Occam's Razor and Agility

Okay, so you're probably thinking this is going to be a long, rambling and BO-RING blog post about scientific stuff.

Sorry to disappoint you. Well, some of you. The rest will be relieved to know it's fairly simple.

Occam's Razor (Or, Ockham, for the purists) states that, "If you have two theories, which, both explain the observed facts then you should use the simplest."

In other words, "When two options are presented and will have equal outcome, choose the simple one."

The term razor comes from the German "Ockam's Messer" which translates to "Occam's Knife" and refers to distinguishing between two theories either by shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get to the simple explanation.

This is my philosophy as an agility handler, if I'm honest. There's so much fuss in the agility community right now about all these fancy handling moves. Front cross, rear cross, blind cross, reverse flow pivot, the list can be endless.

I often joke my handling method is point and pray. I point at the obstacle and pray my dog does it. But there's more to it than that and a lot more factors. I'm disabled and unable to run very fast. So I had to add layering skills and rear cross confidence in my dogs' repertoire.

But the more I trial, the more I realize the handlers who do things with the most basics possible are the ones that excel. they scorn the "Style of the Week" handling fads and stick with what works for them. I'm not saying this is the best way, or the right one. But I think a lot of NQs and mistakes could be eliminated if we all went back to basics and stopped trying to do the nifty popular moves and stuck with the time tested and proven basics.

Why do a front cross if you can not do it and get the same result? Why do a reverse flow pivot if you can simply call the dog to you and push them away to the next obstacle?

Occam may have been talking science, but he could have been talking about any dog sport!

Until next time, folks.

It's Not Wrong, It's Just Not Right!

I've been doing some thinking about training my dogs and I had another AH HA! moment.

In clicker training, there is no wrong, there's only not right and try again. If my dog doesn't do what I'm asking, she's not wrong. She's just not right. So she willingly tries again - and again - and again and again to try and earn that C/T.

So. What does that mean?

It means the dog isn't wrong, she's just not right. Kind of like when you answer an essay question in school. If you make a mistake, it's not an automatic fail. You get partial credit. So you weren't wrong. You just weren't right.

Clicker training is exactly like that. We reward everything that's even the smallest bit right, so the dog continues to try. There is no wrong when the dog does not compete the appropriate behavior. It's just not right, so no treat. There's no punishment, which implies wrong. A lack of c/t does not imply wrong, it implies not right. And the dog has the opportunity to continue trying to get it right.

Once we take "wrong" out of the training equation, we're in much better shape to reward what is right, even partially right. Even if it's not right, it's never wrong.

Now if we could apply that to ourselves, our kids, our parents and spouses and coworkers and even strangers, life might be better.

Imagine a world where you weren't wrong, just various shades of not right. Wouldn't you be more willing to keep trying?