Quote:
Originally Posted by David Bailey  Hang on - this is getting a bit convoluted. If this refers to Chris' suggestion that you deliberately add sensory leakage, I don't really see what it proves - particularly if you have a dog that seems to 'know' anyway!
How many other people do you have in the house - none are visible on the video.
You say that the effect seems to diminish if there is nobody in the house - am I correct that nobody in the house knows when Jane is going to return (no telephone calls, etc.).
David |
I should have clarified... NO ONE else was in the house during these initial trials with Tommy.
It's also interesting to note that once one person comes home (either Jane or her son) the behavior seems to diminsh. I don't want to make too much of this because I don't if it's a persistent pattern, but it supports the idea I was trying to get across -- we should be very slow to implement controls just because they sound good/tight.
Obviously, there can not be any info leakage back to the dog, but there are a lot of way to get there without changing the natural environment where the phenomena is occurring. Same goes for patterning, lotta ways to make sure that isn't coming into play without changing too many things all at once.