Volunteers get pleasure from the action itself----if they didn't they wouldn't do it. I know because for many years I did do it. If there was no internal reward for doing it we would be overrun with volunteers----and we aren't!

If you are training something which is inherently rewarding to the dog it works----often the tunnel in an agility course becomes a reward, in some HTM routines you put jumps in because they are rewards in themselves.

Many times the owner/trainer is not aware that they are rewarding the dog, allowing a dog to run again after coming back can be reward.

People get very fixed on NOT giving food to their dogs as rewards (for no good reason as far as I can see) but they fail to realise that there are many more rewards in a dogs life than food. Food happens to be the easiest and quickest for many people. I prefer a toy but Etta prefers food so generally that is what I use, especially when teaching HTM. For general living I just expect her to do as she is told now---along with all the others who have learnt the same way.

rune

Exactly rune, well put

IMO food seems to be the most common reward tried at the start of training, or used to provide associations between a "good" thing, i.e. food, & a neutral or previously scary thing. This is probably to do with the fact that:

• most dogs find highly palatable tasty bits of food rewarding,
• food is easy & quick to deliver to mark the correct behaviour & make it easier for the dog to learn what is required,
• food is easily portable so can be carried/taken almost anywhere,
• tiny pieces of food are quickly eaten & the training session/walk/agility course etc can continue almost without interruption,
• most dogs that find food treats rewarding are not distracted by other things, like having a game with a toy.

I'm sure people can find other reasons for using food treats as reinforcers, but they can only be used if the dog finds food rewarding & we can only tell if the dog finds them rewarding if the dog's behaviour changes.

There are many other reinforcers already mentioned. Some dogs that find a tennis ball hugely rewarding & it has many of the features that food has. But any decent trainer using pos R will take the time to establish what each individual dog finds rewarding, then use that to do the training.

Shamus, bless him, wasn`t brought up with treats so never accepts them when out. He is trained with a stroke and a kind word - which is enough for him.
However, the mere fact I can`t use high value treats (play or food) means training takes a long time, and frankly, I`m not going past the basics with him!

But altruism plays a big part in animal & human behaviour ~ it can also be an evolutionary successful strategy. "The Selfish Gene" makes this quite apparent!

I repeat I do not believe there is anything that is TRUE altruism, as rune so correctly says:

Volunteers get pleasure from the action itself----if they didn't they wouldn't do it. I know because for many years I did do it. If there was no internal reward for doing it we would be overrun with volunteers----and we aren't

Hence why nuns are not supposed to say " I feel great cos I did x........ "

I prefer a toy but Etta prefers food

And it is after all the DOG that decides what is reinforcing and what is punishing, one of the basic laws of dog training.

And as I have said many times before there should be a hierarchy or reinforcers and each is used where appropriate, for my high drive dog, it is necessary quite often to use a low value reinforcer (for him) ie food, otherwise his concentration level is compromised. Eg for very accurate foot positioning etc.

He will accept food in lieu of the ball, but he has no choice, so eventually he has found food rewarding but not so STIMULATING as the ball.

I understand what you mean in this context of altruism, i.e.

"Altruism is helping behavior that is motivated by a selfless concern for the welfare of another person.

Based on above definition, not all helping behavior is altruism. Only selfless helping is considered altruism.

It may be difficult to determine whether helping behavior truly reflects altruism. This seems to be true because there are a number of possible selfish motives to help another person. Also, if a person enjoys helping others and also has a true concern for the welfare for others, can it still considered altruism? It seems that many helping behaviors could be considered as benefiting the person who helps because it is likely that the person who helps another person will experience the joy of helping others. Thus, it may not be possible to completely separate selfish motivation from altruistic motivation in many situations."

But I was referring to the definition of altruism in respect of "The Selfish Gene" theory of Dawkins, i.e. "instinctive behaviour that is detrimental to the individual but favours the spread or survival of that individual's genes, usually by benefitting close kin", i.e. the survival & promotion of genetic material, even if this means the death of an individual.

There are many examples of altruistic behaviour in nature using the 2nd definition, but perhaps fewer in the first definition when human behaviour is under consideration. The only example I can think of that may fit is, say, a prisoner being tortured & killed to stop his colleagues being captured. I find it hard to see what "joy" that person experiences whilst helping others!

Another example would be people that do a good turn for others, but in the hope that this good turn is reciprocated. It is not altruism in the sense that there is a "selfish" motive in the hope/expectation that the good turn is reciprocated, but there is no guarantee of reciprocation, so the person doing the good turn is still willing to do the good deed without that guarantee. But I suspect that too many instances of good turns not being reciprocated would mean that the person stops being "atruistic"

So why can't dogs be like that as well? Just a thought, Izze loves the job & the act of serving me. I know that because of her body lengo tells me so... Tail up, ears fwd, happy alert expression etc....

cos if you are happy SHE is happy, therefore she benefits from making you happy

So we make each other happy, so its a symbiotic relationship then. I'm like that with both of my dogs, we benefit from each others company .

i would agree with that!

Every action a dog (or human) makes benefits them in some way - or it wouldn`t be made. It might ease the pain to do it, or it might bring good feelings, or it might give riches beyond belief.
The more important question for me is - what does it do to the person stimulating this behaviour?
If you can stomach hurting or frightening a small animal into compliance....... what does that do to your soul?
(people who aren`t into all that airy fairy cr*p please substitute nature or character for soul. ta