Tag Archives: McGreevy

11/27/11

McGreevy on ‘The Keys’ to Dog Training

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.

 

Paul McGreevy wrote a book, Carrots and Sticks (2nd edition to be released soon), where he interviewed a number of animal trainers internationally.  Consequently, he identified two key components to animal training: Timing and consistency.

Photos © Ruthless Photos

Good timing is imperative to effective training.  This means appropriately rewarding and punishing animals, at the right moment. (Or using a marker to do so.)

Consistency was also important to animal training.  He argued that inconsistency impedes training and learning, and increases confusion for the animal.  McGreevy explained that, if different people were training an animal, then the animal would have to generalise the training methods and so confusion could occur.  He also explained the value in isolation, in order to teach the animal to value human attention, and allow the trainer to be entirely consistent when they do interact with the animal.

Timing and consistency are considered important across all species.

Though it was only mentioned in passing, I think both timing and consistency as a whole could be described by schedules of reinforcement.  Schedules of reinforcement are almost ‘rules’ that explain how varying delivery of reinforcement can product different results in the animal’s response.  Reinforcement can be based either on ‘all or nothing’ (continuous reinforcement, or no reinforcement seeking extinction), or after a fixed or variable amount of time, or after a fixed or variable amount of responses/behaviours.

More McGreevy seminar based posts to come!

 

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.

11/19/11

McGreevy on Rewarding Dogs

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.

 

McGreevy had a lot to say about rewarding dogs.  Reward training is his preferred method of training for dogs.

Most importantly, to know what a dog wants and likes can help us in our training.  Dogs value a range of things, and each can be used as reward.  However, what a dog wants and likes varies in different contexts.  McGreevy was big on appreciating animals as individuals in order to get the best out of them.

McGreevy believes in allowing dogs to pick their own rewards, and allow dogs to be ‘creative’ in their reward choice.  The speed and strength of a dog’s learning can indicate how attractive the reward is.

Rewards can be innate (i.e. a primary reinforcer) or learned (i.e. a secondary reinforcer).

We can also influence the value of rewards.  For example, if we play with a ball before we throw it, it may act as a greater reinforcer.  Also, by fasting a dog, they have a higher drive for food.

He listed a number of things that could be used as reinforcers.  They are what dogs consider to be resources, and so they value them and will work for them.


Fun, surprises, and play

Dogs like fun surprises, like unpredictable or concealed rewards. Dogs like the ‘fun’ of being rewarded with magically appearing stuff.

Dogs are opportunistic and playful.  They like to play, and it can take time to play with dogs effectively (he mentioned Steve Austin as ‘great at playing with dogs’).  Dogs can value each other as resources and play companions.  (He mentioned Alexandra Horowitz book, Inside of a Dog, for more insights on dog play.)

McGreevy emphasised that, when playing with dogs, we need to avoid dogs putting teeth on humans.  Chasing and using teeth are innately rewarding for dogs, and we need to prevent the opportunity for them to learn that humans are appropriate to chase and teeth.

 

Food

McGreevy called a bowl of dog food “a bowlful of training opportunities”.  He did note that some people, however, are of them the mindset that it is ‘wrong’ to make dogs work for meals and instead the dogs should have an innate ability to please.

 

Other Rewards

Dogs, as a domesticated animal are social, so they can be rewarded with social interaction.

Some dogs can also be rewarded with exercise, training, water, sex, liberty, sanctuary, and comfort.

 

Personal Experiences

I have found so much diversity in my dogs and what they find rewarding. I think this has made me a better trainer, in having to work  with dogs as individuals and not taking a ‘one size fits all’ approach.

With Clover I spent a lot of time with her to ensure that she would work well for both food and toys.  She loves her tennis ball, but she sometimes gets over-aroused and stops thinking when training.  For this reason, I normally use food rewards with her as it keeps her motivated but not over-aroused.  She does, however, receive a tennis ball reward at the end of tracking.

Chip is a dog that I can reward with a pat, praise, and a cuddle. He likes food, and he likes toys, but he often gets over aroused with both of these rewards.  For Chip, when we track, he has a reward of a cuddle and praise at the end of the track.  He must like it, otherwise he wouldn’t track!

So do your dogs find rewarding? What are your more ‘creative’ rewards?

 

Further reading: Ian Dunbar on Reward Training Techniques
This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index. Continue reading →

11/9/11

McGreevy on Punishing Dogs

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.

 

Again, this article refers to operant conditioning principles.  I suggest anyone without prior knowledge of operant conditioning to refer to Crystal at Reactive Champion’s post on operant conditioning.

Punishment is anything that reduces the frequency of behaviour.  Positive punishment is when something bad is added (e.g. rattling a can of stones if a dog barks), and negative punishment is when something good is removed (e.g. when your puppy mouths you and you exit the room).

RuthlessPhotos.com

These are both called punishments as they reduce the frequency of behaviour.  Negative reinforcement is related, as this involves removing something bad to act as a reward (e.g. a dog who doesn’t like being confined could be rewarded for calm quite behaviour in that confine by being released from that confine).

However, punishment in dog training is often only referring to an aversive introduced to suppress behaviour.

McGreevy did not advocate the use of punishment when training dogs.  He felt that punishment (or causing dogs to feel threatened, pained, uncomfortable, disappointed, or fearful) was simply ‘not good’ for dogs.  Furthermore, punishments can sometimes have long-term consequences, as dogs are often sensitive.  (He summarised it as, “It’s hard to unteach fear.”)  Dogs can also associate some of their emotions from punishments with people, which can be undesirable.

Punishment, however, is unavoidable.  McGreevy explained that putting a dog on a collar almost always is negative punishment (taking the dog away from good things), but trainers can still seek to use as little punishment as possible.  Punishment does not have to be abusive, it is just feedback to help a dog understand that some behaviour is unproductive.  Mild punishment (like a no reward marker) can be effective in reducing behaviours, but it is also risky as it can lower motivation.

Punishment should be used as little as possible, or else the dog may develop learned helplessness.  He described punishment as being ‘a step towards habituation’.  Punishment, when used, often leads to the need for more punishment.  Additionally, use of positive punishment for anxiety-related behaviours could escalate the animal’s distress.

McGreevy rejected the use of check chains, calling them frustrating, painful, and dangerous.  He congratulated the dog community for largely rejecting their use.

Overall, McGreevy did not have anything revolutionary to saying about punishments, but I hope this still provides some interesting thoughts regarding dog training.

 

Further reading: Ian Dunbar on Punishment

 

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.

11/2/11

McGreevy on Operant Conditioning

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.

 

Please note: This article assumes some prior knowledge of operant or instrumental conditioning, as it mostly focuses on McGreevy’s comments on operant and instrumental conditioning, rather than on explaining these terms itself. If you are lacking a comprehensive understanding of Operant Conditioning, then I suggest this page from Crystal at Reactive Champion blog.  If you already have some idea of operant conditioning, come on in.  This may be confusing, but we can only hope it may add to your understanding.

Operant conditioning, also called instrumental conditioning, is when the animal’s voluntary response is instrumental (i.e. important) in establishing the consequence (i.e. reinforcement or punishment).  (By voluntary, we mean responses that the animal has control over.  Involuntary would be things like salivating or growing hair.)

McGreevy used the diagram below to consider operant conditioning.

Here, the ‘x’ marks the spot of neutral stimuli that does not modify behaviours.  That is, a neutral experience.  From here, stimuli can either be reinforcing and increase the probability of behaviours, or they can be punishing, and decrease the animal’s responses in question.  The purple arrows indicate negative punishment (-P) and negative reinforcement (-R).  Negative punishments use the removal of attractive stimuli to make a response less probable.  Negative reinforcements uses the removal of adverse stimuli to make a response more probable. Continue reading →

10/27/11

McGreevy’s Thoughts on Dog Breeding

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.

 

Throughout Paul McGreevy’s two day seminar, he expressed a number of opinions regarding dog breeding. Being a dog breeder myself, I anticipate I paid particular heed to his comments.  I find that, in the current climate of dog rescue and puppy farms, dog breeders are constantly under scrutiny and, in general, I find myself a little defensive to conversations surrounding dog breeding.

However, McGreevy had some very interesting and thought-provoking ideas surrounding dog breeding, and he presented them in a very amenable way.  That is: McGreevy didn’t breeder bash!  He approached matters surround breeding dogs in a matter-of-fact way.  Indeed, he spent more time blaming the system of dog breeding (i.e. breeding purebred dogs to a standard) for the problems in dogs today than critiquing breeders themselves.  Fundamentally, McGreevy believes that the system for breeding dogs need to change in order to emphasise the health and temperament of dogs, and not their physical appearances.

 

Bitch with puppy

Couldn’t resist including a photo of my current singleton litter.  See here border terrier mum with her 2 day old puppy.

Domestication and dog breeds

Domestication and selective breeding have changed dogs from their wolf ancestors.  For example, dog skulls have changed a great deal from the skull of a wolf, and there is also much variation between dog breeds.  Not surprisingly, the brains of dogs have changed too, with a wolf brain weighing three times as much as a dog brain.  Considering that the dog’s brain is part of its central nverous system, it is reasonable to assume that there may be implications for the dog’s entire nervous system.  McGreevy said, “We are only just beginning to learn what we’ve done.”

One thing is for sure: We don’t have a wolf in our lounge room.

In times gone by, breeding dogs were selected on the ability to perform tasks, such as herding, retrieving, carting, or any other purpose.  These days, selection is mostly based on conformation, and emphasis is being place on ‘beauty’ traits such as coat and colouration instead of structure.  McGreevy believes that this current system ineffective, as 150 years of breeding dogs ‘to standard’ has resulted in a host of inherited disorders.  Considering this, McGreevy believes that the dog breeding system needs to change.

 

Current dog breeding practices are cruel

McGreevy asserted that inherited disorders are a form of cruelty.  He also put forward that, considering that the main reason dogs are euthanised in shelters is due to their temperament, breeding for good temperaments is imperative.  Neither of these traits are overly considered in the current breeding system.

McGreevy believes that breed standards often are in contradiction to animal welfare.  He used the British Bulldog as an example.  He criticised the standard for asking for a head that is “the larger the better”, while at the same time calling for a narrow pelvis – an obvious problem for the whelping abilities of the breed.  Furthermore some of the points in the standard are actually unhealthy (for example, loose skin in Shar Pei has been found to correlate with joint problems, and the skull shape of a dog influences its vision).  In McGreevy’s opinion, dog breed standards have been written in a manner that is sometimes contradictory to dog well being.

 

Continue reading →