Purely Positive Luring for position

"diddy" <diddy.TakeThisOut@nospam.diddy.net> wrote in message:

> Am I the only person who has a problem with food luring?

I'm not sure I understand what you've written. But, it's fairly common to
use food to lure a dog into position, at least for standard pet dog training
stuff. That's how I've trained Khan to do the routine stuff, Sit, Down,
Stand, etc. We didn't use the clicker as the reward marker, but I think
that's the only difference between what you've described and what I've done.
I've done target training for position with heeling exercises, but have also
seen/done luring for it instead.

Suja
 >> Stay informed about: Purely Positive Luring for position 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Purely Positive Luring for position 

In article <jroFg.4581$SZ3.547@dukeread04>, Suja <spanaval.DeleteThis@scs.gmu.edu> wrote:
>I've done target training for position with heeling exercises, but have also
>seen/done luring for it instead.

I've done both, as well as shaping. For me, shaping has
produced the best long-term results, although G-d knows that
for trained racing sleddogs it can be a huge, huge, huge
challenge to find opportunities to start with.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - shore.DeleteThis@panix.com

Bad policies lead to bad results.
 >> Stay informed about: Purely Positive Luring for position 

"Melinda Shore" <shore.RemoveThis@panix.com> wrote in message:

> I've done both, as well as shaping.

My attempts to shape Khan failed miserably. I'm sure I was doing something
wrong, but thinking is not his strong suit, and he basically defaults to
behaviors he knows already instead of progressing. Luring works wonderfully
and quickly; less thinking involved for him, and he gets very clear
communication on the end result I am looking for.

>For me, shaping has
> produced the best long-term results, although G-d knows that
> for trained racing sleddogs it can be a huge, huge, huge
> challenge to find opportunities to start with.

What sort of behaviors have you shaped?

Suja
 >> Stay informed about: Purely Positive Luring for position 

In article <TXoFg.4582$SZ3.1886@dukeread04>, Suja <spanaval DeleteThis @scs.gmu.edu> wrote:
>What sort of behaviors have you shaped?

??? Tons of 'em, some of them useful and some of them
incredibly stupid (a few weeks ago to demonstrate clicker
training to my mother, I trained Emmett to put his nose on
the kitchen garbage can and keep it there). I've shaped a
heel and it produced *much* more reliable results than
luring or targeting, but getting that initial few back-offs
to reward took a huge amount of patience. The dog also has
to absolutely understand the clicker before giving it a try,
since otherwise they're very narrowly focused on getting
down the road. I've got a breed that likes puzzles and
loves to think, so it's generally a good match.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - shore DeleteThis @panix.com

Bad policies lead to bad results.
 >> Stay informed about: Purely Positive Luring for position 

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:55:20 -0400, Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:40:41 -0500, Jeff Dege <jdege DeleteThis @jdege.visi.com>
> wrote:
>
>>It's only the purely-positive mafia who have any complaints about it
>
> Why do they complain?

They object to any training that outside the cult of strict skinnerianism.
But they couch their objections in terms of "aversives" being harmful to
dogs.

Luring is not skinnerian. The trainer is interacting with the dog,
communicating and encouraging it. Not simply playing the part of a
computer-controlled treat dispenser. So the radicals don't approve of it.

But not even they can pretend that luring is aversive, so they have no
tools within their philosophical arsenal for expressing that disapproval.

The resulting cognitive dissonance is the grounds for their complaints.
(Their blind refusal to admit that there is a cognitive anything explains
why they don't understand why they're so uncomfortable with it.)

--
As I understand it, deconstructionism is a form of literary criticism that
is intended to demonstrate the fundamental meaninglessness of literature.
IMO, what it demonstrates is the fundamental meaninglessness of literary
criticism.
 >> Stay informed about: Purely Positive Luring for position 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Purely Positive Luring for position 

In article <pan.2006.08.18.22.19.23.759461 RemoveThis @jdege.visi.com>,
Jeff Dege <jdege RemoveThis @jdege.visi.com> wrote:
>They object to any training that outside the cult of strict skinnerianism.
>But they couch their objections in terms of "aversives" being harmful to
>dogs.

The only people I've seen say this kind of thing are pet
owners without much dog training experience or education.
Could you be more specific? To use the word "mafia" implies
a lot of stuff I haven't observed, myself, and you're
flirting with the "some say" problem.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - shore RemoveThis @panix.com

Bad policies lead to bad results.
 >> Stay informed about: Purely Positive Luring for position 

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:39:59 -0500, diddy <diddy.RemoveThis@nospam.diddy.net>,
clicked their heels and said:

>Am I the only person who has a problem with food luring?

No, but it's pretty popular. I use it if there is a difficult
situation, but I prefer molding for the most part. I think it's good
for a dog to get used to being physically manipulated by the owner,
and it also doesn't allow for the dog to refuse or take their sweet
old time.




--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com
 >> Stay informed about: Purely Positive Luring for position 

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:26:58 -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:

> In article <pan.2006.08.18.22.19.23.759461.TakeThisOut@jdege.visi.com>, Jeff Dege
> <jdege.TakeThisOut@jdege.visi.com> wrote:
>>They object to any training that outside the cult of strict
>>skinnerianism. But they couch their objections in terms of "aversives"
>>being harmful to dogs.
>
> The only people I've seen say this kind of thing are pet owners without
> much dog training experience or education. Could you be more specific? To
> use the word "mafia" implies a lot of stuff I haven't observed, myself,
> and you're flirting with the "some say" problem.

There are folks who use positive techniques, and those who vocally object
to anyone using anything other than positive techniques.

There are those who use learning theory and operant conditioning, and
those who maintain that learning theory complete explains how animals
learn, and disapprove of any technique that isn't

There are those choose to use certain techniques, and there are those who
vilify and persecute, who organize campaigns of legal and political
harassment against those who use anything other than those certain
techniques.

There are a lot of people who use luring. There are a lot who do not.
But the only ones who find luring objectionable in any way are those far
out on the lunatic fringe of radical behaviorism.

--
Je suis l'Eggman.
Vous etes les eggmen.
Je suis le walrus.
Goo goo ga joob.
 >> Stay informed about: Purely Positive Luring for position 

In article <pan.2006.08.19.00.46.10.368408.TakeThisOut@jdege.visi.com>,
Jeff Dege <jdege.TakeThisOut@jdege.visi.com> wrote:
>There are a lot of people who use luring. There are a lot who do not.
>But the only ones who find luring objectionable in any way are those far
>out on the lunatic fringe of radical behaviorism.

You know when your eyes start rolling so fast they pop out
of your head and roll across the floor? I hate that.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - shore.TakeThisOut@panix.com

Bad policies lead to bad results.
 >> Stay informed about: Purely Positive Luring for position 

diddy wrote:
>
> Which is why I'mone of those radical people who object to luring. I can
> steer a dog all day long with a target just as well.

What's interesting about that is that targets are usually initially
taught by luring - loading the target for the 1st touch or 2, then
quickly fading it to a reward after the touch..

The lead article in the July/Aug. Chronicle of the Dog is on this
subject. "Lure/Reward Training", Ian Dunbar. He says

"Recently, sme trainers have criticized luring, stating that, dogs are
trained "better" if they have not been lured. This, of course, is
learning theory heresy. By tautological definition, once a dog has
been trained to criterion, he's been trained to criterion. A dog is
not trained better depending on whether he was lured or not. If he's
trained, he's trained. If he's not, he's not."

Dunbar then goes on to argue for lure training for pet dog training on
the basis on it being most expedient, with less "time and trials to
criterion. But he then seems to dispute his own arguement that there's
no difference in learning mastery with the following:

"Other techniques are championed in other specialist training fields
wherein the syllabus is finite and the trainer knows the rules and
criteria before the examination and especially when time is not an
issue. Knowledgeable, experienced and dedicated handlers will train
for hours to perfect a desired behavior. However, pet dog training
differs markedly from teaching competition or working dogs *big snip*
With pet dog training, the questions are unknown and the syllabus is
infinate, comprising all aspects of a dog (and owner's) behavior,
temperament, and training."

He then says "Characteristically, techniques we recommend for pet
owners are entirely different (quicker, easier, and less complicated)
than techniques we might use to train our own dogs."

Seems to me that he's trying to have it both ways. Either the
technique matters to the end result or it doesn't.

Lynn K.
 >> Stay informed about: Purely Positive Luring for position 

Jeff Dege wrote:

> As I understand it, deconstructionism is a form of literary criticism that
> is intended to demonstrate the fundamental meaninglessness of literature.
> IMO, what it demonstrates is the fundamental meaninglessness of literary
> criticism.

FWIW, my understanding of deconstruction is totally different.
It is not that literature is meaningless, it is that the text has a life
of its own apart from and beyond the intention of the author,
and that each reading of the text is unique, whether by different
readers or the same person reading at different times.

It advocates that we not pretend to have an objective viewpoint.

But that's just my reading.

Amy Dahl
 >> Stay informed about: Purely Positive Luring for position