“No” Is Not a Habits . . . However That is Not the Drawback with Saying It

I don’t suppose this publish goes to win a recognition contest, however right here goes anyway. I can’t get it off my thoughts.

Trainers commonly work onerous to show folks options to endlessly saying “No!” to their canines. Even these of us who know the pitfalls of the behavior lapse into it every so often.

However I appear to disagree with many others about what precisely these pitfalls are.

Right here’s why I feel yelling “No!” is a foul thought: most people who find themselves doing it haven’t taught it as a cue for a conduct educated with constructive reinforcement. It finally ends up as an aversive methodology and carries all the standard potential for fallout. It depends first on a startle response. If the canine habituates, then folks escalate the aversives.

However that’s not the objection I often hear.

The Frequent Objection to “No”

I learn it once more the opposite day, in a dialogue advising somebody who was coping with an undesirable conduct by her canine. She had been telling her canine “No!” when he carried out the conduct. A number of folks chimed in, declaring two associated issues: “no” just isn’t a conduct, and saying “No!” didn’t inform the canine what he ought to do.

Each true statements. However they level to a failure in coaching, not some magical property (or lack of property) of the phrase.

The assertion that “no” doesn’t inform the canine what to do can be true for each single verbal cue we use—we’ve got to train the affiliation. As an example, merely saying the phrase “flip round” doesn’t give the canine any details about what we wish them to do, both. A cue and a conduct are two various things. We prepare the latter and affiliate it with the previous.

R+ trainers generally say two issues which can be contradictory.

1. On one hand, we inform newbies any phrase is usually a cue. That is true. “Lightbulb” can cue sit. “Resonate” can cue the canine to have a look at me. Trainers simply have to recollect them and be capable of train the canines. Cues don’t even should be phrases. A cue is usually a hand on a doorknob, the sound of a automobile approaching, a time of day, or the odor of vinegar. This takes some time for many of us to understand, as a result of the language side is often rather more salient to us people than the rest. And we are inclined to backslide. We persistently combine up the which means of the phrase with its perform as a discriminative stimulus. I talk about this in my weblog publish, “Good Sit!”
2. However then we additionally inform those that “no” just isn’t a conduct. That’s additionally true, however probably not related. After we say “sit,” “down,” or “lightbulb,” these aren’t behaviors both after they come out of our mouths. They’re cues. “No” just isn’t a conduct, nevertheless it doesn’t should be. It simply wants to point reinforcement is out there for a conduct. We don’t say {that a} hand on a doorknob or the scent of vinegar can’t be cues as a result of they aren’t canine behaviors.

Singling out “no” as uniquely meaningless isn’t logical.

The Actual Drawback with No

I imagine the basis downside with “no” is that individuals don’t prepare it; the phrase doesn’t level to a conduct that will probably be adopted with constructive reinforcement. And if saying it doesn’t efficiently interrupt the canine, folks often escalate. So “No!” involves predict aversive situations: nagging, yelling, stomping, clapping, and even bodily aversives like hitting.

Canine trainers rightly advise their shoppers to start out over and use one other phrase if they will train a “leave-it” or an interrupter, as a result of most of us not often say the phrase “no” to canines properly.

However we are able to. I’ve a good friend who practiced for ages to make use of “no” as her leave-it cue for her service canine so she might say it in a nice and impartial tone of voice.

Once I Yelled “No!”

Consider it or not, I yelled “No!” on the identical day I began this text, proper after I used to be pondering this entire factor.

I make a baked dessert out of oatmeal, egg whites, almond butter, dried cranberries, and darkish chocolate. A lot of darkish chocolate. I warmed a bit of it that evening on a plate and put it on the counter. You understand what’s coming. I rotated and Lewis was countersurfing. He had his nostril up, sniffing the dessert, about to take a chunk.

Regardless that I’ve taught Lewis a leave-it cue, I panicked, yelled “NO!” and clapped my arms. I did precisely what I’ve been describing. I yelled, hoping to startle him, and when that didn’t work immediately, I clapped, with the identical aim.

What did Lewis do?

He didn’t cringe or cower or run away. He slid slowly down from the counter and calmly got here to me, anticipating a deal with. I gave him a handful, then I eliminated the dessert from his attain.

I haven’t educated the phrase “no” as a cue, however I’ve educated a number of different phrases that perform to interrupt, and he’s accustomed particularly to being known as away from the counter. So to him, it didn’t matter what I stated, nor, apparently, how I stated it. Lewis related a conduct (reorienting to me) with my saying “No!” due to the inspiration of coaching we already had.

I taught him “Pas” (go away it), “Excuse me,” (put all 4 paws on the bottom), and “Lewis” in a excessive, singsong tone (come right here). None of these phrases or phrases “was a conduct” when he first heard them both, however now they signify great things if he performs the conduct I’ve related to them. And by generalization, so did the “no.”

I used to coach “Hey!” I fastidiously conditioned it to foretell nice issues for canines who come to me, since that was what often got here out of my mouth once I panicked about one thing that affected a canine. I even practiced it in an irritated tone, so the great reinforcer hopefully counterconditioned my cranky tone. You’ll be able to see a demo right here. I ought to do that with Lewis as effectively.

There’s a lesson to be realized right here. The constructive reinforcement-taught cue for Lewis to get down from the counter is: “The girl says one thing whereas I’ve my ft up on the counter.” Sure, any phrase is usually a cue, however usually it’s not the phrase in any respect. We people are those caught specializing in the phrases.

And naturally, I’m not suggesting that yelling “No!” to our canines is an efficient factor. I’ve delineated the issue with it already. It labored out for me in that prompt with out fallout, however solely as a result of it resembled actual coaching I had carried out. We’d not have been so fortunate. It will have been safer if I’d come out with one among my educated cues. I must apply extra, or possibly I ought to situation “No!” in addition to “Hey!”.

Not Solely a Semantic Argument

I believed onerous earlier than publishing this. It could give folks the misunderstanding that I’m supporting yelling “No!”. I’m not! Or it could appear pointlessly choosy. Possibly.

However my motivation is sensible. Specializing in the phrase “no” and what it means or doesn’t imply feeds into the concept cues drive conduct. If we middle our argument on the phrase “no” not being a conduct, we’re very near implying that phrases like “sit” and “down” are behaviors. And this could strengthen our unconscious tendency to imagine that canines robotically perceive language the best way we do.

That’s the draw back of claiming, “No just isn’t a conduct.” It provides to the confusion about phrases which can be each cues and verbal descriptions of behaviors. Generally cues might describe behaviors, nevertheless it’s not essential that they do.

I perceive that the statements folks make about “no” that trouble me are shortcuts. Trainers don’t often give a lecture on discriminative stimuli when first introducing folks to R+ strategies. And it’s true that individuals yelling “No!” should not often pondering of what they need the canine to do; they’re pondering of what they need the canine to cease doing. So it’s nice to introduce the idea of coaching with constructive reinforcement and get folks enthusiastic about constructing incompatible behaviors as an alternative of repeatedly reacting within the second.

I’m not a professional coach; I don’t work with people coaching their canines day by day. If telling those that “no doesn’t inform the canine what to do” helps most of them break the behavior, then nice.

However I wager there are others like me who ultimately wish to perceive these items about cues just a little higher, and the claims about “no” can gradual that down. I do know, as a result of it’s taken me 10 years to unravel even just a little of it for myself.

Associated Posts

Copyright 2022 Eileen Anderson