# Who likes/uses "clicker" training?



## Charlie's Mama (Aug 4, 2010)

We are thinking about starting to use clickers with Charlie. I've been doing a lot of research about it. But I'm wondering about a couple of things...

If you use the clicker

- Why do you prefer it?

- Is it too late now to start using a clicker? 
(Charlie is 3 mos old and we've been using only treats and affection. We are going to start puppy Kindergarten soon, and I think the trainers there use clickers.)

Thanks!


----------



## LibertyME (Jan 6, 2007)

Better is subjective....but I find it loads of fun and my dogs get super excited to learn when the see the clicker come out....
When the dogs 'get it' there are an unlimited number of things you can teach/capture. There are TONS of clicker videos on youtube.
Using a clicker enables you to teach without having to physically manipulate the dog...many dogs that are put-off by being touched or positioned prefer it.
A dog is never too old to use a clicker...


----------



## Charlie's Mama (Aug 4, 2010)

Very true... "better" is subjective, I changed my question a little bit!

Thanks LibertyME! Good to know I can still start this!


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I agree with LibertyME completely. It gives dogs such precise feedback, and makes them into joyful learners who affirmatively offer behaviors in order to get to the click. It's fun , bonding, and useful!


----------



## Phiddler (Sep 1, 2008)

Count me in for being VERY pro-clicker-training. Clicker-training, or use of event-markers, opens up a line of communication between you and your dog that is nothing short of amazing. I feel so "in-tune" with Zip, because he and I are really communicating, thanks to clicker training. People can really tell that he and I are really connected. Also, he pretty much never gets tired of this type of positive-training. He loves it, and it is a lot of fun.


----------



## Chloe Braun (Aug 21, 2010)

I like clicker training because of the fact that you can actually time the click better then you can with a food reward, therefore you are linking up the desired behavior more easily.

I found an article here at http://www.goldenretrievertrainingonline.com/dog-training-tips-using-clicker-training which i think you might like. It expalins clicker training, why and how it works.


----------



## nixietink (Apr 3, 2008)

I love clicker training and notice a great difference in Vito's demeanor when I pull it out during training. There is a different connection. I love to watch his mind work while he tries to figure out what he needs to do to get hear the click.


----------



## jackie_hubert (Jun 2, 2010)

Yay clicker! We use it all the time and I quite often advise other's to use it.

Ever seen a cat "sit", "shake a paw", "down" and "jump"? Come to our place! Again, yay for the clicker!


----------



## momtoMax (Apr 21, 2009)

The clicker has helped Max learn lay, spin, roll over, play dead, dance, up, high five, stay, wait, shake...the only non clicker thing was sit. The clicker has worked great for us!


----------



## pride-and-joy (Aug 11, 2010)

Love the clicker too. As mentioned already, being able to mark (speak dog) in a more precise way is a huge and in my experience speeds the learning process. I have found that it helps their "light bulb" come on faster. Clickers offer a way to distinctively mark A+ efforts of an exercise or parlor trick. Ie. "That finish was perfect...click/treat" over "Fooey, try again".


----------



## Ranger (Nov 11, 2009)

Ranger has always been more difficult to train - he has to think that things are HIS idea before he wants to do them. I found the clicker training for tricks really helped "unlock" his mind in learning other things, even without the clicker. It helped everything "click" in his mind. You could almost see the lightbulb go on in his head "Oh! If I do _this, _I get a reward! An action I do makes a consequence happen!"


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

This sounds interresting, so you still give food as a reward? Does anyone have any other places on line, for info.?


----------



## Laurie (Sep 20, 2009)

I just purchased a clicker yesterday and tried it out last night....mostly on Lincoln and a little on Austin. I think we need more practice!!!!


----------



## Laurie (Sep 20, 2009)

goldensrbest said:


> This sounds interresting, so you still give food as a reward? Does anyone have any other places on line, for info.?


 
Try this website:

www.aboutdogtraining.com


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

We typically will always use food after the click. For different reinforcers (tug, fetch, etc) we use a different marker. 

This is a good mini course about clicker training:
http://www.canisclickertraining.com/newsletter/

And there's always clickertraining.com, it's not the easiest to navigate, but there are a ton of good articles.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I guess I'll be the first to add a different viewpoint. I do like using a clicker for a few things where timing is important, but overall I'm not into using one all that much. I prefer a more hands-on approach to training.

And true clicker training involving free shaping where you do nothing but sit there and wait for what you want your dog to do - no, I do not have the patience for that, I will do something to help the dog figure out more quickly what behavior it is I want.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Loisiana said:


> And true clicker training involving free shaping where you do nothing but sit there and wait for what you want your dog to do - no, I do not have the patience for that, I will do something to help the dog figure out more quickly what behavior it is I want.


I feel like that's more of the purist's approach. Yes, some will train that way, but more and more you see even the "big name" clicker trainers using targeting or even luring for a handful of reps in the very beginning to sort of jump start the dog down the path toward a desired piece of behavior.


----------



## pride-and-joy (Aug 11, 2010)

goldensrbest said:


> This sounds interresting, so you still give food as a reward? Does anyone have any other places on line, for info.?


Yes, I click and treat...but keep it random. Sometimes it's click/treat/good girl!!....sometimes it's just click/good girl!!!!!. Think of a slot machine. You never know when it's going to pay but the tendancy is to keep repeating the behavior of dumping coins in, for the chance of a payoff.


----------



## Lucky's mom (Nov 4, 2005)

I used clicker to help Lucky train "fun" stuff like pick up laundry etc. But had to be old fashioned when it came to training basics. If it works for you its a fun way to go for you and the dog.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Loisiana said:


> I guess I'll be the first to add a different viewpoint. I do like using a clicker for a few things where timing is important, but overall I'm not into using one all that much. I prefer a more hands-on approach to training.
> 
> And true clicker training involving free shaping where you do nothing but sit there and wait for what you want your dog to do - no, I do not have the patience for that, I will do something to help the dog figure out more quickly what behavior it is I want.


I basically agree with this. While clicker training can be very fun and effective it has a few cons, IMO

1) High reinforcement 
2) Lack of interaction with handler

I like to use the clicker for things that I can't reward immediately, like jumps. The vast majority of clicker training videos I see on youtube have the reward dispensed almost the second that the click is and I don't personally see the added value in this.

And again, as a trainer I like that hands-on interaction I get with my dog best.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

I did read the sites listed, and googled more, but if you still give treats, still say what you want them to do, i don't see the advantage in the clicker.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

The two benefits to me of a clicker are timing (you can click the exact instant your dog has done the behavior, more presicely than a voice can) and the neutrality of the sound (even if you use a word to tell your dog he is right, it is close to impossible to make it the same exact sound every time and to keep emotion out of the tone).


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

GoldenSail said:


> I basically agree with this. While clicker training can be very fun and effective it has a few cons, IMO
> 
> 1) High reinforcement
> 2) Lack of interaction with handler
> ...


Just curious... but what makes high reinforcement a con? High reinforcement is exactly what leads the dog to make the behaviors we "like" into lifelong habits. What, in your training scheme, is a better option than "high reinforcement" for achieving your goals?

As Quiz noted earlier, it is the rare purist that will use a completely hands-off shaping approach. In fact, I have incorporated far more hands-on play and praise into my training since crossing over to clicker training. There is no reason for clicker training to be any more hands-off than anything else... it's just the nature of the touch that changes. Instead of manipulating the dog into position or reaching out to stop him from doing something or worse yet, to correct him, my touch becomes reward only. That's the kind of hands-on interaction Jersey and I enjoy in training... and really, the only kind I want.

Julie and Jersey


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

goldensrbest said:


> I did read the sites listed, and googled more, but if you still give treats, still say what you want them to do, i don't see the advantage in the clicker.


It's not only about the use of the clicker itself, it's an entirely different approach to teaching the behavior. Generally, you do not start giving the cue (I assume that's what you're referring to by "still say what you want them to do") until the dog is predictably offering the behavior. That does away with a lot of the distracting nonsense (to the dog) talk as the dog focuses on learning the action/behavior and greatly reduces the chances of you poisoning a cue (accidentally linking an incorrect or incomplete behavior with a cue). 

Some people do choose to use a marker word instead of the click, and do so successfully. But as Louisiana noted above, there are some distinct benefits to the clicker as a tool that are impossible to achieve with your voice. 

To jump back to the OP's question (since I'm so late entering the thread): It's the training philosophy (focus on positive reinforcement and method of teaching) + the value of the clicker itself as a tool that makes clicker training preferable to me. 

Julie and Jersey


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

Yes, giving the command is what i was searching for , in my mind, it is interesting, i will read up on it more, when i can.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Jersey's Mom said:


> Just curious... but what makes high reinforcement a con? High reinforcement is exactly what leads the dog to make the behaviors we "like" into lifelong habits. What, in your training scheme, is a better option than "high reinforcement" for achieving your goals?
> 
> As Quiz noted earlier, it is the rare purist that will use a completely hands-off shaping approach. In fact, I have incorporated far more hands-on play and praise into my training since crossing over to clicker training. There is no reason for clicker training to be any more hands-off than anything else... it's just the nature of the touch that changes. Instead of manipulating the dog into position or reaching out to stop him from doing something or worse yet, to correct him, my touch becomes reward only. That's the kind of hands-on interaction Jersey and I enjoy in training... and really, the only kind I want.
> 
> Julie and Jersey


Ok, I should have been more specific -- high FOOD reinforcement in particular. But reinforcement in generally can be very high with clicker training anyway if you are shaping a lot and breaking the behavior down into smaller and smaller steps.

Now I don't read a lot on the clicker sites, but a lot of the stuff I have read pretty much mention that the person generally gets in the way of clicker training when you are more hands on. Further, as one article written on KP's site suggests there is a difference between clicker training and training with a clicker. I hate to get that technical, but one of the points mentioned I quote:



> Who is doing more work: the trainer or the trainee?
> CT: The trainee is the more active participant, moving more than the trainer who remains *relatively passive*. The animal's job is to behave, that is, to move; the trainer's job is to observe the animal and to deliver timely, consistent, frequent reinforcements.
> 
> TWC: The trainer is the more active participant, moving more than the animal who remains relatively passive. The trainer is focused on making behavior happen, and uses food lures, body language, and physical prompts to "help" the anima


Again, I think clicker training can bring some pretty awesome results, but I do think there are cons. I have seen dogs so focused on getting the click/treat that if a pat is offered instead they will physically jerk away because it is not what they wanted or expected. Yes, the behavior is nearly flawless and perfect but at what cost?

http://www.clickertraining.com/node/642


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

I also want to add, that you may be incorporating play and hands-on when training with a clicker, but I don't personally think the clicker is extra beneficial UNLESS you can't reward the immediately when needed. For my purposes, I find the need to mark a behavior because I can't reward immediately uncommon.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

GoldenSail said:


> Further, as one article written on KP's site suggests there is a difference between clicker training and training with a clicker.


I think this is the biggest source of confusion out there and I've stated before on here that I really think a new term should be given to clicker training, because as I understand it clicker training is supposed to mean the true pure shaping, handler out of the picture other than to click and deliver treat. So those who are moving away from that are not really clicker training, but training with the use of a clicker.

When I speak to someone experienced in training and they say that they clicker trained something, I am assuming that they mean the did the whole free shaping thing that clicker training. Otherwise I would expect them to say they used a clicker while training it. When speaking to someone that doesn't have much background in training I don't make that assumption so much because I realize the general population is mostly unaware of the difference.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Yes, there is certainly a difference between clicker training and training with a clicker. Usually this is meant to discern those who train more traditionally (with use of negative reinforcement and/or positive punishment) while throwing in a clicker and those who are using the clicker as something other than an event marker. Throwing in a lure or target for a small handful of reps to get the behavior jump-started may be a shortcut and those dedicated to pure free shaping may consider it lazy, but it doesn't automatically take one out of the realm of clicker training. Karen Pryor has a very narrow definition of clicker training, absolutely. When someone's background is primarily in working with large aquatic and wild animals they are very likely to hold the purist line of clicker training by free-shaping only. But clicker training is still evolving as it moves from the realm of wild animals into our domesticated partners, and there are many other perspectives out there besides KP's. Those who work primarily with dogs are far more likely to take into account the more interactive relationship between our species and use it to our benefit in training. That's not to take anything away from KP or her contribution to the spread and popularity of clicker training, but she is no longer the only authority. 

As for choice of reward -- It's a matter of knowing your dog and knowing what motivates them. I've yet to see any source on clicker training (KP included) that doesn't stress the importance of having a diverse choice of reinforcers and knowing which are most attractive to your dog in any given context or setting.

Now when you're looking for a high number of reps in rapid succession (as in the case of shaping -- free or otherwise), sure food is the easiest reward to use and touch or play would interrupt the flow. Often this is the first step in teaching a new behavior, but if you are doing things right that's generally a very quick process and leaves you quickly able to move on to other reinforcers. Interestingly enough, in my travels through a wide variety of obedience classes/schools/groups over the years, it is the traditional trainers I see who become most dependent on food as reward. No offense there, they're just not the ones I see carrying a tennis ball or tug toy in their pockets. Perhaps that's why they see any training based in positive reinforcement, such as clicker training, as overly dependent on treats... but it's just not the case in my research or my personal experience.

Julie and Jersey


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Jersey's Mom said:


> Yes, there is certainly a difference between clicker training and training with a clicker. Usually this is meant to discern those who train more traditionally (with use of negative reinforcement and/or positive punishment) while throwing in a clicker and those who are using the clicker as something other than an event marker. Throwing in a lure or target for a small handful of reps to get the behavior jump-started may be a shortcut and those dedicated to pure free shaping may consider it lazy, but it doesn't automatically take one out of the realm of clicker training. Karen Pryor has a very narrow definition of clicker training, absolutely. When someone's background is primarily in working with large aquatic and wild animals they are very likely to hold the purist line of clicker training by free-shaping only. But clicker training is still evolving as it moves from the realm of wild animals into our domesticated partners, and there are many other perspectives out there besides KP's. Those who work primarily with dogs are far more likely to take into account the more interactive relationship between our species and use it to our benefit in training. That's not to take anything away from KP or her contribution to the spread and popularity of clicker training, but she is no longer the only authority.


Then who has the 'authority' to define clicker training? Or are we going to run around with our own personal definitions and beliefs of clicker training vs training with a clicker and just keep adding to the confusion? 

I personally modified what I consider clicker training after some past threads on the topic and reading a little more into it. Since KP brought clicker training to the dog world I take the definition from her site as per the posted article.



Jersey's Mom said:


> As for choice of reward -- It's a matter of knowing your dog and knowing what motivates them. I've yet to see any source on clicker training (KP included) that doesn't stress the importance of having a diverse choice of reinforcers and knowing which are most attractive to your dog in any given context or setting.


True, but I am yet to see someone follow a click with praise or petting, and don't think I've even seen someone follow a click with a tug or toy. 



Jersey's Mom said:


> Now when you're looking for a high number of reps in rapid succession (as in the case of shaping -- free or otherwise), sure food is the easiest reward to use and touch or play would interrupt the flow. Often this is the first step in teaching a new behavior, but if you are doing things right that's generally a very quick process and leaves you quickly able to move on to other reinforcers.


Yes, but I still see the high use of food as a con. I try to minimize food and even toys to get the behavior and instead base it more on the actual behavior being fun or my dog getting to wrestle with me. It's just my choice.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

*True, but I am yet to see someone follow a click with praise or petting, and don't think I've even seen someone follow a click with a tug or toy.*

You just have to remember to take the time to build up your reinforcers. I will mark with a clicker and tug or toss a toy quite frequently. I just met an ATF Explosives Detection Team that does the same. Steve White (Sgt., Seattle PD, former K9 handler and consultant for K9 units around the world) also uses a clicker and rewards dogs with play. 

As for the dogs who dodge petting and are more like, "FEED ME, BIOTCH!" -- those are dogs who either A. haven't built much of a relationship with the handler, or B. the handler was a Pez Dispenser when giving treats. Even when I use food to follow a click, I still add praise and petting.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Jersey's Mom said:


> Interestingly enough, in my travels through a wide variety of obedience classes/schools/groups over the years, it is the traditional trainers I see who become most dependent on food as reward.
> Julie and Jersey


Traditional trainers are usually considered those who are mostly against using food in training. Their reward is usually praise, but their teaching is usually based on corrections. Pop and praise type training. And I do think I'd probably see them pull out a toy before food, so we must have a different definition of traditional trainers here. I do think traditional trainers (and this is totally speculation and personal opinion) would be more likely to just hold the toy out and let the dog do most of the work with tugging rather than causing the toy to be an interactive game between handler and dog.

I think any kind of training that uses food can lead to a reliance of food. I think a lot of it depends on the individual trainer and dog rather than a general method.


----------



## lgnutah (Feb 26, 2007)

I tried the clicker for a while but since one hand was holding the leash, the other the treat, that I needed a third hand for the clicker. Otherwise I was having to juggle and then my clicker response was never concurrent with the treat.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

Quick comment: 
Poisoned cues is about cues associated with good things and not good things and the conflict associated. It's not about incorrect performances to cues.

With my first dog, I did a ton of clicking-ball toss. today, I use fetching, releasing to birds/bumpers, tug, etc as reinforcers... but use a marker other than the clicker. My training group has trained me well, we want to keep associations as clear and pure as we can. I teach students the same thing. 

Like mentioned, we want the reinforcer to be predictable... if the dog is predicting food and we pet... he may think "that was disappointing" and the same may go for food/toy/play even in dogs that like all of those things.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

RedDogs said:


> Quick comment:
> Poisoned cues is about cues associated with good things and not good things and the conflict associated. It's not about incorrect performances to cues.
> 
> With my first dog, I did a ton of clicking-ball toss. today, I use fetching, releasing to birds/bumpers, tug, etc as reinforcers... but use a marker other than the clicker. My training group has trained me well, we want to keep associations as clear and pure as we can. I teach students the same thing.
> ...


But in that example, it's, IMO, more of a situation of the handler not knowing what's actually reinforcing to the animal. Are there studies that support this idea? I think you have to look at behavior. If the behavior you want is increasing, that your reinforcer - whatever it was, was actually reinforcing to the animal and not just in your opinion.

Regarding Poisoned Cue -- from what I've read, there seems to be two explanations used fairly often: yours, and what Julie mentioned -- the idea that if you add a cue too early, it's associated with the funky training version of the behavior you're going for.

The other confusion training jargon going around right now is chain vs. sequence. I found out that as part of the Karen Pryor Academy Graduation, you have to, in their words, create a 10-part chain. BUT -- they want each part to have a separate cue and they don't want to see anticipation. Most experienced trainers are all like, "***?! That's a sequence!" and nobody can quite understand why KPA is suddenly calling that a chain vs. more of a traditional behavior chain with a new initiating cue.

Overall, my biggest pet peeve among R+ trainers is how complicated it is to keep definitions straight and how we like to argue amongst ourselves (in general, not here) and who is doing the "right" version of clicker training or whatever. ARGH!


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

If we go and look at the UNT study/papers, their "poisoned cue" is about cues that have both good and not good associations and that conflict results. I can't find the link now, but the original first part of the paper is online. I've seen JRR (and maybe the student?) present about this at Expo... and maybe I understood it wrong... but the above is how I understood it.

The what-is-the-learner-expecting is very much about knowing what is reinforcing at that moment. I don't know of any studies, most clicker people I know are going back and forth clicking for food/tug/toy throw/bite sleeve, etc... I do think this will start to be looked at soon...and if no one does, maybe it'll be my project. 

The KPA chain/sequence thing IS confusing. I'm fairly certain the definition of 'chain' they use is " Behaviors linked together with cues." Possibly for the test the cues have to be verbal, but in competition, real world, etc... the cues in chains don't have to be verbal. The definitions DO confuse KPA students! I'm curious about who wrote that part of the curriculum.

And you're so right...all the other definition variations are ridiculous.... it would be nice to standardize everything... but who would do that and how would definitions be decided!


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Okay, lots of responses since I last checked in and I have no idea where to start, so I'll try to go somewhat person by person.


*GoldenSail*: I've yet to find a single authority that defines clicker training. Every book and article I've read clearly carries the author's own opinions and biases. My own personal views on clicker training have been formed as a result of the reading I've done and the successes I've had. Until someone does come out with one single definition that satisfies everyone (doubtful, LOL) my own view will continue to evolve as I continue to learn. Does that confuse things? Perhaps. But no more so than those who do not partake in clicker training seeking to define it in the most narrow and unrealistic terms possible. As an example, you took one line from that article.... but there's a whole lot more there. On just a quick skim through I noticed this line:


> _
> 4. Does the click predict a strong positive reinforcement?_
> 
> CT: The click is paired with the animal's deepest desires: food, toys, interactive games, social companionship, etc.
> TWC: The click is often paired with weaker reinforcements such as praise and petting.


Toys, interactive games, social companionship... that all sounds incredibly hands on and interactive to me. I think you may have misinterpreted what she meant by passive in the passage you quoted because by that definition it clearly contradicts her own definition of reinforcement. By the way, I love Kathy Sdao... I'll have to really take that a closer look at that article later.

Not all behaviors we are teaching are dogs are inherently "fun." When they are, that's fantastic!! But what about when they're not? Wrestling is a great reward, but it can make things more difficult for you and your dog to limit yourself to only one reinforcer in all contexts. Sure that's your choice, just as mine is to use wrestling, tug, fetch, release to a desired activity (very situation and context specific), previously taught behaviors with a strong reinforcement history, and yes, some food as well. And I do all of it while following the basic principles of clicker training. As per Quiz's post, it appears I'm not the only one either.

*Louisiana: *Ah, my favorite sparring partner... I've missed you! :wavey: I don't know what it is with us, but again my experience is the complete opposite of yours. In the classes and groups I've trained with, it's the folks with slip and/or prong collars who like to balance their praise with punishment that have the deepest pockets of treats. I've yet to see a single one of them pull out a toy in the middle of a session -- not that it's impossible that anyone ever would, just that I have truly never seen it nor heard it put out there as a suggestion by the traditional (or I know some like the term balanced) trainers I've been around. I can't speculate on how they would choose to play with them if they did in fact use toys, but if you're correct I think it's a shame that they would miss the opportunity to incorporate their relationship into the training. Where I'm completely with you is that any type of training can produce an over reliance on food... but I'll take it a step further and say I believe it's fully possible to use food (even to use it frequently) without making it the central focus of training.

*RedDogs: *I'll defer to you on definitions... I'm certain you've done far more in the way of research and reading than I have. I do know that I read the definition I used more than once, but I actually think it's a more suitable term for the type of thing you are describing. So now I'm going to have to see if there's another term out there for the type of situation I was describing to hopefully avoid confusion in the future. But I disagree with you that reinforcers should always be predictable. When we look at variable schedules of reinforcement and jackpots, there's already a lack of predictability to the rewards for a job well done... and often it's exactly that variability that works to make the behavior even stronger. Personally, I like to mix up the type of reward throughout a session as well. I may have a few different treats, a ball, and a tug all on me for one short session. I find it keeps things more interesting for both of us if he never knows what he's going to get. I understand your reasons for doing things the way you do... but with a dog who is so much more motivated by play than food, I've found it works best for us to do things a little differently.

*Quiz:* I agree, it would be nice if we could all settle on one set of terms and definitions. I find clicker trainers are usually the first ones to insist on proper use of terms when debating training methods, but it doesn't help that we can rarely agree amongst ourselves on what the proper use of terms is.... LOL! On the plus side, I'm always learning something from these types of threads.

Okay, I think that's everything/everyone. Now try and go slow until I get back so my next response won't be a novel.... :curtain:

Julie and Jersey


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

I use a variety of reinforcers too, but since I am training for the obedience ring I am always trying to base everything on stuff I can take in the ring. You can't take toys and food in the ring. And Kathy Sdao said praise and petting were weak reinforcers and thus classified as TWC and not CT. I think praise can go a long way if you know how to use your voice and not abuse it 

I didn't realize that a lot of clicker trainers use more reinforcers than food on a regular basis. I would love to see more of it--most of what I see is the rapid pez-dispensers on youtube. 

The value I see in clicker training or using a clicker for training is when you can't immediately reward for good behavior. I don't find many things I want to teach that I think a clicker makes it better, but I do have and use one on occasion (i.e. teaching Scout to blow bubbles in her water bowl, I can't reward her in the act of blowing bubbles.) Most other things I have taught though have been motivational and positive based sans clicker and I don't think a clicker would have made the tricks better--lights, tug fridge, bow, moonwalk, put toys away, etc.

EDIT: In re-reading the article I take it that the handler is passive during the training part, but may not be when the reward is issued.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

I would absolutely love it if a group of experts or whatever sat down and standardized the definitions. It is very hard to have a meaningful discussion on clicker trainers, traditional trainers, balanced trainers, training with a clicker etc etc if they all mean different things to different people.

I would completely defer and accept said definitions even if they are not how I think they should be. In fact, that's why I have been using Sdao's article as my blueprint for what is clicker training and what is not. It is not what I personally used to define clicker trainer (mine was much broader).


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Jersey's Mom said:


> *Louisiana: *Ah, my favorite sparring partner... I've missed you! :wavey:


Hiya Buddy! :wavey: I love that we can so often disagree but I still have total respect of you. Can't say that about other people I often disagree stongly with...(not referring to anyone on this board) 



> I don't know what it is with us, but again my experience is the complete opposite of yours. In the classes and groups I've trained with, it's the folks with slip and/or prong collars who like to balance their praise with punishment that have the deepest pockets of treats. I've yet to see a single one of them pull out a toy in the middle of a session


I guess who I was thinking of when I said that was some of the shutzhund trainers I've seen. I'm not painting them all that way, just some of the ones I've seen train(and I've seen others I'd love to train with!). I've seen a toy pulled out, but never food from these people I'm thinking of, and I've seen plenty of physical corrections.

Going back to the original question of clicker training: If we are talking about clicker training a purist's standpoint, it's not the way I enjoy training. I just don't have the patience for it, and I feel like I'm too much of a outsider in the process. My number one reason for training is I love the bond we create training together, and I just don't feel like the bonds are as strong when I'm clicker training. Not saying it's wrong, just not for me. If we're talking about using a clicker to mark a correct behavior with some amount of shaping then I do find it beneficial but kind of a pain to have one more thing in my hands so I get rid of the clicker as quickly as possible.

My other concern with clicker training is that typically in clicker training silence means the dog is wrong and needs to keep trying, while I want to teach my dogs as soon as possible that silence means they are right - continue what they're doing, since all they'll hear in the ring while they're working is silence. I know others say it's just a process of switching that over, but that's too confusing for me.

I took all my psychology classes in college and learned all about the four quadrants, but I really don't think about any of that when I'm training. I don't approach dog training as a science. I will think about how to handle a certain situation, but in the end I usually just do what "feels" right for that situation instead of trying to think it through scientifically.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

GoldenSail said:


> And Kathy Sdao said praise and petting were weak reinforcers and thus classified as TWC and not CT. I think can go a long way if you know how to use your voice and not abuse it


She did. But she also classified social companionship as a strong reinforcer. I can't help but wonder exactly where she draws the line between the two and won't pretend I know what she was going for. But gain, Kathy Sdao is one voice among the very many out there. I don't limit myself with to one single person's idea of clicker training any more than I limit myself to a single reinforcer. There's something to be gained by taking in as many sources as possible... seeing those common threads that bind them all and the less significant factors where opinion and experience diverge.

Regarding the pez dispensers on youtube: If I were trying to get as many reps as I could into a short video (to keep the viewer's interest), I'd likely use food as my reward. If I were making a video showing the initial steps of shaping a behavior, I'd likely use food as my reward. In both cases, speed and flow are important... and food is generally best for maximizing both in that type of situation. I'm not at all surprised that's what you're seeing on youtube.... but I would hope that people hoping to learn more about clicker training would look well beyond youtube for info.



Louisiana - this is going to wind up being quicker than I want it to be because I have to get out the door for work, but you brought up some really interesting points that I wanna jump on before this thread takes off without me again.

I've come to believe that Schutzhund is an entirely different beast than what most obedience people have experienced. On another forum I frequently read there's a woman who often jumps into the training debates from that background.... I find her experienced simultaneously interesting and confounding. She's actually a very positive trainer. Most of the "corrections" other people would observe during training actually do not serve the purpose of "correcting" the dog. It's something about agitation training, getting the dog into a controlled tizzy, if you will. Same with their use of e-collars. I won't pretend to understand it, because I honestly don't.... but I personally think that Schutzhund is a difficult area to base a training debate, especially if one or all of the participants have no background in it.

About silence: In my mind, silence during shaping doesn't mean you're wrong, but rather that you haven't found the right answer yet. But that's just during the original shaping... and some people do use No Reward Markers to avoid that kind of silence (though that often leads to a whole 'nother line of debates, LOL). Once the dog is reliably performing the behavior on cue, silence can mean any number of things.. but most commonly, it's a sign for the dog to continue what he is doing. Think of a sit/stay. The clicker trainer says sit (most don't use stay... I do, because I trained the behavior long before I had even heard of clicker training), walks away, and says nothing until they release the dog. If the dog spent that entire time thinking they were "wrong," you'd see them jumping up to throw behaviors, not sitting calmly waiting for the release. 

I don't really tend to think "scientifically" about training while actually doing it... only when researching or debating it. 

Gotta run!

Julie and Jersey


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

GoldenSail wrote:I would love to see more of it--most of what I see is the rapid pez-dispensers on youtube. 

IMO, the reason you don't see it out there is because those doing the youtube instructions want to hit the largest target audience in the simplist form. (this means beginners and advance trainers) It takes two or three seconds to dispense food as a reward and go into the next phase of the instruction. To use toys you have the give the dog more than three seconds for the toy to be a reward. That takes time away from the flow of the video.

GoldenSail wrote:And Kathy Sdao said praise and petting were weak reinforcers and thus classified as TWC and not CT

I have been taught that praise and petting can be a weak reinforcer. So, early in the training we should use association and pair the petting and praise with a higher reinforcer such as the toy, and or the food. Over time making this association will in most cases make praise and petting a much higher reinforcer.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

solinvictus said:


> I have been taught that praise and petting can be a weak reinforcer. So, early in the training we should use association and pair the petting and praise with a higher reinforcer such as the toy, and or the food. Over time making this association will in most cases make praise and petting a much higher reinforcer.


I really think it depends on the type of praise and petting you do. If you give your dog a simple "good dog," then yes, it has to be taught that that phrase is meant to be a positive reward, the dog isn't born knowing that. But if I give a super happy "YAAAAY! You super super smart puppy!" in a tone of voice that gets the dog excited and I'm sitting on the floor vigorously rubbing my hands up and down his back, most dogs I've worked with will find that highly reinforcing. Of course it does depend on the dog, my Lhasa would decide to just scoot his little butt out of the room if I did that to him, but what a dog finds reinforcing will vary in all areas. Some dogs will spit out steak.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Ok, I am not a fan of making praise worthwhile by using treats or toys. I think it important for a trainer to learn how to make praise and petting worthwhile without those aids. This is why in particular I held off for the most part on using treats when Scout was little for the first few weeks and trained a few things exclusively without them (recall, sit, stay). I wanted to build a foundation of praise and petting being just as, if not more than, rewarding as food and toys.

And even if pez dispensers are trying to teach something or only doing it at the beginning....I still think that rapid food dispensing can be a big con, at least for me.

I try to differentiate between clicker training and training with a clicker now because I see them often as pretty different. I have no qualms about telling my dog 'no' when teaching her bubbles when she tries to flip the bowl over with her foot. Some of the stout clicker trainers are very much against using any negative word. And I am impressed by those followers who keep it pretty pure even going so far as to create a positive interrupter because they just can't say no. It's not for me, and that is not how I use a clicker. So, I now consider myself someone who occasionally trains with a clicker, but doesn't clicker train. This after a post several months ago when Jodie mentioned that training buddies told her she wasn't clicker training. I didn't agree with it at first because I have always had a broad definition of clicker training--that is, using a conditioned reinforcer paired with a positive. I never considered any of the other stuff as mentioned in Kathy Sdao's article at that point but have since changed my understanding of what clicker training is.

I will repeat what I said from the beginning--I think clicker training can be very effective. But I also think the clicker is often an extra thing that you don't really need to get the behaviors or be positive and motivational with. This because a click is almost immediately followed by the reward. I like the clicker (for me) when I can't reward immediately which doesn't happen often.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

GoldenSail said:


> Ok, I am not a fan of making praise worthwhile by using treats or toys. I think it important for a trainer to learn how to make praise and petting worthwhile without those aids.


And for me, this idea simply comes back to the need to have a relationship with your dog - regardless of how you train.

I definitely pair treats with touch in that I try to make sure I'm touching my dog most every time I deliver a treat so as to classically condition my praise and petting to be that much stronger. Dogs have a very limited number of natural primary reinforcers: food, water, rest, procreation are the must-haves for survival. Then we get into social interaction. I see no reason not to use the strongest primary motivators to my advantage as long as it's contributing to the relationship I want to build with my dog.

I will say that it's a very interesting experiment to go to a dog park or even a class. Watch people petting their dogs.... and watch how many dogs aren't enjoying it! Humans often make assumptions about what dogs enjoy and many times, we're WAY off the mark! Not targeting anyone here specifically, but really, go watch sometime. Look at how many dogs are moving away from the petting rather than into it, or look at the squinty eyes, etc. A lot of dogs have to be taught to enjoy petting - or at least the petting dispensed by their owners!


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

FlyingQuizini said:


> And for me, this idea simply comes back to the need to have a relationship with your dog - regardless of how you train.
> 
> I definitely pair treats with touch in that I try to make sure I'm touching my dog most every time I deliver a treat so as to classically condition my praise and petting to be that much stronger. Dogs have a very limited number of natural primary reinforcers: food, water, rest, procreation are the must-haves for survival. Then we get into social interaction. I see no reason not to use the strongest primary motivators to my advantage as long as it's contributing to the relationship I want to build with my dog.
> 
> I will say that it's a very interesting experiment to go to a dog park or even a class. Watch people petting their dogs.... and watch how many dogs aren't enjoying it! Humans often make assumptions about what dogs enjoy and many times, we're WAY off the mark! Not targeting anyone here specifically, but really, go watch sometime. Look at how many dogs are moving away from the petting rather than into it, or look at the squinty eyes, etc. A lot of dogs have to be taught to enjoy petting - or at least the petting dispensed by their owners!


Hmmm, well to each his own but I don't agree that dogs in general don't like petting. I agree that some dogs don't like petting and in those cases could see using treats to try and make it more meaningful....Dogs that move away from petting could also be because the owner is not very good at it, not because the dog doesn't like petting at all. I mean some people are really bad at giving praise and hands-on touch. It's a motor skill.

I don't know how your dogs are, but Scout is a total mooch. She'll bump your hand with her head to get you to pet her. She loves to roll over on her tummy and get a nice rub. All of my dogs growing up were the same--stop petting and you have a dog nosing at you for more.

Actually, after field training this morning Scout was seeking out pets and leaning against my training buddies, rolling over for pets, and had the biggest grin on her face. So yeah, it is crazy for me to imagine using food or toys to make the pets and praise more enjoyable. 

And I do use other motivators like food and toys, I just think it is crazy to have to use those motivators to make touch enjoyable. But that's just me. Scout has liked petting/attention/praise since I brought her home. I dunno.


----------



## Dreammom (Jan 14, 2009)

Don't want to get in the way of trainers discussions here, just wanted to say...I tried to use the clicker with Hurley and Layla. I swear the two of them were laughing at how uncoordinated their mom was. We had to stick to praise and treats..but of course I am a total failure when it comes to training it seems .


----------



## Lola (Aug 31, 2010)

We have one but is 10 weeks to young??


----------



## nixietink (Apr 3, 2008)

Oh my, this turned into a REALLY, REALLY interesting conversation!! I can't wait to come back and read it when I have a second. 

Lola- I don't think 10 weeks is too young.


----------



## LibertyME (Jan 6, 2007)

Lola said:


> We have one but is 10 weeks to young??


no not too young...I start as soon as I get my hands on them at 8 weeks...some breeders I know start clicker work at 6 weeks.


----------



## LibertyME (Jan 6, 2007)

you definitely can see many dogs _cringe_ when handlers thump the top of their heads or thump their rib cages...

My own experience with Libby when using the clicker is she would MUCH rather have a GOOD! or EXCELLENT! then be stroked...almost like being petted slows down the energy/momentum of the experience. So I tend to use it (stroking) that way with her....when I want to slow her down or transition from one behavior to another.

Lexi is much slower and deliberate with the clicker...stroking works nicely with her.


----------

