Quote:
Originally Posted by AprilLove  I'm really curious what those techniques were? Do you have some link or something I could read about these early experiments?
I firmly believe that dogs can be trained (key) to do or not do, anything that is within their physical abilility. JMHO |
That's just the point, many behaviorist think it's not within their physical ability. Just like it's not possible to train a person not a sneeze, it just happens. They are classic studies in experimental psychology, not something I read on the web, so I can't link it to you. Remember before a scientist says a behavior can be reduced, it has to pass a test of statistical significance, meaning that it has to be shown comparing numbers of before and after "treatment" if the "therapy" worked, and not just on one dog, but a large enough group, to meet statistical standards. It started the basis in thinking some behavior is wired into the brain and can't be changed, I'm sure you've heard about the Nature vs. Nurture studies? I don't think they could even do the studies today; the techniques used for aversion were too horrible. Marking is a little more complex than people realize. Some dogs never mark, even though they are intact, it has to do with many factors, I just don't think one could say because they "taught" their dog not to mark, that this is something other dogs can be taught, it's not that simple. Not only that, but by giving people the hope that they can "train" their dog not to mark, it might set up some perfect conditions for abuse. Like I said earlier, this doesn't mean that no dog can be trained not to mark, I just wouldn't count on it, and that's why many breeders use belly bands.