5 ms·

> A waste of time? When I train a dog, I want the dog to respond to a specific input, for instance saying the word "sit". I'm not going to stand there trying di

> A waste of time? When I train a dog, I want the dog to respond to a specific input, for instance saying the word "sit". I'm not going to stand there trying different words until the dog's ass hits the ground. Agreed, it's far from efficient - but it's what I've seen a ton of people do. Throw random inputs at the dog to try to get them to go pee, or go outside when peeing, or sit on command, or etc. > The difference lies in that the dog cannot be said that it wanted the door opened when it tapped the glass. The dog simply wanted the door to open. Of the many things the dog (might have) tried, tapping the glass was the only thing that worked. So the dog goes with that from now on. My question was mainly centered around the idea that, the way you describe it, I think is the same that a lot of people use in "training" dogs. They don't care what the input is, they care what the output is. Even during simple things like Sit. They don't pay mind to all the random variables they're throwing in like body language, tone, gestures, food, etc. > Is the input just as crucial? Yes, it is. If for no other reason than a standardization of language. Because teaching your two year old to just use whatever random word she makes up for what the rest of us call "strawberry" isn't going to get her very far in life. In a similar manner, standardization of language with dogs is just as essential. I've got two dogs, you think I'm learning a different language for each? Duh, no. Consistency of input/desired-output mappings is a key element to training in general. Well I think you misunderstand me. I'm not asking if input matters, I'm asking if input matters to your definition of "training". Ie, if a dog tries random inputs and eventually figures out a way to get me to let it outside - it sounds like you did not consider that training. Yet, I feel like frequently people do the same to "train" dogs. Hence my question towards you.

mikestew 8y ago
Yet, I feel like frequently people do the same to "train" dogs. Apologies, the concept is so foreign to me at this point (as a result of training <g>) I just didn't consider that. But you're right, folks do attempt to train dogs in that manner. I suppose it would be like lifting weights for that big marathon you have coming up. If you ask me, a runner, if that's training I would say no. But I'm fixated on the specificity. More accurately, I'd have to admit that it is, indeed, "training". But without that specificity, it degrades to semantics. I mean, c'mon, who thinks solely lifting weights is going to get you to the finish line? When I say I'm training for a marathon, the vast majority of people would assume I'm spending most of my time running. And when I say I'm training my dog, I imagine most folks expect something along the lines of "when I say a specific command, the dog takes a specific action". Because the desired outcome of training generally is not "the dog's butt hit's the ground", the desired outcome is "I say 'sit', and the dog's butt hit's the ground". If folks are content to have a dog sit with non-specific inputs, they are free to call it whatever they like. But it is not what most people call "training", and no professional trainer would consider it to be "training".

mikestew 8y ago

Yet, I feel like frequently people do the same to "train" dogs. Apologies, the concept is so foreign to me at this point (as a result of training <g>) I just didn't consider that. But you're right, folks do attempt to train dogs in that manner. I suppose it would be like lifting weights for that big marathon you have coming up. If you ask me, a runner, if that's training I would say no. But I'm fixated on the specificity. More accurately, I'd have to admit that it is, indeed, "training". But without that specificity, it degrades to semantics. I mean, c'mon, who thinks solely lifting weights is going to get you to the finish line? When I say I'm training for a marathon, the vast majority of people would assume I'm spending most of my time running. And when I say I'm training my dog, I imagine most folks expect something along the lines of "when I say a specific command, the dog takes a specific action". Because the desired outcome of training generally is not "the dog's butt hit's the ground", the desired outcome is "I say 'sit', and the dog's butt hit's the ground". If folks are content to have a dog sit with non-specific inputs, they are free to call it whatever they like. But it is not what most people call "training", and no professional trainer would consider it to be "training".