This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.
McGreevy described animal training as “a bit of an art and a bit of a science”. ‘Training’ animals means changing the frequency to which animals show certain behaviours. Learning theory is a universal language that clarifies the nature of training, explaining what will work and will not work, and its general principles apply regardless of the species being trained.
Training often seeks to establish connections between two or more events, and does so by using operant conditioning (i.e. rewards and punishments) and classical conditioning, and often these two work together. ‘Conditioning’ is any relatively permanent response that occurs as a result of exercise (that is, any responses formed by maturation or debility are not from conditioning).
Trainers often have exquisite timing, and have the ability to self reflect on their progress.
Photos © Ruthless Photos
“Life coaches”
McGreevy prefers to use the term ‘life coach’ to describe the relationship between a dog and a person. Life coaches have opportunities for the dog to have success, but also rules. (The concept of ‘alpha’ asks for people to adopt an unrealistic, pseudo dog role that is not very useful for dog training.) How dogs and people interact is relevant to the dog’s success. The handler of a dog needs to be relevant to the dog – a boring or passive life coach is irrelevant for the dog, and the dog will not work. Dogs will form a bond with their owners, and a trust, but this trust is not generalisable to all situations or to different people.
‘Trust’, itself, is an interesting concept. It is difficult to measure, and is built on consistency. During training, trust is built be trainers being caregivers and companions rather than ‘leaders’ or ‘dominant’.
Generally in dog training, we seek dogs that will respond to cues (e.g. the word ‘sit’) with appropriate behaviours. It is an ongoing process that requires maintenance in many contexts and environments.
Dog social order
Dogs with one another have a social order, but it’s not so much a hierarchy. Dog social order is built on difference, not dominance. This ‘difference’ is a different desire for different resources, meaning some dogs are more inclined to seek some resources than others. The ideas of social order shouldn’t be ‘thrown out’ with dominance theory. In short, dogs have evolved to compete with one another. Excellent coaches tap into the resources that dogs compete over, and use them in training (as rewards).
This concludes our section on training dogs, but we will continue to investigate more McGreevy topics in posts to come.
In the meantime, I wonder:
What do you think are the ‘art’ and the ‘science’ bits of dog training?
How does your self-reflection as a trainer go?
How would you measure trust with your dogs?
This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.
