>This is science, not law, neither hypothesis has the “benefit of the doubt”
I disagree, the Pavlovian hypothesis (immediate punishment/reward) gets the benefit of the doubt because its been proven a billion times over. The non-Pavlovian hypothesis (punishment or reward much later in the future) you are asking about is the one in need of proof.
There are tons of reasons to use one training method over another, that have nothing to do with experimental science. But that’s irrelevant to the question under discussion. Its not an issue about dog training, its a question of whether the statement in the OP is just a old wives tale that has gaining prominence only by repetition, or is actually a scientifically valid statement.
It one thing to say “In my experience technique A works better than technique B”, I will would be quite happy to defer to someone who has more experience than me on the subject. But thats not what I hear, every single supposedly knowledgeable “expert” I have ever heard has made the statement “Dogs lack the brain power to associate a punishment in the future with an action in the past”. None of them have ever presented a shred of scientific evidence (other than the kind of anecdotal stuff you’ll see in this thread) to support that.
When you start making assertions about the intrinsic ability of an organisms brain to comprehend a basic logical concepts, you need scientific evidence to back that up IMO.
I look forward to your publishing research to prove that snails don’t understand algebra. :rolleyes:
Actually I think you’ll find there is a ton of research out there about what snails brains can and cannot do as they are simple and easy to study.
**You **are the one asserting that dogs have memory and a perception of time that is much closer to humans than other animals. That puts the burden of proof on you. Here’s the very first Google returnfor a search on “dog’s memory.”
Time is anything but a “basic logical concept.” Just because you can point to a mess a five-year-old kid made an hour ago and tell him not to do it again and he understands you doesn’t mean that you can do the same thing with a dog.
Not at all. I’m have never stated as a fact that dogs DO have that ability, plenty of people (including many that make large amounts of money by holding themselves up as experts in the subject) constantly claim as scientific fact that they DON’T. I’m just looking for evidence to back up that claim.
As far as I can tell none of the cites in that article even mention dogs at all.
Yeah, there don’t seem to be a lot of dog-specific studies out there. But dogs are closer to the animals that have been studied than to us. So when the training that is recommended by the experts and demonstrably works seems to agree with what we know about other animals, I think it’s pretty safe to say that dogs brains work like the experts claim they do, even if there isn’t published research to back it up.
More about the “guilt” thing:
The problem with this study is that it only shows that dogs will respond as if they are guilty when their owner thinks they are guilty, even if they are not actually guilty. This is not unreasonable from a dogs point of view.
This is different from showing whether or not dogs will look guilty when they are in fact guilty, but their owners have no reason to suspect they look guilty, or showing whether they remember bad behavior for a length of time.
Its by no means a “slam dunk” but that result suggests to me they can make the association between the action and the punishment. If they can associate the ripped up paper with the punishment (which requires them to recall what happened the last time their “alpha human” discovered ripped up paper), then it doesn’t require a particularly advanced conceptual understanding of “time” to associate the action of ripping up the paper, with the pile of ripped up paper, and hence the punishment.
Being overly argumentative isnt helping you with your question. If you think Pavlov is the one in need of proof here then you’re really not understanding some very basic principles of animal training or basic grade school scientific method.
Youre the one making the extraordinary claim here, that dog social shame works exactly like it does in humans.
I think we’re talking past each other. The dog doesn’t perceive your actions to be punishment for its behavior. It perceives your action to be you displaying alpha behavior and it then shows submissive behavior to complete the “ceremony”. When the paper is being ripped up, it believes the “ceremony” will be starting soon, and starts to show submissive behavior.
My mother was trying to train her Elkhound with the nose method. When she peed ,she would put her nose in it and then shoo her out the door to the backyard. Zelda looked out and saw a squirrel and wanted to go out and chase it. She ran up to us, peed on the floor, put her nose in it and ran to the back door. The wiring was a little crossed.
griffin1977, here’s my question to you: Are you just trying to ascertain whether or not there’s been any kind of solid scientific study of how dogs learn, or are you trying to use the lack of research to prove that after-the-fact punishment does work?