Talk:Dog training/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Tens Unit equals Spam

A section comparing electronic collars to Tens units has been removed as being spam. How, exactly, is this spam? I see no commercial offer, I see no links to commercial websites. I simply see a description of the electronic stimulus. --jdege (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you refering to this commercial link for a dog training service - http://www.sitmeanssit.com - which you have inserted two or three times and has been removed as spam each time? For one, it is a COMMERCIAL link which leads to a forprofit company with the intent of selling you a product or service. Second, it does not support or reference the material added (at least not on the page cited which is an ad for dog training service) and 3. it is improperly cited. If this really is a reference, then it should be cited as such not thrown into the text of the article as a URL. I hope this explains why your edit was removed as spam. Why did you replace it several times verbatim? Bob98133 (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I didn't replace it several times, I replaced it once.

Second, I don't give a damn about sitmeanssit.com, it's the language "The Remote collar, or shock collar sends an adjustable electrical stimulation to the dog that is similar to a tens unit or electronic muscle stimulator. The electronic collars of today have adjustable stimulation levels." that I objected to your having removed.

The language you replaced it with: "The shock collar sends an adjustable electric shock to the dog’s neck at the will of the trainer" provides far less information about how the collars work.

Would you object to restoring the "tens-unit" language without the link to sitmeanssit.com?

--jdege (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - the link was replaced several times, so I thought you had done that. I don't know what this tens unit that you are talking about means, and referencing it from a commercial website selling the product is not reassuring. Why don't you find a reliable reference for this information assuming that it is true? It would be nice if it were a scientific paper that indicates that less voltage or current is better than non-adjustable current, or is different in some way. I've never seen cattle prods with adjustable shock levels, so clearly they are set properly for their intended usage. Comparing a shock collar to an electronic muscle stimulator is bogus since their usage and intent are in no way related. Also, is it the collar that sends the shock or is it the owner? Electronic muscle stimulators are left turned on for a period of time. Are dogs shocked continuously for ten or 15 minutes at a time? Bob98133 (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The website linked doesn't sell Tens units, it sells dog training. Tens units are "Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulators" - see the Wiki page. As for the comparison being "bogus", the pulse frequencies and amplitudes are very much the same, which is the comparison being made. Cattle prods, OTOH, send a constant high-voltage, low-current shock, which is very different.

--jdege (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You got it! The web link cited sells dog training. It is a commercial link, so not appropriate. Bob98133 (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"how does comparison clarify content?"

People who are unfamiliar with the technology tend to think that modern remote training collars deliver an electric shock, the way cattle prods do. Or, for that matter, that the shock collars of 30 years ago did. They do not. Lindsay discusses the collars extensively, and makes the same comparison to TENS units that this language you keep deleting does.

As for the "will of the trainer" that is included in the language you keep putting back, any stimulus used in dog training, whether aversive or not, has to be conditioned on the behavior of the dog, not on the "will" of the trainer. If it isn't, it has no training effect.

--jdege (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator article that you area trying to insert a reference to. It says that TENS is used as a method in the treatment of pain. Are you suggesting that this has something to do with electric dog collars? How do these collars treat pain. There is no connection whatsoever, except that they both involve electrical shocks. I have no comment about your original research about the training effect of various conditioning.Bob98133 (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

TENS generates the same sort of currents as do remote training collars, and they produce the same physical effects - rapid light contraction and relaxation of the subcutaneous muscles. The purpose may be different, but the mechanism is the same.

What more do you want? You asked for a cite, I gave you a cite. Read the Amazon reviews: Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training. Lindsay makes the same comparison between TENS units and electronic collars as is made in the language you keep deleting.

What is it you are actually objecting to?

(And BTW, it's not my "original research" that backs the claim that any stimulus used in dog training must be contingent upon the behavior of the dog. It's the single most fundamental principle of animal training.)

--jdege (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am objecting to comparing a shock collar for dogs with a therapeutic electrical stimulation device, since shock collars are not therapeutical but are used for behavior modification. Therefore, they are NOT related, except that they both rely on electricity. Why not include cattle prods, electric chairs, pacemakers and any other bio-electrical devices? All the tens unit comparison does is minimize the negative connotations of administering an electrical shock to a dog for the owner’s convenience.

The reason I think this is original research is that you keep saying unsupported, and probably wrong, things like: “any stimulus used in dog training must be contingent upon the behavior of the dog. It's the single most fundamental principle of animal training.” Who says? This also seems to support that some behavior of a dog requires that it receive an electric shock. That’s nonsense.

Why do you insist on including a comparison that is slight, at best? It seems that you are trying to minimize the impact that electrical shocks have on a dog by claiming that the devices are adjustable and no more uncomfortable than therapeutic muscle stimulation. If this were the case, the dogs would enjoy the stimulation so would seek the shocks, no? Bob98133 (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"I am objecting to comparing a shock collar for dogs with a therapeutic electrical stimulation device, since shock collars are not therapeutical but are used for behavior modification." Right. First, you objected to the link to a commercial site. Fine. Then you objected to the lack of cite. Fine. Both were addressed. Then you object to something else. It sounds as if you have an agenda entirely unrelated to your stated objections.

"Therefore, they are NOT related, except that they both rely on electricity." They are related in that they generate the same stimulus, in the same way.

"All the tens unit comparison does is minimize the negative connotations of administering an electrical shock to a dog for the owner’s convenience." And there we go again. First, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, providing unbiased information. You object to the language because it doesn't have a negative connotation? Nothing in Wikipedia should have a negative connotation.

"The reason I think this is original research is that you keep saying unsupported, and probably wrong, things like: 'any stimulus used in dog training must be contingent upon the behavior of the dog. It's the single most fundamental principle of animal training.' Who says? This also seems to support that some behavior of a dog requires that it receive an electric shock. That’s nonsense."

Do you have any familiarity with dog training at all? Read up on operant conditioning. Every stimulus, whether positive or negative, reward or punishment, must be contingent on the behavior of the dog. Non-contingent stimuli don't reinforce behavior. Punishing a dog or rewarding a dog, independently of the dog's behavior, is the worst thing you can do. It results in conditions known as learned helplessness or "learned laziness". Both teach the dog that they have no control over their environment, and both can result in a dog that has lost the ability to learn.

So, language regarding "the owners will", or "the owners convenience" is not about dog training. If you're giving a treat, yanking a leash, or delivering an electrical stimulus, at will, you're not training.

You don't seem to know much about dog training, and it appears you know zilch about remote training collars. Your prior objections may have had some grounds to them. Links to commercial websites are not appropriate, and information should be cited. But those have been addressed. Your remaining objections are emotional, and are entirely inappropriate.

--jdege (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, why don't you get rid of that ridiculous tens reference and instead say something along the lines of "modern shock collars for dogs allow the shock to be adjusted." That states what you are tyring to say without equating it to a device that wiki claims is for medical use. There is no medical use for a shock collar for dogs and using the comparison implies that there is. Bob98133 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write the TENS unit reference, I restored it because I objected to your "will of the owner" language. I believe the TENS unit comparison is justified, and I have shown that the TENS unit comparison has been made by one of the leading experts on dog training and behavior.

But fine, I'll rewrite the paragraph, without the comparison. Then we'll see what objection you still have.

--jdege (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, good job, Jdege! I think it would make more sense though to stop prior to this part, and delete the following text:

, ranging from a tickle, tingle, twitch, or a prickly twinge to a highly aversive electrical event that produces significant discomfort and startle but without risk of producing physical injury or pain.(Lindsay, 2005, p.584) Although these collars are inappropriate for use as the initial or primary means for establishing basic obedience control, no comparable techniques or tools can currently match the efficacy or safety of them for establishing safe and reliable off-leash control.(Lindsay, 2005, 586)

For a couple of reasons. (1) The tingle, tickle, twitch business is garbage and anthropomorphic since it implies that these are the sensations felt by the dog. This may be a scale that the trainer has established but it is independent of the dog's point of view which would certainly vary from dog to dog - so a twitch to one dog might be excrutiating pain to another. (2) No risk of physical injury or pain - since pain cannot be reliably determined for a dog, there is no way that this staement can be scientifically proven. In fact, if the dog acts to avoid the stimulation, that could be taken as a pain response. (3)"no comparable techniques or tools can currently match the efficacy or safety" what does that mean - no other shock collar or shock devices work as well? Certainly other techniques can work as well.

By the way, I'm not an expert in this field, but I have a question about the use of aversion conditioning. Isn't positive reinforcment supposed to be the most reliable way of conditioning behavior? Why would an aversive stimulus be better? My understanding is that aversive stimuli produce unreliable results, whereas positive reinforcment is more likely to produce consistent and reliable results.

Bob98133 (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The language I used is a only a minor alteration of the language Lindsay uses in his book. As it is, it can be clearly cited. If I replace it with my own language, it is less verifiable.

With respect to "independent of the dog's point of view which would certainly vary from dog to dog - so a twitch to one dog might be excrutiating pain to another". That's absolutely true. Different dogs respond to the same level of stimulus differently. The same dog will respond differently to the same level of stimulus differently at different times, depending upon how his coat has grown, whether he's wet, how long he's been trained with a collar, or simply what he's paying attention to. Determining the "working level" of a collar is the first task, when working with a collar. You set the intensity based on the reaction of the dog, not based on your preconceived notions of what is painful.

"No risk of physical injury or pain - since pain cannot be reliably determined for a dog, there is no way that this staement can be scientifically proven." There has been far more scientific research on the training effects of electrical stimulus on dogs than for any other stimulus. There have been tens of thousands of studies done, over many decades. And pain is a physiological response, not a psychological one. Pain shows up in blood tests, EKGs, etc. Lindsay's books are as massive as they are because they review and discuss this research. When he says that modern ecollars are not capable of inflicting injury or pain, he means it in a clinical sense, and he has scientific studies to back the claim.

"what does that mean - no other shock collar or shock devices work as well? Certainly other techniques can work as well." There is no effective alternative to remote electric collars when it comes to distance work. Training a dog to work at distance without a remote control collar is slower, more difficult, and far less likely to be successful. The remote collars that use alternatives to electric stimuli are also less effective. Remote beepers aren't fundamentally different than a whistle. For most dogs, a vibrating collar is more aversive than electric shock at the proper working level - and vibrators are less suited to dialing down to a lower level. Ditto with chemical sprays. Plus chemical sprays aren't instant-off. If you spray a dog with citronella, he's going to be smelling it for a while. So if the dog responds by doing the right thing, you can't turn off the stimulus, which means the dog has a harder time learning to associate doing the right thing with not being sprayed.

"Isn't positive reinforcment supposed to be the most reliable way of conditioning behavior?" Skinner believed that. There's been 60 years of research since Skinner, and it shows that Skinner was wrong. "My understanding is that aversive stimuli produce unreliable results, whereas positive reinforcment is more likely to produce consistent and reliable results." You'll never find an professional positive trainer claiming that aversives don't work. You will people who've read a couple of books by Pat Miller, Jean Donaldson, Patricia McConnell, et al., who will tell you that aversives don't work. You'll never see the authors of those books claiming the same. The most the authors will say is that using aversives can have negative consequences. Which they can. But the scientific research indicates that those negative consequences can be fairly easily avoided. Positive punishment and negative reinforcement work. And for certain behaviors, they work better and more reliably than negative punishment and positive reinforcement.

Truth is it's nearly impossible to train a dog without using all four quadrants, and most successful "positive" trainers do use all four quadrants, regardless of what they say, or perhaps even think, they are doing.

--jdege (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As you say, there are many professional trainers who disagree, so this is controversial. There are many scientists who disagree with LIndsey, so I'll include those. If you insist on including this - and assuming that LIndsey is the ONLY expert on dog training, I'll find the references and add a controversy section since this is controversial. It is absolute garbage to claim a difference in dogs between a tingle and twitch and whatever other silly terms this guy is using. I'm sure there are many scientists that disagree about this, so I'll start pulling references and whenever you're done arranging this article according to your source, I'll add others. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The claim "Truth is it's nearly impossible to train a dog without using all four quadrants" is my own opinion, not Lindsay's. It's not in the article, and it shouldn't be in the article, and I didn't put it in the article.

I don't claim that Lindsay is the only expert on dog training. I claim that Lindsay's is the most highly regarded text on the issue of dog training - which is a very different thing. Read the editorial reviews on Amazon, or take a look at the books themselves on Google.

As for "many" scientists who disagree, well first, you haven't made it clear what you think they'd be disagreeing with. Is it the idea that aversives can be used to train dogs? There's no controversy about that at all. No one believes that aversives don't work. Not even the most widely known advocates of positive training claim that aversives don't work.

Is it that electric shock differs from other aversives in some fundamental way? Electric shock does differ in two respects, it's been studied in more depth, and it's more finely controllable. It's far easier to deliver an electric shock of a specified intensity than it is to deliver a collar correction. And there have been thousands of studies that demonstrate that shock at these levels causes no physical harm.

If you want to take a look at the book, you can browse it on Google books:

Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training.

If you want to gain a better understanding of how learning occurs, I'd suggest you start with the section titled "Control Incentives and Reinforcement", on page 18.

--jdege (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this? "Lindsay's is the most highly regarded text on the issue of dog training." I just don't think reviews on pages selling the book are reliable. I certainy doubt that Lindsey's is the best selling text on dog training. Bob98133 (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said "best selling". Lindsay's Handbook isn't intended for the popular market. It's three volumes, double column, containing thousands of pages of densely written text, detailing the current state of knowledge on the issue of dog behavior and training in great detail. Reviewing (and citing) thousands of scientific studies. The three volumes together cost more than $200. They're not the sort of thing you find on the best-seller list.

As for "most highly regarded", it's pretty much the only attempt at an encyclopedic treatment of canine behavior in more than 40 years.

--jdege (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your answer to mean that there is no reference to support your remark that this text is the most highly regarded text on dog training. It certainly is long and expensive. Bob98133 (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

[Veterinary medicine books recommended for academic libraries]

--jdege (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There are 419 books referenced on this page. Lindsay's is the best? You stated that "I claim that Lindsay's is the most highly regarded text on the issue of dog training." You have not provided a reference for this, except to indicate that it is one of 419 books reccomended for academic libraries. Bob98133 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the recent flood of purely positive claptrap

I'm reverting, pending discussion, a flood of purely positive claptrap.

I'm doing this because they repeatedly state as fact matters that are either in dispute, or are simply wrong, and because the citations offered do not support the positions they are claimed to.

Case in point: "Although operant conditioning can involve punishment, punishment based training methods in dogs are ineffective." with a link to a American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior position paper. Said link includes an extended discussion of why they don't recommend the use of punishment, but it nowhere states that punishment-based methods do not work.

Then, of course, there's the simple fact that many of the claims that the AVSAB is making regarding the use of punishment are either not supported, or are flat-out contradicted, by the scientific reasearch. From the position paper: "A major problem with using punishment is that it suppresses behavior temporarily but does not necessarily modify the underlying cause of the behavior." There is a great deal of scientific research contradicting that claim.

So, while a discussion of the controversy over the use of positive punishment and negative reinforcement is certainly appropriate, the absolute position taken in the reverted edits is not.

--jdege (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your reverts. I'd never heard of the group cited, although it sounds authoritative. I was going to look into it more, but reverting puts that burden back on the editor who made those changes. Bob98133 (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the restoration of "ignoring"

The positive training method makes the act of ignoring undesired behavior an explicit part of their methodology. As strict behavioralists, they believe that unrewarded behavior will decline, through a process called "extinction". You can argue with its effectiveness, I certainly have my own doubts, but you cannot deny that ignoring behavior is an important part of the method used by a great many trainers.

See Extinction: not just for dinosaurs and 8-tracks

--jdege (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Jdege, no problem. I was just using common sense which I see doesn't apply here. Go ahead and revert if you haven't already done so. Bob98133 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Pinch collars primarily used for dog fighting?

Not in my experience! In my experience, they're primarily used by traditional obedience trainers & by bite sport or schutzhund trainers. Unless someone can find some reliable statistics that show that pinch collars are primarily used by dog fighters, then this statement is just point of view & should be deleted. 121.79.208.77 (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you are reacting to here. There is no mention in the article about these collars being used for anything but traditional obedience training - no mention of dog fighting - so it seems OK to me. Bob98133 (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Teaching a dog to perform behaviors in response to certain commands?

The first line of the article is "Dog training is the process of teaching a dog to perform behaviors in response to certain commands". The very next sentence then gives example behaviours, including "relieve itself outside", which is not in response to a command. Furthermore, there are plenty of other examples of training dogs that doesn't involve responding to commands. For example: to stay off furniture, not to chew on objects it shouldn't, not to mouth or nip people. A more accurate sentence is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.153.223 (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like this section can be archived? It no longer appears to be relevant. Lone Shepherd (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Behaviorist

I have never "talked" to Wikipedia before, so bear with me if I'm missing some etiquette or customs, please....

Nice article. I noticed that it did not have information contrasting dog training with behaviorists (titled) and I think that might be a valuable addition. Also, how about some discussion of certifications that are offered by schools, by professional organizations and by independant, national testing. Both of these topics will help educate pet owners about whom they are inviting to train their dog and what they are paying for.

Thank you.

108.197.182.191 (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Marilyn Marks, CPDT -KA

Notes, references and further reading - help, please

Although a relative newcomer to editing, I've been using WP for years, and references tend to be listed in a section called "References", whereas on this article they are called "Notes". And the list that is called "References" actually seems to contain further reading, rather than references. Should these be changed to be in line with other articles?

I'm not sure what the right thing to do is, but the reason I'm asking is that I added a recent (2012) book on dog training to the un-numbered "References" list and it has been removed (see Canis5855 (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 571630642 by Tony Holkham (talk) Not used as a reference in the article)

Should I start a new section called "Further reading" and put the book in there? Or change "Notes" to "References", and "References" to "Further reading" Tony Holkham (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The book was removed because it was not used as a reference.

The two separate sections for references is a flow-on effect of giving the page numbers of references taken from books. In the first section are short citations giving the author, date and page number, the full bibliographic details are then given in the second section. These sections used to be References and Bibliography, which makes more sense to me, but they were changed by Cindamuse citing WP:FNNR to Notes and References. WP:FNNR says that editors may use any section title that they choose. The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", "Works cited", "Sources", "Citations", or "Bibliography".

I would argue against the inclusion of a list of dog training books as "Further Reading" Canis5855 (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. Tony Holkham (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Cesar Milan

Please see WP:BLPN#Cesar Milan - the Dog Whisperer where a campaign concerning his training methods is being discussed. Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Definition of Punishment

The definition of punishment according to Bonnie V. Beaver, DMV,MS,Dipl. ACVB in her book Canine Behaviour Insights and Answer includes corrections in any form. Its on page 65. AlphaB7 (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"Punishment" is any stimulus which makes a behavior less frequent. jdege (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If you pay me $5 every time I resist the urge to do something, I do it less frequently -- but that isn't punishment! 71.162.80.254 (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No it's a reward for resisting. You've added another behaviour here, resisting, and your resisting will probably increase if it is rewarded. The $5 is not applied to the original behaviour. Canis5855 (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Motivational training - low of effect

It is said under the 'Motivational training' passage: "It is based in Thorndike's Law of Effect, which says that actions that produce rewards tend to increase in frequency and actions that do not produce rewards decrease in frequency"

this is not correct. 'do not produce rewards' should be replaced with 'produce punishment' for the sentence to correctly describe Thorndike's Law of Effect.

After correcting this sentence I think it is no longer belong under this passage.

• What is the source of this information? A quick Google provides no mention of "punishment" in definitions of Thorndike's Law of Effect. Canis5855 (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Specialized Training Section

This section discusses "Arthur Haggerty," who did nothing revolutionary in the field of dog training. He added nothing new to the collective knowledge of dog training, as did others mentioned in the article. This sounds more like a bio, written for the purpose of self-promotion, or to sell books, than information for an encyclopedia. Unless someone objects, I plan to remove that information. Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Agreed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)