Like i said, most trainers can give you a list of potential reasons why a dog may not do the sit once 'trained'.

And now 2 trainers have: tassle and smokeybear.

They have listed:

1. Lack of proofing
2. Change of environment
3. Insufficiently trained
4. Insufficient reward

"Why" was intended to get you to step back and think about your statement.
You kept repeating the same statement in slightly different wording, but just making a statement enough times does not in itself make it a self evident truth (albeit society is riddled with such "facts" that became such due to others repeating the original erroneous statement nough times: they are known as memes - for example, 'if you feed a dog too much protein he will become aggressive', 'the scots are celts', so on so forth).
You need to back your statement up with an explanation, which is why i kept having to repeat the question "why'.

Instantly you made your statement that 'if a dog is trained to sit then doesnt it can only be because he ignoring you', I could think of several reasons: via the precepts of Operant Conditiioning, Ethology, and Instinct.

1, lack of proofing
2, insufficient training
3, change of environment
4, mood of the dog at the time
5, dog has been upset or perturbed by something in the environment
6, dog is having trouble concentrating
7, the dog is not feeling well
8, the dog is feeling stressed
9, the dog is feeling tired
10, the weather
11, the noise
12, dog is air scenting
13, the mood of the handler/trainer
14, the body language of the handler/trainer

Some of these are overlapping reasons.
Which is the point: the dog is not a machine, it is a thinking feeling sentient individual.
The training is a wholistic issue.

Now you are aware of many reasons and motivations why a dog may not do a "trained" sit the first time asked, why not give an interval and try again?
The interval was the key - that is when you tune into the whole picture, notice what is 'wrong', adapt accordingly.

For example, it may mean taking a step to the left, then saying sit again.
For example, it may mean changing your position from a full frontal direct eye contact stance which the dog cannot cope with in the new worrying environment, to a side on position. Then say sit again.

For example, it may be that you tone and body langauge was unntentionally sharp or mumbled (maybe you just had an altercation with another individual or slogged up a all the way up a hill). Think about what happended before the failed sit, then change your own being. Ask for a sit in a different way.

So on, so forth.

And my other question: if you are so set on the 'correction philosophy' for the dog not doing the sit, then why not go down the route of a Non Reward Marker (NRM)?
This achieves the same aim as you verbal cue to correction routine.
Instead you have a verbal cue - removal of reward.
Thus a prong collar positive punishment is not necessay.
Albeit an NRM can still disregard the wholistic emotional nature of the situation as per explained above.

But in your example if they walk into the road at this point and are offlead how do you correct them?? Most responisble owners who are going to be able to keep up training of their dogs wont have the dog offlead around a road because that is agianst the law (and of course unsafe) You talk about a reward trained dog ignoring a command if the distraction is enough - but that goes both ways - people with invisible fences sometimes find their dog has found something MORE important to them than the punishment, got out of the garden and then are unable to come back in because of the punishment - if the distraction is higher value to the dog than the punishment they will also fail to 'obay'
The only reason you get compliance is because you train enough and consistantly with the punishments to fully proof the behaviour, I bet if you put the same effort into continuing with the reward based training then the dog would be just as well behaived

what are your rewards? if your 'punishment' is just like a simple nagging then how does this have such motivating results that the dog works hard to ignore the punishment? From simple learning theory this suggests that your punishment is far more punishing than your reward (or you are more consistant in your training with punishments)

I do hate the term 'disobaying' it really humanises things here
Sometimes you have to look at the full picture
I remember one time Ben was 'refusing' to lie down in an agility class
One of the people in the room was getting angry and telling me how my dog was challanging me and disobaying and how she would correct him
Myself and the trainer thankfully had a different view
I discovered that the wood chip in the barn was irritating his tummy, so I asked for a sit and he did that no problem
I could have forced him to obay - but I prefered to listen to my dog and see what the problem was

Yes very true, I dont think I have seen a dog who really just works for praise - either the praise has been paired with a reward often enough - or they dog is 'rewarded' by the fact he is avoiding the punishment 'good boy' means nothing to a dog until you teach him

Yes v good point. I know in agility circles they talk about doing something 1000 times before it is reliable and I kinda try and work on that principle - if I do 10 recals on a walk then I would expect it to take at least 100 days to proof the recal (of course building up the distractions) and I also add on 10 more for every time I mess up and call when they are too distracted
(I dont actually count but its just to have an idea in my mind of timescales)

Right to kick of this post despite being taught to train dogs this way. For the last roughly 18 hours i've read hundereds of web pages on the pro's and con's of my training methods. I must say i'm starting to get a much wider view than i previously had. Meaning i'm not entirely sure either way anymore.

So i'm looking for imput on what you lot think the pro's and con's of each training style are.

But for now i shall still try to answer your questions as best i can.

Smokeybear ~ I'm sorry i didn't explain myself clearly enough, i obsolutely don't think the dog should perform the same outside. I always introduce distractions slowly as not to set the dog up to fail. That is clearly just detremental.

On your last example with the rabbit i personally believe that using the way i train the dog will be more reliable in situations such as these. Simply by them having more reasons to obey than using positive reinforcement alone.

They get praise, a reward, and avoid a correction.

Wysiwyg ~ Thanks for your response.
I don't use praise when teaching a behaviour but i don't like to be reliant on treats.
Also i was taught that basically petting to dogs is very addictive and enjoyable so when given sparingly works as a great motivational tool. Which so far has appeared true to me.

This is most difficult part for me because i adore playing and petting my dog.

Tassle ~I'm sorry but reading what you've quoted i don't quite understand your question. My apologies.

Krusewalker ~ For the majority of your post in my response i'd like you to watch a short video which explains the style i learnt from. Which will do a better job at explaining what i'm trying to do.

Here's the link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UV72...layer_embedded
Through watching that you'll see there's alot of things that come before the obedience stage.

On the topic of NRM, i don't agree with those for several reasons. There not really annoying to the dog it just scares them. As they generally come with abrasive body language and tone of voice which as i'm sure your know dogs pick up on very easily. A stern 'NO!' will very often scare the dog and stress them out. Which can lead to the dog doing several things such as.
1: Running away to avoid you.
2: Becoming goofy and begging for attention.
All to get you into a better state of mind so you no longer stress them out and frighten them.


http://susangarrettdogagility.com/20...-dog-training/

This blog posts explains it in much more detail than above if you're interested in taking a look.



Ben Mcfuzzylugs ~ Thanks for the response.
On your first point yes they should be onleash ofcourse but alot of people don't. Simply put using just reward based methods the dog has less reasons to obey.
Using strictly reward based the dog only has two reasons, a treat and praise.
Using positive punishment they receive praise, a rewards and avoiding a correction. Just means there more likely to ignore a distraction and obey the cue they were given.

My rewards during the first two stages are always treats and praise. So they do have alot to work for other than just avoiding a punishment. I just beleive it makes the dog more reliable by given then an extra motivation for obeying a cue.

Obviously making sure there isn't a health reason for a dog disobeying is a top priority.
I know disobeying humanises it abit but it was just for lack of a better word to be honest.



Thanks for the discussion.

A NRM shouldn't come in any aggressive tone, it should just be a word. Thats the point. I use 'wrong' but if I have to use it too often I am 'wrong' !

rune

Ain't that the truth.

an NRM isnt as you explained.

it could be a-ha, for example.

in my post i did state the pitfalls of NRM could be the same as the list i presented to you earlier as regards not taking a pause to consider the whole picture around you so as to work out why a dog didnt sit and therfore adapt accordingly.

the point was an NRM can achieve the same purpose as yr correction sequence. so you have instead NRM...sit, instead of verbal warning...positive punishment/prong collar corection...sit.

Allow me to clarify.....

You stated how you trained the sit in a little to no distraction environment.

I wanted to know how much you would proof the sit command before expecting the dog to understand it.

As I am sure you are aware (and SB mentioned) dogs are not good generalisers. So I was curious as to how you got over this and at what point you expect your dog to understand that when you say 'Sit' he has to put him bum on the floor.
For example, do you lie on the floor and ask him, go out of sight, get other people to do it? etc etc.

What do you do to practice and help the dog understand what you want?

ok, read the article,
She actually says she uses NRM's herself and that its the wrong use of NRM's that is related to making the dog feel intimidated or upset, as some people fall back into old habits of annoyed interrupter sounds that can pften then by followed by old habits of physical corrections - just like the one you use.


Of course, she is right.

Re the video: normally I have a policy.
As my questions come from my own mind, ie, i have picked up stuff for myself from someone elses post, i prefer that the other person do the same, ie, consider what i took time to think about and post by doing the same.
In other words id rather they answer the questions for themselves instead of someone elses video.

But i figured that unfair on this occassion, you are offering a great discussion, i should give it a chance.

I started the video: sorry, after about 10 seconds i couldnt cope with the "foundation guy routine" seriously, they were just tooo annoying. I just didnt have the patience to watch a bad comedy routine explain a graph.

So im still more interested in just discussing with yourself my points earlier as regards why/how your verbal warning=correction routine is only based upon the assumption that the only reason a dog didnt do its 'trained sit' was because its ignoring you?
For me, its philosophical issue that has implications for how one regards the sentience of a dog, i dont think that was addressed on your vid
Which i had to admit i skimmed.

also, on the whole, TV annoys me anyway, id rather read.
(Im not even interested in TV dog training shows).

i am really glad to hear you are looking into other ways, there are some amazing trainers on this forum - and this thread - who I have learnt loads from so I am sure you will have some great discussions

imo in the subject of punishments proofing behaviours better

Kind of I sort of agree - but I dont like the reason why

Punishments supress behaviours
In the main joe public wants their dog NOT to do things
Not pull on the lead, not to jump up, not to bark
so punishing makes a dog offer less things and look like a better dog

Rewarding makes behaviours more likely, makes dogs smarter and try new things
But that can be a challange with a smart dog 'do you mean sit, or sit like this? or is it better if I sit like this?'

Its far more fun but means you have to out think your dog