miller/Peaceable Paws LLC
All Rights Reserved

WE’RE POSITIVE
How we know that training with lots of positive reinforcement – and without force or physical punishment – is best.

We’ve come so far since those dark days just over a decade ago when virtually all dog training was accomplished through the use of force and compulsion. I know those days well; I was quite skilled at giving collar corrections with choke chains and attained several high-scoring obedience titles with my dogs using those methods. And as a shelter worker responsible for the euthanasia of unwanted dogs for whom we couldn’t find homes, I was convinced that a little pain in the name of training was acceptable and necessary to create well-behaved dogs who would have lifelong loving homes.

In fact, when I enrolled my Australian Kelpie pup in the now-renowned Dr. Ian Dunbar’s first-ever puppy-training classes at our shelter in Marin County, California, I was so sure that using physical corrections in training was the only way to go, that I dropped out of the class after just two sessions; I was convinced he was ruining my dog with training treats!

It was several more years before I crossed over to the positive side of dog training, thanks in large part to my wonderful dog Josie, who gently showed me the error of my ways one day by hiding under the back deck when I brought out her training equipment. Her quiet eloquence made me realize, finally, the damage I was doing to our relationship with tools and techniques that relied on the application of pain and intimidation to force her to comply. I threw away the choke chains and began my journey toward a more positive perspective on training.

What’s the difference?
Today, in many areas of the country a dog is at least as likely to be enrolled in a class with a trainer who uses positive methods as one who still employs old-fashioned choke chain or prong-collar coercion. As more dog owners and dog trainers see the light, clickers, treat bags, and positive reinforcement replace metal collars, shocks, and dominance theory. Many trainers who still fall back on compulsion tools will at least start with dog-friendlier methods, resorting to force and intimidation only when positive training seems not to work for them. Dogs and humans alike are delighted to discover a kinder, gentler method that still gets results.

Trainers, behaviorists, and dog owners are realizing that this is more than just a philosophical difference, or a conflict between an ethic that says we should be nice to animals versus a more utilitarian approach to training. While both methods can produce well-trained dogs, the end result is also significantly different. With positive training, the goal is to develop a dog who thinks and works cooperatively with his human as part of a team, rather than a dog who simply obeys commands.
Positive trainers report that dogs trained effectively with coercion are almost universally reluctant to offer behaviors and are less good at problem-solving. Fearing the “corrections” that result when they make mistakes, they seem to learn that the safest course is to do nothing unless and until they’re told to do something.

In sharp contrast, dogs who have been effectively trained with positive methods tend to be masters at offering behaviors. Give them a new training challenge and they almost immediately set about trying to solve the puzzle. In fact, one of the criticisms often voiced by trainers who don’t understand – or accept – the positive training paradigm is that our dogs are too busy – always “throwing” behaviors instead of lying quietly at our feet like “good” dogs. This conflict in perspectives is illustrated graphically by a T-shirt belonging to one of my trainer friends, Katy Malcolm, CPDT, of Canine Character, LLC, in Arlington, Virginia.
“Behave!” proclaims the front of the shirt in bold letters. To the average disciplinarian, “Behave!” means “Sit still; don’t move!” But the back of Katy’s shirt says, “Do lots of stuff!” Positive trainers see the word “Behave!” as an action verb and encourage their dogs to offer lots of behaviors.

Another criticism of positive training is that the dogs are spoiled and out of control because, while the dogs are highly reinforced for doing good stuff, no one ever tells them what not to do. “Dogs,” the critics say, “must know there are consequences for inappropriate behaviors.”
We don’t disagree with this statement. Positive does not mean permissive. We just have different ideas about the necessary nature of the negative consequence. When one is needed, positive trainers are most likely to use “negative punishment” (taking away a good thing), rather than “positive punishment” (the application of a bad thing). As an adjunct to that, we counsel the generous use of management to prevent the dog from practicing (and getting rewarded for) undesirable behaviors.
The result? Since all living things repeat behaviors that are rewarding, and those behaviors that aren’t rewarded extinguish (go away), the combination of negative punishment and management creates a well-trained dog at least as easily as harsh or painful corrections – and without the very real potential for relationship damage that is created by the use of physical punishment.

One of the most significant reasons for not using physical punishment or force with dogs is the potential for eliciting or exacerbating aggressive behaviors from them.
This was illustrated by an English Bulldog in a recent episode of the National Geographic Channel’s show, “The Dog Whisperer.” Cesar Millan, the star of the show, spent several hours intimidating the Bulldog on a hot Texas day, in an effort to get the dog to “submit,” until the dog finally inflicted a significant bite to Millan’s hand in a futile attempt at self-defense. Millan brushed the incident aside as insignificant, apparently blissfully unaware that he had provided the dog with the opportunity to successfully practice the undesirable behavior (aggression).
Even if the dog’s reaction falls short of a flesh-shredding defense, the relationship between dog and owner can be significantly damaged as the dog learns to fear or resent the angry, unpredictable responses of his human, and the human comes to fear the beloved dog who now bites him. Given our odd primate body language and behaviors, we are undoubtedly confusing enough to our canine companions, without adding what to them must seem like completely unprovoked, incomprehensible explosions of violence.

Crossing over
Increasingly, trainers are entering the profession who learned their craft without an early foundation of coercion training. This is a good thing! However, there are enough old-fashioned trainers around that positive trainers still find themselves working with a fair number of “crossover dogs” – those who are convinced that they must not dare offer a behavior for fear of punishment.

It can be frustrating to owners and trainers alike to work through the dog’s conditioned shutdown response to the training environment. Shaping exercises, especially “free-shaping” that reinforces virtually any behavior to start with, are ideal for encouraging a crossover dog to think outside the box. This serves the same purpose for crossover owners and trainers as well!

It takes time to rebuild the trust of a dog who has learned to stay safe by waiting for explicit instructions before proceeding. It’s well worth the effort. The most rewarding and exciting part of training for me is watching the dawning awareness on a dog’s face that he controls the consequences of his behavior, and that he can elicit good stuff from his trainer by offering certain behaviors. We never, ever, experienced that in the “old days.” I used to take “sit” for granted, because if the dog didn’t sit when I asked, I made him do it.

Today, I never get over the thrill of that moment when the dog understands, for the first time, that he can make the clicker “Click!” (and receive a treat) simply by choosing to sit. It keeps training eternally fresh and exciting.

Not quite convinced?
So why, given all the available scientific and anecdotal evidence about the success of positive training, do some dog trainers and owners cling stubbornly to the old ways? Because it works for them much of the time? Resistance to change? Fear of the unknown?

It pains me that so many in the U.S. are still so far away from the positive end of the dog-training continuum. The celebrity status of Cesar Millan is evidence that dog owners and trainers are more than willing to buy into the coercion-and-intimidation approach to training, and that the use of force is an ingrained part of our culture.
Old-fashioned methods can work. Decades of well-behaved dogs and the owners who loved them can attest to that. So why should they bother to cross over to the positive side? The short answer is that positive training works, it’s fun, and it does not have the potential to cause stress and physical injury to our dogs through the application of force, pain, and intimidation. It takes the blame away from the dog and puts the responsibility for success where it belongs – on human shoulders.

In the old days, if a dog didn’t respond well to coercion we claimed there was something wrong with the dog, and continued to increase the level of force until he finally submitted. If he didn’t submit he was often labeled defective and discarded for a more compliant model. With the positive paradigm, it’s our role as the supposedly more intelligent species to understand our dogs and find a way that works for them rather than forcing them into a one-size-fits-all mold.

The longer answer is that it encourages an entire cultural mindset to move away from aggression and force as a way to achieve goals. The majority of dog owners and trainers who have fun (and success) using positive methods with their dogs come to realize that it works with all creatures, including the human species. They feel better about training and find themselves less likely to get angry with their dogs, understanding that behavior is simply behavior, not some maliciously deliberate attempt on the dog’s part to challenge their authority.

People who use positive methods to affect relationships get nicer. It feels nice to be nice. Children learn to respect and understand other living beings instead of learning to be violent with them.

When training programs founder, positive trainers are more apt to seek new solutions rather than falling back on force and pain, or worse, blaming – and possibly discarding – the dog for not adapting to our rigid concept of training. Indeed, in the last two decades, during which time positive training has gained a huge following, we’ve made even more advances in our training creativity and our understanding of behavior, canine and otherwise, and have even more positive options, tools, and techniques.

So, why positive? It’s simply the best way to train.

social träning

2009-05-02T02:21:00.000+02:00

Lite om social träning från:
http://www.strandsmedjans.se/innehall/miljotraning.htm

Miljöträning/social träning

Miljöträning och social träning är det viktigaste av allt för en valp/unghund. Förlorad miljöträning/social träning är mycket svårt att ta igen och all annan träning med hunden blir lidande om man missar denna viktiga del av hundens utveckling. Resultatet blir oftast en hund som har svårt att koncentrera sig under arbete, eftersom den har så mycket att hålla reda på. Men givetvis också en hund som känner sig osäker i vardagliga situationer av samma anledning.

Social träning

Den sociala träningen påbörjas så fort man fått hem valpen. Första veckorna räcker det att valpen får fin och positiv kontakt med familjen och de närmaste vännerna. Därefter är det dags att ta med valpen ut på klubben och på stan.

Att gå med sin valp på stan är en given fullträff, då många människor kommer att vilja hälsa på den "underbara valpen". Tänk på att ALDRIG lära en valp att inte hoppa på folk. De obehag som valpen får i samband med att du försöker att lära valpen att inte hoppa på människor kommer valpen att sammankoppla med personen som den hälsar (hoppar, klättrar) på. Den kommer inte att förstå att obehagen kommer från dig utan kommer att uppfatta situationen som obehaglig i sin helhet. Detta är en mycket farlig utveckling och resulterar lätt i att hunden blir osäker eller kanske till och med reserverad mot främmande människor. Var istället glad och stolt över att du har en valp som visar fin framåtanda. Ett bra sätt är att fråga personen som vill hälsa på valpen om det är okej att hunden hoppar lite? Om det inte är okej så låter du inte valpen hälsa utan går bara vidare. Förr ansågs det vara bra att knäa en hund i bröstet för att den inte skulle hoppa och den som skulle göra något sådant med mina hundar skulle inte vara glad efteråt. Att hunden tar mental skada av ett sådant handlande behöver jag nog inte orda om. Givetvis blir hunden osäker. Att ha en hund som hoppar är ju inga problem när den är vuxen, eftersom man då bara kommenderar "ligg" till hunden om ni vill stå och prata med någon. Alltså tar vi bort problemet med hoppande hundar genom lydnad när hunden är vuxen.

När du är på klubben så får givetvis alla "duktiga hundmänniskor" hälsa på din valp och det kan vara ett bra tillfälle att ta en trasa och kasta mellan er för att gemensamt leka med valpen. Valpen kommer att uppfatta främmande människor som trevliga lekkamrater och samtidigt få använda sin kamplust och jaktlust. Valpen får ett fint föremålsintresse och bygger upp ett snabbt och bra gripande.

Att träna inkallning av den klassiska typen (att en håller valpen och att den andra visar en godbit eller kamptrasa och springer från hunden och sätter sig på huk en bit bort och ropar) är också nyttigt för valpen. Detta stärker valpen socialt och resulterar i hög motivation för inkallning, men är också ett första steg inför tävlingsmomentet "budföring".

Genom dessa två små roliga övningar har vi byggt upp jaktlusten, kamplusten, föremålsintresset och gripandet. Framförallt har vi fått en hund som tycker att människor är roliga att vara med, och att leka med!

Sammanfattning socialisering:
Låt aldrig din valp få någon som helst tillrättavisning från någon utom dig själv eller din familj. Alla främmande människor skall av valpen uppfattas som roliga och trevliga. Valpen skall aldrig behöva vara orolig för att främmande människor inte är trevliga. På detta sätt får du en trevlig, självsäker, social och öppen hund som tycker om att jobba tillsammans med människor.

Bird brain? Animal smarts surprise experts By Randolph E. Schmid

2009-04-25T18:12:00.000+02:00

From:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29169229/

Bird brain? Animal smarts surprise experts
The term 'bird brain' should be replaced by 'brainy birds,' say researchers
By Randolph E. Schmid
updated 9:04 p.m. ET Feb. 12, 2009

CHICAGO - Monkeys perform mental math, pigeons can select the picture that doesn't belong. Humans may not be the only animals that plan for the future, say researchers reporting on the latest studies of animal mental ability.

"I suggest we humans should keep our egos in check," Edward A. Wasserman of the University of Iowa said Thursday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Wasserman, a professor of experimental psychology, said that, like people, pigeons and baboons were able to tell which pictures showed similar items, like triangles or dots, and which showed different items.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here

This is the definition of a concept, he said, "and the animals passed it with flying colors."

He spoke at a symposium on "Animal Smarts," where researchers discussed the latest findings in the mental abilities of animals.

In the last 20 years there has been a major revolution in the understanding of animals, added Nicola S. Clayton, a professor of comparative cognition at the University of Cambridge in England.

Animals not only use tools, there is evidence that some of them save tools for future use, she said.

"Planning ahead was once thought to be unique to humans," Clayton said. "We now know that's not true."

For example, she said, crows have been seen stashing food away for the next day and even finding ways to protect it from being stolen.

The term "birdbrain," is obsolete, she said, and should be replaced by "brainy birds."

Speaking of crow intelligence, Alex Kacelnik, a professor of behavioral ecology at the University of Oxford in England, noted the "master tool user of the avian world," the New Caledonian crow.

These birds have been shown to not just use tools, but to make their own by twisting and bending pieces of wire to fish food from places they couldn't reach otherwise.

"What we are describing about the abilities of different species is that human abilities are expressed, sometimes, in other species," Kacelnik said.

Jessica Cantlon of Duke University noted that "number sense" seems among the shared evolution of many primates.

Cantlon and Elizabeth Brannon have studied how human adults and babies, lemurs and monkeys think about numbers without using language.

After seeing the same number of objects repeatedly in different-looking groups, infants notice when the number of objects is changed, they found. So, too, do macaques.

Indeed, college students and macaques seem equally able to roughly sum up sets of objects without actually counting them.

That abiliity can be useful to the macaques in determining whether there is enough food to remain in an area or to get a sense of how large their group is compared to competing groups.

They are currently working to see if monkeys can recognize the concept of zero.

Some people may be uneasy as new studies find increasing similarities between animal and human mental abilities, Wasserman said.

The aim is to learn how much thinking ability is general throughout the animal kingdom, he said, "the evidence that we collect constantly surprises us."

Human behaviour: Science: Responses to Racism Don’t Meet Expectations

2009-04-25T18:11:00.000+02:00

Science: Responses to Racism Don’t Meet Expectations
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/0108sp_racism.shtml

Even though racial prejudice is strongly condemned around the world, blatant acts of racism still occur frequently, and this inconsistency could suggest that, as humans, we do not always reflect how we feel with our behavior. Now, a recent social experiment by Kerry Kawakami from the Department of Psychology at York University in Toronto and her colleagues seems to confirm this idea.

In the form of a novel field experiment, these researchers compared peoples' predictions of how they thought they would feel after witnessing a racist situation to how they actually responded to racism in real-life situations.

Their findings, reported in the latest issue of Science, imply that we are not as good at gauging our own emotions as we like to believe.

In their experiment, Kawakami and her colleagues asked a large group of non-black individuals (the forecasters) how they would feel if they witnessed prejudice against a black individual. Then, they tested a separate group of non-black people (the witnesses) to see how they actually react after witnessing racism towards a black person.

The mock victim of this racism was aware of the objectives of the experiment, but the results still demonstrate that few of the witnesses to racism actually reacted as the forecasters predicted they would.

After the forecasters made their predictions about how they would react to an anti-black slur, the separate group of witnesses were led into a room and introduced, one by one, to a black and a white "confederate," both posing as fellow participants in the study. After a brief moment with each witness, the black confederate would excuse himself from the room to retrieve his cell phone, and gently brush into the white confederate on his way out of the room.

For a control group of witnesses, this incident would pass without comment. But for two other groups of witnesses, the white confederate would make a racist comment about the black confederate. In front of one group of witnesses, the comment was "moderately racist," and in front of the other group, the comment was "extremely racist."

Moments later, the black confederate would return to the room, and the experiment would proceed. The witnesses completed a brief questionnaire to determine their mood at the time, and were then asked to choose either the white or the black confederate to work with for the next portion of the study.

Whereas most of the forecasters had predicted feeling repulsed by the racist comment and stated that they would shun the racist offender, only a small percentage of the witnesses did what was predicted of them and chose the black confederate to work with.

In light of these findings, the researchers suggest that racism may persist in part because people who believe they would take action in the face of a racist act may actually respond with indifference when the situation arises. They acknowledge that these findings can be interpreted in many ways, and they even offer alternative explanations of their results.

For example, the non-black forecasters might have recognized the social sensitivity of the issue and responded in ways they believed to be acceptable, rather than admitting their true feelings.

However, the authors say that forecasters were assured of their anonymity, and that these findings might provide important information on actual responses to racism that could help to create personal awareness and inform interventions.

Brandon Bryn

8 January 2009

Questions about ‘aversive’ training By Tim Hyland

2009-04-25T18:10:00.000+02:00

Questions about ‘aversive’ training By Tim Hyland
http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/current/research/030509.html

Cesar Millan is one of the superstars of the canine world.

As the host of the National Geographic Channel show, “Dog Whisperer,” Millan has rocketed to fame based on his ability to reform and save misbehaving, over-aggressive dogs. It’s something he accomplishes through “firm” discipline—a “firm correction, a firm grab on the neck, which is what dogs do to each other,” as he says on his web site.

Millan’s show attests to his success, and he’s earned millions of loyal followers.

But according to a new study from Penn’s School of Veterinary Science, Millan’s approach may not be quite so effective as he makes it out to be. In fact, the study suggests “firm” discipline—and so-called “aversive” discipline techniques, in which dogs are corrected using aggressive measures—may actually backfire, making dogs more likely to lash out at other dogs, people and even their owners.

According to the study, published in the journal Applied Animal Behavior Science, 25 percent of dogs trained with “aversive” techniques react to their training with an aggressive response of their own. Dogs trained in a more positive, encouraging manner, by contrast, showed almost no aggressive behavior.

“It’s really the first study of its kind—it’s a kind of pilot study,” says Meghan Herron, a Penn Vet resident and the lead author of the study. “But it’s just the start of the science that needs to happen.”

Herron says the idea for the study came from her experience at Penn Vet, where aggressive behavior is far and away the No. 1 reason why people seek the help of behavioral veterinarians.

To attempt to understand the roots of this aggression, Herron and her colleagues—Frances S. Shofer and Ilana R. Reisner, both from the Department of Clinical Studies—wrote up a 30-question survey for dog owners who visited the hospital. The survey asked the owners what kind of techniques they used to control their dogs’ aggression and what kind of results they had seen. The owners were also asked where they had learned about the training techniques they used.

In total, 140 surveys were collected. The researchers found that the most commonly used methods of training included such aggressive techniques as hitting the dog (43 percent), growling at the dog (41 percent) and physically forcing the dog onto its back (31 percent). This, despite the fact that these techniques showed the tendency to produce the direct opposite response owners sought. A quarter of the dogs trained with aversive techniques showed aggressive behavior in response.

Herron says these techniques can fail because, rather than helping owners exert “dominance” over their pets, they instead make dogs fearful. That fear, then, manifests itself in aggression.

Even still, the aversive methods persist, simply because they’ve been around so long. The popularity of “Dog Whisperer” doesn’t help matters.
“It’s a very popular [school of thought],” she says. “If you look in the old textbooks, they basically say if your dog is aggressive you need to assert your dominance. This idea has been around for a long time.”

That’s why Herron says it will likely take years of work to begin to convince owners of the potential flaws in aversive training. That work will most likely take the form of studies like hers, as others in her field work to produce evidence supporting an idea that she and her colleagues already believe in: That positive training is more effective than negative training.

“In the behavioral field, they’re cheering [about this paper],” she says. “But we’ve been on this page for years. It’s the public … and the vets that we want to reach.”

Irene Pepperberg interview (cognintion in parrots)

2009-04-23T00:56:00.000+02:00

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/animals/pigeon_spotting.htm

Irene Pepperberg interview (cognintion in parrots)

How to lead a less stressful life by following the example of baboon troop in East Africa

2009-04-21T12:23:00.006+02:00

Yesterday I watched a really good documentary on TV. Incidentally it supported my personal views on how we humans should reorganise our society both politically and in practice. We have a lot to learn from these baboons!

It is ironic that a baboon troop can rise above "how it's always been done" and flourish and that we humans, as a species, are taking so long to learn. We flaunt our "big brains" and "rising above animals" for what? To perpetuate a way of living that is making most of the world inhabitants miserable (looking for proof? switch on the news).

Results like these are, if anything, black and white proof that there are both good and bad ways to organise a social group.

The documentary was aired on Swedish TV yesterday on "Veteskapens Värld" watch it here:

http://svtplay.se/t/102814/vetenskapens_varld

Blurb:
"Den orättvisa stressen
Livet i en babianflock är inte alltid så hälsosamt för den som står längst ner i rang. Det vet neurobiologen Robert Sapolsky som har studerat babianer på nära håll. Men stress slår också till extra hårt hos människor som befinner sig långt ner i hierarkin. En långtidsstudie på 28 000 människors hälsoutveckling i Storbritannien visar att social status spelar en avgörande roll för hur vi mår. Stressen sätter sig i blodet, i hjärnan, den borrar sig in i kroppens celler och gör oss sjuka. Programledare är Mia-Marie Hammarlin. Gäst efter filmen är Monica Åberg Yngwe, doktor i folkhälsovetenskap.

Programinformation
Se de bästa vetenskapsdokumentärerna som finns på den internationella marknaden."

---

Killer Stress website:

http://killerstress.stanford.edu/

On the site is a great clip that pretty much sums up one of my favorite parts of the documentary. Where his original thought that "low rank = more stress" is not as simple as it appears to be. The answer turns out to be more complex than this. Low-ranking individuals that have a lot of friends and spend a lot of time grooming each other can be in good health and have low stress at the same time as a high-ranking individual can have high-stress if this individual is highly aggressive and very reactive.

---

Article from:

http://www.pbs.org/remotelyconnected/2008/09/stress_portrait_of_a_killer.html

"Killer Stress"
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
BY AMANDA HIRSCH
About the author
Author's site
My name is Amanda, and I am a workaholic.

-- a recovering workaholic, that is.

I used to live and breathe work; when I wasn't physically at the office, I was there in my mind -- wondering if the email I sent struck the right tone, strategizing how to get through the next day's to-do list. The smallest annoyance could send me into a fury. (I hear I was a lot of fun to live with.)

I'm better now, but I share this autobiographical insight so you know that when PBS invited me to review "Stress: Portrait of a Killer," I had more than a little bit of personal interest in the topic.

The program is a co-production of National Geographic and Stanford University starring Dr. Robert Sapolsky and a host of other researchers studying the science of stress, illustrating how our social status affects our stress level. This is true for all primates, it turns out, not just humans; to wit: in a baboon troop, dominant males are far less likely to exhibit stress than their subordinate troop-mates, as evidenced by the increased presence of stress hormones in subordinates' blood. A study of government workers in Great Britain shows similar results: the lower your rank in the civil service, the more likely you are to exhibit high levels of stress, and its attendant health issues -- even though all workers have access to the exact same level of medical care.

Stress, we learn, is closely related to feelings of control. We see the senior civil servant who controls her own workload tending to her lush garden, remarking that she's never had any real health problems; contrast this with the lower-level worker who's out sick half the time, and talks about feeling so overwhelmed by his workload that it's like skidding in a car on ice.

The film contrasts these social and psychological sources of stress with the biological origin of stress as a survival response. Think of the zebra, stressed in the wild when the cougar comes a' hunting; its heart races, and its body shuts down all but the most essential processes, flooding the zebra's system with the stress hormones that help it propel itself to safety. Unfortunately, we humans have the same physical reaction in situations where our sense of control - not our survival - is at stake.

The results are dire. As the body goes into emergency mode, it shuts down all non-essential processes, including things like growing and healing. It's one thing to shut these processes down while you run from a cougar, and quite another to shut them down for days or weeks at a time. Accordingly, research study after research study links high levels of stress with severe health problems, from blocked arteries to ulcers, not to mention diminished mental capacity - it turns out stress kills brain cells. As one of the researchers, Dr. Carol Shively, concludes, stress isn't an abstract concept -- it's a critical health issue demanding serious attention.
.

So, how do we fix it? I like Dr. Shively's advice best: the answer, she says, is to change our values as a society. We need to stop prizing ambition over all else, and celebrating the over-achievers who can walk and chew gum and type on their Blackberries all at the same time. But is such a fundamental change in our values and behavior possible?

One troop of baboons, we learn, was able to pull it off - to change the fundamental nature of their society and reduce stress all around. When the troop's alpha males all died - victims, tragically, of tuberculosis, which they got from tainted meat in the dumpster of a nearby nature lodge - the remaining males did something amazing: they were nice. More to the point, they weren't aggressive toward subordinates; suddenly, being a subordinate didn't feel worse than being dominant. The troop as a whole became more harmonious; as rank became less related to quality of life, the baboons who were lower on the totem pole were able, simply put, to chill out.

As Dr. Sapolsky summarized: the cause of stress isn't just your rank, it's what your rank means in your society.

The program's lessons resonate for me. For example: even though I was a manager at my former job, which sounds pretty alpha, I was a middle manager, with a lot of responsibility and no real authority. What's more, the politics of my organization drained me. Now, as a freelancer, I expend far less energy assessing or defending my rank (my dog is happily subordinate). I control my own schedule, and fill my days with activities of my choosing - balancing time spent on work with time spent writing for pleasure, practicing yoga, performing with my improv troupe, volunteering, and more.

Clearly, there's no one-size-fits-all prescription for a low-stress life. For some people, freelancing would be more stressful than working in an office. The take-away, then, is to look at your own life, and figure out how to reduce your own sources of stress - and, how to reduce the stress you may cause other people (in other words: how to be a nicer baboon).

What do you think? Can you see parallels between the research in the program and your own life? Share your thoughts using the comments feature below

----

Description of documentary below taken from:
http://www.pbs.org/stress/

A National Geographic Special

Stress: Portrait of a Killer premieres Wednesday, September 24, 2008. Check Local Listings to see when it is airing on your local PBS station.

Robert Sapolsky and an olive baboon share a quiet moment on the Talek River, July 2007 (Credit: John Heminway)

The stress response: in the beginning it saved our lives, making us run from predators and enabling us to take down prey. Today, human beings are turning on the same life-saving physical reaction to cope with 30-year mortgages, $4 a gallon gasoline, final exams, difficult bosses and even traffic jams — we can't seem to turn it off. So, we're constantly marinating in corrosive hormones triggered by the stress response.

Now, scientists are showing just how measurable — and dangerous — prolonged exposure to stress can be. Stanford University neurobiologist, MacArthur "genius" grant recipient, and renowned author Robert Sapolsky reveals new answers to why and how chronic stress is threatening our lives in Stress: Portrait of a Killer, a National Geographic Special. The hour-long co-production of National Geographic Television and Stanford University was produced exclusively for public television.

In this revelatory film, discoveries occur in an extraordinary range of places, from baboon troops on the plains of East Africa to the office cubes of government bureaucrats in London to neuroscience labs at the nation's leading research universities. Groundbreaking research reveals surprising facts about the impact of stress on our bodies: how it can shrink our brains, add fat to our bellies and even unravel our chromosomes. Understanding how stress works can help us figure out ways to combat it and mitigate negative impacts on our health.

Coveted female Saffi and dominant male York enjoy the shade of the banks of the Talek River. Masai Mara, Kenya, August 2004 (Credit: Randy Bean)

For over three decades, Robert Sapolsky has been working to advance our understanding of stress — in particular how our social standing (our place in various hierarchies) can make us more or less susceptible to the damaging effects of stress. Throughout the film, he weaves the grim realities of the impact of chronic stress with his wry observations about 21st century life.

"The reality is I am unbelievably stressed and Type A and poorly coping," says Sapolsky. "Why else would I study this stuff 80 hours a week? No doubt everything I advise is going to lose all its credibility if I keel over dead from a heart attack in my early 50s. I'm not good at dealing with stress. But one thing that works to my advantage is I love my work. I love every aspect of it."

Robert Sapolsky prepares to draw the blood of an anesthetized baboon as Masai villagers look on. Masai Mara, Kenya, August 2004 (Credit: Randy Bean)

The film is based partly on Sapolsky's best-selling book Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers: Stress, Disease and Coping. In addition to his professorship at Stanford, Sapolsky is a research associate with the Institute of Primate Research at the National Museum of Kenya. He is also the author of Monkeyluv, A Primate's Memoir and The Trouble with Testosterone, a Los Angeles Times Book Award finalist.

Scientists from the University of North Carolina, the University of London, Rockefeller University and the University of California, San Francisco share their compelling insights into how stress impacts the body, giving stress a new relevance and urgency to our increasingly complex lives.

For more information about stress and Robert Sapolsky — including clips from the documentary, a video Q+A, links to podcasts, books and more experts on stress — visit the film's Web site at http://killerstress.stanford.edu/.

Find out how much you know about killer stress. Take the National Geographic Stress Quiz.

See how professionals balance stress with success at a LinkedIn "Answers" forum begun by Robert Sapolsky.

Stress: Portrait of a Killer was co-produced by Stanford University and National Geographic Television. The partnership is the first of its kind in the country and features a major research university joining forces with a distinguished production and educational institution to create original and compelling programming in the areas of science and technology for television audiences.

The senior executive producer of Stress: Portrait of a Killer was John Bredar. It was written and directed by John Heminway. The executive producer from Stanford University was Randy Bean.

Funded and Produced by:

© 2008 NGHT, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Text by Randy Bean and Ellen Stanley. Photos courtesy of John Heminway and Randy Bean.

Article: If You're Aggressive, Your Dog Will Be Too, Says Veterinary Study

2009-04-16T22:37:00.002+02:00

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217141540.htm

ScienceDaily (Feb. 18, 2009) — In a new, year-long University of Pennsylvania survey of dog owners who use confrontational or aversive methods to train aggressive pets, veterinary researchers have found that most of these animals will continue to be aggressive unless training techniques are modified.

The study, published in the current issue of Applied Animal Behavior Science, also showed that using non-aversive or neutral training methods such as additional exercise or rewards elicited very few aggressive responses.
“Nationwide, the No. 1 reason why dog owners take their pet to a veterinary behaviorist is to manage aggressive behavior,” Meghan E. Herron, lead author of the study, said. “Our study demonstrated that many confrontational training methods, whether staring down dogs, striking them or intimidating them with physical manipulation does little to correct improper behavior and can elicit aggressive responses.”
The team from the School of Veterinary Medicine at Penn suggest that primary-care veterinarians advise owners of the risks associated with such training methods and provide guidance and resources for safe management of behavior problems. Herron, Frances S. Shofer and Ilana R. Reisner, veterinarians with the Department of Clinical Studies at Penn Vet, produced a 30-item survey for dog owners who made behavioral service appointments at Penn Vet. In the questionnaire, dog owners were asked how they had previously treated aggressive behavior, whether there was a positive, negative or neutral effect on the dogs’ behavior and whether aggressive responses resulted from the method they used. Owners were also asked where they learned of the training technique they employed.
Of the 140 surveys completed, the most frequently listed recommendation sources were “self” and “trainers.” Several confrontational methods such as “hit or kick dog for undesirable behavior” (43 percent), “growl at dog” (41 percent), “physically force the release of an item from a dog's mouth” (39 percent), “alpha roll”physically -- rolling the dog onto its back and holding it (31 percent), “stare at or stare down” (30 percent), “dominance down” —- physically forcing the dog down onto its side (29 percent) and “grab dog by jowls and shake” (26 percent) elicited an aggressive response from at least 25 percent of the dogs on which they were attempted. In addition, dogs brought to the hospital for aggressive behavior towards familiar people were more likely to respond aggressively to some confrontational techniques than dogs brought in for other behavioral reasons.
“This study highlights the risk of dominance-based training, which has been made popular by TV, books and punishment-based training advocates,”Herron said. “These techniques are fear-eliciting and may lead to owner-directed aggression.”
Prior to seeking the counsel of a veterinary behaviorist, many dog owners attempt behavior-modification techniques suggested by a variety of sources. Recommendations often include the aversive-training techniques listed in the survey, all of which may provoke fearful or defensively aggressive behavior. Their common use may have grown from the idea that canine aggression is rooted in the need for social dominance or to a lack of dominance displayed by the owner. Advocates of this theory therefore suggest owners establish an “alpha” or pack-leader role.
The purpose of the Penn Vet study was to assess the behavioral effects and safety risks of techniques used historically by owners of dogs with behavior problems.
Adapted from materials provided by University of Pennsylvania.

An excellent forum post about loose leash walking...

2009-03-23T22:14:00.001+01:00

...and dog training in general:

http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/Click_To_Calm_List/message/7842

Re: [Click_To_Calm_List] Re: leash anxiety

Hi, I mainly lurk, but this is such an interesting subject, and I do have
strong views....

I had two rescue GSDs, and at 15 months they had never worn a collar let
alone been on a lead, so I had what might be called some interesting
experiences, and at the time, very little positive help. Internet help
mainly consisted of repeating the old and tried methods which I knew and
which hadn't worked for me. For instance, with one dog I tried the stop
every time the dog forged ahead method. Fine, apart from the fact that a
five minute walk took three quarters of an hour, we could do that, but she
couldn't connect the stop start with a continuous walk, no way. Head
harness? Just sat down and refused to move....

Eventually I succeeded, but whether it was just age, experience, or one of
the methods I used, I couldn't say. I believe there is a way for every dog,
but considering the pairing of any dog and any human is a pairing of two
unique beings, it can take time to find what works for you. Clicker
training came along just a tad too late for our early days....

One thing I believe many people forget, or do not heed, is that it is
counter-productive to start using a method if you can't use it each and
every time. Look at the number of dogs in classes that behave beautifully
to heel in class and then pull like a demon on the way out to the car....
IMO we are taught to watch our dogs for the response we want, and click and
treat. What some people forget is that dogs watch us, and wait for the
response THEY want - if they get it once - then it can take a long time for
the hope to fade it won't happen again.

I have a theory about learning anything. Before you start, look at the line
of books on the subject in the book shop. How many are there claiming the
quick way, the easy way, etc. If there are plenty then there is NO quick or
easy way, because you wouldn't need a book to tell you. I have yet to find
a book titled the Easy, Quick way to learn to love Chocolate....

So, IMO we often create or exacerbate the situation by our own anxieties -
which travel down the lead like an electric current. It isn't easy to relax
with a pulling dog, but I think, whatever method works for you in the long
run, the first thing is to relax, think about it, and say to the dog, we are
going to get through this together, you and I...

Just my thoughts
Brenda

The Misbehavior of Organisms

2009-03-22T11:21:00.004+01:00

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Breland/misbehavior.htm

THE MISBEHAVIOR OF ORGANISMS
Keller Breland and Marian Breland (1961)
Animal Behavior Enterprises, Hot Springs, Arkansas
First published in American Psychologist, 16, 681-684.

---

Interesting stuff!

I have seen similar things happen in my dog training. That some behaviours seem to be self-reinforcing.

Often it seems that instinctual behaviour is incredibly reinforcing! I wonder what to do about it without using aversives since some behaviour is very hard to manage. It certainly seems that if some behaviour is allowed to repeat itself the very fact that it is allowed to repeat itself it very reinforcing to the organism (in this case dog). So much so that no reward I can think of is more reinforcing.

One example is chasing birds. I thought perhaps I could use the Premack Principle on the bird-chasing (reward: allowed to sometimes chase birds on a variable schedual). Noch unfortunately has an incredibly strong prey drive so I resorted to managing the behaviour instead (keeping him on lead when we walk past birds). Perhaps I can use Premack later but right now it's not working at all -- he gets waaaaay to excited and cannot concentrate if he's allowed to chase them even once. All other learned behaviour breaks down for almost the whole walk after that.

Another one is barking. It seems if I ignore that, or try to teach incompatible behaviour (such as holding something in mouth) it still doesn't help (tries to bark with object in mouth). I have a friend whose dog will take and then spit out normally high-reinforcement treats to bark.

So far the I have been addressing the "managing" part of this situation. I have boiled the stimuli down to being noise reaction, anticipation and proximity (to stimulus). So baby gate has helped -- he can see people coming in but he is not so close (not seeing at all doesn't help -- he needs to see the people coming in to know what my desired behaviour is: being quiet and greeting ppl without jumping -- enthusisam is fine but making a sound or jumping is not good). This also enables me to use the opening of baby gate and letting him out to say hello as a reinforcer, together with ending up back behind the baby gate as negative reinforcement.

Barking, though, has een a slightly harder nut to crack. Here I have in fact resorted to using a water spray. But being quick to fade this out and instead take every opportunity to reward and even food reward silence. Progress so far! I do not know though, how I would have achieved silence to reward without the water spray.

occasionally resorted to using the water spray here *sigh*

Envy in dogs

2009-02-28T18:12:00.003+01:00

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1092637/Why-dogs-jealous-Scientists-reveal-pets-complex-range-emotions.html

http://www.theworld.org/node/23069

Super video about getting attention in the midst of distractions

2009-01-21T18:45:00.007+01:00

This is along the lines of what I have been doing with Noch -- great and powerful stuff! Yay!

I was talking to a friend of mine the other day about positive reinforcement and training with aversive (so-called traditional training) and we both reached the conclusion that our dogs that we have now don't respond very well to aversives -- only becoming more agitated if they are used (I am a crossover trainer with a clicker dog -- when I get frustrated my behaviour can break down into anger - I'm only human! I'm working on this though!). For example if her dog when it was a puppy went a bit "bezerk" (black labrador) no aversives in the world would work (following the "any attention is fun" principle, even negative attention such as scolding) only ignoring her dog would have an effect. And then rewarding or giving affection when he was exhibiting good behaviour (all four paws on the ground etc.) to cement what is the "preferred" behaviour. Funny thing is that another dog that she babysits came to the same conclusion! Pippi is an adult dalmation and would growl at Zigge when he tried to play with her, this didn't really work and eventually she reached the same conclusion -- ignoring works! Being angry doesn't!

ALSO clicker training I find makes me feel really good! I'm always in a good mood no matter what my dog is doing. Whereas if I am concentrating on the misbehaviour that my dog is exhibiting it gets me in a bad mood and makes both me and dog feel like a failure. Personally, I prefer feeling happy!

Good dog training tips!

2009-01-16T14:57:00.001+01:00

Incredibly charming border collie photography

2008-11-15T23:39:00.001+01:00

http://threewoofs.blogspot.com/

So charming! And "narration" that made me laugh too...! :)

Timing and latency and short sessions

2008-10-28T01:43:00.003+01:00

I have been pretty successful with my clicker training so far. Noch has been a brilliant student.
But I realise that I can working on getting better, as I said in my last post, and so I am formalising my training and keeping a log.

But geeze, it sure as hell is hard to keep a log and stick to the set goal for that training session! I realise I train intuitively a lot -- which can actually be good and bad. Bad because it probably makes Noch's job confusing if the actual goal changes. I do see the advantages to keeping to one training session=one goal. I also see the advantages of forcing oneself to write down that one goal and how to reach it on paper.

I have also realised that my training sessions may be a bit on the long side(!)

Apparently a good rule of thumb is 5 repetitions to one training session.
Then break for a short while (go write in you log).
Then do another training session.
In total a training period should last about 5 mins maximum. This means that you have time for approximately 2-4 training sessions in one training period. Wow! So short eh? I can see that clicker training really doesn't have to take a lot of time at all.

These incredibly short sessions put a lot of pressure on the handler to set up good criteria -- which is great! It also keeps the dogs perky and bright eyed and loving it (and ending when they still want more). Of course it is painful for the handler to stop when the going is soooo good! But I think it is one of the keys to getting the dog to lvoe cliker training.

The repetitions themselves have some timing critera too: latency (the time between signal and offered behaviour eg. handler standing up and waiting, handler presenting target, handler giving command) should be between 0,2-3 seconds depending on the nature of the excercise. 0,2 seconds being for commands/signals the dog already knows, 3 seconds being for when the dog is starting to learn a new behaviour. When you are free-shaping this latency can be increased to 5-10 seconds.

Again this strikes me as really fast! But it does make sense -- in practice this means for example presenting a target and after 3 seconds of the dog failing to touch it the target gets removed and hidden behind my back for 5-10 seconds. It is then presented again for 3 seconds. These 3 seconds in other words is the window in which the dog has to present his behaviour.

Additionally you want to avoid letting the dog do two incorrect repetitions in a row, and really really avoid three incorrect repetitions in a row. If this is happening you may want to consider that your criteria are too high and you may need take them down a notch so you are setting your dog up to suceed.

My book advises 5-30 min training passes per "go".
This means 3-6 training periods each containing 2-5 training sessions containing in turn 5 success/fail repetitions.

So much to think about! Geez, I am now SURE that Noch has the easy end of this bargain!

Lastly -- I found a brillant way of teaching loose-leash walking that I am dying to try! It echoes my thoughts of pondering if you could use horse rein signals with a pulling dog. I mean we humans instinctively pull on our dogs to communicate with them through the leash. Actually no different than using a bitless bridle on a horse. In the same way that pulling on a horse that hasn't been taught to move away from pressure is meaningless, so is pulling on a dog -- it will only be met with resistance. Sometimes I even ponder if it is possible to teach a dog to canter and trot and do groundwork like horses -- it would be fascinating to try! Anyhow Shirley Chong has this great way of building up to loose leash walking that is based on her experince with teaching race horses to have soft mouths again:

http://www.shirleychong.com/keepers/LLW/LLW%20Step%201.html

Setting critera when clicker training

2008-10-27T16:15:00.003+01:00

Well I am pondering how to go about the incredibly challanging task of teaching Noch how to pass other dogs without going beserk (he looooves other dogs and will bark and jump around in excited frustration and forgets I exist).

I am thinking it comes down to me improving my training skills. Things like timing and setting him up to suceed seem incredibly important. But I am a bit lost as to how to go about it without getting frustrated and (being the crossover trainer that I am) resorting to negative reinforcement in sheer frustration...

So I've ended up reading my clicker book again "Klickerträning för din hund" (in swedish) by Morten Egtvedt and Cecilie Köste. A brilliant book, but unfortunately not-so-great layout. The font they've used for the body text is sans serif making it hard to read. An eyesore for someone like me who works with layout on a day to day basis. But yeah, apart from that it's full of brilliant advice. I think I am going to start a training log to help me hone my criterion-setting skills (and have a clear training plan).

But yeah the one thing I wanted to mention was the following (summarised and partly quoted from the book):

Dog trainers using positive reinforcement set their dogs up to suceed, so that they may have lots of opportunities to reward their dogs for good behaviour.
Dog trainers using negative reinforcement set their dogs up to fail, so that they get lots of oppotunities to correct their dogs.

That thought I found really really interesting!! And made me go "ahhh.... oh yeah".

Lastly a You Tube video, some really good criterion-setting-up going on here:

Snowball the dancing cockatoo

2008-10-14T13:39:00.002+02:00

Just some links about the now world-famous dancing cockatoo(!)

Article:

"Snowball's chance, Cockatoo's extremely rare sense of rhythm may help explain how the brain relates to music. By Adam Loberstein, August 14, 2008."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080814/news_1c14bird.html

Video that goes with the article:

http://video.signonsandiego.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=2073032&item_index=2&all=1&sort=NULL

Lots of thoughts after a Natural Horsemanship workshop

2008-09-29T13:29:00.007+02:00

I don't know where to start really as there are a million thoughts in my head after my workshop yesterday.

Firstly, I found it really interesting to listen and watch an experienced horse-person working with all kinds of horses. I thoroughly enjoyed myself and truly expanded my knowledge of animal training. It reinforced some ideas I have learnt through other avenues of animal training and learning.

Defining your goals and how you intend to get there

One of the first things that comes to mind it the fact that you want to have clear goals and only work in small steps so that you are set up to succeed. When training horses this means preparing a "tool box" of foundation behaviours that will be the groundwork for more complex behaviours later.

When it comes to horses, the goal of the training in the first stages is to (as in all training it may help to write it down and clarify it to yourself):

1) Trust human handling -- i.e. the handler must be able to touch the horse anywhere and have the horse stand still

2) As handlers we must be able to move our horses in any direction

3) As handlers we have to teach our horses to "think backwards" i.e. reverse -- this can be used to stop a forward moving horse too -- when a horse is moving forward we can ask it to start thinking about moving backwards, the horse then slows down and then stops, at this point we stop asking for backward-thinking and we have a horse that has stopped (I found this quite clever)

4) We must teach the horses to be attentive to us -- here it is up to the handler to keep their horse "on it's toes" -- this means vary the excercises you do with your horse(!) Nothing should be "just habit" because in this state of mind no learning takes place.

I found all of these things very interesting and saw parallels to other animal training, of course foundation behaviours are always slightly different depending on what animal you are working with and, perhaps most importantly what you goal with training that animal is. For example teaching a horse to be ridden is vastly different from teaching a tiger at a zoo to present it's tail for blood sampling. The concept of training behaviour-wise is the same (the animal will offer behaviours that are rewarding) and yet the goals and hence the path there are different.

Dominance-theory and animal training

This leads me to the whole dominance-issue.
It seems that the equine world is suffering from too much dominance theory too. Not that it does not exist. I did not say that. I do believe that horses (or dogs) have heirarchies. BUT I also believe that the whole dominance-issue is given too much weight. I don't really think that animals are so stupid to believe that we are a horse or dog on two legs. We are a different species and what we ask of our horses and dogs is VASTLY different from what the "alpha" individual would ask from it's herd or flock.

Dominance theory is fine, but when applied to learning it can go a little awry. I think that learning about horse behviour in the wild can only do you good -- it may help you to understand and predict certain reactions your horse has to it's environment. But learning to read your horse can only be achieved by mutual communication with your horse. The exercises used in Natural Horsemanship are a brilliant example of teaching a horse a way that you can communicate what you want to it. A nice side effect to this is that the horse will learn to trust and respect your decisions because you are giving it a fair chance to do the right thing i.e. "if you do this for me I will promise you a pleasant experience". The only problem I have with the actualy teaching of these things is that they are done with a light form of negative reinforecement, granted not a seriously bad form of negative reinforcement, but negative reinforcement all the same. One teaches each exercise with a combination of punishment/reward where the reward is a removal of the negative stimulus. It works and is hardly "mean" but I think I would prefer to teach the same exercises with a clicker. Mainly because you will reinforce what is right and there are lots of good side-effects to rewarding good behaviour as opposed to teaching and animal to escape negative stimulus. And a friendly pat is not as motivating as food in the end. (Just let a human choose between a friendly pat or $50 - I think I'd choose $50 hands down, I would also approach the next lesson with much more enthusiam). Here's a great article on the natural Horsemanship foundation "games" combined with clicker training:
http://www.naturalhorse.co.uk/training/7games.htm

But yeah, back to dominance.
Here's food for thought when it comes to using dominance-theory to your advantage and when to set it aside:

---
Here is a fascinating study that suggests that your interactions with other horses will effect interactions with a horse. The conclusion is to make training easier you should line up your horses in paddocks so they can watch you train. Then start your training day with the most dominant horse and work your way down the hierarchy!
DrO

Anim Cogn. 2008 Jan 9;
Horse sense: social status of horses (Equus caballus) affects their likelihood of copying other horses' behavior.

Krueger K, Heinze J.

University of Regensburg, Biologie I, Universitatsstrasse 31, 93053, Regensburg, Germany, Konstanze.Krueger@biologie.uni-regensburg.de.

Animals that live in stable social groups need to gather information on their own relative position in the group's social hierarchy, by either directly threatening or by challenging others, or indirectly and in a less perilous manner , by observing interactions among others. Indirect inference of dominance relationships has previously been reported from primates, rats, birds, and fish. Here, we show that domestic horses, Equus caballus, are similarly capable of social cognition. Taking advantage of a specific "following behavior" that horses show towards humans in a riding arena, we investigated whether bystander horses adjust their response to an experimenter according to the observed interaction and their own dominance relationship with the horse whose reaction to the experimenter they had observed before. Horses copied the "following behavior" towards an experimenter after watching a dominant horse following but did not follow after observing a subordinate horse or a horse from another social group doing so. The "following behavior," which horses show towards an experimenter, therefore appears to be affected by the demonstrator's behavior and social status relative to the observer.
...
I've been doing this for years. I let the young ones loose to watch everything before its their turn. Usually they have a "oh, me too, me too" attitude by the time its their turn. Other people said I was crazy thinking that it made a difference and said I was just lucky to have nice horses.

One filly was watching as I showered everyone else with the hose one day until she couldn't stand it and shoved in to be next in line. When her turn was done, she still hung around to be squirted.

They always get to watch the farrier do all their friends first. Makes for some very interesting looks as they twist their head around to see exactly what's going on. Then when its their turn, they've never been a problem (well, until it gets boring and they want to go back to play)

I also clicker train and always let the newbie loose to watch a session with a more experienced horse. With the exception of one horse, all have jumped right in to give it a try.

In my experience, the reverse of this is also true. If you let them watch an obstinante horse or a refusing horse, they will also try the same tricks or take the "not me either!" attitude.
---
Source: http://www.horseadvice.com/horse/messages/7/240095.html

---
In reading some of the posts regarding herd dynamics and others on Mark Rashid, I thought I'd tell you about a lecture I went to by Mark at Kah-Ne-Ta Indian Reservation in Oregon.

Mark spoke about how some people consider assuming the alpha role to be essential in training horses. In other words, become like the dominant horse. When an alpha says, "Move!" the others say, "How far?"

Mark said that he's spent plenty of time watching horses in the wild. He said that he learned many things, one of which was that horses can be pretty boring as they generally just eat, drink, poop and sleep.

When things did happen though, it was usually initiated by the alpha horse. When the alpha horse walked into a group, everyone scattered. They wanted to get as far away from the alpha as possible.

Sure, the alpha was the baddest horse around but nobody wanted to be near him or her.

Mark realized that this herd scenario was telling him that if none of these horses wanted to be close to the alpha, then why would he want to present himself as an alpha to his horses? It was the horses that were kind to each other that had the closest knit groups. Kindness proved to make his horses actually choose to be with him.

Studies have been done which prove that animals, as well as humans stop learning when placed under stress. In fact if the stress is great enough, they can actually forget some things that they've previously learned.

I guess what all this tells me is to teach and associate with horses with kindness-above all: kindness.

To me kindness brings with it a feeling of calm. When an animal is calm, he is in the best possible mode for learning.

The clicker is always kind. It doesn't lack for respect, but sets up rules in a way that horses can easily understand and follow. It helps the horse achieve and at the same time gives him credit for being an individual.
---
Source: http://www.angelfire.com/az/clickryder/different.html

I believe dominance theory is great tool to have in your animal behaviour box, but in your animal training box it's not very useful. It is more useful to see your self as a benevolent teacher with endless patience. A teacher to be respected because they are fair and don't wack you over the head with a ruler. A teacher that lets you make mistakes but who also, without fail, helps you to succeed. In this way your animals will come to respect you and yes, you will become "alpha" in the sense that you will be someone worthy to follow and listen to.

One of the reasons why I think dominance theory is not that great when we train is because the nature of what we want to train. Like Mark Rashid points out and the horse trainer this weekend himself pointed out, we are asking our horses to do very strange things -- things that no alpha horse would be asking the rest of the herd to do. No alpha horse pokes another horse in the side and asks him to move one step and then stand still, instead they usually say "scram, this is my pile of hay". No alpha horse puts a bridle on another horse and no alpha horse gets on top of another horse and asks him if they can for a ride! In the same way no alpha dog puts a leash on another dog and asks him to go for a walk. This are unnatural, human, ideas. And yes, in my belief training ANYTHING unnatural is essentially "trick-training". Training a bird to land on your finger, training a dog to stay on command, training a horse to move away from pressure -- these are all "tricks" we humans want to train our animals to do.
But before people who are allergic to the words "trick-training" get upset -- oh what great and practical tricks they are! They help our animals to coexist peacefully in a world that is adapted to humans. We are giving them tools to harmoniously coexist with us. What great joy it is to see a brilliant partnership and two-way communcation between a horse and rider or dog and handler.

When an animal is in a reactive state of mind this is not condusive to learning

Right the next thing I am thinking about is reactivity. All animals can be reduced to a reactive state of mind. A reactive state of mind is not condusive to learning. It was wonderful to see this in action this weekend. A horse was asked to trot around the handler on a lunge line -- being in a reactive state at that moment the horse reacted to the swishing of the rope and "fled" to the extent of the line and trotted around in an energetic trot. Here he was not thinking, just running. The guy who had the course pointed this out and said "right now he isn't learning to we want to try to ask him to slow down" with a flick of the lunge line (the horse had previously been trained to respond to this cue for "back up") the horse slowed down. Suddenly there was a change that I may have missed if he hadn't made us aware of it. The horse slowed to a trot that was very "thoughtful" each step he was taking was as if he was thinking about it and his ears were moving around as if in great thought and concentration. He seemed to focus his ears on the handler, then on hs steps, then on the surroundings, then on the handler again and really seemed to be thinking about things. Whereas earlier he seemed to only have one thought as it was "argh, scary rope, I had best run from swishy thing". I could really see how reactivity is not condusive to learning.

I see the same thing in training my dog and bird -- if a simulus is too strong they only have space in their minds to react to that particular stimulus. It doesn't matter if the stimulus is fear-induced of interest-induced -- if it is too strong it will block out other thoughts. Some trainers appropriately call this "becoming blocked". The key it seems to all animal training is to begin training in an evironment that is condusive to learning. This often means in an environment where the animal is calm and comfortable. For dogs it can mean at home in the living room. For birds (who are highly reactive) it can mean around the saftely of their cage. For horses it can mean a familiar paddock close to home. Only when the training progresses can you ask for the same behaviour but in a slighlty more challenging environment.
Also one thing to be prepared for it a break down in the "quality" of the behaviour as the animal slowly becomes used to performing this familiar behviour in an unfamiliar environment.

Horse loading problems and solutions - an example of the issues talked about above

Lastly I want to finish of with an example that actually adresses the problems of dominance theory, reactiveness and clicker training versus bribery.

It was a situation that my friend and her horse were in -- a bit of a catch 22 in fact.

She wanted her horse to participate in the workshop. And it was a great learning experience for them both. But problems arose when trying to get the young stallion to load at the end of the workshop.

As far as he was concerned he had had a really long day and did not want to get into the scary trailer.

One lady was saying that it is normal for horses that have "lost a few points of the dominance scale" to try to act up and win back a couple of points. Although she is a brilliant and experienced horse person I am inclined to disagree here. I find that it is more of a case of learning-overload. I really don't think the young stallion was trying to "win points". It's more of a case that the stallion was reduced to a reactive state from the begining -- concentrating is actually very hard for animals and they can only do it for limited amounts of time.

He was responding well to the learnt tug-on-lead-rope means follow the pressure (i.e. we pull on lead rope and the horse follows). In an untrained state all animals (inclduing humans) will resist someone pulling on them -- this is called activating the "opposition reflex". This is also a "default" or "natural" behaviour i.e. a behaviour that the animal will go into when in a reactive state. Bolting is also a default behaviour that you don't need to train (as all horse owners know).

The problem we were facing was that his trained behaviour only held together as far as part of the way up the ramp. It fell apart when the proximity of the trailer scared him too much. Also a tug on his lead rope could trigger an opposition reflex and then a fight-or-flight reflex (also natural behaviour for a horse). The horse will of course choose to flee first being the prey animal that it is, and if this doesn't work it may choose to fight. The problem is when all these behaviours become the "norm" when loading -- you can actually unwittingly train your horse to present these behaviours.

On a better day and in a better place I believe training wise we should have called it a day. The problem was my poor friend had no choice -- she just HAD to get him home. And getting home meant getting him in the trailer.

We spent what was literally hours trying to get him to go in and by this time my friend and her horse were exhausted. Her horse was highly reactive and even though he occasionally had moments where he concentrated for long enough he had several occasions where he just "switched off" and bolted backwards.

In the end we did manage to bribe him with feed (only after having broken one halter) and that was only just. I was literally pushing food into his mouth whilest my friend closed the trailer behind him (most domesticated animals have learnt to associate food with calm and actually do calm down whilest they are eating). Eating almost seems to be a cue that "everything is ok". If a dog will take food or not is always a good measure as to how stressed they are in a stressful environment.

Thank goodness we got there in the end. Unfortunately this experience will not have taught the horse anything particularly good. By bribing him into coming into the trailer and standing still he never actually had time to think about his actions. The times he did think was just before he flung himself out backwards and into freedom, unfotunately not the best learning situation or result. I am not for bribing as it is very different to clicker training (some people confuse the two). You can use food as a "lure" in clicker training only if you fade out the lure quickly. But usually it is more effective to lure train using a target -- a non-food cue. (In target training you teach the animal to touch the presented object -- often the end of a stick -- this can then be used to show the animal where you want it to be heading).

What to do from here? Well preferably (since I am all for clicker training) I would choose to clicker train exercises that are useful in trailer loading. The nice thing is that you don't need a trailer for these (a problem for many that don't own trailers).

Now we need to state our problems and solutions:

So what is the problem?
- The horse does not like loading
(forget "he's trying to be dominant" -- just focus on the problem at hand)

What does a horse need to have learnt for it to load well?
(this is where we break down the complex behaviour of loading into small bits -- for that is exatly what loading is, a combination of several behaviours)

1) To walk forwards
2) To walk forwards up a leaning ramp (and not come in from the side)
3) To walk into a confined space and stand still
4) To stand still and be tied to a stationary object
5) To remained tied and still over a period of time despite a distracting/stressful environment (including closing the rear bar behind the horse and closing the door of the trailer)
6) To be untied and remain standing still (before backing out of the trailer so that the horse does not explode outwrads once it's learnt that it's "free")
7) To back up when asked
8) To back down slowly down a leaning ramp (and not step down sidewards)
9) To back up and stand still

With the nine points above in mind I hope you have now realised that loading is indeed a complex behaviour. With this in mind it is a wonder that some horses actually do learn to do all of the above without needing to be taught in small steps. But then again, this may be why trailer loading is such a common problem.

For the experienced horse trainer I am sure there are many many ways to teach each of these nice different things.

Teaching #1 is incredibly important. To move on to teaching #2 you could lay two poles on the ground and ask your horse to follow you inbetween them. You could start with the poles really far apart and then move them closee and closer together. If you have several poles you and your horse could practice moving thorough an "obstacle course". The nice thing is that this can then be expanded upon and you could lay these poles going up and down natural slopes in the terrain laying the foundation to going up and down ramps.

Another very clever way of teaching walking forwards in a controlled manner is teaching your horse to target. In this example the horse is taught to target cones on the ground -- the nice side effect of this is that the horse is taught to walk with his head lowered (a calm state). Touching cones or a target stick can be a fun "game" for your horse and also lets him concentrate on something familiar in an unfamiliar environment.

Before teaching a horse to enter into a trailer you have to remember to teach your horse to back up (#7 and #8) unless you have a trailer that is large enough to turn around in or you may spook your horse. Remember that the hard past about backing downwards is that the horse actually cannot see where he is placing his feet (try closing your eyes and backing down a slope -- scary huh?). A great way of teaching backing down is to use a natural downwards slope and some poles. First you ask your horse to back up inbetween two poles and then you ask him to back up inbetween two poles but down a slope . If you don't have a slope try to make a ramp.

Here's some great and hopefully inspring vidoes, good luck loading! (And if you have no idea what clicker training is I do hope you get to try this great way of teaching behaviour)

Source: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=C8CwMZukYsU

Source: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0i9OXec83GI

Excerpt from "Kontaktkontraktet" ("The Contact Contract") by Eva Bodfäldt

2008-08-20T16:20:00.001+02:00

http://www.k9training.ie/reading.html

(translation of this excellent swedish book is due 2009)

Articles in Swedish by Eva Bodfäldt

2008-08-20T15:53:00.000+02:00

http://www.hundkonsulten.se/artiklar.asp

Article on how different training is required for different dogs

2008-08-14T23:59:00.005+02:00

Great article commenting on how no one way of training is "right" or "wrong".

I have highlighted interesting stuff in red, with the blue text supporting/explaining info.

http://k9deb.com/positive.htm

Positive, Negative, Neutral

There's a lot of talk these days about training styles and methods. I suppose there has always been talk about such stuff among dog people. I don't subscribe to any particular method or style, but I do have something to say about such stuff. Oh, you knew that. :)

I believe that whatever methods you use should be fair, humane and effective. Those are, of course, super-charged words and everyone's going to have their own definition. If you're in doubt about whether your methods meet even your own definitions, ask around. There is no shortage of people willing to voice their opinions on the subject. Ask your vet, groomer, best friend, and your Uncle Charlie what they think of your training style. They'll tell you. In cyberspace you can visit newsgroups, and e-mail lists. You'll get good advice, bad advice and you've-got-to-be-kidding! advice. Take what works for you and throw out the rest, but only after careful consideration.

When I was first learning about canine behavior and training I was adamant about not using food treats. No dog of mine was going to be bribed into doing what I said! It took me a lot longer to really evaluate the use of food (reward) as a training tool because I wouldn't even listen to arguments in favor of the practice. Being stubborn won't help your training skills evolve, being open to other ideas will.

I use methods and tools that are comfortable for me and those that complement my individual style of training. I start all dogs on a flat leather or nylon collar. If we need to graduate to something that allows more control, I use a martingale type collar or a Gentle Leader halter. I never use metal slip, or "choke" collars because I think they carry a higher than average risk of causing tracheal damage, it's difficult to get Mr. and Ms. JQP to use them properly, and, most importantly, I'm not comfortable with using them. The reason I don't use training type collars, as a rule, is that the primary difference between them and a regular flat collar is that they are designed to be corrective. I don't even think about correcting until after I'm sure the dog has learned what I set out to teach him. When we get to the point that the dog knows exactly what "sit" means, and chooses not to, then I might use a collar correction, but I find a leash pop on a flat collar gets their attention just fine.

I once worked with a 9 month old, 100 lb. AmStaff mix that was the happiest dog I've ever seen. Geez, was he happy. He also had no manners at all. None. And, he had the attention span of a potato bug. He was a confident, exuberant and extroverted dog. When he was on a flat collar and I was on the other end of the leash there was no learning going on. There was, however, a good possibility that I was going to be dragged down the street on my butt. He was food motivated, but he'd never learned how to learn, so he thought the name of the game was "Knock Debbie over, grab the food, lick her face in thanks". As I said, no learning was going on. Well, not the kind I wanted. A martingale collar would not have prevented him from dragging me all around town and he would have likely broken his neck on a halter, so I decided to use a prong collar. The prong collar calmed him down enough for me to get his attention and to teach him how to learn something new. I'm aware that this worked because it made it uncomfortable (painful?) for him fly to the end of the leash every few seconds. It was, however, a humane, ethical and fair way to get this dog under control long enough to teach him proper leash etiquette and for him to get the hang of learning, in general. The prong collar was replaced with his flat collar after his first lesson. Once he learned how to learn he caught on to new things fast and with enthusiasm and ended up being a very well behaved dog.

If you adjust your attitude and stance to the dog, and keep your tool box of techniques full, you'll do fine.

I recently worked with an adolescent, male Rottie. When he was off leash he was very dog friendly. When he was on leash he was a bozo-head. He was not fearful of other dogs and he was not what I would call dog aggressive. For dogs that are fear aggressive or overtly aggressive towards other dogs I use positive reinforcement to create a conditioned response to seeing another dog. For this dog I didn't think that was necessary. I felt he was just being a bozo-head. A quick pop on the leash (flat collar) combined with a sharp "cut it out!" caused him to sit and look at me with that goofy expression teenaged dogs often have. The one that says "Geez, sorry, lost my head for a moment -- you over it now?"

I am a strong believer in teaching the proper behavior using positive methods rather than using force and compulsion to eliminate undesirable behavior, but I also believe in tailoring the training to the dog. This dog already knew that calm behavior when on leash and around other dogs was rewarding, but he still had moments when liked to puff up his chest. For this particular dog, in this particular circumstance, a combination of knowing what behavior predicted a reward was combined with learning what behavior predicted punishment. I could have used more or better rewards to get him to always offer the correct behavior, but I didn't see the necessity of that. It didn't take beating him with a 2x4, or jerking him around on a training collar to get the idea across that belligerence towards other dogs was not nice. The punishment he did receive (pop on a flat collar, verbal "cut that out") was sufficient to get the message across. Fair, humane, effective.

Not long after that I was working with a Lab mix that would have collapsed into a pile of trembling dog flesh if I had used even the softest of collar corrections. Withholding of reward was the only punishment I used with her and she came around very nicely. Even a stern "no" would have not been a fair or humane way to communicate with that dog at that time. She couldn't cope. She now copes with life, in general, much better than she did before, but it still takes little more than eye contact to correct her.

There might be "one true way" to spiritual enlightenment, but there is no such road that leads to one "right" way to train a dog.

deb@k9deb.com

Tug-of-war as a reinforcer

2008-08-14T23:55:00.000+02:00

Playing a game of tug as a reinforcer:

http://www.clickertraining.com/node/727
(also myths pertaining to tug-of-war-games dispelled)

Excerpt from the intro:

Many dogs just love playing tug-of-war games. Of those who don't, most can be taught to play and end up loving it. If a dog loves doing something, what should a clicker trainer do with it? That's right, use it as a powerful reinforcer for other behaviors!

There are plenty of myths and old wives' tales surrounding tug games with dogs. Some people maintain that tug games encourage aggression, biting, and "dominance." While it is true that playing uncontrolled tug games can lead to behavior problems, the opposite is likely when you play controlled tug games.

Apart from being a powerful reinforcer, controlled tug games also exercise your dog's body and mind, teach some important foundation behaviors (self-control, holding, and letting go of objects in the mouth), and provide a fantastic outlet for the innate drives within your dog. When you learn how to teach and play tug games, you learn how to combine aspects of canine ethology and behaviorism in a practical and fun way!

General links

2008-08-14T23:43:00.004+02:00

---

"Clicker training" for humans: TAGteach

"TAG is an acronym for Teaching with Acoustical Guidance. The focused, positive nature of this method yields immediate and stunning results that are clearly evident to teachers, students and parents."

http://www.tagteach.com/

---

Good general articles from positive reinforcement trainers:

http://www.shirleychong.com/index.html

http://www.k9deb.com/

http://www.clickersolutions.com/articles/

---

Excerpt from article "Understanding Prey Drive"

2008-08-14T22:49:00.003+02:00

Here is an interesting article on prey drive from:
http://flyballdogs.com/prey_drive.html

It is written geared towards those interested in training their dogs for flyball (for those of you who do not know what it is it is a kind of doggie relay race with dogs where they run to step on a platform which in turn releases a ball, which the dog is to catch and return with)

My personal interest in this article is the prey focus I have noticed in Noch and what I can do to controll and encourage it to go in the direction I want (fetch for example) as opposed to in direction I don't want (chasing hares, birds, kids etc.)

I have highlighted things I personally find interesting and that I might be able to use in my training. Red is extra interesting and blue is information backing/explaining the text in red.

-------------
Understanding Prey Drive
by Kathryn Hogg, kjh@flyballdogs.com

Discussions on dealing with aggressive dogs usually turns in the direction of how to deal with these situations when they occur but should be directed to prevention. People speak of correction and control in training when they should speak of refocusing and promoting correct behavior. As a long term Flyball team member, captain of a consistent top ten team, owner of several successful Flyball dogs, and mostly as a professional trainer who has a large amount of experience in solving aggression cases; I am going to put my two cents in.

First of all, let's clarify prey-drive versus chase drive. A prey driven dog will chase with a great deal of focus on the object it is pursuing and a definite goal of attaining access to its target. A chase driven dog will also chase but usually not with the same intensity or absolute drive to reach its target as the end goal. Many of you have done chase games with both types of dogs. The prey driven dog will drive as hard as it can until it reaches you and when it does you or your toy usually gets hit like a ton of bricks. The chase driven dog can be somewhat frustrating as it will chase you, but not with the drive or intense targeting behavior of the prey driven dog. This dog will often pursue the handler in chase games, but will run on by and not follow through to actually catch the handler. The chase driven dog usually does not exhibit the sudden increased burst of speed that a prey driven dog will when the handler increases their speed. Unfortunately, either tendency can lead to dog chasing and/or aggression (more so in the prey driven dog).

Secondly, let's apply this to Flyball training. All are born with different levels of pre-dispositions towards movement fixation. The funny thing here is that the dogs with strong prey-drive can potentially be some of the best Flyball dogs. Dogs very much learn what to fixate on. Unfortunately, many dogs learn to fixate on other dogs very early in their training. Practices such as letting the dog watch, or tying them to walls during practices, or running with a pack too much early in their career can be a major culprit. It is a known fact that a restrained dog watching movement go by will usually begin to fixate on the moving object. Everyone in Flyball knows this or why else would we build speed and drive through "restraint" recalls. Eventually through frustration, the restrained observing dog may become aggressive towards the moving dog. When a dog does not know the game and is watching, the most interesting thing is the dogs running by. So, those leaping, barking restrained dogs are not keen to play the game, but are keen to chase the dogs. Therefore, we must make these tendencies work for us and not against us. Do not let green dogs spend their time learning to develop a moving dog fixation; and certainly do not let already problematic dogs feed their fixation. In order to do this you may loose ten pounds, but the bottom line is the handler needs to get physical. My basic rule with a new dog or an already problematic dog is he is always playing chase games with me when he is around moving dogs. If a pre-existing severe focus problem exists then we begin around one non-moving dog and gradually build up. The idea is to develop a mind-set in the dog that the movement going on around him is insignificant and never involves him, and that you are the only interesting target . This takes a great deal of effort on the owners part as it is physical, and hard work to run around focusing your dog on your movement only(Tug games are excellent for this). It is certainly much easier to establish in a new puppy with no pre-conceived ideas. It can be a bigger project when you are trying to solve a pre-existing problem, but it is do-able. I am not saying that you would not use correction at all, but it is much more reliable to have a dog with this altered owner driven mind set than to rely on a negative consequence to make the dog restrain himself. I am also concerned over comments that the dog prey drives to get the ball and brings it due to the control you have on him. What all the top teams know is that the retrieve of the ball is only an activity en route to the drive to pursue and catch the handler. If the chase or prey drive is harnessed toward the handler; the other movement around is of little interest to the dog. One last note on this issue; I do not use the rest of my pack to exercise a new puppy. I go out one-on-one and play all those fun doggy games with him. He will be with the pack or other dogs enough to be properly socialized, but the majority of play time is with me. As I stated at the beginning, dogs learn what is fun to focus on; make sure that it is you. By, the way; for those of you worrying about having enough time to treat a new dog as an individual, I recently raised #12 of a pack of 12.

A final word: There are many roads to the same destination, I have just outlined one of them. These ideas are meant for a dog who has chase or prey driven problems; not for dogs with generalized offensive or defensive dog aggression problems which would also present other factors to be dealt with. I hope this helps some of you, or at least gives you some food for thought.

Why clicker train? (for the skeptics)

2008-07-01T21:35:00.002+02:00

This is a great article by a brilliant clicker trainer called Melissa Alexander. It doesn't go through what clicker training is, but it may well wet your appetite for more if you're skeptical about clicker training.

Source:
Clicker Solutions Training Articles
http://www.clickersolutions.com/articles/2002/skeptics.htm

For the Skeptics

As far as I know -- I admit I don't know a lot -- the studies you want haven't been done. There have been studies comparing reinforcement, punishment, and a combination of the two, but the studies didn't break reinforcement and punishment into positive and negative. (No, I don't have cites for those.)

I think however, the question is flawed. The definitions of R+, R-, P+, and P- are based on results. They say behavior increased or decreased. They don't say "a little bit," "a lot," "permanently," or "until something better comes along." All five parts of OC (including extinction) *work* by definition. Within reinforcement and punishment, every application -- positive and negative -- falls on a continuum from mild to severe, depending on the situation. Neither positive nor negative is innately "stronger" than the other.

So what you're asking about is reliability. Reliability is a number, pure and simple. One type of punishment or one type of reinforcement is not, by definition, more reliable than another. Reliability comes from application, from repetition, from a good solid training plan, and from a dedicated trainer.

The Baileys did not publish, as far as I know. However, in the nearly 50 years (15,000+ animals in nearly 150 species) that Animal Behavior Enterprises operated, the Brelands (and later the Baileys), who were scientists first, kept exhaustive records on each animal.

Though they were leaders in the push for humane treatment of animals, they were not guided by moral choices. They chose these methods because they gave them the results they needed in a timely manner. They chose them because they worked.

Many of those animals were for those "automated" exhibits they used to have at fairs -- "play tic tac toe against the chicken," for example. They also trained some pretty elaborate all-animal stage shows. However, not all of their work was commercial. Much of it was for the government. Beginning with the "pigeon-bombing project" of WWII through most of the Cold War, they had lots of interesting training challenges.

* They trained pigeons to go out ahead of troops in the jungle to search for ambushes.
.
* They trained ravens to fly, guided by a laser, into enemy territory at night, and once at the correct building to take a picture using a tiny camera around their neck and then return.
.
* They trained wild-caught, adult dolphins to do open-water work. Some of the tasks required the animals to be out for eight or more hours at a time -- and realize, the boats weren't with them. The boats just waited for the dolpins to do their task and return. Interestingly, their dolphins had faster return times than swimming out times. (Reinforcement is a powerful thing!) They never lost a dolphin. Once a storm forced them to abandon their dolphins for 36 hours. When they returned, the dolphins were still there, doing the default behavior they reliability!
.
* They trained dogs to detect mines and trip-wires and, more importantly, to prevent soldiers from tripping them.
.
* They trained house cats to "spy" on the enemy. Imagine being able to pop up suddenly in front of a cat and shoot a shotgun -- or being able to have a snarling lunging dog jump right in the cat's face -- and having the cat remain still. Those were requirements of those cats' training.

Distance work was a given. Wild-caught birds free flew for hours in a hundred-square-miles. Wild-caught dolphins swam -- alone -- four hours away from the boat. The cats were guided from great distances by sound.

Whether the project was commercial or for the government, the Baileys required reliability. Not kind of reliable. Not even most-of-the-time reliable. Reliable. They weren't going for scores or a ribbon. There were, in many cases quite literally, human lives relying on the reliability of these animals' behavior.

And the method they used was the same one we're using here. They used positive reinforcement, extinction, and occasional negative punishment. They used positive punishment only about a dozen times in 50 years and 15000 animals -- and those times were at the request of the client.

They didn't choose this method because it felt good. They chose it because it gave them the results they needed in the fastest time. They experimented to find the best way. Trial and error. But most importantly, they kept DATA -- gobs and gobs of scientific data -- and based their programs off of that. What they "felt" like they knew simply had no bearing. Only the numbers, only the results.

The method -- the same method we're using here today -- is the method they found worked best. And it worked for every individual in every species they trained. That, more than anything else, convinces me to stick with this training method.

Honestly, the whole argument is utterly irrelevant. The Baileys have proven it can be done. Period. What remains is whether an individual trainer is capable of doing it. I've seen reliable traditionally-trained dogs and unreliable ones. Reliable positively-trained dogs and unreliable ones. Good traditional trainers and poor ones. Good positive trainers and poor ones.

If they're interested, they'll check it out. If not, their minds are closed, and they won't listen to anything you say. Don't waste your breath. Just train your dog to a level of reliability that satisfies you.

Melissa Alexander
mca @ clickersolutions.com
copyright 2001 Melissa C. Alexander

Intro till klickerträning (in swedish)

2008-07-01T21:15:00.003+02:00

(från Agria Djurförsäkrings hemsida: http://www.agria.se/agria/index.nsf/LinkFrameSet?ReadForm&url=http://www.agria.se/Agria/text.nsf/id/1594)

Klickern - vägen till roligare träning
Klickerträning är numera en välkänd metod som hjälper till att höja motivationen för träning hos de allra flesta hundar! Här kan du läsa om grunderna för träningsmetoden.

Sedan början av 90-talet har klickerträningen blivit allt mer populär. Kännedomen och intresset har ökat lavinartat kanske mest tack vare amerikanskan Karen Pryor som har skrivit många böcker om just denna metod som tidigare mest användes vid delfinträning. Klickerträningen kan alltså inte ses som någon ny uppfinning då detta inlärningssätt varit känt sedan 30-talet.

Förstärkning av rätt beteende
Det finns egentligen inga gränser för vad du kan lära din hund med hjälp av en klicker. Det första du måste göra är att lära hunden att ”klick” betyder att det kommer en belöning. Ett klick kommer för hunden sedan betyda att just i det ögonblicket som du klickar gör den rätt och belöningen är på väg. Det är inte alls lika effektivt att använda rösten då vi på rösten kan ha olika tonlägen medan ett klick alltid låter likadant.

Rätt timing A och O
Det hela handlar om timing och att med klicket förstärka precis rätt ögonblick. Om du blir en duktig tränare så kommer din hund tycka att träningen är rolig och resultaten kommer då väldigt fort. Klickerträningen går att använda lika bra för lydnadsmoment som för att få bort oönskade beteenden, det är din fantasi som sätter gränserna.

Träning enbart i positiv anda
Med klickerträning arbetar du enbart i positiv anda. Det handlar om att förstärka ett korrekt beteende, inte att korrigera ett felaktigt beteende. En hund som klickertränas arbetar för att få belöningen, en hund som tränas med traditionella metoder arbetar ofta för att undvika obehaget av en korrigering.

Hunden blir aktiv
En annan fördel med klickerträningen är att hunden själv tar en aktiv del i träningsprocessen. Istället för att leda, rycka eller trycka på hunden för att visa vad den ska göra så får hunden själv räkna ut vad den ska göra för att få klicket och belöningen! En hund som inte är van vid denna typ av träning kan det i början gå lite trögt för eftersom den är van att bli visad till exakt vad den ska göra, men det kommer. Snart har du en mycket arbetsvillig hund.

Stort område
Klickerträning är ett oerhört stort område och det finns mycket bra böcker i ämnet. Innan du provar klickern på hunden bör du veta hur du ska göra. Sök på Internet, läs böcker eller varför inte gå en kurs. Dina tankar om hundträning kommer för alltid att vara förändrade!

Text: Sofie Lönn

Clicker Training basics using a hand-shy bird as an example

2008-05-29T13:10:00.004+02:00

This is my favourite video to show people if they don't understand or are new to the concept of clicker training. In short, clicker training is the use of a conditioned reinforcer to shape desired behaviour. A "conditioned reinforcer" is something that the animals find motivating (such as a toy or food) paired (by association) with some sort of signal, in this case clicker trainers use a little tool that gives off a clear "click" sound when a button is pressed.

The learning principals can be applied to any animal (see the TAGteach video at the bottom - more about TAgteach: http://www.tagteach.com/).

Clicker training is a great way of training! Not convinced? Well then, tell me a better way to train a cat or even a chicken?! (That's how I got convinced):

Cats (also great intro-to-clicker-training video):

Chickens (great intro to the mechanics of clicker training):

Chicken agility:

Chimps and tools

2007-12-18T22:24:00.002+01:00

Originally I started this as a swedish blog, but there were too many non-swedish speaking people I wanted to share this with so I am re-doing this. (Most swedes can manages english, but most english-speaking people can't read swedish).

Today's intersting fact I want to share is about tool making and chimpanzees. Very fascinating! I must say monkeys used to be some of my least favorite mammals but I am coming to like them more and more, it started when my partner gave me a book about them with lovely photographs. The part of me that find them the least favorite is the part that find them ever so slightly scary.

Article below is from:
http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2007/03/01/chimpanzees-make-spears-to-hunt-bushbabies/

Chimpanzees make spears to hunt bushbabies

Posted on 1 March, 2007 by Ed Yong

Hunting with tools used to be considered a unqiuely human ability. But chimpanzees in Senegal have now been seen fashioning spears from branches and using them to hunt bushbabies.

It is midday in Senegal and a chimpanzee is on the hunt. Its target is a bushbaby, a small, cute and nocturnal primate that spends its days sheltered in the hollow of a tree, beyond the reach of predators like the chimp.

But this hunter is not like others – it is intelligent, it is dextrous, and it has a plan. Snapping off a thin branch, the chimp strips it of twigs, leaves and bark. And with its teeth, it sharpens the tip into a murderous point.

It forcefully jabs its newly fashioned spear into the bushbaby’s hiding place, stabbing the hapless animal multiple times. The chimp breaks off the end of the branch that sheltered its prey and drags it from its hiding place, wounded and ready to be eaten.

Many animals, from insects to birds, are known to use tools, but chimpanzees are the most advanced non-human toolmakers of all. They crack nuts with hammers and anvils, and fish for termites using sticks.

But fashioning weapons, and using them to hunt is a fresh and advanced trick, even for them, and a trait that was previously deemed to be uniquely human.

Bushbabies are powerful leapers and if the chimp exposed its hiding place, it would have a strong chance of escaping. So the chimps have developed a technique to take them by surprise, immobilising them for easy capture.

This type of planning and the tool manipulation that makes it possible, requires great foresight and intellectual complexity. It is testament to the mental powers of these, our closest relatives.

Jill Pruetz and Paco Bertolani from Iowa State University have only seen spear-making in a single population of chimps, living near the Fongoli River in southeastern Senegal.

The technique may well be a new one, as only a quarter of the chimps they observed went through all the necessary steps. One young male chimp was even seen using the spear playfully, possibly learning the technique from his elders.

Usually hunting is a pursuit for adult male chimps, but Pruetz and Bertolani only saw females and youngsters spearing bushbabies. They reasoned that these groups usually gain a much smaller share of the meat brought back by the male hunters, because they are physically weaker, or because they are too low in the social order. In a similar way, only female bottlenose dolphins have ever been seen to use tools.

These findings could have startling implications for the origins of human tool use. The traditional wisdom says that ancient human men were concerned with hunting while the women specialised in gathering.

But if the Fongoli chimps are any indication, human women could have found specialised hunting niches, and in doing so, played a disproportionately large role in the development of tool technology.

In any case, the Fongoli chimps are clearly worth further study, particularly since their patchwork home of woodland and grassland is reminiscent of the types of places that early humans inhabited. As such, they could provide us valuable clues about how our own technologies began.

But they will tell us nothing if they are all dead. All four subspecies of chimp are currently endangered, and in danger from the multiple threats of the bushmeat trade and habitat loss. Urgent efforts are needed to ensure that these intelligent animals will continue to enthral us for generations to come.

Pruetz & Bertolani. 2007 Curr Biol 17: 1-6."

Next article, source:
http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/opinion-not-so-unique-the-chimpanzee-stone-age-and-our-place-among-intelligent-animals/

Opinion: Not so unique - the chimpanzee Stone Age, and our place among intelligent animals

Posted on 13 March, 2007 by Ed Yong

This is the 50^th article for this blog. I’ve been writing for it for over six months now, and I pleasantly surprised that I’m still finding the enthusiasm to write for it regularly, and that people seem to be reading it.

This special article considers new evidence for the origins of chimpanzee tool use. It is the third piece of research I’ve seen in the last few months which shows that other animals share an ability previously thought to be the sole province of humans. In this article, I consider why these discoveries are now coming to light, and what they mean for us.

In the Ivory Coast, a small stream called Audrenisrou winds its way through the lowland rainforest of the Tai National Park. On the floodplain of this stream, at a site called Nuolo, lie several stones that seem unassuming at first glance. But to the trained eye, they are a window to the past.

Their shape is different to other stones that have been worn away by natural erosion. They have been flaked in systematic ways and many are flattened and sharp. Clearly, they were shaped by hand for a purpose – they are tools.

Their creators were not humans, but close relatives who lived in these rainforests thousands of years ago – the ancestors of modern chimpanzees.

Nuolo: humans or chimps?

The Nuolo stones were uncovered by Julio Mercader form the University of Calgary, Christophe Boesch from the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, and their colleagues. They are a magnificent archaeological find - the first ever evidence of prehistoric ape behaviour anywhere in the world.

Humans have a rich prehistoric past, informed by key archaeological finds like the Olduwan sites. These findings provide us with a window into the past, showing us how our ancestors developed the tools that continue to serve us well today. For chimps, no such sites have been found, until now.

The evidence that the Nuolo specimens were created by chimps is compelling. The density of stone pieces in the site, the preferred types of rocks, the length of the stone flakes and the patterns of wear closely mirror those of modern chimp tools.

They also carry the evidence of their past uses, as hammers and anvils for cracking nuts. Their crevices contain granules of starch that clearly came from nuts. Mercador and Boesch even managed to narrow the granules’ origins down to three possible species, all of which are currently cracked and eaten by today’s chimps. In contrast, the team found scant remains of tubers and legumes, the main food source of forest-dwelling humans.

This suggests that prehistoric humans who also, over time, visited the river-side site were not the creators of the Nuolo tools. But Mercador and Boesch found even stronger evidence.

Human hammers usually weight less than 400g, and even our ancestors’ anvils weighed no more than a kilogram. The far more powerful chimp with its larger hand can wield a tool many times heavier, anywhere from one to nine kilograms in weight.

Mercador and Boesch found that the stone tools at Nuolo most likely weighed about 2 kilograms, far too heavy heavier for a human but well within the limits of even a weak chimpanzee.

A chimpanzee Stone Age

Together, this evidence paints a remarkable picture of a chimpanzee Stone Age, when ancient chimps were clearly cracking nuts in the same way they do now, over four millennia ago.

Chimpanzees are highly advanced tool users. But some critics have sold short their abilities, claiming that they learned the use of tools by, for lack of a better word, apeing nearby humans.

The Nuolo finds puts paid to that suggestion. The tools predated the advent of farming in the rainforest by some time. Nuolo also lacks evidence of any of the other tools used by humans to grind and pound starchy tubers.

Among chimpanzees, nut-cracking is clearly a cultural tradition, passed down over time through over 200 generations of chimps. Humans and chimps either developed this technology independently, or they inherited it from a common ancestor who had already begun to use tools.

We’re not so unique after all

With studies like this, the list of attributes that are unique to humans seems to be getting smaller all the time. In just the last few months, scientists have found that chimpanzees hunt with spears, jays (below) can plan for the future, and even the long-dead dinosaur Bambiraptor, gripped prey with opposable fingers.

But as we start to come down from our pedestal, we should not mourn the loss of our position, but rejoice in our connectedness with the rest of the living world. These discoveries emphasise our position at the end of a continuous evolutionary spectrum, rather than atop a looming precipice.

The outdated view that we have been awarded special dominion over other life should be replaced by a humbler view, where our position of biological authority is tempered with respect.

Why has it taken so long for such findings to come to light? Centuries ago, anthropomorphism was commonplace and these experiments would have seemed like pointing out the obvious. But of late, biology has taken a more reductionist turn and signs of potential animal behaviour are scrutinised under the harshest and most sceptical light.

In many cases, this quite rightly avoids the false conclusions based on flimsy and anecdotal evidence. But while scientists have taken great care to ensure that their interpretations are not biased towards human perspectives, the same cannot always be said the design of the experiments themselves.

Looking for intelligence

One of the most significant problems with studying animal intelligence is that many species experience and react to the world in completely different ways to us. For example, to pass the classic test for self-awareness, an animal must show that it recognises itself in a mirror, by examining a mark previously made on its face (see right).

Gorillas and dogs tend to fail the mirror test, but not because they are mentally less advanced than successful examinees like elephants or chimps. Gorillas view direct eye contact is a sign of aggression and tend to avoid it, while dogs rely on smell as their primary sense, rather than sight.

Simply put, can we truly claim to understand the limits of another animal’s intelligence when we know so comparatively little about their behaviour or perceptions? Cleverly designed experiments may bring us closer to an answer, but sadly, we may never get the opportunity to conduct them.

Save ourselves, the most intelligent animals on the planet – the great apes, elephants, dolphins and whales – are mostly endangered, with many species facing a very real threat of extinction. Chimpanzees, like those in the Tai National Park are under threat from the loss of their habitat, and the illegal bushmeat trade.

A massive amount of evidence now paints these, our closest cousins, as sophisticated animals with their own culture. Imagine how tragic it would be if they died out for good, leaving only a set of shaped stones as the only lasting signs of their intelligence.

Reference: Mercader, Barton, Gillespie, Harris, Kuhn, Tyler & Boesch. 2007. 4,300-Year-old chimpanzee sites and the origins of percussive stone technology. PNAS 104: 3043-3048.