As we are at risk of taking yet another topic off track I thought I'd better start a new one.
There's a lot of comment re dog's not generalising but but is this likely with some breeds more than others? I have to say its not been my experience. Yes they may be a little slower to respond when some place new and I've had the odd silly moment such as when my dog started barking her head off in the middle of a drive and it took me a while to suss out her problem - it was a duck drive and they were using umbrellas to flush the birds - but mostly they seem to cope. After all we expect them to do the same things when we go to a different shoot don't we? We expect them to sit off lead and not run in when we take them out on live game for the first time although they have only trained on dummies, etc., etc.. Is there a point in time when a dog is sufficiently well trained to generalise or is it more to do with age, breed,breeding or even the relationship the dog has with its owner?
In life, it is important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Judy wrote:As we are at risk of taking yet another topic off track I thought I'd better start a new one.
There's a lot of comment re dog's not generalising but but is this likely with some breeds more than others? I have to say its not been my experience. Yes they may be a little slower to respond when some place new and I've had the odd silly moment such as when my dog started barking her head off in the middle of a drive and it took me a while to suss out her problem - it was a duck drive and they were using umbrellas to flush the birds - but mostly they seem to cope. After all we expect them to do the same things when we go to a different shoot don't we? We expect them to sit off lead and not run in when we take them out on live game for the first time although they have only trained on dummies, etc., etc.. Is there a point in time when a dog is sufficiently well trained to generalise or is it more to do with age, breed,breeding or even the relationship the dog has with its owner?
(emphasis mine)
Great topic!
Here's my 2 cents (USD) - Much of what we train for, and what 'we' call 'concepts' is really generalization. We train for 'poison birds', 'diversion birds', triples with an indent, inverted doubles, 'flower pots', and so on, that is really a matter of acquainting the dog with a large number of scenarios he will encounter. We also try to train on as many different grounds as possible. All of this is, in my opinion, generalization as much as training concepts.
However, one breed I know a bit about, Chesapeake Bay Retrievers' are notorious for being all about the relationship with their master. Me and my Chessie have been confronted with scenarios we've never encountered before, and I believe that my dog challenges the setup because he has confidence in me. I've seen some dogs balk the first time they encounter 'big water' (can't see the other side), but my Chessie took on the Gulf of Mexico and the the actual Chesapeake Bay like he was born there. Don't know for sure...but I think relationship is big, not on in the field, but in the mall and busy city sidewalks as well.
I think you're in danger of misinterpreting 'generalisation'. We generalise all trained behaviours simply to the point where the dog understands that the particular behaviour is required on cue no matter where or when or under whatever level of distraction it might be given. Once the dog realises this then the need for generalisation fades away. The comment that dogs are poor at generalising is exactly the reason behind why we need to generalise a behaviour. When a learned behaviour has been thoroughly generalised, then the dog is effectively sufficiently trained to be taken anywhere & produce the behaviour on cue, so yes, there is a particular point, but the frequency of exposure of the required behaviour to different scenarios is surely the main driver.
Snick, you have me worried. I shoot over a dog most days of the season but can't ever recall coming up against poison birds, triples with indents, inverted doubles or flowerpots. (got to admit, I've no idea what any of them are ). Never knew that shooting over a dog was so complicated, am I missing something?
2./ The dogs response to things outside of the "norm" for those things.
As I understand it dogs don't see the colour red well at all......... so why wasn't that same dog frightened of balls (same shape) that were of the same "tone" but in another colour ? I am infamous in my family for being a bit colour blind ..... you should see some of my paintings ! I'm far better at sculpture which works in grades of shadow to define the shape . If some colours are simply tones or shades of grey to a dog why should only red balloons cause a fear reaction in Snick's dog ? Why did this dog not generalise all ball shapes as being "dangerous " if it could not detect the specific colour of red ?
I noticed when I was still a teenager that some dogs showed varying degrees of a fear reaction when they saw certain people.
This could be, people in uniforms such as policemen. It could be someone walking on crutches or sticks. Or as I know only too well it could be a fear/aggression response to someone like a postman. A postman looks "different" to a dog not only because of the uniform he might be wearing but because the bag he is carrying makes a huge bulge on the human silhouette and also often causes it's bearer to walk in a bent over or tilted manner..... not a normal human posture.
Wullie
If at first you don't succeed .....find out if there is a booby prize !
-----------------------------------------------------
Don't do what doesn't work - do what does.
.
trekmoor wrote: because the bag he is carrying makes a huge bulge on the human silhouette and also often causes it's bearer to walk in a bent over or tilted manner..... not a normal human posture.
Wullie
Like a picker up on a commercial shoot after a drive on a 500 bird day perhaps?
Or.....is it the other factors of the generalisation to the envoirenment?>>>not necessarily the things within it?,which are consequencial?
- but mostly they seem to cope. After all we expect them to do the same things when we go to a different shoot don't we? We expect them to sit off lead and not run in when we take them out on live game for the first time although they have only trained on dummies, etc., etc.. Is there a point in time when a dog is sufficiently well trained to generalise or is it more to do with age, breed,breeding or even the relationship the dog has with its owner?
I shoot over a dog most days of the season but can't ever recall coming up against poison birds, triples with indents, inverted doubles or flowerpots. (got to admit, I've no idea what any of them are 
). Never knew that shooting over a dog was so complicated, am I missing something? 
I'm far better at sculpture which works in grades of shadow to define the shape . If some colours are simply tones or shades of grey to a dog why should only red balloons cause a fear reaction in Snick's dog ? Why did this dog not generalise all ball shapes as being "dangerous " if it could not detect the specific colour of red ?