The Nature of the Beast

In the comments to a post I put up earlier this week about Harry Potter Dog Training, a reader writes:

It should be mentioned that Hagrid also understood one key idea. That a Griffon was a Griffon, a Dragon a Dragon, and each should be trained accordingly.

Dog trainers would be wise to remember that at the end of the day a dog is a dog, and not, for example, a dolphin or a chicken.

This is a big idea and an important one, but one that needs a bit of definition in order to avoid too much unnecessary argument, and so while I earnestly agree, I add bit of context and a few supporting links for clarification:

This is true -- a dog is a dog. It is a unique thing, and perhaps this should be talked about a little more.

You see, while a dog is not a chicken or a dolphin (more on that in a second), chickens, dogs, and dolphins and most other animals (including humans) can be taught quickly and easily by operant conditioning.

On this point there is no debate.

Now, of course, not all rewards are the same. Animals eat different things, some animals do better with toys or activity rather than food, some do better with light, sound or hand signals, etc. But operant conditioning works for all.

But operant conditioning teaches tricks. It teaches a response to a call. It does not teach the animal (chicken, dog, dolphin, human) his place in the world. It does not provide the animal with mental health.

Having said that all animals can be taught tricks through operant conditioning, it should also be said that all animals have different natures. For example, it is a good thing to remember that one animal is called a KILLER Whale. Forget that, and see if it does not kill someone. Chickens too have a dark killer side, as I have noted. A Chicken McNugget tastes very much like Tyrannosaurus Rex!

What about dogs? Dogs are dogs. And to put a point on it, they are not wolves. Does that mean that they are not so very closely related to wolves, that they do not share a lot of similar behaviors? No, of course not. Very similar, but different too. A bit like a pencil and crayon.

For links on pieces where I have written a bit more on this see:

** They Invented Animal Training  (a special thanks to Bob Bailey who read this piece before it was published in order to make sure I got it right!)

** A Dog is Neither Shovel Nor Child 

** The Three Parts of Operant Conditioning

** Your Dogs are a Mess (And Your Kids Are No Prize)

** Clicker Training Does Not Require Empathy

** Calm and Assertive Clicker Training

** Killer Whales and the Limits of "Click and Treat" 

** Catching a Mexican Wolf With a Y Pole

So, as you can see from reading at the links, while I firmly AGREE that we must always remember the basic nature of what is in front of us, that does not mean that operant conditioning does not work.  It only means that it works on top of the core nature of the beast, and sometimes training cannot erase or override the codes that are born within.

So how should we think about the beast in front of us?

It helps to take inventory. Is it mammal, bird, reptile or fish? Is it rodent, ungulant, canine, feline or something else?  What species is it?  What motivates this species?  How strong is that motivation?  Is is it a dog? If it is a dog, what breed of dog is it? Yes, yes, breeds differ one from another. A Greyhound has a very different temperament and way of doing business than a Jack Russell. A Beagle and a Pointer are similar in many respects (great noses on both), but very different in many others. And NO, a Pit Bull is not just like any other dog, anymore than an English Bulldog is just like a Borzoi. Each has its own morphology, its own internal drives and codes. Not only is the outside of these dogs different, but so too are many of the watch springs of personality and desire that are driving things along inside. So, to put a point on it, when I go into the field with my own dogs I know I am working with two hunting partners that are mammals, canids, domestic dogs, and, finally, working-bred Jack Russell Terriers.

But, of course, there is more, as each of my dogs has their own quirks and personalities, knowledge bases, and morphological differences. Mountain, Gideon and all the other dogs I have owned, run, dug over, and loved are unique bags of flesh in their own way. I celebrate their sameness, but I also celebrate their differences. And always (or almost always), I am amused.
.