More on Self-Control and Managing Dogs Behavior

“If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” Abraham Maslow 1966

Dog trainers when disparaging other dog trainers who in their opinion are using methods contradictory to theirs often use this popularly used phrase. I’m going to suggest the same sentiment carries over to anyone they oppose and can and does include training equipment.

This phrase was born from a “concept known as the law of the instrument…Maslow’s hammer” inferring an “over-reliance on a familiar tool.”

Along with this notion comes “other forms of narrow-minded instrumentalism” that include “looking at things from the point of view of one’s profession” (Wikipedia).

Seeing everything from an individual’s point of view

In this post Dog Training, Nothing In Life Is Free and Self-Control; I suggested that some dog trainer’s point of view could be explained by where they learned their craft, under what kinds of circumstances and the species whom they trained.

I suggested there are inherent differences that are retained by individuals depending on the types of species, more specifically wild captive versus domestic that can have lasting effects how an individual might also view an industry when/if they convert over to strictly domestic animals, specifically dogs.

Training captive wild animals

There is no disputing that captive animals kept as entertainment objects are controlled in every aspect of their life. They are trained to perform stupid tricks to entertain humans for purely economic reasons. The training process includes food deprivation, meaning the animal’s existence is completely dependent on the trainer’s strict application of their training plans and how well the animal learns the tricks. The control mechanisms include social activity with their own species and/or other compatible species. Mark my word, access to their own species is entirely dependent on their behavior and their behavior is under complete control of the trainers.

In fact, as I said earlier, everything that is commonly called rewards in training animals is completely controlled by the trainers. So to be clear, for a wild captive or in-house bred Orca kept at SeaWorld, access to other members of their species will be offered as a reward for complying with what a trainer is attempting to teach these animals. Access to larger pools that allow them more freedom of movement and the ability to express themselves naturally are also rewards based on complying with training plans. The consequences for not cooperating might mean isolation in a small tank with no social interaction. There are and will always be consequences for lack of cooperation during the training process, including not being fed. To facilitate this, the animal is fed a minimal ration with the purpose of motivating the animal toward the trainer’s objective and/or training plan. It’s a compliance tactic, short and simple. The animals in this example do not have choices, they comply, or some form of consequence is applied to motivate them according to the trainers will.

It is often suggested by trainers, both former and current that all consequences are strictly enforced using negative punishment. This would indicate that the animal’s behavior decreases because something the animal wants is removed. The opportunity for reinforcement! However, hold on, reinforcement is not universal, meaning what you like or want may be entirely different from what I want and like. This also holds true for internally motivated needs explaining why when food is selected the food has to be nutritionally necessary given the training process offered is likely where the animal will get most of their nutritional needs met. Not much choice here for these animals is there?

It’s also worth noting that what the animal wants is completely manipulated through the training process. Let us return to this supposed benign use of negative punishment and its supposed ability to decrease behavior. Imagine now for a moment being a wild animal, kept captive, taken from the wild, against their will. Who is to say this supposed benign use of negative punishment is not complete manipulation entirely based on coercion of one’s behavior, even when the animal’s behavior may be completely justified and based on processes that are more natural. What I mean by this is, if the animal is not cooperating and/or makes a mistake and their opportunity to gain a morsel of food is removed isn’t this purely manipulation and coercion?  To use the animal’s means of being fed, even if only partially, to learn to comply with a trainer who holds all the cards of reinforcement and in this case, an animal’s basic needs coercive?!

Here is a definition of coercion:

Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force, and describes a set of various different similar types of forceful actions that violate the free will of an individual to induce a desired response

I would agree that this type of training is not intimidation or involve threats, but one could imply removing one’s ability to gain nutrition can be threatening, after all, a wild animal kept on a strict feeding schedule based entirely on compliance during training exercises might make that animal feel their well-being is threatened, both physically and mentally.

I’m more inclined to think this type of training falls more in line with forms of “pressure and force” since these animals have no choice in these matters. Their entire existence is contingent on how they conform to the trainers plans!

I’ve long thought something didn’t smell right with how these trainers often portray the training process. They do keep explanations simple, meaning you are not given the initial background when training is first undertaken. Instead, what is often presented is the most superficial of all that once the animal learns through constant manipulation of resources vital to their very existence is one able to effectively use negative punishment in the most benign of ways. What I mean by this is, the animal has already learned a behavior or has succumbed to the manipulation process. For example, once a behavior is learned, under stimulus control does not always mean 100% that the animal will always perform the behavior. When this happens for various reasons, one of the counter measures that can be used is called a “No Change Response”. To do this, one turns away for a count of three, ignoring the animal if/when the animal has not performed a behavior when the signal/cue was given. Following the count to three, one turns back to the animal and reissues the signal/cue and if the animal complies, the animal is rewarded. This can only be done with whales and dolphins after they’ve already learned the behavior sufficiently enough that one could expect them to perform the desirable behavior when repeated.

This same process applies to shaping because there are always forms of manipulation in play! This doesn’t mean this is bad, my entire point is one should be honest about the process! Moreover, to argue that these animals like what they are doing and doing it for any other reason than they have learned through a process fraught in manipulation would be to anthropomorphize!

The fear of terminology!

If one is overly concerned about terminology that might indicate control, coming from a training environment where controlling wild animals was absolutely a matter of safety for them and their charges might be inclined to think they see this in the pet dog industry when it’s not really there. So they develop a fear of using terminology that suggests control in an industry where control may not be as necessary. Nevertheless, they often fail to account for all the variables that are also inherent in living with domesticated animals.

Excuse me for reminding us that if this were not true, then why do we have programs designed specifically to cover inherent risks that often put children in harm’s way when they are not supervised around the family dog? We’re quick to grab snapshots of young children in precarious associations with dogs that cause us concern, then using these as examples why dogs can be dangerous around children.

NILIF aka Nothing In Life Is Free

My final point is on the notion that NILIF (Nothing In Life Is Free) type programs have potential for abuse or over control of dogs.

I’m a bit perplexed by dog trainers who attack NILIF programs designed to help owners change undesirable dog behavior when this could mean less dogs and owners are actually helped!? Instead, they attack the plans terminology or suggest less than desirable intentions by the authors and/or those who might suggest them or use them. In addition, they imply slippery slope type thinking instead of having confidence in trainers who use these types of behavior modification plans and/or imply this from owners.

I found not just Nicholas Dodman’s Nothing In Life Is Free, Working for a Living, or No Free Lunch program outlined in the appendix of my book Dogs Behaving Badly… also authored by Nick Dodman. Now granted, the original program was portrayed as a “dominant-control program” under the auspices the program would help owners work with “dominant-aggressive dogs”. This is unfortunate if those opposed to these programs have taken what was written in 1999 to heart while not following along with changes in terminology usage and labeling of canine aggressive type displays. It’s long been a practice in veterinary behavior and dog literature to label dogs who display specific types of aggression based on perceived context and motivation. Some of these labels have endured and some have changed to more appropriate forms such as control complex as opposed to dominance aggression. However, this is not my point even though I’m certain these individuals will use this in their reasoning. However, any one with a moderate amount of knowledge and understanding about training dogs should easily be able to ignore these errant labels that have since been corrected.

In addition, I also found two other well-written variations both taken from these foundational plans proposed by experts like Nicholas Dodman and others, many of these experts are veterinarians that also specialize in canine and feline behavior.

As someone who was entirely new to dog training just 13 years ago, if it hadn’t been for Nick Dodman’s NILIF program I would not have had the guidance I desperately needed. I quickly realized I was in over my head with a 3.5 y.o. male, intact Doberman who had no training. Let me repeat that, he had no formal training, zero training; he would not even potty on lead!

What the program provided was guidance and since I’m fairly smart and determined it wasn’t real hard for me to follow. Did I follow it to the letter, no, I was already learning how to apply positive reinforcement training or marker training as its becoming commonly known, and I was learning about dog behavior, with a concentration on aggression. I was fortunate to attend a seminar by Patricia McConnell during these first years and the notion of dominance was covered! Fortunately, I was well on my way to understanding how and when it might be applicable and that it was not common in dog’s behavior!

Self-Control, it applies to dog trainers and owners:

Oh that slippery slope that some dog trainers are so afraid that owners and even their colleagues are going to fall down because they might get the impression that someone isn’t going to adhere to their strict views often portrayed as being more fair than others. Unfortunately, I’m reminded of my point, everyone comes from different backgrounds, and those backgrounds leave indelible marks on one’s perspectives. This can include childhood abuse for example, this could explain why a person might have a strong opinion about force and coercion, I’m including this to demonstrate there are many reasons why people have different views. I’ve suggested here ones affiliation with animal training and those environments where their craft was learned. It’s hard to not notice how those who have been training dogs for years using older models of training that often meant harsh punishments might constantly look for relief from guilt. This would not be unheard of guilt is capable of causing much pain. The reasons behind why people adopt specific attitudes and points of view are going to vary according to each individual, some may not feel any guilt at all, justified this was the best they knew at the time. This is however not the purpose here, but simply to point out that one needs to be aware individual points of view don’t come out of nowhere and they are all formed through different and individual perspectives.

The use of excessive punishment

This is what everyone is so afraid of and with good reason, but not good enough to suggest that everyone is out to harm dogs and that their way is the best way to avoid this from occurring.

I’m going to simply include what I’ve already cited and referenced before:

The use of excessive punishment in dog training should be avoided at all costs according to Lindsay (2000) and in the case of aggression he says “excessive punishment may suppress vital threat displays, making future attacks more difficult to anticipate and avoid safely” and “such misguided training efforts may produce a more difficult and dangerous situation to control.”

Concluding that “although punishment is an important tool for the control of dog behavior, its use should be tempered by informed judgment, ethical restraint, and compassion” and according to Lindsay (2000) “dog trainers and behaviorists…would do well to follow the spirit of the Hippocratic oath to ‘do no harm’ and to avoid methods that so obviously ‘do harm’ dogs and the human-dog relationship.”

Breaking the Breaker by C.B. Whitford

The rule to follow is Do as little breaking as possible; try to encourage the dog to do the proper things and develop him as much as possible with the least amount of control. As final word to the breaker, it may be said that he should so educate himself that he will know that it is always wise, when in doubt, to give the dog the benefit of the doubt. Not only should he know this, but also he must have such complete control of his feelings as to give his knowledge effect. The breaker who spends much time in considering his own weaknesses will profit by this effort (Lindsay, 2000, pg. 305).

References:

Maslow’s hammer, popularly phrased as “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” and variants thereof, is from Abraham Maslow’s The Psychology of Science, published in 1966 ⁽Wikipedia)

Why Is Positive Reinforcement A Better Choice?

Animal rights vs. companion dog ownership and food training