For some time, I have seen this idea popping up here and there : when we use conditioning to train a dog, we are manipulating him ; which is perceived negatively.
The definitions (Source : thefreedictionary.com)
Conditioning
1 - A process of behavior modification by which a subject comes to associate a desired behavior with a previously unrelated stimulus.
Learning
3 - Behavioral modification especially through experience or conditioning.
Manipulation
2 - To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously
The processes
I'll be honest : I manipulate dogs regularly !
Now that I have confessed my crime, I will tell you more about how vile I am so that I achieve my ends to obtain different behaviors from certain dogs. It is a secret that I share only with you. It is about… communication! Yes, that is nothing but that: I send a message that I make sure is adapted to my recipient, he receives it, processes it, if he changes his behavior it is because he has learned something.
If someone shows me how to use a pen that I don't know how to use, and I manage to use the pen, that person will have manipulated me because they will have induced a particular behavior from me, which I will perhaps repeat and therefore memorize.
If someone supports me in a moment of panic when faced with a hornet, just so that my behaviors have changed in the future, and that my behavior have actually changed in the future, this person will have manipulated me because he will have reoriented my behavior differently, without me being aware of it.
In both the pen and hornet examples, conditioning is in place (respectively, operant and respondent conditioning).
When I work with families whose dog suffers from separation anxiety, I set up exercises to change the dog's perception of his solitude so that he learns there is nothing scary about it. I do not ask the dog for his consent. I do not make him aware of the manipulation in progress.
When I work with families whose dog is afraid of other dogs, I set up exercises to modify the dog's perception on seeing and/or hearing and/or smelling other dogs. I adapt them according to his body language, according to what he expresses, according to his emotional state. My goal in changing his perception is that his behaviors are modified too.
When I work with families whose dog is distracted by the slightest element around him and is unable to come back when called, I set up exercises that motivate him, that reinforce his return to his owners. I have a preference for reinforcement rather than punishment.
Am I then manipulating the dog because I am trying to get a particular behavior from him? Maybe. Is that an issue for my morals ? Not the least in the world. By inviting dogs into our homes, we invite them into an environment that is dominated by a culture that is different from theirs. Getting them to integrate into it also means getting them to be more serene. I am not condescending to the dog, I am trying to motivate him, to induce pleasure in him. He is ignorant of something, I teach him, he is satisfied. I do not deceive dog or their owners by using flattery. I want my words to truly mean something.
I am fully aware and accept that the environment, all the elements around dogs, can also reinforce or punish certain behaviors. Even if I do not knowingly intervene, they will modify their behaviors depending on the consequences. I then prefer to be sure that the learning they do then leads them to behaviors of inclusion, and not exclusion from their home.
Comments