Home > The Book Page > Archives > 2008 > February > 19 > Entry
Sit, honey. Stay. Good boy!
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Amy Sutherland was researching a book about animal training at a zoo for a possible book, when she came up with a far better idea. Why not take the techniques used to get animals to behave in certain ways, and use them on that species of animal known as homo sapiens? And why not start with her own husband?
The resulting experiment was at first a very popular New York Times column, and now a book getting some major attention: “What Shamu Taught Me About Life, Love and Marriage: Lessons for People from Animals and Their Trainers.”
Sutherland’s book tour will bring her here at 7:30 p.m. on March 5 at the Snellville Borders (1929 Scenic Highway) for what could be a lively reading.
A lot of what Sutherland did was really basic conditioning, known to anybody who studied Pavlov or B.F. Skinner. Ignore the bad behavior, praise the good behavior. If you’re a smart parent or you’ve had any success with a puppy, you’ve tried at least some of this. Sutherland’s breakthrough was to do it systematically and within a loving marriage, and to write about it with a sense of humor and affection.
Several questions arise from this experiment: Is it morally appropriate to be so manipulative within a marriage? Is manipulation inevitable in a relationship, and this is just a benevolent version? And the one that cuts to the knuckle: Have you ever successfully changed a significant other’s behavior, and how did you do it?
Permalink | Comments (28) | Categories: Atlanta Events
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By FCM
February 19, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this
Ruth Graham said (and I am paraphrasing here) that any potential parent should take a dog obedience course…the techniques for rearing both (at least in the early years) are similar.
In otherwords, the techniques probably do work.
By Earl
February 19, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this
I’d rather train my wife like a hooker.
By HAHAHA
February 19, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this
Most men act like dogs, so this should work perfectly!!!!
By HS Teacher
February 19, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this
My next Professional Training class will be Dog Training 101. It might help me be a better teacher.
Now, if Clayton Co BOE would get trained, SACS might re-consider. What do you think?
By Married28Years
February 19, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this
Men are like dogs…. - you can barely housebreak one - you’re lucky if you can train it a trick or two - they leave their toys everywhere - if you let it out of the house unleashed, they will probably end up across town at a stranger’s house - they are always wanting to sniff your butt - no one else’s butt is off-limits - they think everything is about them - they think everything you own is theirs - you can’t go to the bathroom without having an audience - they’ll always start growling and barking over nothing of importance - etc., etc., etc.
By Tammie N
February 19, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this
people are so stupid.
I heard it best said once, that women go into marriage thinking they can change a man, while men go into marriage thinking that the woman wont change.
dumb people are ruining this country.
By Jeff
February 19, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this
My classroom management prof in college was HIGHLY into dog training (specifically, wolf) and how it ties in nearly perfectly to classroom management.
I’d say from a parenting perspective it is probably pretty close, particularly until puberty or so. (And even then to a large degree, but you also have to contend with emotional issues.)
As far as being so manipulative in a marraige relationship: I thought it was a commonly accepted statement of fact that the second a man puts on a wedding ring, the woman associated with said ring is going to be trying her dangdest every second of the rest of his life to change him…
BTW: Phil, I just discovered another author that many probably aren’t aware of. Jeremy Robinson has three fictions out, and they are in the Preston/Child/Cussler/Alten vein.
One of them- Arkantos Rising - has elements of both Cussler and Alten, another has elements of Randy Ingermanson’s City of God series (people travel back to circa AD 30-60 or so in an attempt to change history).
Just bought both of the two books I just mentioned, should have them in a couple of weeks. I’ll let ya know more after I read them!
By PPH
February 19, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this
I think you are all pretty pathetic. If you feel you have to “train” your husband then you should not have gotten married. Joking or not I really hate women that act like this!
By Earl
February 19, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this
I bet most of them women on here are fat. You all type like you’re fat and gravity has taken over your hooters.
By lee hadden
February 19, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this
Dolphin trainers can only use positive feedback. Underwater, you can’t punish very well. You can’t hit hard underwater; electrical shocks don’t work underwater; it’s hard to turn away from something that can swim all around you. So if you want to work with dolphins, you have to use positive feedback, which means only paying attention to desired behavior, and giving rewards instead of punishments. Rumor has it that dolphin trainers and researchers have the best behaved kids in any science field…
By PPH
February 19, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this
You tell em’ Earl!
By WTF
February 19, 2008 4:26 PM | Link to this
If men didn’t need training, none of this would be relevant. So don’t hate the player, hate the game!!!! Trust, women would rather be doing other things with her time than training some grown azz man who should know how to act anyway. And fat or not, there’s always some man who will want to be with her, y’all are just that easy!!
By Bebe
February 19, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this
The key question: “Is manipulation inevitable in a relationship, and is this (idea) just a benevolent version?” In looking up the word manipulation, I found that it has both positive and negative conotations. I’m going to base my comment on the positive definition I found, which is “to manage or utilize skillfully.”
I read the Shamu article when it first appeared and found it amusing, wise and helpful. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with subtly encouraging someone to behave better (towards me), adopt a healthier lifestyle, let go of a bad habit, etc. The trick is in how you do it. The original article talked about rewarding (read: encouraging) your SO’s positive behaviors while gently ignoring (and thus punishing) the negative ones. So much better than loud arguments that arise from needing to impose your will or letting silent resentment build into a battle.
I know that this technique has worked for me. My BF got lazy about being on time for dates and not calling beforehand about running late. I got him to stop doing that one evening by giving him a 30-minute time window, after which I wasn’t home nor reachable. He came over early the next morning wanting to know where I’d been. I just smiled and said that I didn’t want to waste my evening or his time, so I found something else to do. Lesson learned. He hasn’t been late since; if he thinks he’s going to be he calls promptly.
Was that a trick or a treat? Did it help the relationship? You be the judge.
By PPH
February 19, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this
I can name more women that need training than men. Are men perfect? Of course they aren’t. But neither are women! I just think this whole topic is bordering on ridiculous and I stand by what I stated earlier…… You should not get married if you are going to spend your time changing the person you married. Do both of you a favor (especially him) and just walk away! By the way, I am a woman and although my husband can drive me batty at times I would not have him any other way. Besides, I’m sure I drive him just as batty if not more and he is patient and loving, not trying to train me like Lassie!!!!!!!
By Anne
February 19, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this
I’ve never understood why people get into relationships, marriages, etc., only to want to change the person they are with! I was talking to my grandmother the other day, after having a fight with my husband of 27 years and asked her for her advice….she told me that relationships boil down to 2 things….loving the person you are with and putting up with their crap. If you can do both and they reciprocate….things will work out. I believe her..mainly because they’ve been married for 67 years!!!
By Kazeloxo
February 19, 2008 5:17 PM | Link to this
Hi!dmva! http://dgpepnzd.com eoely lexgf http://oipzajqr.com shyuy aaiar
By Kazelqcg
February 19, 2008 5:20 PM | Link to this
Hi webmaster!
By Miss Manners
February 19, 2008 5:40 PM | Link to this
I believe many points are being missed here. It’s not so much about changing a person, but the behavior of a person to the point where it won’t affect you, but yet get the person to respond accordingly. It does kind of make sense. I had a dog and he loved attention, to eat and expected me to be consistent, if I wasn’t consistent, I paid for it! Sounds like a relationship to be —- ahead and neglect your spouse and see what happens.
By Kate
February 19, 2008 8:34 PM | Link to this
Wasn’t there a “Modern Love” column about this in the New York Times. Maybe last year? I’m too tired to look it up. Seems to me that the author gave up her technique when her husband tried to turn it back on her.
Me? I find that withholding basics works well in a No soup for you kind of way.
By Kate
February 19, 2008 9:07 PM | Link to this
So, I didn’t read carefully enough and didn’t notice that you (almost, but not quite) mentioned the Modern Love column. Cagey, ain’cha?
By Voice of Reason
February 19, 2008 10:10 PM | Link to this
This sounds like a remake of the very popular, old and FUNNY book, “How to Make Your Man Behave in 21 Days or Less, using the Secrets of Professional Dog Trainers.”
By The Audacity of Nothing
February 19, 2008 10:21 PM | Link to this
A book by a northeastern female writer on how to train men? Bet the book signing will look like a NOW meeting. Makes your skin crawl just thinking about it…
By catlady
February 20, 2008 6:03 AM | Link to this
We already do this in reading with small children! See Reading First/scripted reading like SRA. Children are taught to respond, IN UNISON, to a DOG CLICKER, for God’s sake!!! This is going on all over the country. I can hear the hobnail boots in the distance….
By Kazelnxa
February 20, 2008 6:43 AM | Link to this
Hi!qbzd! http://wrztcnmm.com uhnbb euvvk http://jsrjwoup.com pjhsx lzovi
By Kazelpwu
February 20, 2008 6:46 AM | Link to this
Hi webmaster!
By Together for 12
February 20, 2008 7:21 AM | Link to this
I hate to say it, but MomMania covered this exact topic a few weeks ago.
By Phil Kloer
February 20, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
Replying: Yes, I did mention it was originally a New York Times column in the initial post, I just didn’t refer to it as a “Modern Love” column. But it’s not like I’m avoiding that. I did not know MOMania covered “Shamu” previously, but my friend Theresa is a great blogger. We don’t have any policy here about multiple blogs on the same topic. Just ask the sports folks when Vick was in the news!
By Jeff
February 20, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this
Phil:
Laura over at GetSchooled is talking about a school/book topic today…
As far as multiple blogs talking about the same topic: The way I see it, if it fits, I really don’t mind. For example, this topic fits here due to the book aspect, and on Momania from the relationship aspect.
Similarly, today’s GetSchooled about boys and books would be something that would be valid to discuss here as well.