Using The "ah" Sound To Pinpoint When Dog Has Gotten Up Without Permission... Your Thoughts?

Discussion in 'Obedience Training' started by MissyBC, Dec 27, 2011.

  1. tigerlily46514 Honored Member

    //"My timing is already a bit clumsy WITH the clicker, WITHOUT the clicker is just AWFUL"//

    yes, i also have trouble with timing now and then,
    and honestly, there are A FEW things, i am NOT adept enough with a clicker to use the clicker for training. Most tricks and cues, YES, i use a clicker.

    but every once in a while, i find myself clicking too soon too often,
    or even being unsure of exactly what i want to click
    and so every now and then,
    i skip a clicker.

    I had trouble with "hold" "take" "stay" and some other cues, knowing when to click. Every now and then, not often, but occasionally, i find i have to train a cue here or there, without a clicker.

    but, i read others used their clickers for same cue, so i know it can be done,
    but i just couldn't do it.

    and timing gets easier, the more you use it, but how funny is it,
    when you make ONE wrong click, and bam! dog now does the trick wrong!!!!???:ROFLMAO:

  2. tigerlily46514 Honored Member

    Upon reading your now rather extreme efforts to scrap around to find ways to support your wish to believe, that dogs can not tell we are humans, i will skip further reply, as extreme waste of time, and you are welcome to think that one species can not identify another species. I think you do not even really believe the point you are struggling to make, but really just enjoy polemics, even if you don't really believe the point you are supporting!!:ROFLMAO: I am not here for polemics, but thought it'd stay a more rational line of thought that the downward spiral of hypothesis being offered as a reason to believe dogs think humans are dogs.

    //"but the bird point, This is supporting my claim that MANY behaviours are LEARNED, even in PREY birds, and MUCH MORE in FLOCK birds."//

    AND can be successfully taught by humans. Well, techinically the humans did not teach the condors to swoop down, how to tear flesh out, or even how to find the carcasses, did you read it?
    they just set the flesh out there. that was it. The condors learned on their own from there. Get it now? And the condor is a bird they said was one of the hardest to raise, still, the success rate you mocked, ws still 7 out of 11 made it. Pretty darn good rate, i'd say, for one of the harder birds to raise by humans?
  3. tigerlily46514 Honored Member

    //" Same goes for kids that were raised by wild animals - kids supposedly from the smartest and whatever species of the planet, couldn't see that the humans they had in front of them were just like them. Why? Last time they saw one, they were only a few months old."//

    feel free to cite a link on all these kids raised by wild animals, that you have mentioned a few times now. You are not going anecdotal there, are you??
  4. tigerlily46514 Honored Member

    i've lost my place now.
  5. tigerlily46514 Honored Member

    //"But like you said - dogs have thousands of years of domestication with HUMANS, not with geese. And yeah, you can't make parallelisms there, because HUMANS are the ONLY species that domesticates animals. You can't really experiment in this area. Sadly, because I'd LOVE to!"//
    But that was my reply to you banging on about imprinting could overpower the innate neurobiology of a species.
    Re: only humans domesticate,

    the very definition of domestication, means to adopt another lifeform to benefit HUMANS.

    BUT what would you call a creature, who protects, travels with, and even supplies food for another species or another lifeform? if the beneficiary was not a human?
    happens all the time in nature.:D
  6. Pawbla Experienced Member

    I have seen cases of dogs abandoned at 1 day old, and it's indeed really cruel. Most of them die if they haven't had colostrum. I wasn't actually suggesting we did it in real life, but it would be really cool to be able to reproduce how a dog would act, maybe computer generated, or whatever.

    But they have been raised by their mothers, until they were adults or adolescents. Even in they only see each other once a year, to reproduce, they still see each other, and they were raised by one of their own. Not like in my example. And true, many animals are left to be incubated and bred on their own. That kind of animal is usually primitive, like a fish or an amphibian. We're talking about the two most evolved groups here - mammals and birds.

    Yep, we have different beliefs on that. But animals learn a lot by imitation, proven by science, like the link you posted said. What you're suggesting reminds me (and I'm NOT saying you think that) of the early thought that "animals are just a handful of reflexes and instincts". They are not. They feel, they socialize, they learn by imitation. Animals are far more complex than what they DNA says. Well, regarding instincts. Because it IS coded in DNA, that many animals learn by imitation.
    "Monkey see, monkey do".
  7. Pawbla Experienced Member

    No, I don't have an account.

    First point: Given that they did imprint on humans, how many humans are in their natural habit?

    Second point: I know there are humans. They probably made them sensitive to humans again, I bet. I don't know because I can't read the paper, but you can. Still, it's not the same having a house sparrow that is imprinted on humans and a condor who is imprinted on humans. House sparrows are very likely killed in that situation.

    Third point: People FUND those release-in-the-wild-programmes. They did it, okay, all funded by somebody, with all the possible resources. They have months, years even, to ensure that THAT particular condor will survive. It's obviously not the same as a bird org who has 20 birds per person and has to release as soon as possible.

    Fourth: If they are posting that as a big feat... don't you think most of the other ways FAILED to accomplish that?

    Obviously, exactly like you, I'm going anecdotal. By the way, anecdotal is bad because anecdotal only takes one or two samples of the population, usually similar. When it's ALL cases that are known to exist, well... you can suppose every case will be like that. Statistics are anecdotal.
    And fortunately I do remember the source. How to Speak Dog, by Stanley Coren.

    That's called mutualism and doesn't happen in the level that happens in humans. Usually it's in fishes, plants, etc, there are also a few cases of birds and mammals. However, they do not have those other animals in their sensitive period, I'd bet all my money they learn that by imitating other birds.

    And no, I don't like polemics. But I don't like unsupported claims either. I have my books, you have yours, there's no reason to ridicule my ideas. I haven't ridiculed yours.
  8. tigerlily46514 Honored Member

    To your reply #47

    1st point --???i don't get it, . ARe you asking how many humans now live where the condors live after they were released?
    I do not know, but the condors are living independently on there own.
    do you suspect that humans are secretly feeding them, is that it??

    they had 2 groups, and one group was fed with puppets, remember? NO imprinting, fed and treated like the adults would, and released at time the adults would have set them free...that group did not fare as well, as those hand raised by humans, imprinting and all.:rolleyes: as you were banging on about imprinting would overule their neurobiological instincts, for pages, over and over. Was a big concern for you.

    //"Second point: I know there are humans."//
    You need to finish that sentence.
    You know there are humans? where? doing what? again, i don't get it, sorry.

    //"People FUND those release-in-the-wild-programmes"//
    completely off topic, we were discussing whether or not human contact could impact a creatures chances to survive, and i said a creature's innate neurobiology would still be intact, even if raised by humans. Who pays for this is not relevant in any way to the point.

    //"Fourth: If they are posting that as a big feat... don't you think most of the other ways FAILED to accomplish that?"//

    ah, you did not read the article, it was being posted, to make a more researched study of what worked best, to compare two methods, and share the info with others working on same type of difficult to raise bird, not "as a big feat" as you said. Science is like that, it is just bits and pieces, one can gain a bit of knowledge from one team's research,and form new hypothesis, or build upon the info, and so on. NO one piece of data is an end-all, it is part of series of info bits, see? They all share what their team has discovered.
    I just grabbed one, thinking you'd cease and desist on the imprinting overules neurobiology mindset.

    i don't understand //"don't you think most of the ways FAILED to accomplish that?"//
    other ways of what? OH, i have to always read your sentences two times, to try to grasp what it is you are saying,
    you mean other ways of raising birds failed? IS that what you are trying to ask or say?? i am not sure.
    if it IS what you are trying to say, no, no, i do not think,
    if one team posted their methods of how to raise condors,
    that that in any way indicates all other teams are failures.(??)
    i do not make that leap, nope...IF that is what you were trying to suggest, but, i have to guess some of your meanings....but, Pawbla, if you really DO want to miss the points,
    that is your right to do so.

    You said birds couldn't be imprinted upon and released, because the contact with humans would ruin their ability to know how to survive, i said they could,
    then you said they would not live, i showed they could, even one of the harder birds to raise, has 7 outof 11 success rate, and now,
    now, you are going for..........but someone is funding it.:ROFLMAO: and you seem to suggesting taht maybe humans live by the condors.(?) and you seem to be suggesting, that if one team posted a success story, in your mind, somehow that indicates everyone else is failing, :ROFLMAO: etc
    you WANT to miss the point, even if you have come up with stuff like that to prevent yourself from seeing the point i made. fine, miss the point, it is your right to do so. But it is obvious you want to miss the point.

    but, it is not impossible, i do not correctly interpret all your replies, most seem to be missing words here or there, so i do have to guess a bit ..........

    not all of your sentences are easily understood by me,
    and i tend to usually skip those ones, i have skipped quite a few, i just did not understand the point---------- or the sentence structure, as if some words were left out.
    as if part of the sentence was left out.

    so if i can not guess what it is you are trying to say, i skip it by now. You might want to re-read your replies once before hitting 'send', to see if someone besides you would easily understand what you are trying to say.

    this is starting to get boring anyway, i have to leave soon.
  9. tigerlily46514 Honored Member

    //"Yep, we have different beliefs on that. But animals learn a lot by imitation, proven by science, like the link you posted said. What you're suggesting reminds me (and I'm NOT saying you think that) of the early thought that "animals are just a handful of reflexes and instincts". They are not. They feel, they socialize, they learn by imitation. Animals are far more complex than what they DNA says. Well, regarding instincts. Because it IS coded in DNA, that many animals learn by imitation.
    "Monkey see, monkey do".//

    yes, i completely agree, animals are far more than a handful of reflexes and instincts. I did not realize there were many ppl left who thought this.
    Animals have been shown to demonstrate empathy, grief, all manner of complex decision making. If you think *i* think like that, you are going a bit strawman on me. I have never said anysuch thing.
    I said, an animal,
    has enough innate info embedded into it's brain,
    it can live, hunt, survive, mate, raise young, etc,
    without us teaching it, that it CAN distinguish species one from another,

    without even it's own parents teaching it, it has good chance to survive, even if it imprinted on a human, that we can't fool a dog to think we are dogs:ROFLMAO: or that he is human,:rolleyes:
    BECAUSE of it's innate neurobiology, which is a powerful force in a creature.

    but i never ever said it was the sum total of creature. that is a strawman argument, almost unworthy of a reply.

    if anyone on this whole website,
    can appreciate how much one human can impact a dog to let go of it's neurobiology,
    and find a new way to be,
    it might be me,
    or one of the others here like me,
    who ARE actually rehabbing an aggressive dog, to get past his overwhelming urges to succumb to his abnormal neurobiology. and finding ways to reach that dog despite his DNA, finding ways to get that dog to behave against his neurobiology. THAT'S the ultimate, most demanding, most ongoing and difficult and rewarding of all dog training, imo.

    Makes the training involved in agility or doggie dancing look like a piece of cake.

    but now, it's back to rollover...and play dead, etc!! and how to walk on a leash.
  10. Pawbla Experienced Member

    No! Of course not! But I'd like to know what is their relationship to the existing humans.

    No, I told you I couldn't read it because I didn't have an account.

    I'm only adding this: I don't know about Condors specifically but most birds, when hand reared, grow slowly. Also, most birds hang around their parents even after they leave the nest. And I said, birds usually do better when you don't set them free when they *should* go, you usually set them free a month later more or less.

    I know there are humans (there).

    But what I meant by this is that they have the funds to hold and make condors again reactive to humans - it wouldn't matter if they had to let them stay one, two, three, or six months. That's what I was going for, sorry, I should've explained more.

    I told you, I don't have an account. Last time I checked you needed to pay to read those papers.

    I could just read the first page, there was not exactly much you could gather from that.
    Also, you just happened to pick one of the animals that imprints less on humans. I had a bunch of prey birds and they do not imprint easily. Flock birds, like I said before, imprint waay more easily.
    Also, dogs are domesticated animals. Pigeons are domesticated animals too. Condors are not. Condors can imprint and get tame. They may land on somebody's head, once in a while, maybe. That's why I was comparing birds to dogs in the beginning. I was comparing pigeons to dogs, not condors to dogs.

    Yeah yeah I read the rest of the text and I know I totally failed defending my point. It was so much easier, I only saw sometihng was wrong, but I didn't know what, so I jumped on everything I could think of for some reason. Fever, it must be. Really, it was as simple as domestication.

    Wow, I can't believe I skipped that and posted this rubbish instead. That is total proof I need to be in bed, you can see that the quality of my answers since the last day I was here (a couple of days ago) and the quality they have today. I can't see why I even posted that. You're totally right there, that post was complete rubbish, and I bet I'll check out what I wrote today in a week and I'll say "Oh God why on Earth did I post this?". I'm making all kinds of grammatical mistakes I never do, skipping words, confusing words, not making sense in about half of my arguments. They are totally strained because even though I know something is wrong, I can't put my finger on what. You were right I should've stayed in bed.

    Last thing I want to say before I go there:

    I didn't say you thought like that, I explicitly said I didn't think you thought like that. I am sure you love your dog and I was going to add that but I thought it'd look like I overdid it and possibly was mocking you or something, so I didn't want you to think I was mocking you.

    Sorry again, Tigerlily, I know you have every right to be totally mad. Is there any way to delete posts? These derailed posts totally deserve to be deleted.
  11. tigerlily46514 Honored Member

    I am not mad, at all, and now i am sorry i got so assertive and went on and on, i feel stupid now, and i am sorry you have a fever, and do go rest,
    and get well soon, and i am sorry.
    Peace out! We all love dogs! and now, back to "rollover" and "spin" and "stay" and so on!!
  12. running_dog Honored Member

    LOL and just when I thought I might join in again :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
  13. Pawbla Experienced Member

    Yeah my arguments were getting TOTALLY stupid HAHA. Naw, you were totally right in getting assertive, I should've known better.

    Ibuprofen and a couple hours of sleep and I have already regained (I guess) most of my cognitive abilities. Two nights without sleep is not exactly healthy, my memories of today are kind of blurry o.O.

    Well, me might restart the discussion again in the appropriate forum whenever you want, however I'd prefer reading up some more bibliography (the one I told you I only got "summed up", for starters).

    Dog behaviour is an enchanting topic! I see how we got caught into it :ROFLMAO:. In all the fuss (or the blurriness LOL), I forgot to tell you, I was planning on researching the feral dog behaviour this year. I know a couple of places where to start, with direct observation. Isn't this topic fascinating? I wanted to be an ethologist as a kid :).
  14. tigerlily46514 Honored Member

    Well Pawbla, at least YOU have an excuse, you were feverish and sick, i have no such excuse nor explanation for my very bizzare behavior on this thread, and i hang my head in shame at foolish going on and on, and i am sorry, i can see in hindsight, (IF i can get myself to read my own replies) how foolish and mistaken many of them were, especially towards the end, i was nothing short of a fool there. duh, i'm sorry.

    please do not let MY stupid going on and on, reflect badly on this group as a whole, we are very friendly group here, 99% of our posts, are only to encourage each other!! PLease do stick around, and i hope you DO find the main focus of this website---how to help learn various tricks---as a source of joy for you as a dog owner.:D I apologize to all for my going on and on.
  15. Dogster Honored Member

    OK, I'm confused, guess I would have to read ALL three pages to understand. LOL!!!!:LOL: I'd just like to join into this thread!!!! For the initial topic, I think positive reinforcement is the way to go, I do not agree with most of Cesar's methods, although, I DO agree that dogs NEED exercise. Maybe Cesar's methods work for him, I dunno. (notice the "do not try this at home" at the bottom of the screen on the dog whisperer show). For Shivon's counter surfing, I say "off", then reward when she gets off. I don't use physical force, too scary for me or Shivon.:confused:
  16. tigerlily46514 Honored Member

    rolf, Dogster, you are too cute!!:ROFLMAO:

    what happened here, was, for last several entries, me and Pawbla win prizes for most complete thread derail ever:ROFLMAO: , and i stupidly went on and on, babbling away,:rolleyes: we are actually discussing BIRDS more than dogs, if you can believe it, but Pawbla had a fever, and i was just plain annoying, so don't even read it, Dogster, you will get a headache...even *I* get a headache trying to read my own posts....:rolleyes:
    Dogster likes this.
  17. Dogster Honored Member

    Ok, understandable. By the way, probably the longest thread derail I've seen so far!!!! LOL!!!!:ROFLMAO:
    tigerlily46514 likes this.
  18. Pawbla Experienced Member

    Lol, no, I did not have an excuse! But well, going back to the "original-ish" topic:

    The problem about Cesar Millan is that he sells a different thing than what he does. Obviously it says "do not try this at home", but it helps promote the idea that:
    1) A dog instructor is just going to tell you "THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT" and make you feel awful before actually getting into the behaviour modification therapy itself. I know a couple of people that were so scared by that, that never sought professional help!
    2) Other methods do not work. Confrontation, correcting, etc, are things that I don't know WHY they still being used. I get that corrections may still have a room for some people in some kind of behaviours (like barking or something like that, maaaybe) but... there's seriously no excuse for many things. Like the dog-kicking thing video I saw Tigerlily post, there is no way that that can be an acceptable behaviour in a trainer.
    3) The dog instructor is the "master" touched by "Dog God" that can cure and handle your dog. Maybe he is not consciously doing that, but the media is showing that image.
    4) I love the fact that he does recommend exercise! But, in my opinion, he does it the wrong way. I think a dog exercises more in a two-block-walk than walking on a treadmill for two hours. Because dogs not only need physical stimulation, but also mental stimulation. I only saw a few chapters but he doesn't seem to emphasize that fact.

    I use the spanish word "Abajo" if I want my dog off some place - but it means "Please, four paws on the ground" rather than "Stop doing that". I use it generally when I want to go to bed and he's on it. So he'll jump off the bed and then I'll call him back when I'm already done with the covers and stuff. But it's also useful for counter-surfing, although my dog rarely does it.

Share This Page

Real Time Analytics