# theory of intelligence



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Thought I would start a new thread on this for those that may not be following the other.

David brought up the theory and I was very intrigued by it. Just started digging around and I'm amazed how "right on" it is.

http://www.ldpride.net/learningstyles.MI.htm

In reading it, I find I'm a very strong visual learner with tactile as a secondary. This makes a total connection in how I train my dogs. I'm definitely the type that has to "read" the dog and situation to resolve or move forward and very hands on. I've never been a reader of text and could never torture myself to read a book on dog training, I have a hard time with some of the longer poosts lol. Interestingl enough, I always thought it was a form of ADD (which was mentioned as a modern day blame for folks who aren't "typical" but its not its just not my way to learn. Lol

On intelligence I saw more Overlapping but again very strong on the visual with pieces of inter/intrapersonal, verbal, and logical. Again I can clearly make a connection with how I train my dogs.

I'd love to hear if others can make a connection. A while back there was a test posted that gave you an enst (or whatever can't recall) but it didn't ring as true to me.

Anyway I found this very interesting! I'm sure some of will also ;-)

T


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

How about a visual challenge? Can you interpret or associate any of the meaning behind the pattern?


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> How about a visual challenge? Can you interpret or associate any of the meaning behind the pattern?


 
Yes, but having a wee difficulty in articulating it. Would an understanding/knowledge of genetics help ?

The outside numbers, centralise equally ?


----------



## Shane Woodlief (Sep 9, 2009)

It took me a long time to figure out what my learning style was. I went through high school struggling to make good grades because I really didn't know how to study. It was not until my Junior year of collage that everything just kind of fell into place. I graduated with my masters degree with a 3.8  Miracles do happen!

For me creative auditory/Tactile are key for me. 

This tells me that I might get bored quicker than the dog 

One thing that is interesting is that it has been proven that Creative people are harder to motivate than other types of personalities. They need the big challenge to keep them motivated!


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Shane said; 

Creative people are harder to motivate than other types of personalities. They need the big challenge to keep them motivated!

I would agree with that....and at the other end of the spectrum, workaholics are probably the dumbest lol :razz: lots of grey in between though.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Fun lol

Ok I see the pattern easily. The yellow numbers read the boxes from top left to bottom right.

The red numbers from top to bottom in each colum are reversed at center reading from top down the switch to bottom up, and each cell with its "co-cell" adds up numerically to the the larger cell to its left. Also there is the red color that moves into orange to make yellow. When yellow plus orange make red. In addition to that the hues change.

now give me a minute to disect the meaning.... First guess is the colors and numbers represent specific dogs or prodegy and its a ver well laid out linebred pedigree. Am I close, I'm going by this is a "dog" test. If it has nothing to do with dogs let me know. I'm sure I'm missing some things as this is on my phone and very small.... Give a seond more to see if I can't disect more out of it as this is first look.

T


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> Fun lol
> 
> Ok I see the pattern easily. The yellow numbers read the boxes from top left to bottom right.
> 
> ...


:-o


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Shane Woodlief said:


> It took me a long time to figure out what my learning style was. I went through high school struggling to make good grades because I really didn't know how to study. It was not until my Junior year of collage that everything just kind of fell into place. I graduated with my masters degree with a 3.8  Miracles do happen!


 
That's what you call taking time to mature...but not quite a late developer . By the way, what kind of masters do you have, it's collEge .


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Daryl Ehret said:


> How about a visual challenge? Can you interpret or associate any of the meaning behind the pattern?


The yellow numbers count linear 1 through 30, the red numbers are add up from right to left to the number in the coordinating bracketed box (poor phrasing, but makes sense to me. On the top half, the top box is roughly 1/3 of the base number, the bottom box is roughly 2/3 of the original number. The 66 & 33 add up to 99. The bottom half is a reflection of the top. I'm not quite sure where the number 99 factors in. There's probably some other underlying equation to this, so I haven't really deciphered the big picture, if this is two separate equations, or if the two are somehow interrelated.

Fun stuff! Am I right? What do I win?

-Cheers


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Daryl Ehret said:


> How about a visual challenge? Can you interpret or associate any of the meaning behind the pattern?


There's also a coordinating shade of the cube with a odd/even yellow number on the left and a odd/even red number on the right. It'd just take too long to write out and evaluate all the shades to see if it stays a constant through all of the columns.

-Cheers


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

I know maggie... ridiculous almost embarassing lol

Oops typo red and yellow make orange lol. I'm not sure the 3 color scheme has anything to do with the meaning but as a visual person its something I picked up on. Think I forgot to mention, but the colors of the cells do match the red numbers. Which if if this is a pedigree does not equate to the same dog but equates to littermates or full siblings. What is really interestig is if this is a pedigree then gen 5 has some very heavy inbreeding going. In the 3/2 combo as only 2+1 =3 and 1+1=2.

Each column adds up to 100 which makes sense in being 100% except for the first column. I haven't figured out the 66/33? Maybe it is some kind of inbreeding calculation?


----------



## Shane Woodlief (Sep 9, 2009)

maggie fraser said:


> That's what you call taking time to mature...but not quite a late developer . By the way, what kind of masters do you have, it's collEge .


No it is called pulling my head out of my rear end (haha) My spelling hasn't improved past 4th grade though 

I have a masters in Counseling. A couple of days ago I was about to offer my services to a couple of deeply disturb individuals on here. I won't name anyone though - I don't want lock the thread up[-X


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Maybe it would have been better if there had been a time limit...I 'reported' on what I saw in thirty odd seconds, only I omitted the figures I referred to were in red. David also stated it better by saying one half is a reflection of the other...I was going to add....if you half and then fold, it was a mirror image.

This thread could get mental lol :-D


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Shane Woodlief said:


> No it is called pulling my head out of my rear end (haha) My spelling hasn't improved past 4th grade though
> 
> I have a masters in Counseling. A couple of days ago I was about to offer my services to a couple of deeply disturb individuals on here. I won't name anyone though - I don't want lock the thread up[-X


 
ha ha, don't you go away anywhere soon you hear :grin: .

etta; you mean counselling ??


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

How long did it take you Tracey ? Don't know if it has any bearing, but I suspect it maybe could ?


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Lol shane!

Well I think the three of us are saying similar things... What is more interesting is that Maggie understand David more than me lol. I'd be curious if you are similar in the learning/ intelligence areas. 

What will be more interesting is the poor guy who has to decipher all the answers and how we as individuals articulate them lol

I don't know how you can do a time limit unless it says when you first opened the thread, we are all reading them at different times. My first post was about as quick as I could "text".

T


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

My first post was very fast, seconds to be able to actally see it on my lil phone and then the time it took to type.
I would have timed it if it was mentioned as its all in the fun but I didn't think of it.

T



maggie fraser said:


> How long did it take you Tracey ? Don't know if it has any bearing, but I suspect it maybe could ?


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

This is maybe why this thread is interesting to me Tracey.... I was of the belief (and still am) I am of a more creative, touchy, feely and instinctive, intuitive learning style...so in my pursuit to be more well rounded, I've been studying science for the last year at college .

I did pretty well at it  (at 48 yrs old), so much so I'm pursuing it at Edinburgh University this September.


----------



## Shane Woodlief (Sep 9, 2009)

Daryl Ehret said:


> How about a visual challenge? Can you interpret or associate any of the meaning behind the pattern?


OOOH Pretty Colors!

Seriously, the way my brain works I could stare at this all day long and not know WTH the point of it is!:-o


----------



## Shane Woodlief (Sep 9, 2009)

maggie fraser said:


> This is maybe why this thread is interesting to me Tracey.... I was of the belief (and still am) I am of a more creative, touchy, feely and instinctive, intuitive learning style...so in my pursuit to be more well rounded, I've been studying science for the last year at college .
> 
> I did pretty well at it  (at 48 yrs old), so much so I'm pursuing it at Edinburgh University this September.


That's fantastic way to go Maggie! When you finish what would you like to do?


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Zoology Shane, and in the Darwin building no less....quite a scoop for me, they must think I have a brain lol :grin:.


----------



## Shane Woodlief (Sep 9, 2009)

maggie fraser said:


> Zoology Shane, and in the Darwin building no less....quite a scoop for me, they must think I have a brain lol :grin:.


That is awesome congrats!


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> My first post was very fast, seconds to be able to actally see it on my lil phone and then the time it took to type.
> I would have timed it if it was mentioned as its all in the fun but I didn't think of it.
> 
> T


Me neither, that was probably Daryl's fault...I reckon he thought he was being smart.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Shane Woodlief said:


> That is awesome congrats!


Thankyou, I'm quite chuffed!


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

A thought on how the multiple intelligences _might_ impact dog training and whatnot. I think it is at least feasible that some of us might view things more left-brain analytical, or mathematical/logical. Others might view them in more creative, or at least somewhat abstract terms. I'd also be curious if anybody's ever applied this type of theory to dogs, but that might be a bit too far out there, but each dog is an individual too.

Back to the humans . . . It does seem possible that somebody like Chris M. (not to pick on him, but he was open enough to give us his psych profile) might be a tad to mathematical/logical about it at times. Maybe not, but for the sake of discussion we'll pretend. Perhaps somebody with a bit more right-brained or even Kinesthetic Intelligence might observe the dog's body language or with the "Natural Intelligence" might just be able to flat-out read the dog better/differently and be able to pick on something that might not fit into the Mathematic/Logical paradigm of thinking (or might not be as natural a fit). Plus, I could see how that impacts how people train, if they prefer a more regimentative style where they train X on day B, or if they play it more by feel. Is either wrong or right? I doubt it.

At minimal, I think it could be beneficial to be aware of how your brain functions and sort of self-evaluate what you are doing and how your tendencies effect that.

-Cheers


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Lol againshane at the pretty colors.

Excellent maggie (and shane)! Its never too late to go back to school. I went to school later in life, ok late twenties lol, only after I found the perfect fit for me. As a landscape architect I have such a wide array of things to keep me interested. The creative in both graphic design and desing of the exterior, the engineering and math, the personal relationships, the in the office and out in the filed, the problem solving and construction (on a computer) of elements, the continuous accomplishments in seeing it completed and installed. Seriosly I still find myself going off into "outerspace" which seems to be my strong visual coming through, I could never be content doing the same thing everyday whcih is one reason - ruled "vet" out early..amongst a shit load of other things. I changed my mind so many times from boredom. They didn't hit enough of my interest and ridiculous needs to keep me interested lol.

T


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

David I agree with you above. Its very interesting to me how the different minds work which is probably why two trainers never agree lol. I'd be curious on where the more well known trainers lie and how they are same/ different.

So david am I left or right? I'm not sure on the differences. I know I am more than likely abstract on either side lol

T


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

That's quite funny you say that Tracey, I've popped back in forth from school...landscape architecture is also what I undertook but didn't like it and switched to quantity surveying, I'd also previously done horse training and agriculture lol.

Dog training, animal training, in my opinion has a very great deal to do with the abstract, intuition, and instinct. Breaking it all down into tiny wee bits is for those who are trying to learn it by the book and have nothing else to draw on.

I've known a few very good dog/horse trainers who have no idea whatsoever why they do what they do....they just get it and develop.


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

David Ruby said:


> A thought on how the multiple intelligences _might_ impact dog training and whatnot. I think it is at least feasible that some of us might view things more left-brain analytical, or mathematical/logical. Others might view them in more creative, or at least somewhat abstract terms. I'd also be curious if anybody's ever applied this type of theory to dogs, but that might be a bit too far out there, but each dog is an individual too.
> 
> Back to the humans . . . It does seem possible that somebody like Chris M. (not to pick on him, but he was open enough to give us his psych profile) might be a tad to mathematical/logical about it at times. Maybe not, but for the sake of discussion we'll pretend. Perhaps somebody with a bit more right-brained or even Kinesthetic Intelligence might observe the dog's body language or with the "Natural Intelligence" might just be able to flat-out read the dog better/differently and be able to pick on something that might not fit into the Mathematic/Logical paradigm of thinking (or might not be as natural a fit). Plus, I could see how that impacts how people train, if they prefer a more regimentative style where they train X on day B, or if they play it more by feel. Is either wrong or right? I doubt it.
> 
> ...



I was responding to the other thread but this one is better...


David, your read on me is almost 100% incorrect.

I was pretty good in school and have a completely useless BS in Genetics, I also spent a week in med school but dropped out. My transcript will show mostly As a few Bs NO Cs however every math course I took was a D and the only F I have is in Music. I am left handed and naturally very creative but I grew up in a very strict an scientific/medical home. 

I have students that do better than others and what I see is the same thing that we all see in our dog clubs with certain members. I can tell the students that do not practice and the ones that do. One of the other reasons these kids are doing so well theses days is the advent of the internet. When I was learning all I had were records and eventually cassettes. They were almost always out of tune and it was difficult as I was coming up. Nowadays there is so much technology to help people slow things down or pitch correct that it's easy. 

The one big correlation I can make between dog training and music, these young kids are into all of the new methods and new styles of music to the point they do not understand nor even care about the history that got the music to that point. I can see this in the old school dog trainers, most of them learned from sheer experience and via ****ing up a shit load of dogs and now they are into the more positive motivational methods. What makes these guys great aside from the experience is perspective.

But back to me for a sec, I'm not logical David. I'm highly impetuous and impulsive. I'm very emotional but these are artisan traits and not so great for dog training. If I was born with anything, it's the fact that I'm probably mis-wired and see the world through very different eyes. Not that anybody needs to know this but I know myself well enough that I don't drink or do drug because I know I could become addicted very easily so I just stay away from it. So I probably overcompensate with food or something but that's the lesser of a few poisons I could choose from.

Slightly tangential to the topic, I've meet some of the most famous musicians in the world and they all seem to be not wired correctly and the one thing I have noticed its the very wide spectrum of emotions and the potential for addiction. They also have slight OCD components to them as well. However this is not local to artists, I once met Paul Allen, the co-founder of Microsoft, he very well could be a musician/artist type too as all of the same components for extreme focus and the ability to break things down to very small parts were there.

So, I'm not logical, I don't think logically but I am generally able to draw a straight line from point A to E as well as break everything down to point A, A1, A1.2 etc..while understand how it fits with Point D2.6


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

I think there could be a moral here....


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

I agree. So much so when people ask me about my training... My overall response is "I just make it up as I go along" which also gives me a level of insecurity as I really don't know if I'm doing right and I'm probably not doing it exactly like others so I don't like to go out in front of people until I feel we are at a level where they can't make fun of my odd training style haha....as I don't have much to go by other than... The look of it"... but I think that I'm doing something right, had a compliment or two but then again I try to pick dogs that make me look good and are very resilient lol...probably sounds crazy coming from someone who works bulldogs haha 

T


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Don't worry Tracey, you'll get there....you'll get a pointy ear dog one day .


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> I agree. So much so when people ask me about my training... My overall response is "I just make it up as I go along" which also gives me a level of insecurity as I really don't know if I'm doing right and I'm probably not doing it exactly like others so I don't like to go out in front of people until I feel we are at a level where they can't make fun of my odd training style haha....as I don't have much to go by other than... The look of it"... but I think that I'm doing something right, had a compliment or two but then again I try to pick dogs that make me look good and are very resilient lol...probably sounds crazy coming from someone who works bulldogs haha
> 
> T



I pretty much have my own method for training. I don't know if it's going to produce the results I want but I'm going to try it. Last week when I was training with Chris Smith, there was another person there with a very nice dobbie. I watched him train and thought to myself, HA he trains like me. Then my buddy that made the trip with me and said, "He trains just like you." I later found out from Chris that he was some music industry professional.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Haha nah can't imagine, too easy not enough of a challenge or room for creativity... I'd get bored lol. Besides its fun to beat a pointy eared at their own game ;-)

Plus I think there is a part of me that needs to be "different+ from a punk rocker in high school to a bulldog sch handler in old school lol

T


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

The smarter the dog Tracey, the less forgiving they are. Are meat heads' smart at all ? Ugly muthers too lol


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Hey, you should have seen this 'one' sitting next to a seventeen year old last year, dinosaur he said! But only once lol :-D


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Anyways, back to the theory of intelligence....


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Well I don't have the experience with other breeds to compare but I sure think mine are lol. A very typical response from folks with our pups is always intelligence. There are a few folks on here with our family of dogs, maybe they will chime in as they have other breed experience. I'd be curious how they compare. How much "stupider" they are lol.

By resilience I mean both physical and mental. In this case smart works as it is easy to reteach. 

T


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> Well I don't have the experience with other breeds to compare but I sure think mine are lol. A very typical response from folks with our pups is always intelligence. There are a few folks on here with our family of dogs, maybe they will chime in as they have other breed experience. I'd be curious how they compare. How much "stupider" they are lol.
> 
> By resilience I mean both physical and mental. In this case smart works as it is easy to reteach.
> 
> T


 
I'm kiddin you, I have no experience of bulldogs. My current gsd as a very young pup...on one of his first outings, he negotiated a bank and a small hill then run on through a gap in a wire fence. As he was jumping through ahead of me, I noticed the top wire was hanging loose and thought he was going to get caught. As he took off to jump through it only skiffed his ears, the next time we went there, he jumped through and dodged his head to miss this loose wire giving him lots of space.

That pup learnt an awful lot of stuff first time around...I reckon that's largely what I refer to as smart sometimes.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Chris Michalek said:


> I was responding to the other thread but this one is better...
> 
> 
> David, your read on me is almost 100% incorrect.


Well, I was basing it on ~2 paragraphs and minimal information on a vague self-analysis. Good thing I work for free.

Two things, just for fun if you want to play along.

1) I'd love to see you do a Gardner Multiple Intelligences evaluation. Just for fun. I'm not going to psychoanalyze you or anything. Maybe one like is what is found here:
http://www.businessballs.com/howardgardnermultipleintelligences.htm#multiple intelligences tests

Or just give us a brief rundown of what best describes you.

2) A few thoughts below:



> I was pretty good in school and have a completely useless BS in Genetics, I also spent a week in med school but dropped out. My transcript will show mostly As a few Bs NO Cs however every math course I took was a D and the only F I have is in Music. I am left handed and naturally very creative but I grew up in a very strict an scientific/medical home.


O.k., so you are naturally more creative, but what were your natural strengths? You got an F in Music; was that because of your lack of understanding, different teaching/learning styles, or something else? Does/did music come naturally, and in a more logical fashion, or were you more abstract in how you learned music? From what you write later, it sounds like maybe the more structured/orderly/logical teaching method of music theory might have been opposite your learning style thus you failing music could have had less to do with your musical intelligence than with a learning style inappropriate to how you're wired. But that's at best a guess. Math; how do you understand math? Are there certain branches you like or dislike? Do you struggle in the understanding of the concepts, or the technical aspects of writing it down and working through stuff. I ask because some people hate algebra/calculus but love geometry, or vice versa.

Maybe you are just an exception to the general rule too. This is not some hard & fast sorta thing, and everybody's different.

Anyway, it sounds like you were naturally more right-brained, maybe more creative & abstract, however your upbringing was more scientific, mathematical/logical in priority. Is that right? Those are only parts of the whole, but if I had to blindly guess, I would guess you probably were better at playing creative parts musically speaking but your education & emphasis on science & medicine led to your technical/logical thinking being prioritized, which might have made you more balanced. Let's see how wrong I am on this folks!

Still, I'd be curious to hear your natural intelligence strengths, as described by Gardner, and maybe how your background helped develop those or others that might have been less natural strengths, or perhaps things that developed on their own (maybe there's some great story about how you got into music and the mouth organ).



> I have students that do better than others and what I see is the same thing that we all see in our dog clubs with certain members. I can tell the students that do not practice and the ones that do. One of the other reasons these kids are doing so well theses days is the advent of the internet. When I was learning all I had were records and eventually cassettes. They were almost always out of tune and it was difficult as I was coming up. Nowadays there is so much technology to help people slow things down or pitch correct that it's easy.
> 
> The one big correlation I can make between dog training and music, these young kids are into all of the new methods and new styles of music to the point they do not understand nor even care about the history that got the music to that point. I can see this in the old school dog trainers, most of them learned from sheer experience and via ****ing up a shit load of dogs and now they are into the more positive motivational methods. What makes these guys great aside from the experience is perspective.


Training & practice are definitely important. I have met people that just have a more natural time understanding things though. You can overcome that, and obviously a passion for it and attention to detail will help influence that. Sounds like something somebody should do (and probably has done) research on. I'm sure it's out there. Still, maybe there is something to your wiring and how it led to the way you understand music combined with your experience and how that led to your breaking down music and putting it back together. Back to the old nature vs. nurture, I guess.



> But back to me for a sec, I'm not logical David. I'm highly impetuous and impulsive. I'm very emotional but these are artisan traits and not so great for dog training. If I was born with anything, it's the fact that I'm probably mis-wired and see the world through very different eyes. Not that anybody needs to know this but I know myself well enough that I don't drink or do drug because I know I could become addicted very easily so I just stay away from it. So I probably overcompensate with food or something but that's the lesser of a few poisons I could choose from.


Maybe I misread your impetuous/impulsive nature for being overly analytical and OCD in another fashion.



> Slightly tangential to the topic, I've meet some of the most famous musicians in the world and they all seem to be not wired correctly and the one thing I have noticed its the very wide spectrum of emotions and the potential for addiction. They also have slight OCD components to them as well. However this is not local to artists, I once met Paul Allen, the co-founder of Microsoft, he very well could be a musician/artist type too as all of the same components for extreme focus and the ability to break things down to very small parts were there.
> 
> So, I'm not logical, I don't think logically but I am generally able to draw a straight line from point A to E as well as break everything down to point A, A1, A1.2 etc..while understand how it fits with Point D2.6


Interesting. I have seen some of the most successful people that I've studied or read about often have that OCD type of drive to some extent.

As for you specifically, I'd be curious to hear how you think you fit into Gardner's model (or if you think you don't). You might be some weird blend of the intelligences (natural tendencies combined with what looks like the enforcement of a very different type of intelligences), or maybe an example where theory does not fit quite as nicely as other examples. If nothing else, it might satisfy my curiosity.

-Cheers


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Well the breed as a whole definitely has a reputation for being stupid, sometimes I wonder if its just the hands they are in, but others say no there are truly stupid dogs lol. I would lie if I didn't say they were clowns however and do some stuff some folks would label stupid, boy does it give a good laugh though. I've been totally embarassed but all in good fun on more than one occassion. Lines breaking and dogs chasing soccer balls on the feild, dogs too strong to hold women screaming for a man to come and help us. To save the cow lol, dog on a send out going past the fence and pushing through the gate getting his head stuck banging the metal loud over and over to get out (he did then find his toy and retrieve it lol), etc etc etc lol but in their defense usually they don't do the same thing twice.
T


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Couldn't imagine too many pointy ear dogs giving those kind of laughs lol, i suppose that's why I like to keep the jrts for the balance.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

tracey delin said:


> David I agree with you above. Its very interesting to me how the different minds work which is probably why two trainers never agree lol. I'd be curious on where the more well known trainers lie and how they are same/ different.
> 
> So david am I left or right? I'm not sure on the differences. I know I am more than likely abstract on either side lol
> 
> T


Hey Tracey,

Usually right-brained people tend to be left-handed, more abstract, creative, "holistic", less concerned with strict structure. Usually left-brained people tend to be more structured, 

A couple of links you might be interested in:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1733
An interesting article on left vs. right brained thinking.


A take-it-with-a-grain-of-salt quiz that might help you eval if you have strong tendencies one way or the other. I would not read too much into it, but it could be fun and generally speaking should help decipher if you are predominantly right- or left-brained (very generally speaking).

Howard Gardner's website and articles might be worth checking out, depending on how much you want to put into this. There are others too, like B. F. Skinner (and others I've forgotten), that are important in the theory of education. It's kind of interesting to look at how we are evaluating the way people learn, and how (very s-l-o-w-l-y) we are actually changing education and implementing these findings to see if they actually work. Not to mention the rate at which people learn and if we're screwing kids that might develop wonderfully by cramming some of this stuff down their throats before some of them are ready and not giving them a chance to catch up later and bloom with their strengths later on. Try applying that to a Malinois vs. Bulldog paradigm.  Write a paper on it or something. Anyway, yeah, those links . . .

A nice page about Gardner & his theories (since he's pretty much THE Multiple Intelligences guy)
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm

And Gardner's actual home page (he's still alive & I believe he's still active in the education field):
http://www.howardgardner.com/

How much of this applies to dogs, dog trainers/handlers, etc., beats me! But I DO find it interesting, and I think to some extent this stuff ALL matters. To what extent . . . Well, good luck getting people to agree on that! 

-Cheers


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

tracey delin said:


> Well the breed as a whole definitely has a reputation for being stupid, sometimes I wonder if its just the hands they are in, but others say no there are truly stupid dogs lol.


There are some dogs that are stupid. I think there are some pretty smart Bulldogs though. Not the fast learners of the herders, but they can still think through things.



> I would lie if I didn't say they were clowns however and do some stuff some folks would label stupid, boy does it give a good laugh though. I've been totally embarassed but all in good fun on more than one occassion. Lines breaking and dogs chasing soccer balls on the feild, dogs too strong to hold women screaming for a man to come and help us. To save the cow lol, dog on a send out going past the fence and pushing through the gate getting his head stuck banging the metal loud over and over to get out (he did then find his toy and retrieve it lol), etc etc etc lol but in their defense usually they don't do the same thing twice.
> T


Yeah, they do some interesting things. I DO love that about them though.

Would you think of Bulldogs (generally, not necessarily any particular breed) as being more methodical? I do not see them as being as fast, but that might not in and of itself be the sole predictor of intelligence. Of course, getting their head stuck in a gate doesn't exactly help that argument (and yeah, they DO end up doing some goofy things like that), but in other ways they can be astute, not necessarily "intelligent" but they can show a degree of wisdom and discretion situation-dependent, and I've seen a couple go from goofy to being very serious and calculating, plus they can learn to do a @#$% ton of stuff, more so than I think a lot of people would give them credit for, so I would argue against Bulldogs as a whole being "stupid." Different, sure, but not "stupid." Necessarily. At least when they aren't getting their heads stuck in gates or something. ](*,)

-Cheers


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Maggie you've got me thinking of all the funny things they have done. They make me smile everday and definitely keep me in balance in both life and training. ;-)

The soccer field was bad,a very large puppy lots of ball drive, he saw the ball about 100' away, broke his line, jumped the construction fence started chasing the ball. I'm yelling to the 3' tall lil kid to pick it up and not move lol... Luckily he did and the dog was like "hey what now?" I had a squeaky ball and got him back, then the man came up on the golf cart and yelled at me for having a loose dog.... Totally embarassing. Never in a million years did I expect a puppy to break a line!!!

The stuck head was bad as it was. My first time at a local club and as I stated I'm already a lil shy about it and then bang bang bang lol. 

By far the worst was the cow situation. Took my husbands dog,for training no idea how strong he was, he was big and young and he worked him on a harness at the time so that's all I put on him. Physically I've never had an issue handling any of our dogs... (Less the broken line lol) we are At training which is next to a cow field he catches wind of the cow. I fall on my butt to try and hold him back yelling for some help. Friend comes over to help and dog is distracted, I'm on my feet for a second and now being draggged on my stomach for five feet til I let go, she catches him and starts screaming help help help lol. Luckily a guy came to the rescue and the dog was introduced to a prong collar. Then of course I had to go home and tell my husband of our night!! I laugh/cried about that one for weeks... Sooo embarassing. Lol

T
T


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Well does the fact that I hate be labeled for fear of any kind of restriction mean anything???

T

I am right handed however.



David Ruby said:


> Hey Tracey,
> 
> Usually right-brained people tend to be left-handed, more abstract, creative, "holistic", less concerned with strict structure. Usually left-brained people tend to be more structured,
> 
> ...


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Unfortunately my sample has all been related so I can only go by my own dogs. I don't know some of mine have picked some things very fast. A shocking fast. But then I always wonder is it my level of communication improving? Is it me or the dogs? I think drive has A LOT to do with it. Getting that reward or withholding it works wonders in a high drive dog.

I don't know about methodical, I'd have to think more on that. I see very "in the moment" lots of behaviors due to drive taking over, lack of self preservation, and high pain tolerance. This to me is where the "stupid comes. In and I usually refer to it as "stupid drive" lol. But the learning process seems pretty quick. They are "thinkers" in general just not as much when "stupid drive" kicks in lol

I had one dog, my first, that was the poster boy for discretion. The rest not as much... 

On the head in the gate... That was actually the dog in my avatar lol. In his defense we had always done it in the open and the ball was always on the ground. The field had a thing to hang the ball, so I did, his head stayed on the ground he didn't find it and I guess figured it must be further, on the other side of the fence, I was freakin out as I had no idea what kind of farm animals might be on the other side lol. He pulled it out, got the ball as if nothing ever happened, that is definitely the kind of dog he is do first think second, stupid confident and I've got a midget female version of him coming up now too... Oh boy lol.

T




David Ruby said:


> There are some dogs that are stupid. I think there are some pretty smart Bulldogs though. Not the fast learners of the herders, but they can still think through things.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

I did your test

Linguistic 33 Logical-Mathematical 23 Musical 37 Bodily-Kinesthetic 34 Spatial-Visual 32 Interpersonal 35 Intrapersonal 35


It makes sense to me...

I'm good with other languages and can pick them up fast when I travel
Suck at math. BTW- the F in music was because I missed a final but I never attended class anyway and later smoked the the prof on the stage because he wouldn't let me make up my final.
I am a musician = musicial I also write, paint, draw, cook or anything that is creative.
I was an athlete and can still move my body is ways you'd never expect out of a fat guy.
As far as the spacial = In addition to playing music, I also build harmonicas and have learned to be a machinist. I have full CNC shop.
Interpersonal = I relate well with people on a very deep and personal topics. People have always come to me to talk about stuff.
Intrapersonal = I have no problems speaking with strangers or being in front of a gillion people.


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

When I take personality inventories I always come up at INFJ

This is description seems highly accurate

As an INFJ, your primary mode of living is focused internally, where you take things in primarily via intuition. Your secondary mode is external, where you deal with things according to how you feel about them, or how they fit with your personal value system. 

INFJs are gentle, caring, complex and highly intuitive individuals. Artistic and creative, they live in a world of hidden meanings and possibilities. Only one percent of the population has an INFJ Personality Type, making it the most rare of all the types. 

INFJs place great importance on havings things orderly and systematic in their outer world. They put a lot of energy into identifying the best system for getting things done, and constantly define and re-define the priorities in their lives. On the other hand, INFJs operate within themselves on an intuitive basis which is entirely spontaneous. They know things intuitively, without being able to pinpoint why, and without detailed knowledge of the subject at hand. They are usually right, and they usually know it. Consequently, INFJs put a tremendous amount of faith into their instincts and intuitions. This is something of a conflict between the inner and outer worlds, and may result in the INFJ not being as organized as other Judging types tend to be. Or we may see some signs of disarray in an otherwise orderly tendency, such as a consistently messy desk. 

INFJs have uncanny insight into people and situations. They get "feelings" about things and intuitively understand them. As an extreme example, some INFJs report experiences of a psychic nature, such as getting strong feelings about there being a problem with a loved one, and discovering later that they were in a car accident. This is the sort of thing that other types may scorn and scoff at, and the INFJ themself does not really understand their intuition at a level which can be verbalized. Consequently, most INFJs are protective of their inner selves, sharing only what they choose to share when they choose to share it. They are deep, complex individuals, who are quite private and typically difficult to understand. INFJs hold back part of themselves, and can be secretive. 

But the INFJ is as genuinely warm as they are complex. INFJs hold a special place in the heart of people who they are close to, who are able to see their special gifts and depth of caring. INFJs are concerned for people's feelings, and try to be gentle to avoid hurting anyone. They are very sensitive to conflict, and cannot tolerate it very well. Situations which are charged with conflict may drive the normally peaceful INFJ into a state of agitation or charged anger. They may tend to internalize conflict into their bodies, and experience health problems when under a lot of stress. 
Because the INFJ has such strong intuitive capabilities, they trust their own instincts above all else. This may result in an INFJ stubborness and tendency to ignore other people's opinions. They believe that they're right. On the other hand, INFJ is a perfectionist who doubts that they are living up to their full potential. INFJs are rarely at complete peace with themselves - there's always something else they should be doing to improve themselves and the world around them. They believe in constant growth, and don't often take time to revel in their accomplishments. They have strong value systems, and need to live their lives in accordance with what they feel is right. In deference to the Feeling aspect of their personalities, INFJs are in some ways gentle and easy going. Conversely, they have very high expectations of themselves, and frequently of their families. They don't believe in compromising their ideals. 

INFJ is a natural nurturer; patient, devoted and protective. They make loving parents and usually have strong bonds with their offspring. They have high expectations of their children, and push them to be the best that they can be. This can sometimes manifest itself in the INFJ being hard-nosed and stubborn. But generally, children of an INFJ get devoted and sincere parental guidance, combined with deep caring. 
In the workplace, the INFJ usually shows up in areas where they can be creative and somewhat independent. They have a natural affinity for art, and many excel in the sciences, where they make use of their intuition. INFJs can also be found in service-oriented professions. They are not good at dealing with minutia or very detailed tasks. The INFJ will either avoid such things, or else go to the other extreme and become enveloped in the details to the extent that they can no longer see the big picture. An INFJ who has gone the route of becoming meticulous about details may be highly critical of other individuals who are not. 

The INFJ individual is gifted in ways that other types are not. Life is not necessarily easy for the INFJ, but they are capable of great depth of feeling and personal achievement.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

The diagram was a pedigree, of course. The odd numbers are males and even numbers are females, but that wasn't the intent, just simply position numbers. The other numbers approximate the brightness level of each shaded area, and each column or generation totals to 99 or 100. The shades of color indicating the distance of influence, but also a greater darkening when gender was alternated. A son of a sire, or a daughter of a dam would be a lesser darkening, while a daughter of a son or a son of a dam would result in a deeper interval. Uninterupted continuity of gender influence was the only real significant point.










These two breakdowns might illustrate it better.



















I saw mention of the theory of multiple-intelligences on your link, but the other half is more directly aimed at the learning processes through _sensory modalities_. Left brain / right brain implies more use of one side or another, but the most use of _both sides_ is ideal I'd imagine.

So, the primary sensory modalities in humans are visual, auditory, and kinesthetic. But dogs can "learn" through their olfactory senses, right?

Dogs can be more "visual" learners than we give credit for. Many times it's easier for them to learn a hand signal for a command prior to understanding the vocal command.

Dogs Can Classify Complex Photos In Categories Like Humans Do

I've had some dogs also, that hardly ever looked to the handler directly, but unfailingly would follow commands. Perhaps auditory learners?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

By all rights I shouldn't have passed any grade in school but I was one of those kids that was just pushed/kicked/slapped/tossed through the system. 
I just didn't find school interesting!
I've always been good with my hands in just about anything I've tried. Oil painting, sculpting, wood working, carpentry, electrical work, plumbing, etc. The problem with that is once I've figured something out I loose interest. 
As an adult I've been tested and found to be ADD. DUH! We just didn't know anything about that when I was kid so I spent most of my grade school and high school in the principals office, the nuns convent, the janitors closet  and places I shudda not been in:lol:.
I've also tested out to have an IQ of 120. Maybe not a frickin genius but no dummy either.
WTF happened????? ](*,)](*,) :lol::lol::lol::lol:

My son was also tested out to have ADHD in 3rd grade. He was just as bad as me back then except his teachers loved him. Not a trouble maker. 
His learning ability changed drastically with computers. He could write a book report in grade school and you would have no idea even what the book was about.
Do a book report on a computer and he dern near rewrote the whole book. 
He graduated with honors at one of the better high schools in the area but always wanted to work with his hands. He's now successfully teaching at Ranken Trade college in the area. 

I think were both intelligent but learn in very different ways.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

@ Daryl: blech, I think my explanation makes more sense lol. Did I miss it why the first column has the two numbers? So the colors and numbers that match have nothing to do with genetic relationships? Hmmmm. Maybe I over thought that? Lol

On the dogs I def. Think they are visual learners, masters of body language actually. Probably why sch docks so hard for handler help lol. I can see auditory, would have to be? but I actually think visual moreso in most cases. My last dog I swear at times he wasn't "listening" to my words, I had to be perfectly in tone and say it the same way everytime or risk a mistake. My current dog seems to decipher the words better no matter how I say them.

@ Bob: how do you think this relates to how you train dogs? Are you more hands on? Learn as you go?

T


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

tracey delin said:


> @ Daryl: blech, I think my explanation makes more sense lol. Did I miss it why the first column has the two numbers? So the colors and numbers that match have nothing to do with genetic relationships? Hmmmm. Maybe I over thought that? Lol
> 
> On the dogs I def. Think they are visual learners, masters of body language actually. Probably why sch docks so hard for handler help lol. I can see auditory, would have to be? but I actually think visual moreso in most cases. My last dog I swear at times he wasn't "listening" to my words, I had to be perfectly in tone and say it the same way everytime or risk a mistake. My current dog seems to decipher the words better no matter how I say them.
> 
> ...


I'm definitely hands on even though I spent much of my youth reading dog training book. 
I could get something out of them only because of my interest. 
If I had no interest in what I was reading it made no sense to me. I couldn't get through a single page.
As a kid I read two sets of encyclopedias cover to cover just because I wanted to. Didn't do a dern thing for me in school though.:lol:
My first dog was also my "safe place" as a kid and I think that really helped me connect with dogs. I trained her out of a book and with the help of an old bird dog man in the neighborhood when I was 12. Still have that book!


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

I have been diagnoised with ADD/ADHD or whatever it's called these days four times in my life by 4 shrinks. I do not believe this is a real "syndrome". I have been given meds, special desks at school, counceling. Someone finally told me something the changed my fact. He said, there is nothing wrong with except your an egotistical maniac with inferiority complex, who is so selfish he believes he has the the right to be entertained how he sees fit. 

I said what? he Said," that's right, your not ADD your just selfish." He said but doctors cannot sell a pill for that. 

He said, you have absolutley no problem paying attention to the things that you are super passionate about. But will not even have the common courtesy to stop for 5 minutes to listen to someone else talk. If something is not that gripping for you...you'll just drift off in your head, or start a new project. 

Since then, I have tried to treat my Selfishness and not my ADD...And you know what. Lifes been a bit more fulfilling. I have slowed down quite a bit, thought about how another person was feeling or what they were doing. And then by giving a shit about someone elses interests or problems. I stopped thinking about me. I felt like a guy who was trying. And that's all ADD is. Complete and udder Self asorbtion. To the core, To the extreme. 

But this is a hard pill for many to swallow. It's easier to have syndrome than to admit we are selfish.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I have been told I am very intellegent, but I cannot spell for shit, and spell check doesn't help. I was really good at math..... sometimes. 

I am left handed, and right footed. What do they say about that ?

When I train, I tend to initially have bad timing for corrections, and for positive things, as I am often paying attention to the dogs body language. I figure learning to read the dog is more important than being correct. This is not usually a pup, but an adult dog, and usually a clients dog. I trained other people with their dogs for so long, that I am pretty bad about responding to my own dog when I am working on fixing something, or teaching something brand new.

I looked at Daryls deal, and thought pedigree, and numbers, and left it. I figured co-efficient type things. That took about a half a second.

I could watch dogs getting worked all day long. It is when I have to speak that I get tired. Sometimes I get tired fairly quickly. I know that is weird, but if I am in a chair, watching dogs work with their owners relaxes me to the point that I can fall asleep. 

I usually have about 8 things going on in my head at once. I am good at juggling those 8 things, but if I add another, I am done. This also makes me tangent a lot, and my mouth gets tangled up as I am trying to get the thought out before my brain goes elsewhere. Sometimes the 8 things are all about 1 subject, and that is when things go wonky.


----------



## Lance Dior (Jul 31, 2010)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I have been told I am very intellegent, but I cannot spell for shit, and spell check doesn't help. I was really good at math..... sometimes.


Whoever told you that needs to upgrade their standards


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

*Theory of who Lance Dior really is *



Lance Dior said:


> Whoever told you that needs to upgrade their standards


Lance,

I may not be as smart as some of the people on the list, but I recognize certain writing styles. Yours seem a LOT like one
David Fellatio ano. Weren't you kicked off the forum David/Joel/Lance? Most people would take the hint and not waste their time forcing themselves where they're not wanted. You can't hide your style or your penchant for taking shots at Jeff O. Also come with a more imaginative pen name then Lance Dior a minor character from the Mighty Boosh.
I'm looking forward to at least ten pages, where you deny you're David F or maybe the mods will just boot you off the list for using a fake name. Lance Dior? That's soooooo GAY hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## Lance Dior (Jul 31, 2010)

*Re: Theory of who Lance Dior really is *



Thomas Barriano said:


> Lance,
> 
> I may not be as smart as some of the people on the list, but I recognize certain writing styles. Yours seem a LOT like one
> David Fellatio ano. Weren't you kicked off the forum David/Joel/Lance? Most people would take the hint and not waste their time forcing themselves where they're not wanted. You can't hide your style or your penchant for taking shots at Jeff O. Also come with a more imaginative pen name then Lance Dior a minor character from the Mighty Boosh.
> I'm looking forward to at least ten pages, where you deny you're David F or maybe the mods will just boot you off the list for using a fake name. Lance Dior? That's soooooo GAY hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


What are you on about? Sounds like the dribblings of a madman to me. What is this MIghty Spooge you speak of?

Mr. Oehlsen made a statement as to his intelligence. Dog training is about criteria setting and the things he listed are a big part of my criteria for intelligence.gl


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Man and I was really enjoying this topic, please don't ruin it. This thread it is all about intrapersonal-self reflection. If you are not here to self reflect and find the similarities in how you learn to how you train and share that (which takes guts) then please don't ruin this thread and refrain from posting if it is only to make fun at anothers expense. Very uncool!

T


----------



## Lance Dior (Jul 31, 2010)

tracey delin said:


> Man and I was really enjoying this topic, please don't ruin it. This thread it is all about intrapersonal-self reflection. If you are not here to self reflect and find the similarities in how you learn to how you train and share that (which takes guts) then please don't ruin this thread and refrain from posting if it is only to make fun at anothers expense. Very uncool!
> 
> T


You are way off the mark sir


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

I'm finding it interesting that there are so many into dog training that are creative, hands-on/ tactile, and have some form of add

I am also bad at timing as I am trying to read the whole situatuon, its something I am working in my quest to be a better communicator...seeing improvements.

On the add, I do think I have a mild form of it. I usually have to watch a movie twice as if it gets slow at any point my mind or body wanders. Same for books, I'm honestly not sure I ever read a book in my life? I have to read every page like ten times as the words go through my head but I am thinking of something else...maybe that is a special talent? Lol. In conversation, I hear the first and last and tune out the middle as my brain wanders... My husband hates this and I hate it at work lol. I have been known to be told "you never listen" or to tell people " are you still talking?" Or "get to the point already" Lmao. I definitely have to learn by visual because then it becomes a puzzle I have to disect and keeps my attention, and hands on learning my way through trial and error. This is how I design, learn computer programs and def train. I'm better with small snippets of things or things that keep me active mentally (puzzle/ problem solving creative) or physically, I can see why I train dogs and why I train them the way I do.

In training for me torture is puppies and maintenance. I have no interest in puppies (some of you may remember my poor handling of my puppy video) they bore me, and after I finished my last dog and trialed at the III a few times, I was so bored! I had to start making things up in between trials to do and learn and started teaching mondio exercises to keep me interested.

T


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Yawn. ZZZZzzzzz


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

I started the test but left off- yawn, too!


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Lol you don't have to take the test. Go to the link in the orig post and read the learning/ intelligence cat... Where do you fit? How does that translate to how you train dogs? I'm guessing not visual lol

T


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Yawn. ZZZZzzzzz


 
No prizes for guessing Don lol

What's the one that lacks creativity, imagination and intuition ? :-D


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

I'm a better handler on the field than I am on the net. I reckon I'm not exactly dumb - I have a natural aptitude for dog training which could not be replaced by any amount of internet knowledge.

I try to work out what would happen if I tried "this" or "that" on the dog. How would it react, etc.

I learned a lot about how the dog learns - not rocket science - but not something to be overlooked.

The main thing is, training is fun for me but must produce results.

How do I stand, not quite dumb and not quite clever?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

My mind converts everything to abstacts automatically. Dog does something, I want to know why. I hear umpteen reasons over the years for HD, I question why. Certain breeds don't do well in sport work...I want to know why. I could go on and on but why?


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> My mind converts everything to abstacts automatically. Dog does something, I want to know why. I hear umpteen reasons over the years for HD, I question why. Certain breeds don't do well in sport work...I want to know why. I could go on and on but why?


Ditto.

-Cheers


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

tracey delin said:


> Man and I was really enjoying this topic, please don't ruin it. This thread it is all about intrapersonal-self reflection. If you are not here to self reflect and find the similarities in how you learn to how you train and share that (which takes guts) then please don't ruin this thread and refrain from posting if it is only to make fun at anothers expense. Very uncool!
> 
> T



Tracey,

This whole subject is meaningless, as far as actual dog training, which is more of an art then a science. It's like the behaviorists who write all the scientific papers and books about all the nuances of OC and can't train a dog with an ounce of drive. Or the protection trainers who can name 20 different drives but can't read a dog and react appropriately when one is in front of them. I don't need to "self reflect" or contemplate my navel, to train my dogs. What is "uncool" in my opinion is people (re)joining this list using fake names (anagrams of some one elses name or names of minor characters from British Comedy troupes like Lance Dior)


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Don has a book to refer to for dog training, speaking of which, I have not seen any new posts on your training thread. Lazy ass. : )

Knowing how you learn can help you recognize teaching styles that will effect your performance.


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga (Apr 7, 2010)

Sorry for the late post, i always like to test IQ once in a while. The image was pretty intimidating. 

1. The sum of the first two yellow numbers in each column give the first yellow number in the next column.

2. The square of the 2nd yelow number gives the second yellow number in the next column.

3. Starting from the right the red numbers in each box are summed up to give the number in the next box.

Mrs dahryl did i try?? Please say yes!!!!


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

You know why everyone thinks they have a mild form of ADD or they have full blowin ADD. Because humans are Self-seeking. 

We care, what we care about....and not much else. It's work to not be selfish...so why not just call it syndrome and relieve yourself from any resposnability for being selfish?

Check this out. The next time your having a conversation with someone. No matter what you are doing. Stop and try to listen to them. Do not plan your response in your head. Actually try to care, and really try to care, not just "seem" concerned. but really try to experience in your mind what they are talking about. Feelings, colors, sounds, smells, reactions, whatever. And do not divide your attention. Shut the TV off, pull the car over, put your fork down, get off the computer. stop whatever your doing and try to be there.

I bet. after you read that. Your mind immediatly thought up an excuse to why cannot stop doing something to listen to someone else. It's because your self important and what your doing is more important than whatever they are talking about. The car one gets most people. They think it's silly. They only think that because....there selfish. Thier afraid they will look silly or have to explain why they did it.

Just try it. It will be ****ing work. It will be hard. 

ADD is just a lack of mental discpline. Remember I have been diagnoised and told I "suffered" from it. from 4 different doctors at 4 different times in my life. I had a person whom was wise from life, and not smart from a book some other selfish asshole wrote tell me, "you do not have ADD" your just a selfish asshole. You can pay attention to a dog trial, or dog training for hours....But you cannot listen for 5 minutes on how someone elses day went. You can pay attention to playing the guitar for hours, but won't take the time to put the cap on the toothpaste right." that's not a disorder...that's just not giving a shit about anyone but you". 

A little bit of honest self reflection....and I was cured of having a disorder....but all of a sudden I had caught egomania.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Well I cant sleep and took an ambien and boy does it all look whacko bizarro psychobabble-esque to me  

The boxes did not make sense because they were the wrong color. Green and purple would have meant something.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

David and don, interesting being that you both also subcribe/ prefer the kohler. Method. Are you learn by reading types?

T



David Ruby said:


> Ditto.
> 
> -Cheers


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Oluwatobi Odunuga said:


> Sorry for the late post, i always like to test IQ once in a while. The image was pretty intimidating.
> 
> 1. The sum of the first two yellow numbers in each column give the first yellow number in the next column.
> 
> ...


:mrgreen:


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> David and don, interesting being that you both also subcribe/ prefer the kohler. Method. Are you learn by reading types?
> 
> T


Learning by numbers....or joining the dots :grin:?


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

I think that was one of the most interesting posts yet thomas! I. Knew this thread wouldn't be for everyone, think I put that disclaimer in the first post, its all in fun, for those that find it interesting anyway. ;-)

What's interesting to me is that anyone would read something they thought was meaningless, sounds like complete torture lol. Not only did you read a thread you find meaningless, you actually felt the need to tell everyone. I wonder what category that falls into? In keeping in topic of the thread, do you often do things in training you find meaningless and then talk about or express how meaningless it was? 

What I do find meaningless, and maybe you disagree with this is fighting on the internet or making.up names just to bicker. Probably why I find jeff refreshing. Not much of a filter but what you see is what you get. I find the variety in opinions quite interesting, that must be the "interpersonal".

t





Thomas Barriano said:


> Tracey,
> 
> This whole subject is meaningless, as far as actual dog training, which is more of an art then a science. It's like the behaviorists who write all the scientific papers and books about all the nuances of OC and can't train a dog with an ounce of drive. Or the protection trainers who can name 20 different drives but can't read a dog and react appropriately when one is in front of them. I don't need to "self reflect" or contemplate my navel, to train my dogs. What is "uncool" in my opinion is people (re)joining this list using fake names (anagrams of some one elses name or names of minor characters from British Comedy troupes like Lance Dior)


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

tracey delin said:


> David and don, interesting being that you both also subcribe/ prefer the kohler. Method. Are you learn by reading types?
> 
> T


Tracey, I subscribed to Koehler because I have seen about every method of training used for "these particular dogs". So type definitely has something to do with it. The other thing it had to do with is the it worked more efficiently with this type of dog than kissing up to them does. Long story short.... the method works well.

Jeff, I have the Koehler books and they are sitting where I put them when I got them some time back. Never read them, but I got a trainer walking me through itmon the phone. No, I am not training the dogs right now. It is only cool in the morning hours and I can either train or take care of the work I have for other people which has to be done...or I can train while cool and work in the heat. Training is going to have to wait until the work is done. But it will work out because I will have most all outside work done in about a month and I will be finished until about next May. I have some trees to fall and remove in the cooler months but not enough to even count. It is all dogs through the fall wintewr and spring.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

James Downey said:


> Check this out. The next time your having a conversation with someone. No matter what you are doing. Stop and try to listen to them. Do not plan your response in your head. Actually try to care, and really try to care, not just "seem" concerned. but really try to experience in your mind what they are talking about. Feelings, colors, sounds, smells, reactions, whatever. And do not divide your attention. Shut the TV off, pull the car over, put your fork down, get off the computer. stop whatever your doing and try to be there.
> 
> I bet. after you read that. Your mind immediatly thought up an excuse to why cannot stop doing something to listen to someone else. It's because your self important and what your doing is more important than whatever they are talking about. The car one gets most people. They think it's silly. They only think that because....there selfish. Thier afraid they will look silly or have to explain why they did it.


Well, I just sort of thought more or less, yeah, that's what you do when you listen. So, what do I win? 

I am actually a very good listener and tend to empathize with people. I'm one of those people that will listen to somebody, sort of mull it over as they talk, and then only talk when it's for verification or if they are asking for some opinion.

Overall, yeah, we are selfish to some extent. But what you're describing is both possible, and maybe more natural to some than others. I also think it makes a big difference if you know or are invested in someone.

Drawing overly broad generalizations back to the same point, I think most things exist on a spectrum when it comes to traits and intelligences (and, well, most things in general).

-Cheers


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I think there is a lot to what James said. No such thing as ADD when I was a kid. There were no out of control kids on "sugar highs" when I was a kid. Parents said to sit down and be quiet, they did regardless of what they had to eat. Out of control kids are not because of sugar, they are because of a lack of discipline on the parents part. Kids don't have to behave today. Why discipline them when you can give reward for a very temporary fix.

Am I selfish? You bet. Do I listen to others, only of they have been there. I am not really interested in what someone read somewhere because it is usually a case of someone elses "theory" being passed on and so much of it is hogwash. I am all ears when opinions come from real experience and I don't even have to agree with it.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

tracey delin said:


> David and don, interesting being that you both also subcribe/ prefer the kohler. Method. Are you learn by reading types?
> 
> T


Hey Tracey,

To some extent I probably like Koehler because it is what I was first taught. However, I like it because it is a very black-and-white style. If done right, it just seems practically idiot proof. You show the dog the ropes, make sure they understand it, then if the dog does something wrong give an appropriate correction (not yank it like the pull string on an old lawnmower that won't start because they made a simple mistake), and if they do something right praise them like they just ran in the winning touchdown at the Super Bowl. That black-and-white sort of way of thinking _sometimes_ works great with me. I also like the idea of the rewards being internal which I tend to think of as being more meaningful than external (in life, not necessarily with dogs). I'd also argue some sport training uses reward-refusal as a correction since it can make the dog so reliant on the toy (or whatever) that keeping the item from the dog is as much a correction as a simple pop on the collar. Not all of it is like that, but all else being equal I just prefer the direct route where the praise and reward would come through me, and not through some external item.

I am currently learning & training pretty much the Michael Ellis method; or at least it's reward-based and the people I train with are definitely very influenced by Michael. I like it. What I took from it (simplified, and I'm new at it) was similar in the dog does something wrong it gets a correction, it does something right it gets a reward. However, the correction could be a pop on the leash if disobeys, or it could be a verbal "No" which means, pretty much, "nope, try again." This will probably sound stupid, but after years of the black-and-white of Koehler (or at least the training I was exposed to), this put a shade of gray to things. I do like the way it allows the dog to be a bit more exploratory in its thinking and doesn't necessarily give a correction so much as a mulligan, a do-over. I also have to admit, my dog is a food whore and will work for food and be very excited to do so. I've seen her grandmother and other related dogs happily work for sheer love of their handler and need nothing more than sincere praise and simple corrections to be well-trained (albeit not in a sport setting, they were still bomb-proof in their training and in their work, so take that with whatever grain of salt you will). Still, I'd be lying if I said it did not make her work with more gusto. Being a pragmatist (and luckily having a great trainer), I gave it a shot and I'd say it's a good match for both of us.

I am also ambidextrous. I am right-handed because the made me choose as a kid, but I'd be writing or eating with one hand and switch mid-task. Probably because of that I am very evenly balanced between right and left brained thinking (I don't put a whole lot of stock into those tests, but I have virtually always come out pretty much dead-center anytime I take one of those exams). That might be why I am generally able to somewhat sympathize with both sides of an argument, or find common ground with most people. When I read a book or about history, I generally come away sympathizing with both sides or at least seeing where they were coming from; not a unique trait, but I am generally able to identify with people or characters often pretty equally where others might find they only sympathize with one side. I also find it hard to strongly take sides on issues or arguments since I'm usually seeing the merits of both, and tend to over-analyze. Hence, I can see the value in (and try to find the best ways to apply for my uses and way of thinking to utilize) both a Koehler-type of training and a more rewards-based form of training (not necessarily strictly Michael Ellis, but his style is probably what I've been most exposed to). But I also almost needed to learn and try out both of them (on an admittedly limited basis) and analyze both before I could really say I felt comfortable with picking one over the other.

See any trends?

To answer your question, I'm more of a learn-by-reading type. Part of that is nurture; my dad was a Vietnam Vet and a welder, so I was encouraged to go that route (the typical parents doing better for their kids route), and might have developed fairly differently had I been pushed into different areas (I'm gradually becoming more interested in engines, building things, wood-work, etc.). But I'm naturally good at reading comprehension and related skills, and read like a fiend as a kid. For me, I tend to work best if I can read something (or get a thorough explanation of something) and get a mental idea of how things can (or should) work, then am able to go out and apply it. That could be dog training, it could be Martial Arts (I was better if I could read about a technique and then internalize what was supposed to happen and THEN practice it to get a feel for the variances in what actually COULD), it could be reading & understanding every step in a complex instruction manual and then fixing something.

Take from that whatever you will.

-Cheers


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

I've known of some who are/were referred to as having attention deficit disorder, I too agree with the opinion of James. I have quite a broad generalised opinion also on some of those people who ' break down' due to stress in everyday living as opposed to trauma, due to there being a lack of maturity and character but that's getting more into the emotional and ot, but still overlaps with the self indulgence. I'm sure it's not like that for all though.

A young niece of mine was pretty hyper as a child, she just had lots of drive and brains but it was channelled..., she's just finished school with straight A's and is applying for medical school. She plays good bass guitar in a rock band, plays the violin well and is almost as good on a horse as I was at that age . I wonder how many get confused with add and drive and ability. I've referred to people probably just as often as dogs regarding drive, only a little less on the specifics.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

You should read them Don, they are good stuff, and will just make what your buddy is saying that much clearer. I know about the heat, man it is hot here. I have been hiding in the AC and that has made the heat worse. LOL

The decoys are still out of town, and I have been doing small stuff here and there. But the heat.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Learning is really all about associating patterns. The more you do it (repetition), the more associations are made, and patterns emerge. You learn cause and effect. You realize that _when I do this.... this happens_. Which might later transcend into predictive understanding; _these are the conditions that lent to this occurance in the past......... so, this is about to happen._

The box thing earlier was intended to be far simpler than the interpretations that were made of it. I created it only with intent as an illustration of same-sex decendancy. The hues were meaningless, the numbers only relative, the only matter of focus for me when I constructed it was the lightening/darkening shade with each generation, and moreso when the gender alternated. But, other patterns emerged, and each of our observations could easily bring different meaning to the illustration. Some was coincidental, and resulted in ideas like the makings of a conspiracy theory or a secret code. _If no obvious associations to the patterns emerge, our minds become intent to find meaning or purpose behind them, even if the meaning defies logic._ That's where your other sensory modalities help keep the others in check.

You can't be a visual "only" learner if you're calculating mathematical sums of the squares, or can't be a "right brained" only or "right handed" only person without having the other facilities that are also used in which to compare them to.

I think it was David who pointed out to me that he is also cross-eye dominant in shooting as I am, and suggested that I might also be naturally left handed. I'm pretty sure I'm not, though I can use both hands comfortably in many things, there are some things I much prefer my right. My father was left handed, but learned to shoot a right handed rifle. But I would say I'm right handed, because for drawing and sketching, I have much better precision with my right hand.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I think there is a lot to what James said. No such thing as ADD when I was a kid. There were no out of control kids on "sugar highs" when I was a kid. Parents said to sit down and be quiet, they did regardless of what they had to eat. Out of control kids are not because of sugar, they are because of a lack of discipline on the parents part. Kids don't have to behave today. Why discipline them when you can give reward for a very temporary fix.
> 
> Am I selfish? You bet. Do I listen to others, only of they have been there. I am not really interested in what someone read somewhere because it is usually a case of someone elses "theory" being passed on and so much of it is hogwash. I am all ears when opinions come from real experience and I don't even have to agree with it.



Don, I'll have to disagree about "out of control kids being a discipline problem". Often, yes, but not always!
My dad was about as brutal with discipline with us as you could get without putting us in the hospital. 
Myself and one of my sisters (there were 7 of us) had just about any "punishment" you could think of and it didn't stop either of us from constantly getting in trouble. 
Kinda like that one dog that just can't keep from diving in no matter how hard it gets tore up. I don't think I had any self preservation and I NEVER worried or even thought about consequences. ](*,) 
When my son was having all the problems my sisters just kept say "Quit worrying Bob. He's just like you were only nicer and you turned out ok". Scared the crap outta me! :lol:


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Learning is really all about associating patterns. The more you do it (repetition), the more associations are made, and patterns emerge. You learn cause and effect. You realize that _when I do this.... this happens_. Which might later transcend into predictive understanding; _these are the conditions that lent to this occurance in the past......... so, this is about to happen._


Sure. My thought (based at least somewhat on research, not just BS'ing all of this :razz is that our nature sort of predicts how we're likely to make those associations (or whatever you want to call it) in how & what we learn. Our environment can override a lot of that (use Chris M. as an example, his natural tendencies as he described himself are very different than the things emphasized in his upbringing), but intelligence theory sort of lets you take a look at how you might be more likely to learn and what your strengths/weaknesses are. It's more of a teaching tool than anything else, but still kind of interesting.



> The box thing earlier was intended to be far simpler than the interpretations that were made of it. I created it only with intent as an illustration of same-sex decendancy. The hues were meaningless, the numbers only relative, the only matter of focus for me when I constructed it was the lightening/darkening shade with each generation, and moreso when the gender alternated. But, other patterns emerged, and each of our observations could easily bring different meaning to the illustration. Some was coincidental, and resulted in ideas like the makings of a conspiracy theory or a secret code. *If no obvious associations to the patterns emerge, our minds become intent to find meaning or purpose behind them, even if the meaning defies logic.* That's where your other sensory modalities help keep the others in check.


That was the fun part. At first I just saw it as maybe something illustrating something, then the more I thought since I had nothing to associate its meaning with, my mind looked for any patterns and tried to grasp what the equation was behind the answer. It felt very akin to moving backward through an algebra problem.



> You can't be a visual "only" learner if you're calculating mathematical sums of the squares, or can't be a "right brained" only or "right handed" only person without having the other facilities that are also used in which to compare them to.


I don't think anybody is solely right-brained or solely left-brained unless they literally have some medical condition that would make them so. People will use both sides, but to varying degrees most are going to be dominant in one area or the other.



> I think it was David who pointed out to me that he is also cross-eye dominant in shooting as I am, and suggested that I might also be naturally left handed. I'm pretty sure I'm not, though I can use both hands comfortably in many things, there are some things I much prefer my right. My father was left handed, but learned to shoot a right handed rifle. But I would say I'm right handed, because for drawing and sketching, I have much better precision with my right hand.


I think I might have wondered if you were either naturally left-handed or ambidextrous. That also stems from my own experiences being ambidextrous, as my right-hand dominance (at least in writing) was forced on me. Some things I do better with one hand, or just switch, but before they made me choose a side I was equally comfortable with either for every task as far as I could tell and can remember. My dad & sister are left-handed as well.

-Cheers


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

speaking of left/right dominance...

I throw a baseball with my right arm and have trouble doing it with my left. I throw a football with my left and can't seem to throw it with my right. I bowl with my right arm and have trouble using my left. When I played hockey, I was a left handed hockey player but with baseball I am a right handed batter and suck with my left. 

I write with my left hand but for whatever reason, if it's an electronic medium, like computer drawning or signing my name with a credit card machine, I use my right hand. I was in advertising and graphic design for a while, I drawn and paint with my left hand in the physical world but when I have to put it into the computer, I can only use my right hand. If I'm doing a sketch using software, I always use my right hand. I can't use a mouse with my left hand.

I eat left handed but I drink right handed. I don't switch utensils like most americans when they eat with knife and fork.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Don, I'll have to disagree about "out of control kids being a discipline problem". Often, yes, but not always!
> My dad was about as brutal with discipline with us as you could get without putting us in the hospital.
> Myself and one of my sisters (there were 7 of us) had just about any "punishment" you could think of and it didn't stop either of us from constantly getting in trouble.
> Kinda like that one dog that just can't keep from diving in no matter how hard it gets tore up. I don't think I had any self preservation and I NEVER worried or even thought about consequences. ](*,)
> When my son was having all the problems my sisters just kept say "Quit worrying Bob. He's just like you were only nicer and you turned out ok". Scared the crap outta me! :lol:


Then we are both drawing from early years Bob. We obviously just handled it much differently. I came from a very volotile family myself. Funny we should both end up in terriers but I can't tolerate weakness. While I always could manage the violence I had younger brothers and sisters that I would not tolerate seeing go through the same thing. They wanted to see violence, I gave them a taste of it when I came home of found them meating out their type of discipline with the younger ones. Put my dad in the hospital 3 times. My mom got some of it also. but I guess this is how two very different people react. I have not seen my folks in years, don't even know if they are still alive. Don't much care. I have two brothers I see often, other than that, I washed my hands of the whole tribe. I have nieces and nephews in their 30's that I wouldn't know if I bumped into them. They were all born and raised 50 miles from me. We are going to have to disagree on this one. I see nothing wrong with a spanking and "normal" discipline.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

David Ruby said:


> Sure. My thought (based at least somewhat on research, not just BS'ing all of this :razz is that *our nature sort of predicts how we're likely to make those associations *(or whatever you want to call it) in how & what we learn. *Our environment can override a lot of that *(use Chris M. as an example, his natural tendencies as he described himself are very different than the things emphasized in his upbringing), but intelligence theory sort of lets you take a look at how you might be more likely to learn and what your strengths/weaknesses are. It's more of a teaching tool than anything else, but still kind of interesting.


I think our inherited nature begins with a minor blueprint, a foundation for behavior based on the most basic neurophysiological brain-to-body functions, and that will have a great filtering effect on our perception initially, and to some degree eternally to our death. But environment, AND the associations made from _experience_ are a definite major factor. Looking at twin studies for behavioral genetics, upbringing has more to do with final _beliefs behind the _behavior than genetics can account for, but the highest correlation of all to be found in genetics is the "intelligence" (something like 52%).

I can't help but often think of my Hutch offspring, whose bad history (experience) together and general lack of environmental exposure have made them something to be that they can never take back. The result are temperaments that are far unlike their socially etiquette parents. Despite their great potential for work and sport, their untethered sharpness has developed into irredeemable social skills due to an unfortunate combination of genetics, early negative experience and a general lack of exposure. With better early guidance that I didn't suspect so necessary in their case, I could have avoided much of the hardship I've endured with those three.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> Don, I'll have to disagree about "out of control kids being a discipline problem". Often, yes, but not always!
> My dad was about as brutal with discipline with us as you could get without putting us in the hospital.
> Myself and one of my sisters (there were 7 of us) had just about any "punishment" you could think of and it didn't stop either of us from constantly getting in trouble.
> Kinda like that one dog that just can't keep from diving in no matter how hard it gets tore up. I don't think I had any self preservation and I NEVER worried or even thought about consequences. ](*,)
> When my son was having all the problems my sisters just kept say "Quit worrying Bob. He's just like you were only nicer and you turned out ok". Scared the crap outta me! :lol:


You take me back Bob, I was one of nine, from eldest 001...I am 007 :smile:, staunch catholic, disciplinarian and quite brutal father. Control was a problem, you just always got out of the house as soon as you possibly could, regardless of the consequences. Fortunately, where we grew up was a great place for kids and they were very enterprising, stripping old disused piggeries for copper wire, collecting and melting down lead for fishing weights (by fire), clearing areas of unused land of gorse (by fire), taking the old man's boat out without his permission etc........ On top of that, we had a dog aggressive black lab, a bloodhound who used to tour the town, a cat, budgies, rabbits....utter mayhem at times.

Anyway, this intelligence thing used to crop up amongst a few of us from time to time as we matured, and conversation of the difference in the individual personalities. No-one was a model student at school, but everyone except one was top of their class....the youngest boy (009) was Scottish junior chess champion at 11 yrs old I think, my other brother made it to captain in the merchant navy, the youngest in the country, I'll leave it at that for now. No amount of beatings or discipline curbed anyone from doing what they were doing.

The clunk click ones (mathematical logical) became oil professionals (2), physicist, civil servant, computer programmer, and the more fluid...photographer, animal trainer, secretary/domestic. Sibling rivalry was nothing much short of fierce, we all became scattered all over the world and no-one keeps in touch much if at all, we don't really have an awful lot in common.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

An interesting (maybe, to me it is) train of thought:



Bob Scott said:


> *Don, I'll have to disagree about "out of control kids being a discipline problem". Often, yes, but not always!
> *My dad was about as brutal with discipline with us as you could get without putting us in the hospital.
> Myself and one of my sisters (there were 7 of us) had just about any "punishment" you could think of and it didn't stop either of us from constantly getting in trouble.
> *Kinda like that one dog that just can't keep from diving in no matter how hard it gets tore up. *I don't think I had any self preservation and I NEVER worried or even thought about consequences. ](*,)





Don Turnipseed said:


> Then we are both drawing from early years Bob. We obviously just handled it much differently. I came from a very volotile family myself. Funny we should both end up in terriers but I can't tolerate weakness.[snip] *We are going to have to disagree on this one. I see nothing wrong with a spanking and "normal" discipline.*


I tend to view things more as Don, however I have seen some fairly compelling evidence that Bob might be right, or at minimal as valid, in his beliefs. In my research into Charter Schools in Grad School, they were able to take kids that had problems (and some kids just in standard Kindergarten) and fix behaviors by channeling their energy. For the Charter schools, it was largely getting them involved, getting them ownership, but it was pretty much anti-normal discipline and all about finding what motivated them a/o channeling that energy or those desires that would get them put into detention, suspension, or jail and making it work somehow in teaching them. There is a fair amount of evidence that it works, but education reform is slow (really, who wants to take the chance on something new that might work based on small samples of kids with _their_ kid?). The other examples were just in normal schools where the kid would do something, stupid little stuff like not paying attention to the teacher or doing something they weren't supposed to do like color, and instead of yelling at the kid to pay attention they'd direct that kid's actions toward something relevant to the project. They also discussed (and I've seen it) where you can take that same kid, reprimand them, and they'll shut down.

Some of this will not directly have _anything_ to do with dog training. However, being the over-analyzer I am, I _did_ wonder how to apply that to a dog. Wondering if, when, where, and _how_ I could use a situation to not just tell my dog "No" but redirect them and work on building them up and motivating them. To some extent, I do think if the kid/dog/whatever is just testing you, you still correct the kid/dog. I also like the notion of trying to pick their brain though and do things that will build them up, strengthen the bond, and make them work with you and not just work because you are making them (again, kids, dogs, employees, etc.).

How much of this applies to dogs & training? Beats me.

-Cheers


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

VERY similar background other then all my siblings are very close because of how we were raised. Still get together on a regular basis. 
In fact I was at the ball game last night with my two brothers.
My four sisters didn't really come into their own till all were divorced. Now all four are college grads with great professions. 
All but two of us are dog crazy! :lol::lol:


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

"Some of this will not directly have _anything_ to do with dog training. However, being the over-analyzer I am, I _did_ wonder how to apply that to a dog. Wondering if, when, where, and _how_ I could use a situation to not just tell my dog "No" but redirect them and work on building them up and motivating them. To some extent, I do think if the kid/dog/whatever is just testing you, you still correct the kid/dog. I also like the notion of trying to pick their brain though and do things that will build them up, strengthen the bond, and make them work with you and not just work because you are making them (again, kids, dogs, employees, etc.).

How much of this applies to dogs & training? Beats me."

I personally think, but have more yet to think on , that this is where it can all get a bit haywire...too much going on, on top. Why apply a scientific and logical application to a living sentient being ? You say in your posts David you think you're pretty much central in right and left brain....yet everything about so many of your posts seem processed through the logical channel, there doesn't seem an awful lot that is reactive or responsive, everything seems premeditated, tidy, and meticulously thought out.

Just sayin .


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I think most times where the problem comes in is people can't help but to over analyze even the smallest things, most mundane things and make it much more difficult than it is. A good example was Daryls box of numbers. I think people feel superior to a dog if they can make the dog appear to be that complex. Every time a person see's a dog mthat shows some fear, well by golly, They are sure that dog was mistreated when most are just POS dogs. It always has to be something people can try to analyze.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

maggie fraser said:


> I personally think, but have more yet to think on , that this is where it can all get a bit haywire...too much going on, on top. Why apply a scientific and logical application to a living sentient being ?


I'm scientific by nature. I took a lot of science growing up, and think most creatures are creatures of habit. You can find a lot of critters (human, canine, or otherwise) will generally fall inline with a well thought out theory. There are also very notable examples and random acts that defy explanation. So I think scientifically about most things and try to apply whatever theories I can as general rules for how things usually function. I also like to think that there could be a grand equation for _everything_ it's just we don't know all the factors or variables.



> You say in your posts David you think you're pretty much central in right and left brain....yet everything about so many of your posts seem processed through the logical channel, there doesn't seem an awful lot that is reactive or responsive, everything seems premeditated, tidy, and meticulously thought out.
> 
> Just sayin .


I do think a fair amount of logical things and a fair amount of abstract things. I do tend to filter all of that through some semblance of logic. Additionally when writing, I've learned to view things very analytically, and sort of pause a bit before blowing up or getting too heated in my written responses. That is probably part to avoid an overly emotional response, part is just my calm nature, maybe part of it is years of writing on through Grad School, it all helps shape how I write. Also, I do process information in several different ways and analyze the multiple sides of things (e.g. if people have an argument on this board for example, or in the news, I'll generally try to gather the backstory a/o the sources of the information before posting or forming my opinion. In my head, I think I _am_ more central, but I do filter it through my logic before I post. I do have some left-brained habits & ways of thinking of things and preferences, but online I try (or have learned) to be more thoughtful and deliberate in my thinking.

Your observation is pretty accurate though as far as my writing and how I think things through. Part of that is just my writing style.

-Cheers


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

So tell me...since this is about "theory" of intelligence, is knowing going to make a difference in how you think? Seems to me it is irrelevant which side is producing what. you think how you do and the expressed thoughts are what counts. Or, ar you going to purposely sit back and think "oh, I want to appear to think this way so I have to give this answer. Don't think so. This is what I am talking about whan I say y'all make thinks way to difficult and end up not being able to see the forest for the trees.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Do you mind if I ask David, are you a psychologist by any chance ? I ask that because I thought I read something on this thread that hinted you may be.

I took the test you posted for Tracey, I'm pretty much square in the centre with an emphasis on the interpersonal and musical, although I couldn't play an instrument to save myself.

Thanks for the reply.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> So tell me...since this is about "theory" of intelligence, is knowing going to make a difference in how you think? Seems to me it is irrelevant which side is producing what. you think how you do and the expressed thoughts are what counts. Or, ar you going to purposely sit back and think "oh, I want to appear to think this way so I have to give this answer. Don't think so. This is what I am talking about whan I say y'all make thinks way to difficult and end up not being able to see the forest for the trees.


 
I detect an undertone of irritation here .

Don, do you just think in black and white ? No colour there ? I think it helps, I think if you think in terms of black and white...you are not a good candidate for the refinement of animal training.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

That is why I am a breeder I suppose. Things are black and white. Good dog, bad dog. Great dog, POS dog. Same goes for a good trainer that trains dogs for others. If a dog is aggressive, his job is to fix the aggression, doesn't really matter why the dog is aggressive. May just be his nature.

As far as being irritated, nope, just my nature. I say what I got to say.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

My intent on the thread was not how you "think" per say and definitely not.about if you are intelligent or not, but more in how you learn vs how you teach/ train. I think there is a correlation, for me anyway and I'm finding it interesting.

T


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Go for it Tracey. It is a topic for sure. I am here reading it and the reason is I am trying to figure out how it will make a difference in when things you just mentioned even if you figure it out.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

maggie fraser said:


> Do you mind if I ask David, are you a psychologist by any chance ? I ask that because I thought I read something on this thread that hinted you may be.


Nope! Librarian. Go figure, eh?

I actually went to school to be a teacher, did that for a while and got my Masters in Library & Information Studies to be a school librarian, worked for a while (limited term non-contract) in an Academic library, loved it, ended up in a medical library now, also a very good and interesting job. My wife and I both have an interest in psychology, but the brain & thought functioning I actually got more out of and probably read more of with that in mind than she did (she has more of the business, industrial/organizational, consultant type of background than I do).

I'm also very much an information junkie and always digging to find out as much about topics that I like as possible. I think I kinda share that with Don, at least about dogs. Something he said earlier about wondering why certain dogs do and don't work out for sport. I wonder the same. I'll go and find as much as I can about the dogs, and the work, then ask a zillion questions about why certain dogs might or might not do well at certain events (why Bulldogs aren't generally great at Ring, or what makes Malinois so successful, what happened to Rottweilers, Airedales, Bouvier, Schnauzers, etc. that led them from being used as regular Police dogs to being largely discarded), and then if a breed or job or something random (like KNPV, NVBK, different cultures and the types of dogs they prefer, etc.) and just take it on myself to research the crap out of it.

Or I'll look at the dogs I'm able to watch (American Bulldogs and Malinois, currently), ask about their drives and history, get a feel for what others say about their differences and why they might work better at something than another, try and find out how & why certain things translate and certain things don't (e.g. Bulldogs are tough, tough dogs, but not as good at manwork as Malinois, Herders would get destroyed doing catch work but can still be tough and have put people in the hospital). Then I find it very engaging to read about the different physical builds, temperaments, and quirks about the different lines of (just for example) Malinois or Dutch Shepherds (say the stereotypes of French, Belgian, and KNPV line dogs) and how they might be more or less advantageous in different situation, why they were developed that way, much less how it might apply to me. Really, I could have been more decisive, decided "hey, I want to do Mondio" and got a Michael Ellis dog, or whatever. But I find the research fun even if some of it will never effect me.

That's how I end up with extensive knowledge in random things. I found out a decent amount about Belgian, German, and French history from researching dogs & breed development, but maybe more from researching beer and what went on around the time different styles developed. I homebrew beer, so I'd research the German purity laws, or the Trappist Ales and the Trappist Monks, then go off on some tangent researching things related to their past.



> I took the test you posted for Tracey, I'm pretty much square in the centre with an emphasis on the interpersonal and musical, although I couldn't play an instrument to save myself.
> 
> Thanks for the reply.


Cool! I just think it's kind of interesting, but I _do_ see things that are considered more left-brained or right-brained and I can identify with a lot from both sides in my actions, ways of thinking, preferences, etc. But who knows?

-Cheers


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Hey Don,



Don Turnipseed said:


> So tell me...since this is about "theory" of intelligence, is knowing going to make a difference in how you think? Seems to me it is irrelevant which side is producing what. you think how you do and the expressed thoughts are what counts. Or, ar you going to purposely sit back and think "oh, I want to appear to think this way so I have to give this answer. Don't think so. This is what I am talking about whan I say y'all make thinks way to difficult and end up not being able to see the forest for the trees.


I think it's good to be aware of how you think and what makes you tick.

Will it make a difference in how you think? I don't know if that's the point so much as to help you be aware of what might work better for you, or if you have strengths that can help you in another way. It's probably more useful for learning things, and finding ways to incorporate things that will help you learn. For instance, if you're musical but hate math it might help you to find things that incorporate the two, or even listen to music while learning math, or find projects/activities that incorporate the two. You can use one area of strength to help you learn something from an area of weakness or have your brain associate the two together a/o keep you stimulated by activating the part of your brain that is strong in one area thus allowing you to better learn something from another area (at least according to the theory, and I think it's true).

As for changing the way you think . . . If you make a conscious effort, I think you can, at least to an extent. You could do exercises or go out and do things that reinforce certain behaviors or traits. Maybe you realize you are totally overly logical or overly emotional as a dog handler. You might either try to become more self-aware to balance yourself out (e.g. you just focus on the steps as a handler yet you are not good at reading the nonverbal communication of the dog, or you you focus too much on the dog's disposition at the expense of good technique or ignore the principles behind what your trainer is telling you). Some might just apply it to examine their possible areas of strength or weakness and just become aware of it and still think the same but be more cognizant and able to make sure their actions in whatever do not cause shortcomings, or even try to get people with complimentary talents in their group (whether that's a job, training club, band, coach, etc.).

Or maybe it's just kind of fun and otherwise useless. We all find value in different things.



Don Turnipseed said:


> Go for it Tracey. It is a topic for sure. I am here reading it and the reason is I am trying to figure out how it will make a difference in when things you just mentioned even if you figure it out.


Hopefully it's at least somewhat interesting. I find it kind of cool to see how people's traits and background contributed to who they became. It's part of why I'm a history nut.

-Cheers


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Finally took the test lol.

*Intelligence type**your totals*
Linguistic24
Logical-Mathematical33
Musical33
Bodily-Kinesthetic32
Spatial-Visual37
Interpersonal34
Intrapersonal30


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> Finally took the test lol.
> 
> *Intelligence type**your totals*
> Linguistic24
> ...


my results for comparison:

Linguistic 33 
Logical-Mathematical 23 
Musical 37 
Bodily-Kinesthetic 34 
Spatial-Visual 32 
Interpersonal 35 
Intrapersonal 35


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

David, schools used to give IQ tests and such. I was always good in math and have two years in accounting as I was going to be a CPA. Problem was I was bored to death. I always loved to work with my hands and always have even as a kid. Early testing always put me into the top 1% in abstract reasoning. That may be why I see HD and different problems much differently. It is like I automatically see assocciations to a problem, that many people would not even consider relevant. Most problems I solve because they are there 24 hrs a day. I can't tell you how many times I have had a fabrication problem and ended up sitting straight up in bed at 3 in the morning, from a sound sleep, with it figured out. Used to drive me nuts that I couldn't turn it off. I really can't see how knowing what causes thought pattern is going to help. I enjoy techinical manuals much more than novels. I have never read a dog book but I have a good idea of what makes dogs tick. Why read books when you can have a dog park to watch.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> David, schools used to give IQ tests and such. I was always good in math and have two years in accounting as I was going to be a CPA. Problem was I was bored to death. I always loved to work with my hands and always have even as a kid. Early testing always put me into the top 1% in abstract reasoning.


Hey Don. IQ tests can be kind of misleading with some as they have not always accurately assessed the whole picture. That said, I can see how somebody with that mixture of skill sets would have an interesting situation (being good at math but bored by the most "logical" fit for that skill). As an aside, I'd like to think that schools would eventually acknowledge that the kids who suck at tests and more traditional book learnin' but are kinesthetic/technical/mechanical geniuses are (in their own right) just as smart as the book savvy kids. But I digress.



> That may be why I see HD and different problems much differently. It is like I automatically see assocciations to a problem, that many people would not even consider relevant. Most problems I solve because they are there 24 hrs a day. I can't tell you how many times I have had a fabrication problem and ended up sitting straight up in bed at 3 in the morning, from a sound sleep, with it figured out. Used to drive me nuts that I couldn't turn it off. I really can't see how knowing what causes thought pattern is going to help.


Look at your rather abstract way of approaching HD, or looking at problems. In a project, it might help if I can acknowledge that I'm thinking too left-brained & logical, or _too_ balanced (much more likely) on some problem and can't figure it out, when maybe a more abstract or even a more logical mind might help me think of it in different terms. For me, I think it can be useful to analyze what I'm doing, and if I realize maybe I'm erring too far one way or the other to approach it some other fashion. I think sometimes I can see that and sort of switch off and look at it from another angle and maybe figure it out.

It is more of a teaching model though, on how to teach kids and have them apply things in a way that they will get it better. Not that it would help you become a better accountant, but there are ways to apply math or science, for instance, where you learn the theories/equations/procedures, then get to (or have to, depending) apply it to a project so you learn it from multiple angles.



> I enjoy techinical manuals much more than novels. I have never read a dog book but I have a good idea of what makes dogs tick. Why read books when you can have a dog park to watch.


I enjoy novels and prose more. _However, _I am generally very good at understanding instruction manuals and applying them. I could probably write instruction manuals very well. I also used to like writing poetry (but looking back, it was largely teenage angst stuff, with a few that I'm genuinely proud of) and prose. I also like abstract writing and stuff like Robert Frost, or Quincy Troupe ("Take it to the Hoop" is a great poem about Magic Johnson, cool for any of you longtime Lakers' fans, which I am ), or books like _Reservation Blues_ by Sherman Alexie.

Anyway, to me, I think it helps that I acknowledge how I learn and tend to act and then to sort of monitor myself so I don't get too hung up on my emotions or get too analytical (speaking in terms of dog training, making sure I am both acknowledging the logic & instructions of my trainers AND make sure I'm paying attention to how the dog is reacting and then adjusting). But that's how I think, who knows if that will be relevant to anybody else, much less the public at large?

If nothing else, it's interesting to me to see how you folks think. It also helps to sort of digest people's thoughts if I can get a better idea where they're coming from and how they process. So thanks for sharing! 

-Cheers


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

my results for comparison:

Linguistic 36 
Logical-Mathematical 38 
Musical 23 
Bodily-Kinesthetic 35
Spatial-Visual 32 
Interpersonal 34 
Intrapersonal 36
_______________


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> my results for comparison:
> 
> Linguistic 36
> Logical-Mathematical 38
> ...


Joby, you must be near awarding yourself full marks on every question...I'm thinking either you're cheating, or you haven't a clue where you're at....or are extreme in your self evaluation to get top points.

David...can you shed some light or throw around a couple of ideas as to why Joby has a score like this :-D ?


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

David Ruby said:


> Nope! Librarian. Go figure, eh?
> 
> 
> -Cheers


Yep, that figures, now.

With this busy balancing act that goes on with you....how's your timing when training... and your reflexes in general , I'm just curious?

Sorry if this is o/t a bit, I find it quite interesting.


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

David,

speaking of left brain vs right brain...

I've been fairly ill for the past few days, high fever due to an infection... anyway, I'm sitting in a haze doing some mindless sanding but for some reason, I can't seem to figure out which hand I should hold the sanding sponge in...it's weird, they both feel wrong but they both work just fine. 

If I were just right or left handed then it wouldn't be such an issue but I trully can't get comfortable doing this...

What do you think of that?


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

maggie fraser said:


> David...can you shed some light or throw around a couple of ideas as to why Joby has a score like this :-D ?


I'm not an expert, but I'd argue two things:

1) It shows how you learn. Joby might be fairly well-rounded in how he _can_ learn. However, the scores really mean little as far as actual knowledge or "intelligence" in and of themselves.

2) The parameters of the test may or may not be totally reliable. These tests try to evaluate your learning strengths through questions. One's answers may not totally reflect one's strengths so much as one's likes. I've always been pretty good at math, but did not always love it, per se. Also, I was much more of a natural at Geometry and Physics than Algebra; in part because of the visual nature and mostly the correlation to real-world principles. I was one of those annoying types that really got into word problems. I also love music, but do not love singing because I hate my voice. The test listed would have arguably counted me lower for my math and and musical "intelligences", or even interests, than they would with more specific questioning.

It's really just a starting point though, and subject to further clarification.

My test results were the following:

Intelligence type/your totals
Linguistic 34 
Logical-Mathematical 27
Musical 39
Bodily-Kinesthetic 24
Spatial-Visual 25
Interpersonal 32
Intrapersonal 35

That seems _mostly_ right, but I'd argue I "get" the Logical/Mathematical aspect more, and enjoy the logic, but I do not love math excluding certain aspects which I do quite enjoy. My test scores would back my theory up. Musically, I tested great, but that is only accurate in that I enjoy it and learn (and stay motivated) through music rather than me being some musical genius. Hence, in application, I am not as musically intelligent as the test would say so much as I am passionate about it. How that would function in a real-world teaching setting is probably open to debate. Plus, I went from being a klutz to being more physical as an adult, so my Bodily-Kinesthetic is kind of relative since I had to give an average on the questions based on how I was vs. how I view myself now to an extent.

Overall, still not a bad tool for looking at how I would tend to learn (based on my strengths a/o interests a/o potential in certain areas), but perhaps not the best tool for testing the intelligences as stated by the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. That's where an interview or actual observations (or a redesign of the tests for that matter) will help fine-tune the process.

-Cheers


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

maggie fraser said:


> Yep, that figures, now.
> 
> With this busy balancing act that goes on with you....how's your timing when training... and your reflexes in general , I'm just curious?
> 
> Sorry if this is o/t a bit, I find it quite interesting.


I find initially, as I'm learning (this applies to dog training and most kinesthetic things, including my very limited experience in Martial Arts), I am more hesitant, very clunky, almost doubting or preoccupied with making sure I really get it. Once I am pretty confident, I tend to nail it and be very good at it. So at first, I'm probably very tentative, but once it all clicks in (the intellect/theory I get as a blueprint in my mind, and then the physical motions), I become very decisive and instinctive in my movements and it all flows pretty nicely. I'd say my learning curve is very much like an exponential curve (at least as far as learning skills), or building a house; slow at the bottom, with lots of effort to make a firm, solid base, then it shoots up and peaks pretty quickly and I just get it. That's been my experience at least.

-Cheers


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Thanks David, so in short...poor reflexes ? :-D

My results....

Intelligence type

Linguistic 29
Logical-Mathematical 28
Musical 32
Bodily-Kinesthetic 33
Spatial-Visual 32
Interpersonal 38
Intrapersonal 31


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

maggie fraser said:


> Thanks David, so in short...poor reflexes ? :-D


Yeah, but it sounds better the way I phrased it. 

-Cheers


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Chris Michalek said:


> David,
> 
> speaking of left brain vs right brain...
> 
> ...


Hard to say. That is interesting, but I could not really tell you what would cause it nor what to make of it.

-Cheers


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Chris Michalek said:


> David,
> 
> speaking of left brain vs right brain...
> 
> ...


Brain infection ??


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

maggie fraser said:


> Brain infection ??



not that anyone needs to know. I was stabbed a few years ago in the stomach after a gig. I've started working out again an last week, I felt a pop in my gut. Over the weekend I got really sick, with a high fever, I thought it was the flu but it was some puss pocket the burst and now I have this fabulous internal infection going on. 

Lots of antibiotics and sleep for me!


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Unlucky Chris, hope you get better soon. I don't suppose Dr David would have guessed that one.


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

maggie fraser said:


> Unlucky Chris, hope you get better soon. I don't suppose Dr David would have guessed that one.



thanks. 

Yep, not interested in going to Sao Paulo again anytime soon. Two of my mates got cracked in the head with a pipe. I'm not sure I would have preferred that one to the knife in the gut.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Chris Michalek said:


> thanks.
> 
> Yep, not interested in going to Sao Paulo again anytime soon. Two of my mates got cracked in the head with a pipe. I'm not sure I would have preferred that one to the knife in the gut.


 
Did they not like the music ?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Just did this thing

Linguistic 26
Logical -math 22
Music 24
Body -Kinesthetic 36
Spatial -visual 36
Interpersonal 24
Intrapersonal 31

Kin I go to the next grade? Huh, huh?
Probably not because I'm not sure what all this means....but it was fun. 

These things are all based on what we may believe or want to believe about ourselves.
I think it would be more accurate if the people we know around us answered the questions. Just a thought!


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

So basically, you're pretty good at telling people what to do, you can run fast, like shiny things but don't listen for shit.... :mrgreen:



Bob Scott said:


> Just did this thing
> 
> Linguistic 26
> Logical -math 22
> ...


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Chris Michalek said:


> So basically, you're pretty good at telling people what to do, you can run fast, like shiny things but don't listen for shit.... :mrgreen:



:-o Hey! I'm just a nice old granpa and you be sure and remember that :twisted: .........and way to dern old to run fast! 
Whoops! gotta go! There's a real pretty butterfly that just went by my window. :lol: :wink:


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

maggie fraser said:


> Joby, you must be near awarding yourself full marks on every question...I'm thinking either you're cheating, or you haven't a clue where you're at....or are extreme in your self evaluation to get top points.
> 
> David...can you shed some light or throw around a couple of ideas as to why Joby has a score like this :-D ?


its called NARCISSISM...but I was honest with myself


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> its called NARCISSISM...but I was honest with myself


must be fat guy trait


----------

