Steve White Seminar: Get To or Got To?

 As a crossover trainer, Steve naturally had some interesting things to say about the comparison between primarily reinforcement-based training and mostly punishment-based training. The cool thing is that he’s not dogmatic about it. As a current K9 cop, he really can’t be. If he gets preachy or holier-than-thou, he’s not going to be able to reach anyone.

He even showed us a few hard-to-watch videos of “training.” He always warned us before he did so (there’s no shame in not wanting to watch someone abusing an animal), but felt it was important that we understand the reality of the world out there.

Despite his willingness to watch and discuss punishment-based methods, he believes that it is not suitable as a teaching tool. People and dogs alike do not learn what to do through punishment; by its very definition, it’s suppressive. Because of that, punishment should only be used as an emergency brake. (It’s not clear to me how much or how often he uses punishment, nor under what circumstances.)

For him, using primarily positive methods comes down to a very simple fact: he wants to work with dogs who believe they get to do things instead of dogs who think they’ve got to. In his opinion (and he stressed that there is no science behind this, just anecdotes), with positive training, you have to put a lot of effort in up front, but down the road things get much easier. In contrast, traditional training starts out fairly easy, but over time, the “got to” component makes it so that the trainer has to work harder and harder. In his estimation, “get to” dogs require about 80% less training over the course of their lifetimes than “got to” dogs.

Interestingly, Steve sees training as a continuum of force. At one end, the traditional end, there is a lot of coercion. The dog has to do things, or else. The trainer uses pain to get compliance. At the other end of that continuum, we have the so-called positive training methods. But even this, Steve said, is inherently manipulative. Think about it: we trainers control access to resources, forcing our dogs to earn things they want. This isn’t necessarily bad, but we do need to acknowledge that our actions are not all sunshine and rainbows.

Despite this, I think it’s so much better to create a dog that gets to work in order to earn what he wants than a dog who’s got to work in order to avoid unpleasant things. The former tends to create dogs who are willing, while the latter can create dogs who perform grudgingly. Steve himself experienced that- he crossed over because he was tired of constantly fighting with his canine partners.

I love my “get to” dog. I may be manipulative, but it’s benevolent manipulation, and I somehow doubt that Maisy experiences it as force. But what do you think?

Steve White Seminar: Training to the Power of Three

Steve is big on what he calls “Training Triads,” which are teams of three people per dog. This might sound like overkill at first, but he thinks it’s valuable to have so many sets of eyes on the dog. No one person can see everything, and after experiencing training triads, I agree that it’s a valuable experience. All of our working sessions took place in triads, and each person on the team had a specific role.

The trainer is the person who works directly with the dog. They do the hands-on implementation of the training plan. Their most important job is to be fully present. They should not try to talk and train at the same time as multitasking does not truly exist. What we think of as multitasking is actually rapid task switching; most of us are not good enough to do this while working with an animal.

The coach works with the trainer. They help facilitate the design and execution of the training plan. After the training session, they provide either affirming feedback (that looked great!) or adjusting feedback (this time, let’s change this…). The most important thing the coach does is nail down the specifics of the training plan; exactly what the criteria are, the number of reps, the amount of distance, etc.

The observer probably has the hardest job because they work with the coach. They watch the interactions between trainer and coach and help clarify miscommunication. The do not provide any dog training advice except when necessary to prevent a complete train wreck. This is so hard! Before each training session, the coach and observer clearly state to one another what they are about to see the trainer do.

Roles should be traded regularly, and done so in a manner that everyone performs each role in relation to one another. In other words, both of the trainer’s teammates should act as the coach at some point.

Training sessions are structured as pre-brief, be brief, and debrief periods. During the pre-brief, the trainer and coach create the plan and define criteria. The training phase should be brief; Steve recommended a maximum of 60 seconds or five reps, etc. During the debrief, the coach and trainer discuss if the plan worked, and how to change things for the next rep. This naturally leads into the next pre-brief.

Before we ever brought our dogs out, Steve insisted that we work on our mechanical skills. During the first round of doing the triad, I worked on treat delivery in heel position. My teammates refined hand signals and heeling footwork. Only after we had done this were we allowed to bring our dogs out to train. It really made a difference.

In fact, I was so impressed with this that I’ve decided to change the way I teach Growl Class (reactive dog class). Currently, the class is structured so that the first week is held with people only- no dogs. We do a LOT of talking, and while I think there is a lot of value in that, I think we could use that time better. Two things that I see my students struggling with, especially during the first week with dogs, is mat relaxation with slow treats and the humans continuing to breathe! Although we manage things well, the dogs are amped up the first week, which makes the humans tense.

Each week, we have people come in and set up their stations first, and then bring in their dogs. I’m thinking that it might be nice to have a little human-session before dogs come in (weather permitting, of course). Otherwise, the use of crates or second handlers might be helpful… it will be interesting to play with these concepts and see if they help my students be more successful sooner.

Do you use training partners? How have you done it? What about practicing mechanical skills separately? Is that something you’ve done? I’d love to hear about your experiences with either of these things.

Steve White Seminar: The J-Curve of Change

I absolutely loved the slide Steve showed us of the J-Curve of Change. So much so that even though it was only one, single powerpoint slide, I’m making it into an entire post. It is not an idea unique to Steve; a quick google search will show it being used to explain everything from the economy to political change to psychological progress. Still, it’s an amazing way to explain dog training skills of both the people and the dogs.

Simply put, the J-Curve of Change shows that any time there is a change, there is a natural dip in progress. Here’s a great graphic I found on this website (and then modified slightly to remove confusing bits) that helps illustrate the concept:

Before you start something new, such as a person crossing over to more positive methods, there is a certain level of mastery. You might be getting results you like using a prong collar. When you step out of your comfort zone to try something new- in this case, clicker training- there is often a decline in performance. Steve attributes this to the intense concentration needed to learn new skills. All that thinking often makes it hard to be successful.

Since we expect that progress will go up, not down, we often give up at the deepest part of the J-Curve. This happens either because we don’t believe in the method, or because we begin to assign harmful labels to ourselves or the process (“I’m stupid,” for example). This really is unfortunate as recovery and improvement will happen if the new procedure is better and if we stick with it. Steve recommended that we have a coach that can help us maintain faith in the change and encourage us to keep moving forward.

I definitely think this is something I see with my students who are working on reactivity. Not only is the dog learning new skills, but the handler is, too. I sometimes hear people say in the first few weeks of class that their dog is getting worse. Of course, by the end of the class, they have both made so much progress! I’m really excited to have a way to explain this to my students.

I also really appreciate that Steve showed us the J-Curve of Change before we started working dogs. “Failing” was seen not only as useful information, but also as an expected part of the seminar! Well, then! No pressure on us to be shining stars. I really felt like I could learn without worrying about judgment.

But what do you think of the J-Curve of Change? Is it something you’ve seen in your life, either in dog training or not? I’d love to hear some examples of how others have experienced it!

Steve White Seminar: Dog Training is Like Mapquest

Dog training, Steve told us, is like MapQuest. There are really only two things you need to know: where you are now, and where you want to go.

It’s important to know where you are because if you don’t, you might just go in the wrong direction. While a dog’s past can give you some insight into his behavior, it can also color your perceptions. It’s important to know where your dog really is, not where you think he is.

This is why baselining is so important. It gives you an objective way to know where you and your dog currently are. For each training task that a dog/person team worked on, we took a baseline. We found that Steve was right when he said the easiest way to get a useful baseline was by doing one rep of the behavior. This one rep could be done cold or it could be done after the dog was warmed up with other behaviors. Either way, we would quickly know where the dog was.

We used a really cool chart, which I have recreated in Excel for illustrative purposes, to take the baseline:

As you can see, this actually measures six different components of that single repetition of the behavior. The first three have to do with the fluency of the behavior. (Fluency means that the dog can perform without thought. However, this may only happen in a single environment or with a particular person.) Accuracy refers to what the behavior looks like. Did the dog do the behavior correctly? Latency means how quickly your dog responds to the cue. Speed/Intensity refers to, well, how fast or intense the behavior is.

The next three have to do with generalization. (Generalization is when the behavior is fluent in any environment with any person, and despite competing environmental demands.) Is the dog able to do it with duration? From a distance? When there are distractions?

For each component, you choose whether the dog’s response was unacceptable, needs improvement, met the standard you set, exceeded expectations, or was considered excellent. If your dog scores all 3s or above, then you can increase criteria.

The really tricky part of baselining is making sure that you are very clear in what you’re looking at. A sit is not just a sit. To one person, a sit may mean that the dog’s butt hits the ground within 5 seconds or so. To another, a sit may been that the dog’s elbows are straight and the hips square, that the dog did a tuck sit (where the back legs come under him rather than the dog rocking backwards into the sit), that the response happens within a second of being cues with a single verbal cue, and that the dog remains in the sit until told otherwise.

Pretty big difference in those two descriptions, isn’t there? During the working sessions, we spent a lot of time nailing down exactly what we were looking at. I was sometimes surprised to discover that I envisioned the behavior looking completely different from the way my teammates had envisioned it. We got quite good at describing what we were about to do very clearly: I am going to stand in front of my dog while she’s standing at a distance of 3 feet, then give her a single hand signal to sit. I expect that her but will be on the ground within 2 seconds; I don’t care what the sit looks like.

This might seem picky and pedantic, but not only will it help you get an accurate baseline, it’s also important to do this when you start your training sessions. Remember, part of MapQuest is both knowing where you currently are and knowing where you want to go. Just as there is a big difference between Madison, Wisconsin and Madison, South Dakota, there is a big difference between a competition sit and a puppy sit.

Now, I’ll be honest. All of this seems like a lot of work. I probably won’t be busting out the forms any time in the future. I’ve tried record keeping in the past and honestly, I’m just lazy. But I do want to play with the idea of a single-rep baseline and I will definitely be better about articulating my criteria before I start training.

What about you? Will you incorporate any of this information in your training?

Steve White Seminar: Introduction

In July, I attended a two-day seminar with Steve White. For those of you who aren’t familiar with him, he’s a seasoned K9 handler who has worked for both the Army and the Seattle Police Department. As such, he learned about training using the old school Koehler methods. As time went on, though, he grew tired of always having to fight with his dog. In the early 90s, he decided to find a better way.

Enter the clicker movement. He got in contact with Karen Pryor, and began reading, watching videos, participating in online discussions, and attending conferences. He applied what he learned and began having successes. At one point, he actually left a job because his boss didn’t want the unit divided by training methods and forbid him to train using more modern methods.

Now, closing in on 40 years of training dogs, he’s an in-demand speaker for both the law enforcement community and for positive dog trainers. I was very excited to see him; I’d previously heard recordings of his presentations and thought he had a lot to offer.

And he does. I enjoyed the seminar, and I enjoyed getting to know him. He’s actually a pretty neat guy beyond the dog stuff; he’s a whiz at accents, owns a kilt, and has a great sense of humor. Oh, did I have fun laughing and joking with him, and he even let me take a ridiculous picture of him and Maisy.

You gotta watch out for those Midwest Muppet Dogs, man. They'll turn on you.

Maisy was there because we had a working spot. I’m definitely glad we did (it was kind of a last-minute decision, to be honest) because I do learn best by doing. Being able to try out what we were learning was much more useful than simply watching others do.

But more than that, I gained some very valuable information about Maisy: she’s still reactive. Now, I knew that. Although I tend to call her normal these days, I am well aware of the fact that the reactivity neural pathways will always be there.

Steve acknowledged that as well, and said that a huge part of his behavior consulting business is about helping his clients accept reality. This is not always easy; how often do we humans rewrite history to better suit us? But the truth is, what has happened has happened, and no many times we revise the story, that doesn’t change the truth. Similarly, when it comes to behavior, you can’t erase a reinforcement history.

Instead, the only solution to pollution is dilution. Steve used an awesome example to illustrate this: Imagine that he has a cup of arsenic and drank it. He would probably die if he did this. Now imagine that he took that same cup of arsenic, mixed it into a bathtub full of water, and then drank it. He would definitely get sick, but he probably wouldn’t die. Now imagine that that same cup of arsenic was mixed into a swimming pool full of water before he drank it. This time he might not even get sick, but the arsenic is still there, and is still probably affecting his body, albeit in minute ways.

So what does this mean? Simply, that once a behavior is in there, it’s in there. Although Maisy is more like a swimming pool these days, reactivity is always a part of who she is. It will come out sometimes.

All of which is to say that yes, she had some reactivity over the weekend. I want to say that I was disappointed, but in truth, I’m really not. I felt bad for Maisy; she was clearly stressed and not feeling so hot. But Steve also spent a lot of time telling us that failure is just information. Which is what Maisy’s reactivity was: information.

The information Maisy gave me was that I have not adequately taught her how to cope with prolonged stress that happens in a situation where there are lots of dogs in a small area, and that happens in spaces where she feels trapped by a leash or a crate. Although I can expect her to be fine at friends’ houses, on camping trips, on walks, at the pet store, or even at a dog park, it’s because I’ve spent a lot of time teaching her how to act in those situations. I haven’t done that with seminars.

I have two options: I can work on this with her, or I can stop expecting her to be “perfect” at seminars. I’m not really sure which option I want to choose, but either way, this is entirely my responsibility. As Steve said, dogs do not fail. They perform as we have trained them to, or what we have prepared them for.

Besides, as Steve said, perfect is the enemy of good. We should focus on progress, not perfection. So, while Maisy had a very hard time over the weekend, I’m pleased that she was able to relax in her crate at times. I’m thrilled that she didn’t seem to have a “stress hangover” and that she bounced back quickly. I’m very happy that she remained responsive throughout the seminar. I’m absolutely ecstatic that she would calm down when I verbally told her “Mais, it’s okay. You’re fine.”

Anyway, the seminar was awesome, and I had a good time. I’ll talk more about the specifics in the future, but for now, just know this: you should go see Steve White if you get the chance.