I don’t suppose this publish goes to win a reputation contest, however right here goes anyway. I can’t get it off my thoughts.
Trainers frequently work exhausting to show folks alternate options to endlessly saying “No!” to their canines. Even these of us who know the pitfalls of the behavior lapse into it sometimes.
However I appear to disagree with many others about what precisely these pitfalls are.
Right here’s why I believe yelling “No!” is a nasty thought: most people who find themselves doing it haven’t taught it as a cue for a conduct skilled with optimistic reinforcement. It finally ends up as an aversive methodology and carries all the same old potential for fallout. It depends first on a startle response. If the canine habituates, then folks escalate the aversives.
However that’s not the objection I normally hear.
The Frequent Objection to “No”
I learn it once more the opposite day, in a dialogue advising somebody who was coping with an undesirable conduct by her canine. She had been telling her canine “No!” when he carried out the conduct. A number of folks chimed in, mentioning two associated issues: “no” is just not a conduct, and saying “No!” didn’t inform the canine what he ought to do.
Each true statements. However they level to a failure in coaching, not some magical property (or lack of property) of the phrase.
The assertion that “no” doesn’t inform the canine what to do can also be true for each single verbal cue we use—now we have to educate the affiliation. For example, merely saying the phrase “flip round” doesn’t give the canine any details about what we would like them to do, both. A cue and a conduct are two various things. We practice the latter and affiliate it with the previous.
R+ trainers generally say two issues which are contradictory.
- On one hand, we inform newbies any phrase is usually a cue. That is true. “Lightbulb” can cue sit. “Resonate” can cue the canine to have a look at me. Trainers simply have to recollect them and be capable to educate the canines. Cues don’t even must be phrases. A cue is usually a hand on a doorknob, the sound of a automotive approaching, a time of day, or the odor of vinegar. This takes some time for many of us to understand, as a result of the language facet is usually rather more salient to us people than the rest. And we are likely to backslide. We persistently combine up the which means of the phrase with its operate as a discriminative stimulus. I talk about this in my weblog publish, “Good Sit!”
- However then we additionally inform folks that “no” is just not a conduct. That’s additionally true, however probably not related. Once we say “sit,” “down,” or “lightbulb,” these aren’t behaviors both after they come out of our mouths. They’re cues. “No” is just not a conduct, but it surely doesn’t must be. It simply wants to point reinforcement is obtainable for a conduct. We don’t say {that a} hand on a doorknob or the scent of vinegar can’t be cues as a result of they aren’t canine behaviors.
Singling out “no” as uniquely meaningless isn’t logical.
The Actual Drawback with No
I consider the basis downside with “no” is that individuals don’t practice it; the phrase doesn’t level to a conduct that shall be adopted with optimistic reinforcement. And if saying it doesn’t efficiently interrupt the canine, folks normally escalate. So “No!” involves predict aversive situations: nagging, yelling, stomping, clapping, and even bodily aversives like hitting.
Canine trainers rightly advise their purchasers to start out over and use one other phrase if they will educate a “leave-it” or an interrupter, as a result of most of us hardly ever say the phrase “no” to canines properly.
However we are able to. I’ve a pal who practiced for ages to make use of “no” as her leave-it cue for her service canine so she may say it in a nice and impartial tone of voice.
Once I Yelled “No!”
Imagine it or not, I yelled “No!” on the identical day I began this text, proper after I used to be pondering this entire factor.
I make a baked dessert out of oatmeal, egg whites, almond butter, dried cranberries, and darkish chocolate. A lot of darkish chocolate. I warmed a bit of it that evening on a plate and put it on the counter. You understand what’s coming. I circled and Lewis was countersurfing. He had his nostril up, sniffing the dessert, about to take a chunk.
Despite the fact that I’ve taught Lewis a leave-it cue, I panicked, yelled “NO!” and clapped my arms. I did precisely what I’ve been describing. I yelled, hoping to startle him, and when that didn’t work immediately, I clapped, with the identical aim.
What did Lewis do?
He didn’t cringe or cower or run away. He slid slowly down from the counter and calmly got here to me, anticipating a deal with. I gave him a handful, then I eliminated the dessert from his attain.
I haven’t skilled the phrase “no” as a cue, however I’ve skilled a number of different phrases that operate to interrupt, and he’s accustomed particularly to being known as away from the counter. So to him, it didn’t matter what I mentioned, nor, apparently, how I mentioned it. Lewis related a conduct (reorienting to me) with my saying “No!” due to different issues I skilled.
I taught him “Pas” (depart it), “Excuse me,” (put all 4 paws on the bottom), and “Lewis” in a excessive, singsong tone (come right here). None of these phrases or phrases “was a conduct” when he first heard them both, however now they signify great things if he performs the conduct I’ve related to them. And by generalization, so did the “no.”
I used to coach “Hey!” I fastidiously conditioned it to foretell nice issues for canines who come to me, since that was what normally got here out of my mouth once I panicked about one thing that affected a canine. I even practiced it in an irritated tone, so the nice reinforcer hopefully counterconditioned my cranky tone. You’ll be able to see a demo right here. I ought to do that with Lewis as nicely.
There’s a lesson to be realized right here. The optimistic reinforcement-taught cue for Lewis to get down from the counter is: “The girl says one thing whereas I’ve my toes up on the counter.” Sure, any phrase is usually a cue, however usually it’s not the phrase in any respect. We people are those caught specializing in the phrases.
And naturally, I’m not suggesting that yelling “No!” to our canines is an efficient factor. I’ve delineated the issue with it already. It labored out for me in that on the spot with out fallout, however solely as a result of it resembled actual coaching I had carried out. We’d not have been so fortunate. It could have been safer if I’d come out with one among my skilled cues. I have to follow extra, or perhaps I ought to situation “No!” in addition to “Hey!”.
Not Solely a Semantic Argument
I assumed exhausting earlier than publishing this. It could give folks the misunderstanding that I’m supporting yelling “No!”. I’m not! Or it might appear pointlessly choosy. Perhaps.
However my motivation is sensible. Specializing in the phrase “no” and what it means or doesn’t imply feeds into the concept that cues drive conduct. If we middle our argument on the phrase “no” not being a conduct, we’re very near implying that phrases like “sit” and “down” are behaviors. And this may strengthen our unconscious tendency to consider that canines robotically perceive language the best way we do.
That’s the draw back of claiming, “No is just not a conduct.” It provides to the confusion about phrases which are each cues and verbal descriptions of behaviors. Generally cues might describe behaviors, but it surely’s not crucial that they do.
I perceive that the statements folks make about “no” that hassle me are shortcuts. Trainers don’t normally give a lecture on discriminative stimuli when first introducing folks to R+ strategies. And it’s true that individuals yelling “No!” usually are not normally pondering of what they need the canine to do; they’re pondering of what they need the canine to cease doing. So it’s nice to introduce the idea of coaching with optimistic reinforcement and get folks eager about constructing incompatible behaviors as an alternative of repeatedly reacting within the second.
I’m not a professional coach; I don’t work with people coaching their canines day-after-day. If telling folks that “no doesn’t inform the canine what to do” helps most of them break the behavior, then nice.
However I wager there are others like me who finally wish to perceive these things about cues a bit higher, and the claims about “no” can sluggish that down. I do know, as a result of it’s taken me 10 years to unravel even a bit of it for myself.
Associated Posts
Copyright 2022 Eileen Anderson