Class,
What a fascinating string of comments as a result of my questioning the class on what Wendy was doing incorrectly with Ziva. It was the same grievous error Jeremy had made earlier. As hard as my cyber correction was for both Jeremy and Wendy, it was necessary SO THEIR DOG CAN SUCCEED IN LEARNING TO RETREIVE.
On to another subject matter. Jeremy made a comment in this string and I want to talk more in depth about his comment. Here is Jeremy's response in its entirety. I have underlined, bolded and put in " " marks what I will be speaking about here.
"Just to add to this - training aside, I think a huge help was forming and socializing Zoe very early on as a puppy, with other dogs (like the pack) and especially small children (for us, our nieces and nephew at this point). She really does have a great personality. We feel very lucky to have her as our first dog!
It is interesting to me now, as a lifetime cat owner and brand new to the "dog world" over the past year, the "biases" people have about certain breeds in general. While some breeds may exhibit certain instincts that others lack (and vice versa), and come with their own personal temperaments (we lucked out with this one, clearly!), I am a firm believer that at the end of the day, it is ultimately nurture over nature. This couldn't be clearer from seeing the proven track record of many successful Koehler trained dogs, I have noticed!!
I am sure you would agree :)" by Jeremy.
Interesting observation and conclusion Jeremy. Let's talk a bit about your language 'exhibit certain instincts' and 'nurture over nature'. I have attached an entire article for this class to read, here is the link to article The Misbehavior of Organisms. The article is long, but here are the authors conclusions:
These
patterns to which the animals drift require greater physical output and
therefore are a violation of the so-called "law of least effort." And
most damaging of all, they stretch out the time required for reinforcement when
nothing in the experimental setup requires them to do so. They have only to do
the little tidbit of behavior to which they were conditioned - for example,
pick up the coin and put it in the container - to get reinforced immediately.
Instead, they drag the process out for a matter of minutes when there is
nothing in the contingency which forces them to do this. Moreover, increasing
the drive merely intensifies this effect.
It
seems obvious that these animals are trapped by strong instinctive behaviors,
and clearly we have here a demonstration of the prepotency of such behavior
patterns over those which have been conditioned.
We
have termed this phenomenon "instinctive drift." The general
principle seems to be that wherever an animal has strong instinctive behaviors
in the area of the conditioned response, after continued running the organism will
drift toward the instinctive behavior to the detriment of the conditioned
behavior and even to the delay or preclusion of the reinforcement. In a very
boiled-down, simplified form, it might be stated as "learned behavior
drifts toward instinctive behavior."
All
this, of course, is not to disparage the use of conditioning techniques, but is
intended as a demonstration that there are definite weaknesses in the
philosophy underlying these techniques. The pointing out of such weaknesses
should make possible a worthwhile revision in behavior theory.
The notion of instinct has now
become one of our basic concepts in an effort to make sense of the welter of
observations which confront us. When behaviorism tossed out instinct, it is our
feeling that some of its power of prediction and control were lost with it.
From the foregoing examples, it appears that although it was easy to banish the
Instinctivists from the science during the Behavioristic Revolution, it was not
possible to banish instinct so easily.
And if, as Hebb suggests, it is
advisable to reconsider those things that behaviorism explicitly threw out,
perhaps it might likewise be advisable to examine what they tacitly brought in
- the hidden assumptions which led most disastrously to these breakdowns in the
theory.
Three of the most important of these
tacit assumptions seem to us to be: that the animal comes to the laboratory as
a virtual tabula rasa, that species differences are insignificant, and
that all responses are about equally conditionable to all stimuli.
It is obvious, we feel, from the
foregoing account, that these assumptions are no longer tenable. After 14 years
of continuous conditioning and observation of thousands of animals, it is our
reluctant conclusion that the behavior of any species cannot be adequately
understood, predicted, or controlled without knowledge of its instinctive
patterns, evolutionary history, and ecological niche.
In spite of our early successes with
the application of behavioristically oriented conditioning theory, we readily
admit now that ethological facts and attitudes in recent years have done more
to advance our practical control of animal behavior than recent reports from
American "learning labs."
For example, let's look at the source of 'instinctive patterns' which is genetic coding that is hard-wired into a dog from inception. A dog has no choice in its genetic coding any more than you or I have any choice in how we were genetically formed from the moment of conception. A GSD is not a hound dog and a hound dog is not a retriever and a retriever is not a terrier and so on and so forth. Each breed has been deliberately bred to enhance certain behaviors, mitigate other behaviors, and establish specific behaviors. The predetermined genetics of sire/dam, grandsire/granddam, great grandsire/great granddam, etc., GREATLY predicts what can be expected in a specific litter. That is why reputable breeders, who've been breeding their line of dogs for years, are so valuable because they know to a predictable degree the genetics they have deliberately bred for within their line of dogs.
Of course, in EVERY litter of EVERY breed, there are temperament variables. That is why the testing of 49 day old puppies in a litter is key to getting the right temperament puppy for a specific dog owners family. For example, when I ask people how they chose their puppy, the say things like, "Oh, the puppy chose me as it came running to me out of the litter." Well, that often is your Alpha dog and unless you know how to train an Alpha dog (they are highly independent, high drive and have their own agenda), it becomes a struggle as the Alpha is constantly challenging inexperienced dog owners. Then, there's the 'Shy, quiet one in the corner that just needs love..' nope, not true as that temperament can easily become a fear-based, aggressive biter dog and that type of dog usually doesn't do well in homes with lots of noise and changes (like with children).
What you really want, when you understand the varied temperaments in a litter, is the 'middle-of-the road' dog, confident, but not cocky, respectful, but not fearful. Sugar is a classic 'middle-of-the-road' dog, balanced and yet willing to obey. Here's a link to help you understand WHAT puppy testing tells the tester link to Volhard Puppy Aptitude Testing. The test is a snapshot of what that puppy WILL DO or how that puppy WILL RESPOND in situations as the puppy grows into an adult dog. It is not a guarantee of anything, the testing is merely a snapshot of the future dog. Of course, the training done from 7 weeks old thru adulthood is key to how a puppy develops. That training is nurture, but the dogs response to the training is nature.
From my training point-of-view, knowing the temperament of a puppy gives me a clearer picture of what to do to help that specific puppy succeed. It makes my life easier as I can effectively coach the puppy's owners on what to do with their puppy. Example, a puppy that tested at 6 on Social Dominance is not a good candidate for a home as the dog won't bond with anyone.
SOCIAL DOMINANCE
|
Jumped, pawed, bit, growled
|
1
|
Jumped, pawed
|
2
| |
Cuddled up to tester and tried to lick face
|
3
| |
Squirmed, licked at hands
|
4
| |
Rolled over, licked at hands
|
5
| |
Went away and stayed away
|
6
|
Since I rarely get the opportunity to do the above 'right breed, right breeder, puppy temperament testing + right initial puppy training', and wind up with rescues and/or out-of-control dogs, I choose to ask a lot of questions, get as much history as I can, and then rely on the years of training with Margot to make an assessment of the dog when it starts training. Thank God I have Sugar who grew up at Applewoods as he 'reads' the new dogs arriving and gives me immediate feedback on what he is 'reading.' Sugar is irreplaceable in this unique capacity to aid me in assessing a new dog.
So, consider the following as pieces of the puzzle that make up a dog.
- Genetic coding and hard-wiring into a dog is their automatic default. Those are the 'certain instincts' Jeremy spoke of. That's the first component to consider.
- Getting the right breed of dog, from a reputable breeder, and being able to choose/test the litter to make sure the puppy you get is THE right puppy for your lifestyle. That's the second component to consider.
- Then you take the very vulnerable key puppy developmental stage of 7 weeks thru 16 weeks, the primary socialization foundation for life occurs here as this IS training. That's the third component to consider.
- Then you take a pre-teen 4-6 months old, a teenage dog, 6 months to 15 months (depending on the breed) and you train it. And BTW, no training IS training in the dogs world. That's the fourth component to consider. (Nature or nurture?)
- Consider the history of that dog, how did it grow up, in what structure (or lack thereof). That's the fifth component to consider. (Nature or nurture?)
- Consider the environment or multiple environments a dog has been in particularly for a rescue dog which is often a mixed breed. That's the 6th component to consider. (Nature or nurture?)
- Finally, my 7th component to consider is that specific dogs history of training already done. (Nature or nurture?)
So how can these component puzzle pieces make sense when they may have been scrambled, distorted or damaged? Well, training, Koehler training, gives the dog clear cut boundaries, helps the dog to relax into the new routine of working, gives the dog purpose in its life, allows the dog to trust its owner at a new level and ultimately aids the dogs in developing confidence that its owner IS their leader, a worthy leader, and their leader they can trust. On the human side, the Koehler trained dog owner has learned an entire new language of communication with their dog, a language that is exact (not gray at all), that has clear cut boundaries, rules, expectations and is fair to the dog. However, the greater responsibility lies on the dogs owner. Always. EVERY TIME. No exceptions.
Why? Because the dogs very nature, their unique genetic hard-wired coding, WILL CAUSE the dog to 'instinctively drift' into its default behavior. THERE IS NO PERMANETLY CHANGING A DOGS GENETIC HARD-WIRED CODING. Training that provides the dog a reason to 'pause, think and assess' IF their automatic behavior is worth what it will cost the dog, is the only training that can make a difference in a dogs behavior. But effective training is not a one-time and done thing. Effective and long-lasting training is laying the foundation of obedience and then ensuring the dog retains the training by continually working the dog.
When it comes to KMODT, there is the element of "Use it, or Lose it" and understanding 'instinctive drift' as it relates to dogs.
It's the continual reinforcement
of the language of obedience
that helps
keep the dog from drifting.
Keep working the dog.
Keep working the dog.
KEEP WORKING THE DOG.
You may wonder, "For how long do I have to keep working my dog, to be on constant vigil, to always be prepared, and to pay close attention to what my dog is thinking about doing?"
Until it is time to hold your dogs head in your hands
as you watch the light go out of its eyes.
Respectfully,
Roxanne
No comments:
Post a Comment