Most weeks, I like to put together something on a single topic regarding dogs or dog training. It’s fun to explore things in depth and see where they come from, where they go, and even if we can be better or smarter about them. I tend to be scientific in my approach to most things. I like to break them down, see how they work, and be able to put them back together again. But I recognize that not everyone shares my systematic approach to dogs and dog training.
There’s lots to see, hear, do, and think about when it comes to our dogs. Working with my dogs is a passion. So, perhaps more than many dog owners, I read book and articles and the Internet to stay on top of the latest information. I try to filter the best of that learning into this column to share what I’m finding. But some weeks, like this one, what is knocking around inside my head is not as well defined or structured as that. It’s not a bad thing but it’s a bit more on the opinion side than my usual articles. A bit of Canine Nation things-that-make-you-go-“hmmm”, if you will.
This – When did “Science” become a bad word?
Something I’m seeing more and more on the Internet is a negative reaction to science and behaviour analysis by dog training professionals. Many of these trainers actually distinguish themselves as being “non-science” based. Their methods are pointedly described in imprecise, emotional terms like “relationship”, “energy”, or “natural.” I can only assume that this is a way to portray these trainers and their methods as more human and “feelings” based trainers. So when did science become a bad thing?!
I came across the website of dog trainer Kevin Behan who calls his training approach “Natural Dog Training.” Behan claims that what makes his methods work is that they use the dog’s “energy” as a source of information. Behan believes that all dogs know how to perform all of the behaviours we would ask of them – sit, down, heel, stay, etc. According to his website, we only need to create “an emotional group climate which our dogs intuitively synchronizes his actions to, in order to be in harmony with his group.” Frankly, I have no idea what he’s talking about but I’m fairly sure he’s the only one who could show me how it works. For a fee, of course.
I don’t think I’ve ever been able to get through more than 15 minutes of an episode of The Dog Whisperer on television without hearing host and dog training guru Cesar Millan make reference to “energy” in order to achieve “balance” in a dog’s behaviour. Millan has written books on the topic and more than 130 episodes of his TV show have not made the measurable aspects of this “energy” any more tangible to anyone watching him work.
Even dog experts that are popular among more modern positive trainers seem to like to keep a healthy distance from science. Suzanne Clothier, an author and popular speaker on dogs and relationships, seems to have a problem with science. I attended a seminar with Ms. Clothier a few years ago and in response to one of my questions, I was told not to bring all that science into it and Ms. Clothier moved on without addressing my question. Although she has been published in scientific journals and is reported to be an avid reader of scientific journals, Ms. Clothier has chastised some positive trainers. Dog trainer Crystal Thompson attended a Clothier seminar in 2010 and reports that Clothier characterized clicker trainers as being “too cerebral” and that using operant conditioning can treat dogs like computers by basing training on stimulus-response.
Apparently science is fine when we are trying to build skyscrapers, electric cars, or saving lives with modern medicine. But heaven forbid we use it to understand and modify the behaviour of our dogs. It seems to be much more acceptable to draw comparisons to human feelings and attitudes when dealing with our dogs. Teaching our dogs to “respect” us and to work for us out of a sense of duty or loyalty instead of for tangible rewards. To me, it’s a belief system that places higher value on less information and more intuition. I’m reminded of a quotation I saw recently: “Science doesn’t really care what you believe.” Dog owners and trainers ignore the facts that behavioural science and psychology have given us every day. It makes as much sense to me as not believing in gravity.
That – Behavioural Monkey Business
This week I happened upon a very interesting film. Project Nim is a documentary by James Marsh based on the book “Nim Chimpsky: The Chimp Who Would Be Human.” The film chronicles the life of a chimpanzee named Nim who was brought into a research project conceived and run by Dr. Herbert Terrace of Columbia University. The film takes us on a chronological journey through the life of Nim from his birth and arrival at Columbia only days old, through his 5 years in the Terrace project, his relocation to a chimpanzee refuge in Oklahoma, his subsequent sale into medical experimentation, and his eventual rescue and rehoming to the wildlife refuge of Cleveland Amory where he lived out the rest of his life. It is a film that very effectively tugs at the heartstrings and allows the audience to empathize with the captive Nim. And, for me, that was the biggest problem with the film.
It is understandable that this is a film intended to appeal to a wide audience. What got passed over in large measure was the scientific work that Terrace and his colleagues were able to accomplish. The film itself is a cautionary tale on many levels. It shows the dangers of raising a wild animal in captivity in that their instincts are never far from the surface. But, to my mind, the more important message that is all but lost is the value of good scientific methods and data analysis to reach the proper conclusions.
Terrace’s project was to determine if a chimp could be raised from birth to understand and use language in a human context. This was to be achieved through teaching Nim American Sign Language and observing to see if he would eventually begin to combine signs and to express himself. After reviewing hundreds of hours of video tape of Nim, Terrace made a startling observation. What his team had previously identified as evidence of Nim communicating in a expressive way was actually just a response by Nim to human prompting. Terrace and his colleagues were so intent on watching Nim in the videos that they did not notice that the humans in the periphery of the frame were unintentionally prompting Nim and rewarding him for imitating.
So what did the study actually prove? The film didn’t make that clear for me but fortunately, Dr. Terrace made several very public responses that can be found on various websites to Marsh’s 2011 film. Terrace believes the study provided a definitive negative result – Nim did not demonstrate a capacity to use “language” for self expression. He maintains that this result does not invalidate the study. It showed a clear case where the hypothesis was conclusively proved wrong.
There were several lessons in this experience for me. First, it was important to recognize the intention of the filmmaker and to keep myself from putting myself in Nim’s place. I am not a chimp and he was not a human. Yes, there were observable emotions displayed by Nim at various points in the film. But I was not shown the whole story, only what the filmmaker selected for me. So it was important for me to dismiss many of the emotional characterizations made for me by the filmmaker. No one can know what Nim was thinking, only how he was behaving.
Second, and perhaps most important, is the lesson that emotions and relationships can get in the way of good observation and process. Yes, it is important that we care for our animals and we may love and cherish them. But we need to remain committed to keeping the observable facts separate from our human interpretation of them. In the case of Nim, several bad decisions were made for what some might call “the right reasons” and it prevented both Nim and the team from learning some valuable lessons. While it can be difficult, I think that we, as dog trainers, have an obligation to keep science and good process in mind when working with both clients and dogs.
There is a very real danger in assuming too many human qualities in our animals. With Nim, it resulted in his causing serious injuries to his human companions. We have the very same risk with our dogs. If we somehow lose sight of what our dogs are and are capable of, we risk serious injury. The psychological and emotional risks may be even higher. Treating our dogs as if they were human can be confusing at best and may result in serious behaviour problems if we don’t recognize their effects. There are two sides to the cuddly, lovable packages that are dogs. They are our closest animal companions and yet very different from us in the mental, emotional, and physical capabilities.
I’m troubled by those in dog training who set themselves up as something “better” than the science that is out there about dogs. In many cases they base their methods and philosophies on limited personal experience and a compassionate approach that seeks to “respect the nature of dogs.” But isn’t that canine “nature” something that science is helping us understand? From genetics to ethology to behavioural science, our growing understanding of dogs is coming from research and not simply communing with “man’s best friend.”
I’m glad I watched Project Nim and I am grateful that I made the time to do some research on the Internet to get more of the scientific background on the Nim project. The experience showed me how easily we can be drawn into humanizing an animal and empathizing what we imagine its feelings to be. I cannot deny that there is an emotional satisfaction that is attractive about the “compassionate” approach to dogs. And I understand that many in the dog world want to turn away from science and be more “human” with our dogs. We love them and want to see something of ourselves in them. In a very real way, our dogs do mirror us. But they have had to behave as we want them to in order to survive. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t have them in our homes or breed them or feed them.
Until next time, have fun with your dogs.
Photo credits –
Waiting room – kqedquest 2008 from Flickr
Magazines – jay mann 2008 from Flickr
T Shirt – shoe the linux librarian 2010 from Flickr
Cliff says
Hi Eric,
While Kevin’s theories get a bit heady, you must see him work with individual dogs to be convinced. He has led our dog from being a frightened, almost untouchable abused rescue to a calm, secure-in-his-own-skin, biddable companion. Yes, the process is time-consuming, and you must make a commitment (which even Cesar advocates) to follow up, but, after trying several other options, Kevin’s methods, have transformed our dog. And we’re not done yet, but look forward, in a short while, to canine perfection.
Eric Brad says
Hi Cliff –
Thanks for your comment. I have seen Kevin work with dogs to the extent that he has made his work available on YouTube. From my observation of those videos, Kevin is a combination of a Lure-Reward trainer and a somewhat inefficient Mark & Reward trainer. In spite of his issues with training based on Operant and Classical Conditioning, he is using both in the videos I’ve watched. And using them to some good effect I might add!
It is easy to see why Kevin gets results. The dogs he works with are rewarded for their efforts and he provides a very positive and non-threatening environment in working with the dog. In short, Kevin does a lot of good and does no harm.
If I have a difficulty with Kevin it is that we have two different explanations as to WHY his methods work. He believes in energy flow and I believe he is skillfully using Operant and Classical conditioning even if he doesn’t acknowledge that. I simply don’t believe that the mystical trappings Kevin invokes provide any additional benefit beyond the solid behavioural modification techniques he uses with some skill. I think he would be better served by pursuing a better understanding of those behavioural mechanics and leave the talk of energy flows and mysticism behind.
As it stands, I am certain his methods work. But then, many methods work. I applaud Kevin for working with dogs in a non-aversive way and giving them a positive experience while training. For myself, I seek to “call a spade a spade” so to speak. Although he may not understand the details of behavioural science, Kevin uses the tools of behavioural science very skillfully even if he is somewhat less than efficient with them.
I wish you, Kevin, and all his students the best of relationships with your dogs. It is clear that good relationships are a key part of Kevin’s programs. He should be applauded for that as well.
Thanks for writing,
Eric
Cliff says
Eric,
You’re welcome. And a quick comment: the YouTube videos do not do justice to Kevin “in action”. It’s like watching batting practice v. seeing Jeter smack one out of the park bottom of the 9th, bases loaded.
Eric Brad says
Hi Cliff,
Re: YouTube videos, I totally understand and agree with you. It is why I prefaced my comments as I did. I can only comment on what I see. There may be much more to Kevin than I have seen. I would encourage Kevin to try to get it on video and put it out there. It could be a great tool to help others understand his training techniques.
Thanks again,
Eric
cliff says
Fair enough all around. Thanks for your insightful comments.
Kevin Behan says
From what I understand of Panksepp, I don’t see his “affective systems” as fundamental, which is why he ends up needing a number of them. Rather I’m talking about a dynamic of consciousness that is universal and monolithic across the animal/bird/fish bandwidth so to speak. This is why I don’t believe Panksepp will be able to reconcile his model with the Constructal law (“Design In Nature”) which unequivocally shows that all manifestations of order, animate and inanimate, (which would of course include the animal mind and all its adaptations) arise from the flow of a current. Therefore the question remains, what is that current? I’m arguing that it is emotion, and the signature of its internal architecture can be found in Panksepp’s affective systems, which again is why I don’t see them as fundamental and why they don’t answer the questions I posed.
Eric Brad says
Hi Kevin –
Let me start off by saying thank you for taking the time to contribute to the discussion. Secondly, thanks for your contributions on your own website. I’ve had the pleasure to read through a few of them over the past few days and I find them well written and interesting reading. I also appreciate your pointing me to Adrian Bejan.
I do have some difficulty with your linking “emotion” to the “current” that Bejan describes in his work on constructal theory. I’ve done some reading today and even found a great TED talk that Bejan delivered on constructal theory. Very informative stuff but it differs in some significant ways from what you are characterizing here. For example, the Wikipedia page describes the major scientific criticisms of constructal theory as follows: “there is neither a mention of what these “currents” are nor an explicit definition of what “providing easier access” means. As a result, constructal theory is very versatile, but often unconvincing: depending on the choices made for the currents and the “access” to them, it can lead to extremely different results.”
In defense of his theory (again from the Wikipedia page on Constructal Theory), Bejan has countered his critics by stating “the constructal law is not about what flows, but about the physics phenomenon of how any flow system acquires its evolving configuration (design) in time. The constructal law is not about optimality (max, min, opt)—it is the definition of “life” in physics terms, and of the time direction of the changes in flow configuration.” Taken in that context, it seems clear to me that what Bejan describes would be the tendency of any system with flowing matter to evolve toward a more efficient form over time. If one applies such a theory to nature (plants and animals), it seems to agree with Darwin’s theories as the more efficient species would be more likely to survive in order to breed.
In my reading thus far, I can find no reference by Adrian Bejan to this “other” current that you link to “emotion.” If one can accept your premise that such an “energy” does exist, then your writings make sense to me. I think it falls down for me because I do not accept as fact the existence of this unmeasurable “other” energy you choose to define as emotion.
All of this is not to say that I believe you are wrong about this. But as yet I am unconvinced. I don’t have enough evidence of this other energy. Behavioural science and Occam’s Razor have provided sufficient explanations for me in working with dogs so that I have not needed to consider “energy” as a critical component. This may change in time. One must always keep their mind open to new input and new data.
Again, thanks for your contributions to the discussion. All information makes us that much smarter. And thank you for the introduction to the work of Adrian Bejan.
All the best,
Eric
Kevin Behan says
Great discussion and I would like to contribute the following. First of all, some kind of understanding of emotion must be applicable to animals and therefore, a model for the animal mind including emotion can very well be scientific. However if one doesn’t make distinctions between emotion, feelings, thoughts and instincts, and goes on by merely saying that emotion plays a role somehow, then how do they scientifically assess where to draw the line between these phenomena of consciousness so that they know whether or not they’re being anthropomorphic/scientific? Without a model for emotion, how can any approach be said to be scientific? My proposal is that understanding the role that energy plays in the mind, i.e. emotion, allows one to make such distinctions and learn where the lines between these various phenomena fall. I would also say that my use of the term energy is quite rigorous, unlike Cesar who is inherently contradicting himself. For example, if energy plays a role in behavior as he says, then by definition there is no such thing as a dominance hierarchy. Also, I suggest you check out “Design In Nature” by Adrian Bejan who scientifically explains how a current is the source of all order to be found in nature and the behavior of animals. This is an actual principle of physics and I am quite curious how the modern behaviorism is going to try and incorporate this into its psychology of behavior given its premise that the drive to replicate genes organizes social behavior in animals. Finally, is in fact the concept of energy mystical? One needs to ask, if a force (energy) acts on a dog, how does the dog perceive this? How does this energy enter and then affect its state of conscious awareness? Does this energy influence its mind according to a template that runs deeper than whatever cognitive capacity it is reasonable to ascribe to a dog?
Clicker Trainer says
Hi Kevin, are you familiar with the work of Dr. Panksepp? He was keynote speaker for one of this year’s ClickerExpos… the research he’s doing on animals and emotional behaviors is absolutely fascinating and answers many of the questions you pose here. http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/research_vcapp/Panksepp/
john says
If ” Frankly you have no idea what he’s talking about” in relation to Kevin Behan, why don’t you inform yourself about it,
its all on his site free of charge and is very much in keeping with the latest science, i’m dumbfounded you couldn’t see that on the site,
Dismissing something because you cant be bother to properly understand it, is very shallow
I’ve kept dogs all my life and can honesty say i have never came across anyone on the net or otherwise with the insight in the workings of the canine mind.
regards John (Ireland)
Eric Brad says
Hi John –
Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.
Since Kevin Behan has already commented on this post, I hope my reply to him can address some of your comments as well.
Thanks again,
Eric
Clicker Trainer says
Thanks for a great blog post. I’ve been pondering these questions myself and have come to some of the same conclusions… and a few other observations.
I think the phenomenon we’re seeing surrounding terms like “energy” is driven by the New Age movement. It was a lightbulb moment for me, seeing Eckart Tolle and Cesar Millan together in this video. Both men have been championed and popularized by celebrities and have wide appeal in the mainstream New Age audience http://youtu.be/vuOVBgypTyQ Who hasn’t dreamed of being “one” with an animal, the romantic idea of being one with nature, communicating with the animals. It’s been romanticized in fairy tales, books and movies for years… along with the idea that this is special and natural.
Enter we clicker trainers with our operant methods, timing and numbers (doesn’t the bulk of the population hate math?) and the fantasy is squashed. The clicker trainers produce the beautiful freestyle-type fantasy that was envisioned, but the method to get there doesn’t match up?!? Surely there is that special “whisperer” natural way of communicating with animals… keep the dream alive! So they start fighting us, mocking us, pretending it doesn’t matter, the science is meaningless. They want the dream, the magical moments, the effortless ethereal relationship with an animal. This mouse video has been shared via social networking and the first comment I saw regarding it questioned if it was real. That says a lot right there… people have no concept of how effective operant conditioning is. http://youtu.be/zv7RB0IyC_Y
Rescue seems to be so focused on marketing these days, and the type of marketing that evokes emotion. No one wants to know the results of a temperament test, the facts, the figures, the math, the boring stuff. Flowery, emotional descriptions of the homeless animals are written, and highly-charged emotional pleas are cross-posted, cute photos, warm fuzzy wuzzies and it’s just the perfect storm for people adopting dogs they really have no ability to manage.
Thanks again for a great blog post that really addressed a lot of things that have been on my mind.
Eric Brad says
Thanks for reading. And thanks for a great comment!
I’m sure the whole “New Age” movement does play into this significantly. I love your connection with Eckart Tolle!
Also, the video links are very much appreciated.
Thanks again for reading and sharing your thoughts!
Eric
Clicker Trainer says
Thanks, Eric. It makes sense, the New Agey stuff, doesn’t it? Took me a good long while to figure it out… being a little New Agey myself (but not with my dog training!)