# Operant conditioning from Koehler thread



## Ariel Peldunas

Because I don't want to continue to take the thread about Koehler's book off topic, but I feel this warrants further discussion:

*"I am however happy enough with your perspective on the subject and as such not looking to start an argument."*

I'm certainly not trying to be argumentative or antagonistic. I know it tends to instigate defense when someone's opinions are challenged, but I think it's important that if we aspire to be knowledgeable trainers, we understand the science behind what we're doing. In this case, I think the discussion less involves an opinion and more involves the understanding of a vital training concept.


Although there may be some grey areas in understanding how dogs learn and the theories behind that, the basic principles of operant conditioning are well established and accepted. I'm not trying to argue what my opinion of the topic is. I'm trying to explain how OC and positive and negative consequences are affecting the dog's learning based upon the accepted definition of OC.


*"In dogs head (who is actually doing the learning)
dog pulls on lead, receives pain, moves closer."*

This is a perfect example of positive punishment ...not positive reinforcement.

Behavior (pull on lead) => Positive punishment (pain from collar/leash check) => Behavior happens less frequently so the dog can avoid positive punishment (dog learns to stay closer)

*"The outcome is the dog has learned to move closer, not learned to stop pulling on the lead. You can observe this by the big loop you can end up with in the lead when the dog is 'heeling'. If what the dog had learned was to not pull on the lead, that big loop would not exist. The dog would walk ahead but on a slightly loose lead."*

Yes, the dog has learned to move closer as a product of trying to avoid the positive punishment that comes when he pulls on the lead or being out in front of the handler. The dog learns how close to stay to the handler (which dictates how much of a loop exists in the leash) because of the handler's timing of the correction (I'm using this word in place of positive punishment in this context). If you waited until the dog was actually pulling at the end of the leash and then corrected ...never offering any reinforcement or praise when the dog was by your side ...the dog would learn that being at the end of the leash was uncomfortable and would probably learn to walk with just a little slack in the leash. But, by timing corrections so they are delivered closer to when the dog starts to forge rather than waiting for the dog to get to the very end of the leash, the handler shapes the dog learning to heel in closer proximity to the handler and thus, leaving more slack in the leash.

It's also possible, if the correction is so severe or the dog is so sensitive, after one big correction, the dog will be so concerned with avoiding another correction it will show extreme caution to avoid whatever behavior it perceived caused the correction. The dog may realize getting near the end of the leash or a leash distance away from the handler was the cause ...resulting in the dog hovering near the handler ...not because being near the handler was reinforced but because getting too close to the end of the leash was punished.

We see this in e-collar training at times. If the dog is stimulated too high or does not have a proper understanding of what behavior is being punished, the dog may try to avoid certain spots on the ground or certain areas in the training area because he believes being in those areas is what caused the shock ...not failing to come when called or do another specific behavior. When using an e-collar for recalls, I always try to be conscious not to always apply stimulation at similar times (e.g. when the dog is greeting or paying attention to another person, when the dog is showing interest in another dog or food, when the dog is trying to go into another room or area of the house).

*"The dog has learned the lead has **** all to do with it, it's his position in space relative to you."*

Again, this depends on the timing and what the dog is paying attention to. If the handler corrects every time the dog moves more than an arm's length away, then the dog should learn that being more than an arm's length away from the handler produces a correction. However, it was said that the dog is pulling on the lead before it is corrected. In that case, I would say, it's easier and more likely for the dog to notice the feeling of a tight vs. loose lead rather than proximity from the handler. I know as a human, I would better be able to judge tension on a lead vs. no tension better than I could judge exactly how far away from someone I was. Because we are good trainers and can use successive approximation and shaping, we are able to teach the dog, usually pretty quickly, that staying close to us is the best deal ...but try to think of how the process begins.

I'm probably already kicking a dead horse ...but hopefully that's some food for thought. I think it's interesting (and this isn't meant to be a dig at anyone) how many trainers don't have a reasonable understanding of OC. There is a whole lot of theory that I've yet to learn, but I think I was lucky that when I began my professional career as a trainer, the military provided us with a basic knowledge of OC and how it applied to what we were doing with our MWDs. I love to read and research the science behind the application, so that's all I needed to encourage me to learn more, but I realize there are many trainers who are very successful but have never stopped to try to learn why what they are doing works. Not that this immediately makes someone a better or worse trainer, but I certainly don't think it hurts to understand the why in what's going on.


----------



## Skip Morgart

Good explanations Ariel.


----------



## James Downey

I think when ever we use a correction....Both Positive Punishment and Negative reinforcement happen.

The dog does in deed learn to do behavior, and abandon another. I do not think you can have one without the other. 

I also do think there is Useful to note. That through experimentation, I have found there is certain order the quadrants can be employed to facilitate the most efficient learning. 

Most people are aware that it is much more effective to teach through +r first. When do in it's purest form, Capturing shows this. When we do not influence the dog at all to do a behavior and just mark it. The dog starts to offer the behavior more frequently. Then when we add more behaviors. The dog will start to offer the incorrect behavior at times. Like a sit vs a down. Sometimes we ask for sit and the dog downs. So to teach the dog that reward is not possible for the down. We start employing -punishment. We do not reward the down. This teaches the dog the importance of the cue (the command). And I think it's important to note, that Commands are simply cues to tell the dog reward is possible but only for the correct behavior. I say, Sit....and now the chance for reward is possible only for a sit. That's what we are telling the dog. We are also telling the dog that reward is not possible for any other behavior. So if the dog downs...they do learn through trial and error that reward is only going to come for a sit. +r creates behavior. -P gives distinction for what behavior to preform. It proofs the behaviors. So -P coupled with cues will not make behavior go completely extinct. It will just extinguish them in certain periods of time. 

Then come -R. I think the biggest area this can help is speed. It can make an already learned behavior stronger especially in response. It can be used to teach a behavior but I think most people know that if we do this it can induce a very hectic response from the dog...because they have to guess how to shut it off. And this can come with a lot baggage. So for me it's application in teaching a behavior that is not known is very risky. But once the dog knows a cue, we turn on -r and the say the cue, the dog gets the -r removed for preforming the correct behavior. So +p can effectively take place in 2 places here. the first to end the behavior the dog is currently doing . Say a stand, the dog is standing and we turn on the -r, say sit, and the dog sits. We have +p for the stand, and -r for the sit. the other place is if the dog is standing and we turn on the -r and say sit. And the dog downs...for this we do not turn off the -R, Now we also have not only +p for the stand, but the down as well. 

Now -R is commonly viewed as a constant correction. But once the dog understands this for let's say the sit to a down and is reliable and without delay and we go to momentary correction. We can use positive punishment a little more effectively. Say we ask for a sit and pop the collar, and the dog does not down but stands, From there prior experience with the constant, if we pop again. I believe the dog will understand they are being punished for the stand.

I do not think you can have +r without -p or -R without +p. Because even when are using +p, we are still using -R on other behaviors....even with capturing. We are -p the current behavior the dog is doing, and +R the behavior the dog is preforms.

And all commands do, is tell the dog when +r are possible for certain behaviors and a cue with -r tells the dog that removal of the aversive is possible for a certain behavior. They are simply cues. And by products are -p and +p. When ever you tell a dog to do something, you are also telling them to stop doing something.

So for the pulling on the leash and corrections, the dog is learning both stay close, and don't move away. Out there is dangerous (+p) and closer is safer (-r)


----------



## Timothy Saunders

Part of the problem is that when people stim their dogs they only think about stopping a behavior.. I don't think they think of the other side ( making a behavior we want stronger). So when you use a term like positive punishment the concept is hard to understand. Ariel you are right. 
the science is what makes the great trainers great. That is why I like the some of the older dog training books. Dogs training was a science experiment.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

I thought it was apropos that while perusing the March/April issue of Police K-9 Magazine one of the "Training Perspectives" questions was asking about the differences between compulsive and coercive (it should be assumed the asker meant inducive) styles of dog training. One of the experts defined in very basic terms the differences between positive and negative reinforcement and punishment. I can't provide a link, but I'm sure some members are subscribers. Just thought that was a funny coincidence.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Skip Morgart said:


> Good explanations Ariel.


+1





ETA:_
QUOTE: "I am however happy enough with your perspective on the subject and as such not looking to start an argument."_

But arguments are good. "Argue" isn't "quarrel."  It's "Give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view."


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Ariel Peldunas said:


> I thought it was apropos that while perusing the March/April issue of Police K-9 Magazine one of the "Training Perspectives" questions was asking about the differences between compulsive and coercive (it should be assumed the asker meant inducive) styles of dog training. One of the experts defined in very basic terms the differences between positive and negative reinforcement and punishment. I can't provide a link, but I'm sure some members are subscribers. Just thought that was a funny coincidence.



I read that. Wendell Nope.

Ended with something like "neither can be used for all dogs; a combination of some kind can be used for all dogs, though."




ETA 
I found it!
http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f9/discussion-coercive-compulsive-26047/#post374992


----------



## Dave Colborn

James. you said some smart thought provoking things in your post. Some I agree with and some I don't. The problem with WDF is people change the debate midstream and I don't want to do that. So I want to argue your statements below as a stand alone argument.



James Downey said:


> I think when ever we use a correction....Both Positive Punishment and Negative reinforcement happen.
> 
> The dog does in deed learn to do behavior, and abandon another. I do not think you can have one without the other.


I disagree with this. I can correct a dog that is sniffing the ground or looking away from me and do nothing but stop that behavior without additional input from me. HE may default back to what gets him rewarded or not. It depends on his choice. 

Positive punishment (science). Correction on a pinch collar (in reality). The dog learns to stop, just like burning your hand on a stove doesn't teach you math, it teaches you NOT to touch the stove.

What behavior do you think the dog *learns TO DO * with the correction, in your eyes?


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Connie Sutherland said:


> I read that. Wendell Nope.
> 
> Ended with something like "neither can be used for all dogs; a combination of some kind can be used for all dogs, though."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA
> I found it!
> http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f9/discussion-coercive-compulsive-26047/#post374992


I actually hadn't even read far enough to see Wendell Nope's reply. I had only gotten far enough through the first response by Mike Colton to see where he mentioned positive and negative reinforcement and punishment and decided to share my discovery with the WDF. :grin:

Thanks for providing the link!


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Dave Colborn said:


> James. you said some smart thought provoking things in your post. Some I agree with and some I don't. The problem with WDF is people change the debate midstream and I don't want to do that. So I want to argue your statements below as a stand alone argument.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with this. I can correct a dog that is sniffing the ground or looking away from me and do nothing but stop that behavior without additional input from me. HE may default back to what gets him rewarded or not. It depends on his choice.
> 
> Positive punishment (science). Correction on a pinch collar (in reality). The dog learns to stop, just like burning your hand on a stove doesn't teach you math, it teaches you NOT to touch the stove.
> 
> What behavior do you think the dog *learns TO DO *with the correction, in your eyes?


I have to say, I think I agree with James. In punishing one behavior, we're reinforcing another. It may not be what we want to reinforce. Touching a hot stove punishes the behavior of touching the stove but also reinforces the behavior of removing your hand from the stove. Punishing looking off in one direction causes the dog to not want to look away in that direction and reinforces the dog looking somewhere else ...not necessarily where we want. With a constant negative reinforcer (e-collar stim, steady leash pressure), it is much easier to convey exactly what the dog should do in order to avoid discomfort, but I think leash pops whenever the dog looks anywhere but your face would still be making everything but the desired behavior uncomfortable. Certainly not the way I would apply it and not the best example of negative reinforcement, but I still think an argument can be made that it can be both R- and P+.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Ariel Peldunas said:


> I have to say, I think I agree with James. In punishing one behavior, we're reinforcing another. It may not be what we want to reinforce. Touching a hot stove punishes the behavior of touching the stove but also reinforces the behavior of removing your hand from the stove. Punishing looking off in one direction causes the dog to not want to look away in that direction and reinforces the dog looking somewhere else ...not necessarily where we want. With a constant negative reinforcer (e-collar stim, steady leash pressure), it is much easier to convey exactly what the dog should do in order to avoid discomfort, but I think leash pops whenever the dog looks anywhere but your face would still be making everything but the desired behavior uncomfortable. Certainly not the way I would apply it and not the best example of negative reinforcement, but I still think an argument can be made that it can be both R- and P+.


 
My hang up with it is you are not asking for a specific behavior when burning your hand. Specific one behavior (response) then remove the negative stimulus to get that one behavior to repeat itself. I burn my hand, +P unless I like it, I can do any other thousand things after I remove my hand, not just one. The fire would have to be removed after I moved my hand, not before to be -R. 

Change my mind, I am not getting what you are saying yet.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

_"I can do any other thousand things after I remove my hand, not just one. "_


Just like the pop for pulling not being "something added to encourage a behavior (walk closer)."


----------



## James Downey

Dave Colborn said:


> James. you said some smart thought provoking things in your post. Some I agree with and some I don't. The problem with WDF is people change the debate midstream and I don't want to do that. So I want to argue your statements below as a stand alone argument.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with this. I can correct a dog that is sniffing the ground or looking away from me and do nothing but stop that behavior without additional input from me. HE may default back to what gets him rewarded or not. It depends on his choice.
> 
> Positive punishment (science). Correction on a pinch collar (in reality). The dog learns to stop, just like burning your hand on a stove doesn't teach you math, it teaches you NOT to touch the stove.
> 
> What behavior do you think the dog *learns TO DO * with the correction, in your eyes?



Learn was a misuse of the word. Preform a behavior... is a better choice of words. 

to clarify I will use the looking away as an example. Dog looks away. You correct. The dog looks back at you. Even if only for a short time. The dog was positively punished for looking away...and if the dog looks back at you, he was also negatively reinforced to look at you. If the behaviors were preformed...stop looking away, and looking at you. He did learn looking away was dangerous and look at you was safe. If does he did not learn anything. But the duration of how long he looks at you is not proof nothing was learned. It's just proof that what we wanted (sustained eye contact) was not learned. If the behavior stops and another starts for only a moment. That moment one behavior stopped and another started something did happen, maybe not exactly what we hoped the dog would learn. But some information was generated in the dogs head. Now (science) spontaneous recovery happened (reality) the dog went back to behavior that was formerly extinct.....even if it was extinct only for a second. And that could be for a multitude of reasons...the variables...the dog could think the competing motivation was worth another look, maybe he thinks it was that one only time he would get a correction. Maybe he did not understand. But behavior preformed is information from the dog did indeed think he should do something to get it to stop.


----------



## James Downey

Dave Colborn said:


> My hang up with it is you are not asking for a specific behavior when burning your hand. Specific one behavior (response) then remove the negative stimulus to get that one behavior to repeat itself. I burn my hand, +P unless I like it, I can do any other thousand things after I remove my hand, not just one. The fire would have to be removed after I moved my hand, not before to be -R.
> 
> Change my mind, I am not getting what you are saying yet.


Dave. The first time you burn your hand, you right you will be in a state panic ....that's what I was talking about. Teaching without a cue. There was no cue prior to burning your hand. So you really did not know the route of escape your instinctively pull your hand away in a hectic state. Thank god for instincts... That's an easy fix. 

And thousand things you could after you pull your hand away....well I bet You'll pick one. next time you come across a stove (the stove is now a cue to preform a behavior) you will check if it's on, or if it's hot before touching it. that is if you have to touch it. Or you will simply avoid touching it...which is a behavior. But that's all negatively reinforced behavior. The positive punished behavior was touching the stove. Not touching it again is was negatively reinforced. I know it sounds confusing. but it's not if you see that both (-r and +p) always happen. 

Skinner came to the conclusion that +p did not seem to work very well. He even laid some guidelines about how it could be kind of sorta effective. And I think more modern dog trainers are agreeing with him. But I do not think +p is useless. I just think we cannot skip from rewarding the dog for looking at us, then use momentary punishment to correct not looking at us. It does not work very well. We have to bridge it with -r first. Just like we have to bridge +R for a behavior to -R by using -p. This has worked extremely well for me. first reward desired behavior....this where setting the dog up for success is handy....then teach the dog I will with hold reward till I get desired behavior. And I think has to be done by setting the dog up for failure...adding distractions. Then when the dog finally learns that the distraction does not pay and gives you the wanted behavior. Rewarding it. Then going to -r for the behavior....teaching them to avoid discomfort you can preform a behavior. Then going to positive punishment for unwanted behaviors cause now the dog has a way to avoid it. 

But back to hectic state. Your hand is on the stove, and just for shits and giggles let's say that you cannot get your hand off it...except for preforming a non-instinctual behavior....first your going to do what instinct tells you...get your hand off the stove, but that does not work, you pull harder, you freak, you scream....it's only by looking at me does your hand free from the stove. but you do not know this, you have to stumble your way in a panic to figure it out. Think of a dog in dog training getting a correction they have no idea how to escape....That's why most trainers know that teaching the behavior first, pairing it with a cue is so valuable. So we can tell the dog how to get their hand off the stove.

And there is a problem with positive punishment, At least in my eyes. That I cannot seem to apply effectively in training. It's best if I explain in an anecdote. If I park my car in handicap spot. I get a ticket. Maybe for some time I do not park in one. But the day comes when I am in a hurry. So I do it again. Get another ticket. I stop for sometime, but again the day comes when there are no other spots, so I do it again. another ticket. I stop again, but they make stiffer laws, this law says, they blow my car up if I do it. But I do not know about the law, or think it's a bluff..whatever the reason...I got diarhea a need a bathroom, so I do it. And my car gets destroyed. Chances are with my next car...I would rather mess on the seat than lose my car. And this is what skinner found. that the positive punishment had to be so close to thresh hold of panic for it to have any sustaining the effect that it was very difficult to employ at the proper intensity without creating serious baggage. But I do think -r as a bridge is a good start to finding a good and useful application.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Trying to stay on point so i'll restate my position. Positive punishment and negative reinforcement do not always occur together when a correction is applied. Sure they are applied with the other two quadrants to get a well trained dog, but they can be mutually exclusive.


Dog sniffing or looking away from you. 


Originally Posted by James Downey  
_I think *when ever* we use a correction....*Both Positive Punishment and Negative reinforcement happen*.

The dog does in deed learn to do behavior, and abandon another. I do not think you can have one without the other. _

_I said:_

_What behavior do you think the dog *learns TO DO *with the correction, in your eyes? What behavior is increased by the correction itself.
_
_So explain yourself, please. Dogs don't learn what to do from a correction, they learn what not to do. They may default to a behavior that has been positively or negaviely reinforced at some point, but that isn't positive or negative reinforcement, it's the result of the conditioning. Not going past 25' or not leaving a heel is the dogs decreased liklihood to go away._


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Ariel Peldunas said:


> I have to say, I think I agree with James. In punishing one behavior, we're reinforcing another. It may not be what we want to reinforce. Touching a hot stove punishes the behavior of touching the stove but also reinforces the behavior of removing your hand from the stove. Punishing looking off in one direction causes the dog to not want to look away in that direction and reinforces the dog looking somewhere else ...not necessarily where we want. With a constant negative reinforcer (e-collar stim, steady leash pressure), it is much easier to convey exactly what the dog should do in order to avoid discomfort, but I think leash pops whenever the dog looks anywhere but your face would still be making everything but the desired behavior uncomfortable. Certainly not the way I would apply it and not the best example of negative reinforcement, but I still think an argument can be made that it can be both R- and P+.


I don't think you necessarily establish a desired behavior by stopping an undesired behavior. Nor do I think that by applying positive punninshment you are also necessarily employing negative reinforcement. Now with escape training, I might wrap my mind around you are also employing positive punishment. For those that use it for speed [don't know why], you are stopping the slow behavior by adding the punshisher and you get the desired behavior by the dog learning to shut it off [taking it away]. I think the explanation of the quandrants is still linked to what stops a behavior or causes a behavior to increase with greater frequency within the learning phase. I hate it when I have to think math with all of this. 

T


----------



## Joby Becker

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I don't think you necessarily establish a desired behavior by stopping an undesired behavior. Nor do I think that by applying positive punninshment you are also necessarily employing negative reinforcement. Now with escape training, I might wrap my mind around you are also employing positive punishment. For those that use it for speed [don't know why], you are stopping the slow behavior by adding the punshisher and you get the desired behavior by the dog learning to shut it off [taking it away]. I think the explanation of the quandrants is still linked to what stops a behavior or causes a behavior to increase with greater frequency within the learning phase. I hate it when I have to think math with all of this.
> 
> T


your description is somewhat off or I am perceiving it incorrectly.

In your example you are assuming that someone that may be using -R with an ecollar for speed as you say, by "adding a punisher", and stopping the slow behavior..

I do not see it quite that way. I see it as the dog learning that the faster the dog does the behavior the faster the pressure is turned off..

seems like the same thing almost but it is not. you are assuming that the -R is a punisher..that is stopping a slower behavior..what if the pressure is applied solely to re-enforce speedy performance, and not to punish slow performance at all?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

My math book for all this is uaually Burch & Bailey's "How Dogs Learn' so dug it off the shelf given Joby's response. For me, just because you call it a reinforcer, doesn't mean its all warm and fuzzy. The dog is learning to turn off something unpleasant. Application of an aversive can either stop an undesired behaviored or reinforce a deisred behavior. Regardless, its still an aversive. Joby, you are focusing on the result obtained. I'm focusing on and I bet you the dog is to, what it takes to get the result. He speeds up because he figures out that how you turn off the electricty--aversive, unpleasant, etc. If it weren't an aversive or unpleasant, he wouldn't care about turning it off and therefore it woudln't reinforce or cause speed.


Burch & Bailey:

Positive Punishment; involves the presentation of an aversive event. Positive punishment occurs when the behavior is follwed by the presentation of an unpleasant stimulus, and as a result the behavior is less likely to occur in the future. Negative Reinforcement; the probability of a ehavor occuring in the future is increased when teh behavor is follwed by the removal or avoidance of a negative stimulus--conditioning an escape response. 

"For example, some dogs are trained to heel with a chain training collar. When the dog lags behind the handler, the handler gives a snap-release correction on the collar. *If* the dog feels o rhears the handler starting to make the correction and hurries to get into the heel position to avoid the correction, negative reinforcement has taken place." [For James and Ariel].. "Like secondary reinforcement, negative reinforcement must be conditioned. In other words, the dog has to have been exposed to some punishment and understand it is a negative experience. In the case of the training collar, there must be at least one eperience where the dog actually receives teherk on the collar and finds it unpleasant. *When* the dog hurries to heel position to avoid the jerk, learning has taken place."


----------



## Joby Becker

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> My math book for all this is uaually Burch & Bailey's "How Dogs Learn' so dug it off the shelf given Joby's response. For me, just because you call it a reinforcer, doesn't mean its all warm and fuzzy. The dog is learning to turn off something unpleasant. Application of an aversive can either stop an undesired behaviored or reinforce a deisred behavior. Regardless, its still an aversive. Joby, you are focusing on the result obtained. I'm focusing on and I bet you the dog is to, what it takes to get the result. He speeds up because he figures out that how you turn off the electricty--aversive, unpleasant, etc. If it weren't an aversive or unpleasant, he wouldn't care about turning it off and therefore it woudln't reinforce or cause speed.
> 
> 
> Burch & Bailey:
> 
> Positive Punishment; involves the presentation of an aversive event. Positive punishment occurs when the behavior is follwed by the presentation of an unpleasant stimulus, and as a result the behavior is less likely to occur in the future. Negative Reinforcement; the probability of a ehavor occuring in the future is increased when teh behavor is follwed by the removal or avoidance of a negative stimulus--conditioning an escape response.
> 
> "For example, some dogs are trained to heel with a chain training collar. When the dog lags behind the handler, the handler gives a snap-release correction on the collar. *If* the dog feels o rhears the handler starting to make the correction and hurries to get into the heel position to avoid the correction, negative reinforcement has taken place." [For James and Ariel].. "Like secondary reinforcement, negative reinforcement must be conditioned. In other words, the dog has to have been exposed to some punishment and understand it is a negative experience. In the case of the training collar, there must be at least one eperience where the dog actually receives teherk on the collar and finds it unpleasant. *When* the dog hurries to heel position to avoid the jerk, learning has taken place."


not what I was focusing on at all, with the post...

you are talking about aversives being punishers because they are not warm and fuzzy. that is simply not the case..and if you are talking OC terms, you just just cant toss around the word punishment as meaning something unpleasant, there are all sorts of umpleasant things that once can experience that are not punishment for anything.

I am talking about a punisher being a punisher used to deter an undesirable behavior.

And the -R is increasing a desired behavior.(whatever it is) is NOT being used to diminish an undesirable behavior, by punishing..

I think where the disconnect is, is that you are assuming the aversive is always introduced after some undesirable behavior is present or given.

There are many ways to use R-, and people do it differently, some teach with it, some use it for speed, some do other things.

If I want to use -R to increase the speed of something, as per your question and example...with the E-collar... lets say a placement or something... going to a placeboard for example...Starting out scenario with fact that the dog knows what the low stim is, finds it unpleasant, has experienced it before as you say, but not as a punishment..

One day I work on placeboards . 

I command dog to go to a placeboard and expect him to down on top of it, the dog knows it, does it, gets rewarded with the toss of the ball for doing it...without any aversive use of the e-collar, or any type of punishment, or consideration for speed or conscious recognition of slowness by me. I do this a few times and call it a day...dog is happy, got rewarded, did not punished. I am happy dog did the placeboards like I asked, a great session for both of us.

The next day, I do the same thing, but use the E-collar low stim as an aversive, the dog knows it, does it, gets rewarded TWICE each time, once by removal of stim, and another time by the toss of the ball. I do all the work this day without any type of punishment, nor consideration for speed or conscious recognition of slowness by me. I do this a few times and call it a day, dog is happy, did not get punished. I am also happy the dog did the placeboards like I asked, but also did them 25% faster than the day before, becuase the dog recognized the benefits of performing faster, (not because he was being punished for being slow) not only in the traveling to the placeboard, but also in the execution of the down on the placeboard, a great session for both of us as well..

what was the aversive on the second day punishing? nothing...there was no consideration given by me for speed or slowness at all in my use of the -R. It was not used because the dog was slow, it just was...



> "Like secondary reinforcement, negative reinforcement must be conditioned. In other words, the dog has to have been exposed to some punishment and understand it is a negative experience.


this is not true at all, the example above can be done without ever using the Ecollar as a punishment, the dog only has to have been exposed to it before and find it unpleasant.

your quotes are doing nothing but muddying it all up for you. We are talking about OC terminology here.

let me use a real simple example here that might shed some light on how I see it, dont go too deep into it, and try to apply it to dogs. cause it doesnt really apply there, this is not training, there is no other rewards present. solely on the speed aspect of the aversive, and your viewing it as a punishment, and how I say it is not.

I go to work everyday, I have to park in a lot and have to walk a block to get into work and when I leave work, to get back to my car.

I go to work on Monday, park my car, walk to work, have a great day at work, then when I step outside to go to my car after I am done working, it starts pouring rain. 

I dont like walking in the pouring rain, I know I will be out in the pouring rain the entire way, until I get into my car, so I decide to run to my car, to get out of the rain as soon as possible, once I am in the car, I am out of the rain, and am happier.

do I think the Mother Nature, or God is punishing me for walking too slowly to my car? no I don't. I just knew that once I got in my car, I would be out of the pouring rain..so I moved faster


----------



## Matt Vandart

James Downey said:


> I think when ever we use a correction....Both Positive Punishment and Negative reinforcement happen.
> 
> The dog does in deed learn to do behavior, and abandon another. I do not think you can have one without the other.
> 
> I also do think there is Useful to note. That through experimentation, I have found there is certain order the quadrants can be employed to facilitate the most efficient learning.
> 
> Most people are aware that it is much more effective to teach through +r first. When do in it's purest form, Capturing shows this. When we do not influence the dog at all to do a behavior and just mark it. The dog starts to offer the behavior more frequently. Then when we add more behaviors. The dog will start to offer the incorrect behavior at times. Like a sit vs a down. Sometimes we ask for sit and the dog downs. So to teach the dog that reward is not possible for the down. We start employing -punishment. We do not reward the down. This teaches the dog the importance of the cue (the command). And I think it's important to note, that Commands are simply cues to tell the dog reward is possible but only for the correct behavior. I say, Sit....and now the chance for reward is possible only for a sit. That's what we are telling the dog. We are also telling the dog that reward is not possible for any other behavior. So if the dog downs...they do learn through trial and error that reward is only going to come for a sit. +r creates behavior. -P gives distinction for what behavior to preform. It proofs the behaviors. So -P coupled with cues will not make behavior go completely extinct. It will just extinguish them in certain periods of time.
> 
> Then come -R. I think the biggest area this can help is speed. It can make an already learned behavior stronger especially in response. It can be used to teach a behavior but I think most people know that if we do this it can induce a very hectic response from the dog...because they have to guess how to shut it off. And this can come with a lot baggage. So for me it's application in teaching a behavior that is not known is very risky. But once the dog knows a cue, we turn on -r and the say the cue, the dog gets the -r removed for preforming the correct behavior. So +p can effectively take place in 2 places here. the first to end the behavior the dog is currently doing . Say a stand, the dog is standing and we turn on the -r, say sit, and the dog sits. We have +p for the stand, and -r for the sit. the other place is if the dog is standing and we turn on the -r and say sit. And the dog downs...for this we do not turn off the -R, Now we also have not only +p for the stand, but the down as well.
> 
> Now -R is commonly viewed as a constant correction. But once the dog understands this for let's say the sit to a down and is reliable and without delay and we go to momentary correction. We can use positive punishment a little more effectively. Say we ask for a sit and pop the collar, and the dog does not down but stands, From there prior experience with the constant, if we pop again. I believe the dog will understand they are being punished for the stand.
> 
> I do not think you can have +r without -p or -R without +p. Because even when are using +p, we are still using -R on other behaviors....even with capturing. We are -p the current behavior the dog is doing, and +R the behavior the dog is preforms.
> 
> And all commands do, is tell the dog when +r are possible for certain behaviors and a cue with -r tells the dog that removal of the aversive is possible for a certain behavior. They are simply cues. And by products are -p and +p. When ever you tell a dog to do something, you are also telling them to stop doing something.
> 
> So for the pulling on the leash and corrections, the dog is learning both stay close, and don't move away. Out there is dangerous (+p) and closer is safer (-r)


This is a much better way of explaining what I am trying to get across, thank you.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Ariel Peldunas said:


> I have to say, I think I agree with James. In punishing one behavior, we're reinforcing another. It may not be what we want to reinforce. Touching a hot stove punishes the behavior of touching the stove but also reinforces the behavior of removing your hand from the stove. Punishing looking off in one direction causes the dog to not want to look away in that direction and reinforces the dog looking somewhere else ...not necessarily where we want. With a constant negative reinforcer (e-collar stim, steady leash pressure), it is much easier to convey exactly what the dog should do in order to avoid discomfort, but I think leash pops whenever the dog looks anywhere but your face would still be making everything but the desired behavior uncomfortable. Certainly not the way I would apply it and not the best example of negative reinforcement, but I still think an argument can be made that it can be both R- and P+.


Again what I have been trying to say.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Ok I will attempt again to explain what I mean, lol, I know you are all getting bored of this.

Dog is pulling.
Human: cue (sound=closer) + (prong pop) (obviously not simultaneously)
Dog moves closer.

Positive reinforcement- something added to increase the frequency of a behavior.

I used moving closer as an example in the first instance, as has been stated the dog could have done any number of other things so I will illustrate again.

Dog is pulling
Prong pop
dog goes wide but is not pulling

a few seconds pass

dogs starts pulling again
Prong pop
dog goes wide again

a few seconds pass

dogs starts pulling again
Prong pop
dog goes wide again 

something has been added and a behaviors frequency has been increased, it happened three times.

I am not saying by any stretch that this is the correct application of OC but OC is occurring, in a semi controlled state, as in there is input and outcome whether desirable or not.


Now taking Daves amusing cooker example:

Yes butthead could remove his hand but equally he could do a number of things like, tip cold water on his hand, scream and shout, faint OR turn the cooker off.

Removing hand = positive reinforcement (positive= burning sensation, reinforcement = increase the frequency of removing the hand)

turning the cooker off= negative reinforcement (negative= removal of burning sensation, reinforcement= increase the frequency of turning the cooker off)

Now the first CAN be seen as positive punishment:
Removing hand= positive punishment (positive= burning sensation punishment = decrease the frequency of putting hand on in the first place)

But what we actually we want is for butt head to actually INCREASE the PROBABILITY that he will not put his hand on the cooker, just as we want to INCREASE the PROBABILITY that the dog will stay closer.
So if we are going to go down the punishment route we must use the prong as a positive reinforcer because we want to actually INCREASE THE FREQUENCY of something.

i.e we want to increase the probability of the dog remaining close rather than stop pulling. 

Its perspective as I have said ad nausium related to the desired outcomes.

You don't want the dog to stop pulling, you want the dog to walk closer, that is the true desired outcome.

Which is why Positive reinforcement by presenting treats for the desired outcome is soooooooooooooo much more effective than prong pops, because it tells the dog what it is you actually want rather than a 'vague stop doing that'

Desired out come= increase the frequency of the dog walking close

Treat presentation= something added to increase the frequency of behavior. 

Actual outcome= the dog learns to walk closer.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Ok if you skipped that boring drivel up there look at it this way.

When you pop a prong collar (something added) it increases avoidance behavior, therefore positive reinforcement.

Much more simple, wish I had thought of it before.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Matt Vandart said:


> Ok if you skipped that boring drivel up there look at it this way.
> 
> When you pop a prong collar (something added) it increases avoidance behavior, therefore positive reinforcement.
> 
> Much more simple, wish I had thought of it before.


Still ...no. Haven't read your above post yet, but just caught this one because I started from the end. The consequence happens after the behavior, not before. The cue comes before the behavior. You can make the leash pop your cue to the dog to come back to you, but it is not the positive reinforcer. It's positive punishment. I can't be both positive punishment and positive reinforcement. Used in a manner which is not typical, you could consider it negative reinforcement ...leash popping stops (consequence) when behavior is achieved (dog moves closer). But never, not ever, positive reinforcement ...unless the dog likes being popped on the leash and you're trying to encourage the dog to keep pulling or moving away from you.

We're just kicking a dead horse here, but it's really not a matter of opinion on this one. I know some people hesitate to change their position and admit they were wrong initially ...I'm guilty of it myself. If you truly want to understand OC and use the terms to describe what you're doing, I think you should be aware of your error and understand why it's not correct. Read up on OC again or some more and please try to see why popping on the lead before the dog comes back to you or stops pulling is not positive reinforcement.

Cue/Command=>Behavior=>Consequence (reinforcer/punisher)


----------



## Louise Jollyman

You can use semantics all day to try and change the OC quadrant to fit your thoughts. The key is the dog is pulling, this is the initial behavior. Are we are trying to reinforce (increase pulling behavior) or punish (reduce pulling behavior)???? We are not trying to increase pulling, so it's not reinforcement.

Remember none of the OC quadrant is good or bad, I hate the fact that we use "positive" training to mean "good" or "nice" or lots of treats. Positive in behavior speak is just simply "add something to environment" It can be something the trainer adds, or added by something else in the environment (rain was a good example).

Punishment - reduce behavior (that's it! Nothing bad)
Reinforcement - increase behavior (Not necessarily good)

Pleasant and unpleasant is in the dog's head, not the trainer's. Try not to think about things as nice or aversive when you are talking about behavior. Try to become an observer, the dog will tell you which quadrant you are in by increasing or reducing behavior.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Kicking a dead horse yes, mainly because it is a human explanation of something natural. 

I understand OC perfectly well, and technically you are correct in the terms set out by OC, but I am talking about the real event.
OC is just an observation, of events by scientists following their perceived logic of the situation, it is a conceptualization and as such is open to opinion. A method of explaining events. The fact that it works is no proof of its reality, we are merely observing it to be the case through the mechanics of OC devised by three human beings.

Any theory can never be proved to be correct, it can only be observed occurring or disproved.

Like I said its a fluid situation IMO Animals do not learn things in set series of events with beginnings and ends like in a laboratory.

I think the problem is you are not allowing yourself to look from a different perspective, just reproducing dogma. you have read/learned from others.

If however you are grasping at technical terminology and insisting I stick to the correct accepted procedure then yes I do defer to your explanation in terms of OC.

You may have guessed by now that I don't feel OC is the whole picture of learning after all it comes from a time when animals were thought to ONLY behave according to animalistic instinct, before we knew that rats laughed when you tickled them.




> Pleasant and unpleasant is in the dog's head, not the trainer's. Try not to think about things as nice or aversive when you are talking about behavior. Try to become an observer, the dog will tell you which quadrant you are in by increasing or reducing behavior.


Nail on the head, walking closer is increasing.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Louise Jollyman said:


> You can use semantics all day to try and change the OC quadrant to fit your thoughts. The key is the dog is pulling, this is the initial behavior. Are we are trying to reinforce (increase pulling behavior) or punish (reduce pulling behavior)???? We are not trying to increase pulling, so it's not reinforcement.
> 
> Remember none of the OC quadrant is good or bad, I hate the fact that we use "positive" training to mean "good" or "nice" or lots of treats. Positive in behavior speak is just simply "add something to environment" It can be something the trainer adds, or added by something else in the environment (rain was a good example).
> 
> Punishment - reduce behavior (that's it! Nothing bad)
> Reinforcement - increase behavior (Not necessarily good)
> 
> Pleasant and unpleasant is in the dog's head, not the trainer's. Try not to think about things as nice or aversive when you are talking about behavior. Try to become an observer, the dog will tell you which quadrant you are in by increasing or reducing behavior.


I think it simplifies things if you understand that positive reinforcement is something the dog enjoys and positive punishment is something the dog doesn't enjoy. 

I do understand that positive is applying and negative is taking away and that punishment decreases behavior and reinforcement increases behavior. I just think in a discussion like this with someone who is trying to reinvent OC, it sometimes makes it more clear to think in terms of the dog liking the positive reinforcement so it wants to keep doing the behavior that caused the reinforcement or the dog not liking the positive punishment so it stops doing the behavior that caused the punishment.

For the sake of discussion and because I'm interested and my brain is too tired to think about it ...can you think of examples where the consequence in reinforcement is something undesirable or aversive or where the consequece in punishment is something desirable or appetitive?


----------



## Matt Vandart

sorry I misread

Edit: I am not trying to reinvent it, I am saying it is a concept drawn from observation not an irrevocable law.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Matt Vandart said:


> Kicking a dead horse yes, mainly because it is a human explanation of something natural.
> 
> I understand OC perfectly well, and technically you are correct in the terms set out by OC, but I am talking about the real event.
> OC is just an observation, of events by scientists following their perceived logic of the situation, it is a conceptualization and as such is open to opinion. A method of explaining events. The fact that it works is no proof of its reality, we are merely observing it to be the case through the mechanics of OC devised by three human beings.
> 
> Any theory can never be proved to be correct, it can only be observed occurring or disproved.
> 
> Like I said its a fluid situation IMO Animals do not learn things in set series of events with beginnings and ends like in a laboratory.
> 
> I think the problem is you are not allowing yourself to look from a different perspective, just reproducing dogma. you have read/learned from others.
> 
> If however you are grasping at technical terminology and insisting I stick to the correct accepted procedure then yes I do defer to your explanation in terms of OC.
> 
> You may have guessed by now that I don't feel OC is the whole picture of learning after all it comes from a time when animals were thought to ONLY behave according to animalistic instinct, before we knew that rats laughed when you tickled them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nail on the head, walking closer is increasing.


Matt ...take the leash out of your example. Replace it with an cattle prod that gives the dog no directional information but clearly comes from you. Now, walk in one direction or stand in one spot and do nothing but shock the dog when it doesn't move closer to you. Don't reward the dog for being closer. Don't give him any other information but the cattle prod shock when he isn't close enough. What do you think will happen? Think about the prong collar correction in the same manner.

You're trying to make your example something it's not. You can guide the dog with the leash ...use negative reinforcement to help him understand there's no pressure at your side. But the pain from the prong collar alone doesn't guide and doesn't give information except that something that happened before it caused it to happen. It's up to you as a trainer to use other tools of R+ or R- to pair with the P+ of the prong correction to teach what you want. Your training methods may work because you're combining P+, R+, R- and P- to teach the dog to walk closer. But P+ does not reinforce walking closer.


----------



## Matt Vandart

IMO it cant be looked at in isolation like OC conveniently does.

Take for example if you drill a hole.
You are:

Creating a hole
and 
You are removing material

which one is correct?

You cant create a hole without removing material, so both are correct.

You cannot stop a dog from pulling through punishment without reinforcing another incompatible behavior at the same time.

Yes you can get a pigeon to press a lever to get some food but there is no counter behavior other than not pecking the lever and not getting food, which means the pigeon stays in a state of non learning.

Edit: no way I typed that at the same time as you, lol


----------



## Raegan Walter

Matt Vandart said:


> Removing hand = positive reinforcement (positive= burning sensation, reinforcement = increase the frequency of removing the hand)


I think you missed the part where you used the word "removed."


----------



## Dave Colborn

Go to spain. speak french. it's comprable to using terms from operant conditioning to describe the wrong things. Confusing at best.

Operant conditioning describes things if you understand it. I can be used to predict outcomes without having seen something trained before or with a new dog. It takes a lot of "figuring the dog out" away.



Matt Vandart said:


> IMO it cant be looked at in isolation like OC conveniently does.
> 
> Take for example if you drill a hole.
> You are:
> 
> Creating a hole
> and
> You are removing material
> 
> which one is correct?
> 
> You cant create a hole without removing material, so both are correct.
> 
> You cannot stop a dog from pulling through punishment without reinforcing another incompatible behavior at the same time.
> 
> Yes you can get a pigeon to press a lever to get some food but there is no counter behavior other than not pecking the lever and not getting food, which means the pigeon stays in a state of non learning.
> 
> Edit: no way I typed that at the same time as you, lol


----------



## Louise Jollyman

Ariel Peldunas said:


> I think it simplifies things if you understand that positive reinforcement is something the dog enjoys and positive punishment is something the dog doesn't enjoy.
> 
> I do understand that positive is applying and negative is taking away and that punishment decreases behavior and reinforcement increases behavior. I just think in a discussion like this with someone who is trying to reinvent OC, it sometimes makes it more clear to think in terms of the dog liking the positive reinforcement so it wants to keep doing the behavior that caused the reinforcement or the dog not liking the positive punishment so it stops doing the behavior that caused the punishment.
> 
> For the sake of discussion and because I'm interested and my brain is too tired to think about it ...can you think of examples where the consequence in reinforcement is something undesirable or aversive or where the consequece in punishment is something desirable or appetitive?


I understand you are trying to clear things up, but I feel that bringing emotion and enjoyment vs not enjoyment muddies the waters. How do we know the dog either enjoys or doesn't? We know because behaviors increase or decrease, not because we can get into the dog's head.

I do think the whole thing is both simpler and more difficult at the same time. The problem with the pulling on leash example is there is a whole lot of different things going on at the same time and we are working several pieces of the OC quadrant together, each piece may only happen for a fraction of a second.

Usually something that "reinforces" behavior increases the behavior and we can "assume" that the dog found the reinforcing thing pleasurable. The problem comes when humans think about things backwards. They assume giving a piece of beef to a dog is positively reinforcement, but they forget to look and see if the behavior increases. If you give me a piece of beef I might decrease the behavior because I don't like red meat. It seems odd to say that is "punishing", we think of punishing as pain, but it just means behavior decreases, it doesn't have to be "evil"

I have a lovely pic of a dog with a tug in it's mouth that I gave him as a "reward", but when you look at that dog's body language, other things are going on, maybe something happened in his past, but that is not important, what is important is his behavior increases if he thinks he is being rewarded.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Raegan Walter said:


> I think you missed the part where you used the word "removed."


No the removal of the hand is the behavior it has nothing to do with the +/-/P/R

Look i'm just giving my opinion on the matter, I'm not looking to change anyone's mind or attack the concept of positive reinforcement.
It is a very usefull tool as you say Dave.

However there are plenty of rules and laws in physics, especially in electricity applications which have been used very effectively to get jobs done, which now are being questioned and replaced with other concepts, rules and laws, which work equally well and in some cases even more effectively.
For years electricity has been misunderstood and is only now being explained properly in terms of its components, the rules and laws and concepts that were held before still worked even though they are now proving to be incorrect.


----------



## Louise Jollyman

Agree with Raegan

Hand was removed - negative, never positive. 



> You cannot stop a dog from pulling through punishment without reinforcing another incompatible behavior at the same time.


Correct, but the initial leash pop was positive punishment, the question is if the dog knows that it was being punished for pulling. By continuing to pop the leash so the dog gets closer, now we are in -R, then when the dog is close and we give it a treat, we are +P. Hopefully the dog will stop pulling, but it has to understand it got punished for pulling. This is actually more difficult than it sounds.

Come walk my old bitch on a sharpened prong, she stops pulling for the instant that she gets the pop, but then goes back to pulling - was she punished? No, because she didn't stop pulling. I wonder what she thought she got the pop for, she probably just thinks humans are nuts.



> Yes you can get a pigeon to press a lever to get some food but there is no counter behavior other than not pecking the lever and not getting food, which means the pigeon stays in a state of non learning.


As long as pigeon finds food rewarding, it will try to get food again, increasing behavior, positive reinforcement. While it is not pressing the lever technically it is in -P because it is hungry and not getting food.


----------



## Rachel M. Reams

Dave Colborn said:


> Go to spain. speak french. it's comprable to using terms from operant conditioning to describe the wrong things. Confusing at best.


Exactly. It's impossible to have a dialog with someone when they don't speak your language, or worse, insist on re-difining terms in your language. 

OC terms have clearly defined meanings used in the scientific literature. If you can't get agreement on what the terms mean, you can't have a discussion.


----------



## Louise Jollyman

I still don't think I am being clear - let's try this again with the stove. 

The behavior we want (desired outcome)? Don't touch the stove. Make stove hot (addition - Positive), hot is unpleasant (decreases behavior - Punishment) 

The equal and opposite is that the hot stove is Negative Reinforcement for removing the hand. Keeping the hand away is reinforced by being comfortable. Taking the heat away - Negative.

I think I just restated what others have said..... I have everything clear in my head


----------



## Matt Vandart

lol, indeed.

so the cue to remove the hand is the hot stove?

The removal of the hand is the behavior, it is neither negative or positive.

It's cool I will concede and we can all get on with it.


thank you Ariel for putting me right on the situation.


----------



## Louise Jollyman

Yeah, it was wrong to say the hot stove is negative reinforcement. 

Removing the hand is a behavior that is negatively reinforced. Does that work?

The heat is doing the training, in the example above, the hand was removed, but actually the negative was the heat being removed from the environment, so I said that wrong too! 

Like you said removing the hand is the behavior.

Positive Punishment (+ heat) for putting hand on stove, Negative Reinforcement (- heat) for removing hand.

The stove is an inanimate object. The stove becomes a cue after the experience.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Cool, thanks


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Matt Vandart said:


> so the cue to remove the hand is the hot stove?


No, the stove itself isn't a cue. There isn't a cue in that example ...the cue or discriminative stimulus signals to the animal when reinforcement for a particular behavior is available. The hot stove would be either positive punishment or the aversive stimulus that is removed to negatively reinforce the behavior of removing the hand from the stove. 

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what the stove itself would be when it's not hot ...just a stove, I guess. If there was a light on the stove indicating when it was getting hot, that would be a cue. I don't think there necessarily has to be a cue until the trainer decides to put the behavior under stimulus control. Of course, there are unintentional cues ...but in the stove example, the stove isn't always hot, so it's not providing information to the person as to whether or not there will be a consequence for their behavior.

Maybe someone smarter than me can better explain this. Some of the explanation and terminology is confusing to me ...mostly the stuff that doesn't really apply to the training I do. Maybe the stove beginning to warm up could be considered a cue ...I guess it would depend on what effect the warmth had on the behavior of the person touching it. But if every time the stove began to get warm, it then got hot and burned the person touching it, that would be a cue to signal what was about to happen ...I think.

I'll admit, I'm confused about that part, but I'm confident the stove, in and of itself, is not a cue. It's just a stove.


----------



## Matt Vandart

lol, sorry I was being facetious with the stove comment. I do apologize.

I thank you again for the explanation.


----------



## Nicole Stark

Ariel Peldunas said:


> I'll admit, I'm confused about that part, but I'm confident the stove, in and of itself, is not a cue. It's just a stove.


Perhaps not initially but surely we've all been conditioned to understand that wood or cooking stoves present a potential opportunity for an unpleasant encounter. I mean I never approach a fridge slowly or cautiously out of fear of something negative happening. So I presume that you are speaking strictly in the context that the toucher (such as a child) does not know that and thus unless informed beforehand about lights, flame, warmth, etc. a cue would not be evident to them.

If not and it's open given past encounters with a stove then I would certainly say that particularly in the case of a woodstove the visual cue of fire is supported.


----------



## Raegan Walter

Nicole Stark said:


> Perhaps not initially but surely we've all been conditioned to understand that wood or cooking stoves present a potential opportunity for an unpleasant encounter. I mean I never approach a fridge slowly or cautiously out of fear of something negative happening. So I presume that you are speaking strictly in the context that the toucher (such as a child) does not know that and thus unless informed beforehand about lights, flame, warmth, etc. a cue would not be evident to them.
> 
> If not and it's open given past encounters with a stove then I would certainly say that particularly in the case of a woodstove the visual cue of fire is supported.


I know a chemist (actually, all the chemists I know...) that tap-tap-tap a hot plate to see if it's hot #-o


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Matt Vandart said:


> Ok if you skipped that boring drivel up there look at it this way.
> 
> When you pop a prong collar (something added) it increases avoidance behavior, therefore positive reinforcement.
> 
> Much more simple, wish I had thought of it before.



Did you actually go through this process with a dog? Where was the dog in relationship to the handler when you popped the collar? What avoidance behavior did you increase?


For the OC dogma people, if you remove something, [here your leash pop], its negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement: the probability of a behavior occuring in the future is increased when thebehavior is folled by the removal or avoidance of a negative stimulus. In avoidance conditioning, avoidance occurs before the aversive events takes place. In Matt's example he states that there is some sound before the leash pop. Really, the fact that he's wearing the collar cues him that the aversive can happen. He has also been conditioned that the aversive is unpleasant. Because the dog seeks to avoid the leash pop and remove it, it is perceived as a negative. Its not just a question of the human adding something in terms of positive and nagative or just in getting the behaivor to increase. Again from B & B: "Reinforcement can also be described as positive or negative: something an animal wants to acquire more of, or something it wants to escape from or avoid. I often simplify to people as saying I'd rather train with dog working for something it wants vs. avoiding something the dog doesn't want in terms of the learning phase. 

Matt just labels it the way he likes and like Bart Bellon with nepopo, he can do that. People like Breland, Keller, Burch and Bailey, came up with their labeling system. I've seen tons of people try to put their own spin and labeling on this system using the same words. The trouble is it turns into a discussion of whether they understand the BBBK system. Its not a question of whether they understand it, they don't believe it and they play semantic games with it seeking to disprove it. Others seek to play games with it because if by any shape or form and regardless of what you are doing , if you can label it "positive," it makes it more acceptable and warm and fuzzy for the masses. In the past, when people told me they were marker trainers, I assumed BBBK. Now, I ask them to demonstrate. Mostly, I see people that have put their own spin on it.




T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

_Now taking Daves amusing cooker example:

Yes butthead could remove his hand but equally he could do a number of things like, tip cold water on his hand, scream and shout, faint OR turn the cooker off.

Removing hand = positive reinforcement (positive= burning sensation, reinforcement = increase the frequency of removing the hand)

turning the cooker off= negative reinforcement (negative= removal of burning sensation, reinforcement= increase the frequency of turning the cooker off)

Now the first CAN be seen as positive punishment:
Removing hand= positive punishment (positive= burning sensation punishment = decrease the frequency of putting hand on in the first place)

But what we actually we want is for butt head to actually INCREASE the PROBABILITY that he will not put his hand on the cooker, just as we want to INCREASE the PROBABILITY that the dog will stay closer.
_

I don't know how anyone was able to take Dave's hand on stove example and pluged it into a training scheme. First and foremost, Dave is doing this to himself. No one else is training him. Second as someone else pointed out, I know a chemist and he has a fascination with cooking surfaces. Recently he wanted to show me one [inductive heat?] and the first thing he did was put his hand on it and didn't understand when I said, I wouldn't care enough to test it. This is what I mean by labeling games. 

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Joby Becker said:


> not what I was focusing on at all, with the post...
> 
> you are talking about aversives being punishers because they are not warm and fuzzy. that is simply not the case..and if you are talking OC terms, you just just cant toss around the word punishment as meaning something unpleasant, there are all sorts of umpleasant things that once can experience that are not punishment for anything.
> 
> 
> *No, I'm talking about an aversive being an aversive regardless of whether it influences a desired behavior on an undesired behavior.. In negative reinforcement, you are stopping an undesired behavior [slower speed].*
> 
> 
> I am talking about a punisher being a punisher used to deter an undesirable behavior.
> 
> And the -R is increasing a desired behavior.(whatever it is) is NOT being used to diminish an undesirable behavior, by punishing..
> 
> 
> *Disagree and we will just have to leave it at that. Again, you look at intent [being used for] an the fact that ou are getting something desirable. If the dog wasn't performing an undesirable behavior [slower speed], there would be no need for introducing the aversive to get the desirable behavior. You have something you want to stop and increase in the speed example.*
> 
> 
> I think where the disconnect is, is that you are assuming the aversive is always introduced after some undesirable behavior is present or given.
> 
> 
> *No, I don't assume anything with the spee**d example. You've already said there is an undesirable--slowness. It is a given that the dog knows the behavior and you the trainer want it performed faster. So you use an aversive something he has formed a dislike for to get him to perform the desired behavior--faster.*
> 
> 
> There are many ways to use R-, and people do it differently, some teach with it, some use it for speed, some do other things.
> 
> If I want to use -R to increase the speed of something, as per your question and example...with the E-collar... lets say a placement or something... going to a placeboard for example...Starting out scenario with fact that the dog knows what the low stim is, finds it unpleasant, has experienced it before as you say, but not as a punishment..
> 
> 
> *So you zapped him for no reason to show him how bad it can be? Again, whether you intend it as punishment or reinforcement in terms of the end result obtained, its still an aversive--something he dislikes and seeks to avoid.*
> 
> 
> One day I work on placeboards .
> 
> I command dog to go to a placeboard and expect him to down on top of it, the dog knows it, does it, gets rewarded with the toss of the ball for doing it...without any aversive use of the e-collar, or any type of punishment, or consideration for speed or conscious recognition of slowness by me. I do this a few times and call it a day...dog is happy, got rewarded, did not punished. I am happy dog did the placeboards like I asked, a great session for both of us.
> 
> 
> The next day, I do the same thing, but use the E-collar low stim as an aversive, the dog knows it, does it, gets rewarded TWICE each time, once by removal of stim, and another time by the toss of the ball. I do all the work this day without any type of punishment, nor consideration for speed or conscious recognition of slowness by me. I do this a few times and call it a day, dog is happy, did not get punished. I am also happy the dog did the placeboards like I asked, but also did them 25% faster than the day before, becuase the dog recognized the benefits of performing faster, (not because he was being punished for being slow) not only in the traveling to the placeboard, but also in the execution of the down on the placeboard, a great session for both of us as well..
> 
> 
> what was the aversive on the second day punishing? nothing...there was no consideration given by me for speed or slowness at all in my use of the -R. It was not used because the dog was slow, it just was...
> 
> 
> *You say you used the e-collar as an aversive. Okay something that he does't like. First of all you've left out his previous history/experience with the collar. What's the premise here? Does your dog know a low stim buzz means go faster or does he experiment and figure it out by when it shuts off? Did he just happen to go faster and you reward with a shut off? I work with a dog now and she has certain issues and one thing I've noticed that when there is an aversive, she goes into escape/speed mode. Are you depending upon this type of flight mentality? They are faster but its based in fear avoidance. I'd rather them run faster to get something.* *See, you want to put all these feel good conotations to the event. Dog was happy. YOU didn't intend punishment. You think trying to escape an aversive is a humanistic happy frame of mind? Let me do the same to you and you tell me how happy your are during the application of the aversive. *
> 
> 
> *As for "it just was. . ." So you do this for the hell of it. I'm training place boards too. All positive in terms of they are working to get something that they want. If you didn't care about the speed, you wouldn't have used the escape method to begin with. You would have taken what the dog gave you. People who use escape training don't go into it with 'it just was.' Like you they start with the preconceived notion that they want to increase speed and that lesser speed is undesirable. It just isn't fast enough or more is better.*
> 
> 
> 
> this is not true at all, the example above can be done without ever using the Ecollar as a punishment, the dog only has to have been exposed to it before and find it unpleasant.
> 
> 
> *key word for you to explore--UNPLEASANT.*
> 
> 
> your quotes are doing nothing but muddying it all up for you. We are talking about OC terminology here.
> 
> 
> *My quotes aren't muddying it up. They are from one of the sources of expounding all of this and use of OC in training animals. *
> 
> 
> let me use a real simple example here that might shed some light on how I see it, dont go too deep into it, and try to apply it to dogs. cause it doesnt really apply there, this is not training, there is no other rewards present. solely on the speed aspect of the aversive, and your viewing it as a punishment, and how I say it is not.
> 
> I go to work everyday, I have to park in a lot and have to walk a block to get into work and when I leave work, to get back to my car.
> 
> I go to work on Monday, park my car, walk to work, have a great day at work, then when I step outside to go to my car after I am done working, it starts pouring rain.
> 
> I dont like walking in the pouring rain, I know I will be out in the pouring rain the entire way, until I get into my car, so I decide to run to my car, to get out of the rain as soon as possible, once I am in the car, I am out of the rain, and am happier.
> 
> do I think the Mother Nature, or God is punishing me for walking too slowly to my car? no I don't. I just knew that once I got in my car, I would be out of the pouring rain..so I moved faster




*Mother Nature and God didn't wake up that morning and say we are going to make it rain because we no longer want Joby to stroll from the parking lot. We know that Joby hates the rain and that he will RUN/ESCAPE to get out of the rain. Unlike Mother Nature and God, you activiely strapped on that e-collar and pushed the button to make the dog run faster. In the process, you stopped the slower speed and caused a faster speed. It was not an unplanned event and the dog going faster wasn't just a fluke. You knew he would seek to avoid the unpleasant sensation.*


----------



## Joby Becker

No, I'm talking about an aversive being an aversive regardless of whether it influences a desired behavior on an undesired behavior.. In negative reinforcement, you are stopping an undesired behavior [slower speed].

*Ok, then dont use the word punishment, becuase it is not a punishment.*


Disagree and we will just have to leave it at that. Again, you look at intent [being used for] an the fact that ou are getting something desirable. If the dog wasn't performing an undesirable behavior [slower speed], there would be no need for introducing the aversive to get the desirable behavior. You have something you want to stop and increase in the speed example.

*That is your opinion, I am not looking at the intent , I am looking at what it does, by definition, the result, which is increase the likelyhood of performing a behavior. I do not use -R becuase there is a "need", I use it becuase I want the speed to increase to its maximum, not that it was "slow" it works and also is a general re-enforecement technique, especically for a command that is a few pieces put together, since the dog is getting 2 rewards instead of one, still without punsihment.*


No, I don't assume anything with the speed example. You've already said there is an undesirable--slowness. It is a given that the dog knows the behavior and you the trainer want it performed faster. So you use an aversive something he has formed a dislike for to get him to perform the desired behavior--faster.

*No I did not, in fact I said I used it without consderation of the dogs current speed. The result was faster.*

So you zapped him for no reason to show him how bad it can be? Again, whether you intend it as punishment or reinforcement in terms of the end result obtained, its still an aversive--something he dislikes and seeks to avoid.

*Again...NO..First of all, we are not talking a ZAP here. we are not talking about a correction, or P+, which I would use for decreasing the likelyhoood of a behavior, and I did not show him how bad IT COULD BE, one does not need to get struck by lighting, to not enjoy being out in the pouring rain.*

You say you used the e-collar as an aversive. Okay something that he does't like. First of all you've left out his previous history/experience with the collar. What's the premise here? Does your dog know a low stim buzz means go faster or does he experiment and figure it out by when it shuts off? 

*yes dog figures it out, dog shuts it off by completing action.*
Did he just happen to go faster and you reward with a shut off? 

I work with a dog now and she has certain issues and one thing I've noticed that when there is an aversive, she goes into escape/speed mode. Are you depending upon this type of flight mentality? They are faster but its based in fear avoidance. 

*Disagree here as well, it is not fight mentality, and it is not based in fear avoidance, it is based on dog recieving 2 rewards, as opposed to just one.*


I'd rather them run faster to get something. 

*Dog is moving faster to get something, dog is getting rewarded. DOg will perform behaviors without the -R, -R with some dogs increased drive to perform, increases happiness by two times..*

See, you want to put all these feel good conotations to the event. Dog was happy. YOU didn't intend punishment. You think trying to escape an aversive is a humanistic happy frame of mind? Let me do the same to you and you tell me how happy your are during the application of the aversive. 

*Disagree again, my dog is not a human, it has nothing to do with humanistic approach, it is dog training...although I suppose if one wanted to view it in humanistic terms it may be applies to martial arts training, when concentrating on eascaping holds, or nullifying strikes.*


As for "it just was. . ." So you do this for the hell of it.

*no I do it because it works for me with certain dogs* 

I'm training place boards too. All positive in terms of they are working to get something that they want.

*All positive?, including positive punishment? +P, which is also positive?

or do you mean just +R...no use of -P either then? no witholding rewards for poor performance? if so then that witholding of the reward is a negative, not a positive, so that is not all positive.* 

If you didn't care about the speed, you wouldn't have used the escape method to begin with. You would have taken what the dog gave you. 

*wrong again..I use it becuase it also increases reliability, not only for speed.*

People who use escape training don't go into it with 'it just was.' Like you they start with the preconceived notion that they want to increase speed and that lesser speed is undesirable. It just isn't fast enough or more is better.

*You know very little about this method of training, your assumptions are incorrect. My comment about it "just was" was concerned with the perception of the dog, who I believe thinks it "just was", the dog is not veiwing it as any time of punishment, just as an unpleasnt stimulus. Again I use it for multiple reasons, for multiple outcomes, speed is one of them, yes, if you are talking more is better in regards to more exoressions of desired response, then yes more is better, who wants less completed deriable actions?*


key word for you to explore--UNPLEASANT.

again, unpleasant does not mean punishment. everything and everyone deals with unpleasnt things all the time.

My quotes aren't muddying it up. They are from one of the sources of expounding all of this and use of OC in training animals. 

*Your sources are using terms that directly contrdict terms used in the OC model.*




Terrasita Cuffie said:


> *Mother Nature and God didn't wake up that morning and say we are going to make it rain because we no longer want Joby to stroll from the parking lot. We know that Joby hates the rain and that he will RUN/ESCAPE to get out of the rain. Unlike Mother Nature and God, you activiely strapped on that e-collar and pushed the button to make the dog run faster. In the process, you stopped the slower speed and caused a faster speed. It was not an unplanned event and the dog going faster wasn't just a fluke. You knew he would seek to avoid the unpleasant sensation.*


*It was an unplanned event for the dog, it just was...just like I do not plan when it pours rain on me, and if there is a God, he just might have wanted me to run faster to my car.. The downpour for me was not planned for me, it just was... The dog going faster was not a fluke, you are correct, because the method works for increasing speed, among other things..

You started off stating that you did not know why people would use this method, was that a lie? you appear to know at least SOME of the reasons that people use the method, and have also agreed that it works. So what are we actually debating here, aside from your use of the term punishment in regards to this topic? there is simply no punishment if using this method on its own.

so were you really saying you didnt know why? or did you mean to say you jus dont agree with it? and if you dont agree with it, why are you using aversives yourself, what aversives are you using? you stated when there is an aversive your dog goes into flight mode, and is fear motivated? is it really fear? I dont know...all I can say is that my dog does not fear the ecollar, she often goes and gets it, and drops it in my lad, and tries to get me to put it on her, she always seems happier and drivier when I have it on her.
*


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Joby Becker said:


> No, I'm talking about an aversive being an aversive regardless of whether it influences a desired behavior on an undesired behavior.. In negative reinforcement, you are stopping an undesired behavior [slower speed].
> 
> *Ok, then dont use the word punishment, becuase it is not a punishment.*
> 
> 
> Disagree and we will just have to leave it at that. Again, you look at intent [being used for] an the fact that ou are getting something desirable. If the dog wasn't performing an undesirable behavior [slower speed], there would be no need for introducing the aversive to get the desirable behavior. You have something you want to stop and increase in the speed example.
> 
> *That is your opinion, I am not looking at the intent , I am looking at what it does, by definition, the result, which is increase the likelyhood of performing a behavior. I do not use -R becuase there is a "need", I use it becuase I want the speed to increase to its maximum, not that it was "slow" it works and also is a general re-enforecement technique, especically for a command that is a few pieces put together, since the dog is getting 2 rewards instead of one, still without punsihment.*
> 
> 
> No, I don't assume anything with the speed example. You've already said there is an undesirable--slowness. It is a given that the dog knows the behavior and you the trainer want it performed faster. So you use an aversive something he has formed a dislike for to get him to perform the desired behavior--faster.
> 
> *No I did not, in fact I said I used it without consderation of the dogs current speed. The result was faster.*
> 
> So you zapped him for no reason to show him how bad it can be? Again, whether you intend it as punishment or reinforcement in terms of the end result obtained, its still an aversive--something he dislikes and seeks to avoid.
> 
> *Again...NO..First of all, we are not talking a ZAP here. we are not talking about a correction, or P+, which I would use for decreasing the likelyhoood of a behavior, and I did not show him how bad IT COULD BE, one does not need to get struck by lighting, to not enjoy being out in the pouring rain.*
> 
> You say you used the e-collar as an aversive. Okay something that he does't like. First of all you've left out his previous history/experience with the collar. What's the premise here? Does your dog know a low stim buzz means go faster or does he experiment and figure it out by when it shuts off?
> 
> *yes dog figures it out, dog shuts it off by completing action.*
> Did he just happen to go faster and you reward with a shut off?
> 
> I work with a dog now and she has certain issues and one thing I've noticed that when there is an aversive, she goes into escape/speed mode. Are you depending upon this type of flight mentality? They are faster but its based in fear avoidance.
> 
> *Disagree here as well, it is not fight mentality, and it is not based in fear avoidance, it is based on dog recieving 2 rewards, as opposed to just one.*
> 
> 
> I'd rather them run faster to get something.
> 
> *Dog is moving faster to get something, dog is getting rewarded. DOg will perform behaviors without the -R, -R with some dogs increased drive to perform, increases happiness by two times..*
> 
> See, you want to put all these feel good conotations to the event. Dog was happy. YOU didn't intend punishment. You think trying to escape an aversive is a humanistic happy frame of mind? Let me do the same to you and you tell me how happy your are during the application of the aversive.
> 
> *Disagree again, my dog is not a human, it has nothing to do with humanistic approach, it is dog training...although I suppose if one wanted to view it in humanistic terms it may be applies to martial arts training, when concentrating on eascaping holds, or nullifying strikes.*
> 
> 
> As for "it just was. . ." So you do this for the hell of it.
> 
> *no I do it because it works for me with certain dogs*
> 
> I'm training place boards too. All positive in terms of they are working to get something that they want.
> 
> *All positive?, including positive punishment? +P, which is also positive?*
> 
> *or do you mean just +R...no use of -P either then? no witholding rewards for poor performance? if so then that witholding of the reward is a negative, not a positive, so that is not all positive.*
> 
> If you didn't care about the speed, you wouldn't have used the escape method to begin with. You would have taken what the dog gave you.
> 
> *wrong again..I use it becuase it also increases reliability, not only for speed.*
> 
> People who use escape training don't go into it with 'it just was.' Like you they start with the preconceived notion that they want to increase speed and that lesser speed is undesirable. It just isn't fast enough or more is better.
> 
> *You know very little about this method of training, your assumptions are incorrect. My comment about it "just was" was concerned with the perception of the dog, who I believe thinks it "just was", the dog is not veiwing it as any time of punishment, just as an unpleasnt stimulus. Again I use it for multiple reasons, for multiple outcomes, speed is one of them, yes, if you are talking more is better in regards to more exoressions of desired response, then yes more is better, who wants less completed deriable actions?*
> 
> 
> key word for you to explore--UNPLEASANT.
> 
> again, unpleasant does not mean punishment. everything and everyone deals with unpleasnt things all the time.
> 
> My quotes aren't muddying it up. They are from one of the sources of expounding all of this and use of OC in training animals.
> 
> *Your sources are using terms that directly contrdict terms used in the OC model.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It was an unplanned event for the dog, it just was...just like I do not plan when it pours rain on me, and if there is a God, he just might have wanted me to run faster to my car.. The downpour for me was not planned for me, it just was... The dog going faster was not a fluke, you are correct, because the method works for increasing speed, among other things..*
> 
> *You started off stating that you did not know why people would use this method, was that a lie? you appear to know at least SOME of the reasons that people use the method, and have also agreed that it works. So what are we actually debating here, aside from your use of the term punishment in regards to this topic? there is simply no punishment if using this method on its own.*
> 
> *so were you really saying you didnt know why? or did you mean to say you jus dont agree with it? and if you dont agree with it, why are you using aversives yourself, what aversives are you using? you stated when there is an aversive your dog goes into flight mode, and is fear motivated? is it really fear? I dont know...all I can say is that my dog does not fear the ecollar, she often goes and gets it, and drops it in my lad, and tries to get me to put it on her, she always seems happier and drivier when I have it on her.*


You seriously think its unplanned when you start with the premise that the dog sees it as an aversive. Do you really think its unplanned when you put the collar on the dog, decide the level of electrical current and press the button. You equate you to god or Mother Nature where that dog is concerned? I still say it stops a behavior you don't want--slowness and to that extent it can be a punisher. You can disagree with that--fine. What difference does it make what label it is? Dog is working off avoiding something the dog finds unpleasant. We don't have to put any OC label on it. Use of words like positive and reinforcement gives some sort of subliminal warm and fuzzy squeeze. Use of words like aversive, stim/stimulus, stress further renmove the human from what the animal is experiencing. Plenty of animals will tolerate an aversive to get to something they want. Doesn't change what it is or its affect on a behavior or the animals mentality. Nor does your intent change what it is to the animal. As for the happy, anytime something stops that you didn't want to occur, I guess you would give a happy dance or at least be relieved. All you know regarding how the dog views it is what he does in repsonse to it Here it is unpleasant enough that he stops his slow behavior and performs a faster behavior or in your scheme he does what he can to shut it of--increases speed. 



Now for your question about placeboards--all positive reinforcement. No puninshment or witholding reward. When you are free shaping something, you aren't using negative punishment but if you beleive that--that's fine. Nor do I care that avesives are involved in training. If one of the dogs is eating one of my ducks, he'll deal with an aversive. This was a free shaped activity. Once she figured it out, there was no stopping her and she's so fast, I need to find a way to make the mat stick to the floor. This dog has off the chart food drive and picks up on anything within seconds to minutes. For the dog with issues, the aversive is someting in the environment itself--nothing I'm inflicting. Interestingly enough put her in an environment that stresses her and EVERYTHING is performed faster which I'm rewarding. I'm only hoping that by adding the reward, it will increase her tolerance for what she perceives as an aversive or neutralize it. We shall see. I only know about your negative reinforcement training and speed what you and others have stated about it. As for your wrong again and increase for reliability. If the dog didnt view it as an aversive to stop or get away from, how effective would it be for increasing your reliabiity.


In escape training, your dog is moving faster to avoid something unpleasant in your training scenario. Once your take that collar off and he move's faster in anticipation of reward, then you have him working to get something. Once you condition him with avoidance training, that's what it is. As for your happy x2, I guess you need to tell yourself that since you keep bringing up the happy stuff.

But really, watching how this thread has progressed, I can see the reasoning for the viewpoint of screw the labeling, I'll just do what works for me.



T


----------



## Matt Vandart

I posted this in the original thread but I thought I better post it here as well to clear up some confusion:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Connie Sutherland
> I have the same questions.
> 
> 
> This is not areal life situation.
> 
> As I stated earlier but many have not recognized I do not use this method for teaching the heel position, I use motivational techniques aka positive reinforcement and negative punishment.
> 
> Here is a quick vid of becca, I trained this in three short sessions, they are all on my youtube channel.
> I know this vid is brief, but you can see quite clearly that dog has not been trained using positive punishment in her general demeanor:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ImuSZO0G2I


Back to operant conditioning as a general model.

The main downfall of the concept as I see it is the second part of each quadrant 'to increase/decrease the frequency of a behaviour'

My problem with this is its about probability. To make it short but I can really write an essay on this if you would like, is it introduces uncertainty into the equation.

Probability (future frequency) by definition is about (un)certainty.

You can never really know if your reinforcement is actually reinforcing a behavior.

Lets take for example shaping. I will assume everyone involved in this conversation is well versed or at least familiar with the concept of shaping.
How does shaping fit in with the ideals/concepts of OC in terms of probability (increase/decrease of frequency of a behavior).

Short answer is it doesn't.
If the reinforcing event worked as OC describes then shaping would not work (please correct me if I am wrong)

What I am trying to say in all my posts is that OC as a concept has flaws DESPITE it seeming apparent. I am not in any of my posts trying to teach anyone they are getting the concept of OC incorrect. I am looking at the concept itself as a thinking human being and questioning it's validity as an all encompassing bible on animal behavior.
I don't doubt that as a method of behavior modification it is a very effective tool, which works, I just believe that as an explanation of what is occurring in real life it is not without question. 

As a side note, many people here seem to think I have no real understanding of the OC concept. This is an incorrect assumption. I am very well 'versed' in the strict dogma of the concept.
This very fact is the reason I question it.

Just for clarification as we are clarifying terms here:



> Dogma is the official system of belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.[1] It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Matt Vandart said:


> What I am trying to say in all my posts is that OC as a concept has flaws DESPITE it seeming apparent. I am not in any of my posts trying to teach anyone they are getting the concept of OC incorrect. I am looking at the concept itself as a thinking human being and questioning it's validity as an all encompassing bible on animal behavior.
> I don't doubt that as a method of behavior modification it is a very effective tool, which works, I just believe that as an explanation of what is occurring in real life it is not without question.


 
Articulate a flaw with it then. That would give something to discuss.


----------



## Louise Jollyman

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Now for your question about placeboards--all positive reinforcement. No puninshment or witholding reward. When you are free shaping something, you aren't using negative punishment but if you beleive that--that's fine.


For me, I feel that everything exists together in balance, like before with the heat example positive punishment effected the initial behavior which was maintained by negative reinforcement.

The dog goes to the placeboard, gets a reward, positive reinforcement, the behavior that it does between the reward and going to the placeboard again is negatively punished, food is withheld until the dog goes back to the placeboard. Shaping includes +R and -P which are balanced to increase the behaviors.

The key of course is the dog understands what is being asked and you are training what you think you are training.


----------



## Louise Jollyman

Matt Vandart said:


> You can never really know if your reinforcement is actually reinforcing a behavior.


So you don't agree that if the behavior increases, it is being reinforced?



Matt Vandart said:


> Lets take for example shaping. I will assume everyone involved in this conversation is well versed or at least familiar with the concept of shaping.
> How does shaping fit in with the ideals/concepts of OC in terms of probability (increase/decrease of frequency of a behavior).
> 
> Short answer is it doesn't.
> If the reinforcing event worked as OC describes then shaping would not work (please correct me if I am wrong)


Why not?

My understanding of OC is that it explains animals learning in response to stimulus from the environment. So it happens all the time. I am not saying that it is not perhaps a little too simplistic for every application, but that hopefully helps with the general understanding of how animals learn.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Dave how does OC explain shaping?
No two identical events are reinforced yet learning still occurs, so frequency (actually probability) and thus reinforcement is out the window as described below:


Because it's main premise is that the reinforcement actually increases the probability of the behavior occurring in the future.
We say frequency but frequency talks of the past tense, you cannot effect the frequency of things that are in the past in terms of future events.

For example (simplistically) if you asked the dog to sit 10 times and he sat 8 of those ten times the frequency would be 8/10
If you ask the dog to sit again that 8/10 is neither here nor there in terms of frequency because the frequency will only be affected after the next event i.e 9/11 after the event or 8/11 if the dog did not sit.
So we are into the realms of prediction and probability.

On the first time the dog is shown this and reinforced can you make any prediction of the dogs next response (in terms of probability)?

No you cant, you cannot definitely say the future 'chance' of the dog sitting will be that the dog sits.
Because you cannot calculate the probability (frequency) of one event. 
So if this very first event is flawed in it's probability (frequency as a factor of reinforcement) how can you say that any of the following will actually be 'reinforced' 
It is only after many repetitions that you can even begin to say that the previous events were reinforced or not.

Now once you have the dog sitting reliably what effect does reinforcement have on the probability now? 
The dog is sitting, any further reinforcement effect is not improved by any measurable amount.
In what sense is further reinforcement increasing the probability now?

The concept of reinforcement increasing probability falls down on the two key stages of learning, the early and later (finished product) and as such is questionable to say the least.

This is why I do not believe OC is the whole picture of what is occurring when we train our dogs. 

I will stress again I am aware it appears to work and is a useful tool.


----------



## Dave Colborn

You reinforce successively approximated parts of a final or target behavior. if you reward it, you are increasing the liklihood.





Matt Vandart said:


> Dave how does OC explain shaping?
> No two identical events are reinforced yet learning still occurs, so frequency (actually probability) and thus reinforcement is out the window as described below:


You reinforce successively approximated parts of a final or target behavior. you are increasing the liklihood through Reinforcement, just like operant conditioning suggests..



Matt Vandart said:


> Because it's main premise is that the reinforcement actually increases the probability of the behavior occurring in the future.
> We say frequency but frequency talks of the past tense, you cannot effect the frequency of things that are in the past in terms of future events.


If you think this, why do you train? Of course what we do today with a dog affects them tomorrow. If you are interacting, they are learning.





Matt Vandart said:


> For example (simplistically) if you asked the dog to sit 10 times and he sat 8 of those ten times the frequency would be 8/10
> If you ask the dog to sit again that 8/10 is neither here nor there in terms of frequency because the frequency will only be affected after the next event i.e 9/11 after the event or 8/11 if the dog did not sit.
> So we are into the realms of prediction and probability.


Increasing the liklihood is what. the realm of prediction and probability.




Matt Vandart said:


> On the first time the dog is shown this and reinforced can you make any prediction of the dogs next response (in terms of probability)?


Yes. He'll be more likely to do it, not less likely. 



Matt Vandart said:


> No you cant, you cannot definitely say the future 'chance' of the dog sitting will be that the dog sits.
> Because you cannot calculate the probability (frequency) of one event.
> So if this very first event is flawed in it's probability (frequency as a factor of reinforcement) how can you say that any of the following will actually be 'reinforced'
> It is only after many repetitions that you can even begin to say that the previous events were reinforced or not.


I can. I can say that. I can say it three times. I just did. It is an individual trial, but operant conditioning doesnt say it will happen. Likely. 



Matt Vandart said:


> Now once you have the dog sitting reliably what effect does reinforcement have on the probability now?
> The dog is sitting, any further reinforcement effect is not improved by any measurable amount.
> In what sense is further reinforcement increasing the probability now?


in what sense doesn't it increase the probability. or like with shaping increase probability of a more correct response. 



Matt Vandart said:


> The concept of reinforcement increasing probability falls down on the two key stages of learning, the early and later (finished product) and as such is questionable to say the least.


I don't know what this means. At all. really.




Matt Vandart said:


> This is why I do not believe OC is the whole picture of what is occurring when we train our dogs.


Gravity. Believe it or not. It's there.



Matt Vandart said:


> I will stress again I am aware it appears to work and is a useful tool.


 
Peter Cavallaro?


----------



## Matt Vandart

Right I have had a cup of tea and a *** (lol) and I have come up with this:

Lets take looking under a rock as an example.

A kid goes into the garden and wants to look for treasure under some rocks which just happen to have scorpions under them.

He in his enthusiasm he lifts the first rock sticks his hand striaght under and gets stung by a scorpion (we'll assume he doesn't die)
Using strict OC we would say that the child has been positively punished because common sense says so. It should stop him looking under rocks.

However what actually happens is the kid then decides, as a direct result of the sting, to look more carefully under the next rock this time and as such avoids the sting, this goes on a few more times till the kid realizes the gub-mint has stolen all the gold and goes home in disappointment.

Potentially two things have happened here. He has been positively punished by the sting (he no longer shoves his hand straight under, the frequency has reduced) and another incompatible behavior has been increased, that of caution (increased frequency from the positive sting)
Negative reinforcement is not an issue here as he cannot tell if there is a scorpion under the rock or not, just as the dog does not perceive the threat of the prong.

Which can you say with certainty has occurred here?

My conclusion as I stated in the post that started all this is that both have happened.

This is where I think OC is not realistic in its idealism. 
Experiences are fluid, not controlled as in a laboratory box.
The quadrants work in pairs, I would say at this point, without having thought about it in depth, at all times.

Please feel free to educate me on the error of my ways.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Dave you cannot predict a future event with any certainty after one event. that is mathematics which is considerably more certain than OC.

You have also got the frequency part arse backwards. I said you cannot effect the frequency of past events not future events.

Please explain gravity to us because humans have been trying to find an explanation for it for many many years, it would be a really good thing for the human race.
Gravity is in fact a very good example of what OC is.
We can measure the effect of gravity but not gravity itself.

I don't know who peter cavallero is so I cant comment on that. I typed the name into google but nothing related to behavior science turned up.

Edit: is this who you are talking about?
http://leerburg.com/webboard/printthread.php?topic_id=28149


----------



## Raegan Walter

Matt I think it would be worth your time to watch Bob Bailey's "Fundamentals of Animal Training." I think you misunderstand some fundamental concepts of using operant conditioning to train animals. Bailey's DVD covers many of your questions and scenarios.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Matt Vandart said:


> Right I have had a cup of tea and a *** (lol) and I have come up with this:
> 
> Lets take looking under a rock as an example.
> 
> A kid goes into the garden and wants to look for treasure under some rocks which just happen to have scorpions under them.
> 
> He in his enthusiasm he lifts the first rock sticks his hand striaght under and gets stung by a scorpion (we'll assume he doesn't die)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However what actually happens is the kid then decides, as a direct result of the sting, to look more carefully under the next rock this time and as such avoids the sting, this goes on a few more times till the kid realizes the gub-mint has stolen all the gold and goes home in disappointment.
> 
> Potentially two things have happened here. He has been positively punished by the sting (he no longer shoves his hand straight under, the frequency has reduced) and another incompatible behavior has been increased, that of caution (increased frequency from the positive sting)
> Negative reinforcement is not an issue here as he cannot tell if there is a scorpion under the rock or not, just as the dog does not perceive the threat of the prong.
> 
> Which can you say with certainty has occurred here?
> 
> My conclusion as I stated in the post that started all this is that both have happened.
> 
> This is where I think OC is not realistic in its idealism.
> Experiences are fluid, not controlled as in a laboratory box.
> The quadrants work in pairs, I would say at this point, without having thought about it in depth, at all times.
> 
> Please feel free to educate me on the error of my ways
> 
> 
> 
> If the sting killed him or hurt him enough, it would have stopped the behavior.
> 
> As it is, the exhuberent behavior has been squashed and with a few more stings, he'd be done looking for sure. There is nothing increased, only decreased. You need to learn what you are agruing about before you do it. You are talking about positive punishment simply, for the behavior. Yes the behavior is less likely to happen over time with correction. You aren't making any sense at all to me with your lack of logic.
> 
> I didn't say what Operant conditioning was. didn't make the guidelines. They are real, I can use them.
> 
> Pete Cavallaro??
Click to expand...


----------



## Matt Vandart

On your answer to shaping:

No you reinforce nothing because each event is slightly different, if you were actually reinforcing the first event it would just continue to do that behaviour and you would never reach the desired behavior.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Do yo actually read what I write?

The cation behavior has been increased.

I would love to read more about OC or watch more dvd's but I do not need to.
I will try repeating again.
I am not having any problem with the OC concept, I just think there is more going on.
I could read the bible all day long and recite it word for word,it doesn't mean it is correct or I agree with it or that I have to.

Yes you can use them, I use them every day, that is not the point.

By the way I am not the only person in the world with this view on OC and probability, I would suggest that other people involved in this discussion also researched it more.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Matt Vandart said:


> On your answer to shaping:
> 
> No you reinforce nothing because each event is slightly different, if you were actually reinforcing the first event t would just continue to do that event and you would never reach the desired behavior.


Here you are dead wrong.

If you shape an attention heel with a reinforcer, you start small and successively approximate. You don't start with a dog heeling 500m giving attention. You start with a look click and treat. Or the position, or whatever part you start first. then you add something else. the dog does all the things you are rewarding as you go, and you reward the more correct to make that part more solid. 

Use a guard.

You may teach a dog to bark at the end of the leash first. In the end you don't want leash tension. to the dog you are rewarding it all and making it more likely if done properly. then you raise the criteria and reward that, increasing the level of difficulty. If at any point you stopped increasing what you ask, the dog would become stagnant in what you ask and that would be the final product. It would have increased from just being there to barking and pulling and that behavior would be more likely. If you stopped rewarding at this point it would degrade as well and go away. Why, because operant conditioning tells us that with holding (negative punishment) the reward will decrease the behavior offered, IE the guard.

read more. then come back.

sure you're not pete? Nothing specific in your writings, but you seem a lot like him.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Yes. Usually you show beyond a shadow of a doubt to a reasonable reader that you don't understand what operant conditioning is about, past the writing of the words. Could you explain what the four quadrants are about, and then maybe we could go to your answers and get you back on track. Teach me about operant conditioning. It's science. You don't have to believe it. but knowing how it works makes training easier by a long shot.




Matt Vandart said:


> Do yo actually read what I write?
> 
> The cation behavior has been increased.
> 
> I would love to read more about OC or watch more dvd's but I do not need to.
> I will try repeating again.
> I am not having any problem with the OC concept, I just think there is more going on.
> I could read the bible all day long and recite it word for word,it doesn't mean it is correct or I agree with it or that I have to.
> 
> Yes you can use them, I use them every day, that is not the point.
> 
> By the way I am not the only person in the world with this view on OC and probability, I would suggest that other people involved in this discussion also researched it more.


----------



## Matt Vandart

If you are raising the criteria you are changing the behavior and by OC own rules 

one behavior one consequence

The dog sits a few inches wide of heel- one behavior
the dog sits in correct heel- one behavior

You cannot reinforce the first behavior and say it increased the likelihood of the second behavior.


----------



## Nicole Stark

Dave Colborn said:


> Peter Cavallaro?


Maybe, but I'd bet not.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Matt Vandart said:


> If you are raising the criteria you are changing the behavior and by OC own rules
> 
> one behavior one consequence
> 
> The dog sits a few inches wide of heel- one behavior
> the dog sits in correct heel- one behavior
> 
> You cannot reinforce the first behavior and say it increased the likelihood of the second behavior.


You are wrong again. 

the dog sits a few inches wide and is rewarded. 

From this point explain how you get it to sit in a more proper position, and then I'll explain how you it's operant conditioning exactly. 

I am truly sorry that you don't believe in science and I'll do what I can to help. Just talk it out.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Nicole Stark said:


> Maybe, but I'd bet not.


 
but do you see the likeness?


----------



## Dave Colborn

A hint is that you are rewarding what you think you are rewarding and you don't know what the dog thinks is getting rewarded. There are a great deal of things going on besides sitting 3 inches away. Can you name them??




Dave Colborn said:


> You are wrong again.
> 
> the dog sits a few inches wide and is rewarded.
> 
> From this point explain how you get it to sit in a more proper position, and then I'll explain how you it's operant conditioning exactly.
> 
> I am truly sorry that you don't believe in science and I'll do what I can to help. Just talk it out.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Dave Colborn said:


> but do you see the likeness?


Not at all to be honest and I went a few rounds with Pete on this board....

I am wondering why you bring him up tho? 

Back to topic for you Dave 

You have science to explain.... (I'd start cutting down on the little digs tho, your irritation is kinda showing!)


----------



## Matt Vandart

Operant conditioning is instrumental learning and as such is effected by consequences of an emitted behavior:

In the case of using OC as a tool for behavior modification.
Dog emits behavior one of four things can happen depending on whether the behavior is wanted or not by the handler.

Positive punishment- something added in order to decrease the future frequency of the behavior

Positive reinforcement- something added in order to increase the future frequency of the behavior

negative reinforcement- something removed in order to increase the future frequency of a behavior

negative punishment- something removed in order to decrease the future frequency of a behavior

That is the core of it, I am not going to write an essay on the subject unless you really really insist upon it.

So taking the shaping event.

For shaping proper you wait for the dog to emit the behavior itself or you lure the dog into another NEW position and reward it for that new behavior.
Both positions are separate and different behaviors you are increasing the frequency of neither.

Dude you have no idea how much I believe and have knowledge of science.

This Pete guy does he live in Wales? did you watch my vid I posted? Am I this pete guy?
Now please the stage is yours...........


----------



## Dave Colborn

No irritation. Just going to a different quadrant in operant conditioning to try and bring matt along. 





Alice Bezemer said:


> Not at all to be honest and I went a few rounds with Pete on this board....
> 
> I am wondering why you bring him up tho?
> 
> Back to topic for you Dave
> 
> You have science to explain.... (I'd start cutting down on the little digs tho, your irritation is kinda showing!)


----------



## Nicole Stark

Dave Colborn said:


> but do you see the likeness?


A likeness to Pete is not something that struck me in Matt's writings.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Dude I really genuinely thank you for attempting to bring me along in terms of learning about operant conditioning, this is why I am here, to learn.
However as I have stated I have knowledge of operant conditioning.
I also have knowledge of probability along with many other things.

I am failing to see the expected outcome of this OC experiment and as such seeing as OC hinges upon expectation it is not working very well


----------



## Raegan Walter

Shaping is driven by extinction bursts.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Sit.
Eyes on me.

I'll teach the sit first in this example. We are assuming the dog will already follow food well (stimulus that you'll use to bait the dog into position).

Doing this without correction, although I would use it in real life.

I bait the dog into a sit. click and treat several repetitions as butt hits floor pairing the butt hitting the floor with sit then food (new stimulus "verbal sit" paired with the old stimulus "food in hand". Dog sits faster and faster and faster, I then use my momentum in training pull my hand away....

then I say sit. wait until it happens. click and treat. do this several times, it gets faster as I go because I have wonderful timing. Only rewarding when the butt is on the ground on the command of sit, no concern about eyes yet.

Then I say sit and wait for the dog to sit AND look at me. he does. click and treat. several repetitions. It gets stronger. Here I am rewarding the sit still, and adding another criteria, the eyes on me. 


So for every time I reward the sit, and then the sit with eyes on me, I am still rewarding +R the sit and making that behavior stronger. then the behavior gets chained into sit means sit and stare -P if the I have to wait to reward. after sit and stare becomes the acceptable criteria, I only reward that criteria. then i reward only for faster repetitions. then I only reward every other sit and put it on a variable reward schedule. 

At some point I would bring in correction +P and distraction. 


Your idea that the liklihood of neither behavior increasing is an incorrect assumption because they are not mutually exclusive behaviors. they can happen together and get stronger as you go. what is the dog being rewarded for in the end? A higher criteria that I had planned in the beginning and I made it seem like a good idea to the dog through reinforcing successively approximated parts of a target behavior which is sit AND stare.

Questions or comments? Your arguement that neither is reinforced is shot down. If the sit criteria is butt on ground and then becomes butt on ground next to foot, it is the same thing as described above. I used the eyes and sit to separate the two and make it more easily understandable.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Raegan Walter said:


> Shaping is driven by extinction bursts.


can you elaborate?


----------



## Matt Vandart

Dave I understand what you are saying but none of that talks about the probability of reinforcement actually working.

I know it works, I know what you are saying works but it doesn't detract from the mathematics of the situation that you cannot predict with Certainty any probability from one event and as such you cannot determine the probability of the behavior being emitted again.

I am skeptical that shaping is a series of extinction events but i am willing to accept that premise if you can explain it further.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Ok I am going to go off on a tangent to attempt to explain why IMO theories are questionable and still work.

Taking electricity as an example.
Before J.J. Thompson demonstrated that electricity could move through a vacuum electricity was thought to be a fluid.
By travelling through a vacuum it was decided electricity was a negatively charged particle and as such the theory of electrodynamics was defunct.
YET
Electrodynamics had already lead to the invention of batteries, electric motors and dynamos.


Taking particles as an example and the fact they can be also waveforms at the same time and indeed are.

How can that be? Either something is one thing or it is another.

Well no, it depends on perspective and in my opinion perspective in respect to time.

For example take a piece of spaghetti if you look at it from the side it is long and vaguely rectangular if you look at it in profile it is vaguely circular.

If you had never seen spaghetti before and you were shown a picture of it in profile you would say spaghetti is circular. Then if you were shown a picture from the side and asked what that is you would not automatically say it was spaghetti and say 'how can both be spaghetti?'
Then they give you a piece of spaghetti and you see the whole picture.

This addition of further knowledge has allowed humans to progress rapidly in terms of technological advancement.
What if no one had questioned electrodynamics theory? 
If batteries and motors and dynamos had already been invented and were being used practically was there any need?
The advantages of such questioning is clear and obvious now but maybe not at the time, because electrodynamics, treating electricity as a fluid was working just fine.

Operant conditioning as an explanation works just fine but never questioning it will lead to stagnation and like the reinforcement after a couple of hundred events will yield no advances. 

On a point you said earlier about you can make the sit faster etc this is a new behavior even if it seems to be the same sit behaviour, so the OC probability/reinforcement/ frequency condition resets to zero at the point of 'sit' the behavior, being learned in order that 'sit faster' can be learned.

If you think my opinion of OC is a bit ****ed up I can start on my theory of how time travel could be possible? We can all have laugh then.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Matt.

you admit you know it works. How? 



Matt Vandart said:


> Dave I understand what you are saying but none of that talks about the probability of reinforcement actually working.
> 
> I know it works, I know what you are saying works but it doesn't detract from the mathematics of the situation that you cannot predict with Certainty any probability from one event and as such you cannot determine the probability of the behavior being emitted again.
> 
> I am skeptical that shaping is a series of extinction events but i am willing to accept that premise if you can explain it further.


----------



## Joby Becker

Dave Colborn said:


> Pete Cavallaro??


No it is not Pete. Pete is doing fine in AUS and is not concerned with much of this type of talking  dont know it for sure, but would bet on it..

I correspond with Pete occasionally...


----------



## Matt Vandart

Lol I am Australian.

Dave i am not admitting anything, I am stating as I have many times that it works.

Just like the theory of electrodynamics I mentioned above.
I have no 'problem' with OC, like I have also stated many times I just don't think it is the whole picture because of the flaw with the probability.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

There I have to disagree with you Ariel.

"Punishing" the dog by a gentle tug on the sharpened collar will draw the dog's face to you and in this second the verbal reward is spoken. Here, the reward will outweigh the tug which you refer to as "punishment".

First of all, I do not see this as a punishment. I am merely drawing the dog's attention to me. Verbal corrections to the dog will often grow stale with too much use - the slight tug is only used in training and has much effect.

Also, I can assure you and every one else on here, at the beginning of using the sharpened prong I checked out my dog's neck for scars - none. The Briard has practically no "undercoat"!!

This may be an issue that cannot be described verbally but must be shown, as my trainer did, arm in arm with me and the dog.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Connie Sutherland said:


> _"I can do any other thousand things after I remove my hand, not just one. "_
> 
> 
> Just like the pop for pulling not being "something added to encourage a behavior (walk closer)."


But when I "pop" (you guys have some pop language!) it is *immediately* rewarded by a verbal reward. My dog always melted when this came 

The reward outweighs, or should do, the "pop".


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Gillian Schuler said:


> There I have to disagree with you Ariel.
> 
> "Punishing" the dog by a gentle tug on the sharpened collar will draw the dog's face to you and in this second the verbal reward is spoken. Here, the reward will outweigh the tug which you refer to as "punishment".
> 
> First of all, I do not see this as a punishment. I am merely drawing the dog's attention to me. Verbal corrections to the dog will often grow stale with too much use - the slight tug is only used in training and has much effect.
> 
> Also, I can assure you and every one else on here, at the beginning of using the sharpened prong I checked out my dog's neck for scars - none. The Briard has practically no "undercoat"!!
> 
> This may be an issue that cannot be described verbally but must be shown, as my trainer did, arm in arm with me and the dog.


Sorry Ariel I forgot to quote your thread - I hope you can relate to this?


----------



## Louise Jollyman

Matt Vandart said:


> Dave how does OC explain shaping?
> No two identical events are reinforced yet learning still occurs, so frequency (actually probability) and thus reinforcement is out the window


Ok, took a long walk in the woods with the dogs thinking about this, and I think I've got you - finally . I was thinking about teaching the retrieve, I put a dumbell on the ground, and click and treat the dog for looking at it, then maybe the dog spontaneously takes a step towards the dumbell. Why did he do that, he wasn't reinforced for that, he was reinforced for looking. Aren't dogs great? They experiment to see what we want. Can they think that if I was rewarded for looking, stepping towards it is going to be better?

It's not explained by extinction bursts because that happens when one behavior has been reinforced a lot of times and then suddenly not reinforced.

I guess when I was thinking about the retrieve behavior, I think in broad terms, anything towards the dumbell is rewarded. But how does the dog know that? 

Hmmm, interesting...... and thanks for making me think


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Gillian Schuler said:


> There I have to disagree with you Ariel.
> 
> "Punishing" the dog by a gentle tug on the sharpened collar will draw the dog's face to you and in this second the verbal reward is spoken. Here, the reward will outweigh the tug which you refer to as "punishment".
> 
> First of all, I do not see this as a punishment. I am merely drawing the dog's attention to me. Verbal corrections to the dog will often grow stale with too much use - the slight tug is only used in training and has much effect.
> 
> Also, I can assure you and every one else on here, at the beginning of using the sharpened prong I checked out my dog's neck for scars - none. The Briard has practically no "undercoat"!!
> 
> This may be an issue that cannot be described verbally but must be shown, as my trainer did, arm in arm with me and the dog.


Gillian, what then, is the purpose of the tug if the verbal reinforcement for looking back overrides the tug? I can answer: the tug punishes the behavior of looking away. It doesn't matter how you see it or how mildly you apply it. It is still a consequence of the behavior of looking away that decreases the likelihood of that behavior.


----------



## Louise Jollyman

Gillian Schuler said:


> There I have to disagree with you Ariel.
> 
> "Punishing" the dog by a gentle tug on the sharpened collar will draw the dog's face to you and in this second the verbal reward is spoken. Here, the reward will outweigh the tug which you refer to as "punishment".
> 
> First of all, I do not see this as a punishment. I am merely drawing the dog's attention to me. Verbal corrections to the dog will often grow stale with too much use - the slight tug is only used in training and has much effect.


But according to OC it is punishment if it reduces the likelihood of the dog looking away. It doesn't mean it is terrible, just means that it reduces behavior. In OC terms, you most likely just used +P and then +R. But you don't have to use OC terms if you don't want to, if you are happy with your training and what is working and you don't want to wrap your brain around this stuff - don't :grin: just be happy.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Gillian Schuler said:


> But when I "pop" (you guys have some pop language!) it is *immediately* rewarded by a verbal reward. My dog always melted when this came
> 
> The reward outweighs, or should do, the "pop".


I use the same method and have no criticism of how you apply pops or praise ... just that the pop is still positive punishment for looking away and then verbal reward is still positive reinforcement for looking back to you.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Ariel Peldunas said:


> Gillian, what then, is the purpose of the tug if the verbal reinforcement for looking back overrides the tug? I can answer: the tug punishes the behavior of looking away. It doesn't matter how you see it or how mildly you apply it. It is still a consequence of the behavior of looking away that decreases the likelihood of that behavior.


Ok Ariel, call it a "punishment" when the dog is inattentive. However I "call the dog back to be attentive" is, as you say, immaterial.

Why does this affect the dog. I must admit I only took my dog to IPO 3 but had obedience scores of over 90 and very often had to "swear under my breath" at him whilst walking up the 50 steps away from the judge just so that he remained in control.

I would never belittle your communications but would always reiterate - no verbal communication about the dog can ever replace the training on the field. 

Every handler, each dog is unique and has to be closely observed by a trainer. It is simply not possible to train a dog from theory, although I follow your comments with interest. Have even copied some out to read at leasure.


----------



## Joby Becker

> Did he just happen to go faster and you reward with a shut off?


missed that one upon re-reading..no I do not reward with a shut-off for going faster, I reward with a shut-off at the same instant I would if the dog was crawling, or running in circles, the reward comes when action is completed. just as the reward with the toy or food comes.




Terrasita Cuffie said:


> You seriously think its unplanned when you start with the premise that the dog sees it as an aversive. Do you really think its unplanned when you put the collar on the dog, decide the level of electrical current and press the button. You equate you to god or Mother Nature where that dog is concerned? I still say it stops a behavior you don't want--slowness and to that extent it can be a punisher. You can disagree with that--fine. What difference does it make what label it is? Dog is working off avoiding something the dog finds unpleasant. We don't have to put any OC label on it. Use of words like positive and reinforcement gives some sort of subliminal warm and fuzzy squeeze. Use of words like aversive, stim/stimulus, stress further renmove the human from what the animal is experiencing. Plenty of animals will tolerate an aversive to get to something they want. Doesn't change what it is or its affect on a behavior or the animals mentality. Nor does your intent change what it is to the animal. As for the happy, anytime something stops that you didn't want to occur, I guess you would give a happy dance or at least be relieved. All you know regarding how the dog views it is what he does in repsonse to it Here it is unpleasant enough that he stops his slow behavior and performs a faster behavior or in your scheme he does what he can to shut it of--increases speed.


Your use of the word punishment is wrong in definition, as also attempts to place an undesirbale connotation to the method, it is not punishment by definition or practice.

T. the added speed is one result, it is not the only result. The dog is completing the action to get his rewards. 




Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Now for your question about placeboards--all positive reinforcement. No puninshment or witholding reward. When you are free shaping something, you aren't using negative punishment but if you beleive that--that's fine. Nor do I care that avesives are involved in training. If one of the dogs is eating one of my ducks, he'll deal with an aversive.


if one of your dogs is eating a duck of yours I imagine he would get more than an aversive, he would get a punishment, that was much stronger than what I consider an aversive.



> This was a free shaped activity. Once she figured it out, there was no stopping her and she's so fast, I need to find a way to make the mat stick to the floor. This dog has off the chart food drive and picks up on anything within seconds to minutes. For the dog with issues, the aversive is someting in the environment itself--nothing I'm inflicting.


averive is aversive, regardless if it is the environment or -r is used by the handler..source is irrelevant. it is still there. 



> Interestingly enough put her in an environment that stresses her and EVERYTHING is performed faster which I'm rewarding. I'm only hoping that by adding the reward, it will increase her tolerance for what she perceives as an aversive or neutralize it.


not surprising at all, if the "stress" is lessened upon reward".

Your aversive is different in origin of course.WHAT IS THE AVERSIVE WITH THE DOG IN QUESTION?

you are getting it sort of, the perception of the dog , and the tolerance of the how dog views averisves can and does often change. 
as I said, it just is...there is no cause for it..your are choosing to train your dog where environmental aversive is present, therefore introducing the aversive to the dog, I am choosing to introduce the aversive the same as you are. of course we both have the option of not having the aversive present.



> We shall see. I only know about your negative reinforcement training and speed what you and others have stated about it. As for your wrong again and increase for reliability. If the dog didnt view it as an aversive to stop or get away from, how effective would it be for increasing your reliabiity.


not sure what you asking, if the dog did not view it as an aversive condition, it would not be -R, 



> In escape training, your dog is moving faster to avoid something unpleasant in your training scenario. Once your take that collar off and he move's faster in anticipation of reward, then you have him working to get something. Once you condition him with avoidance training, that's what it is. As for your happy x2, I guess you need to tell yourself that since you keep bringing up the happy stuff.


I dont need to tell myself that, I am telling you that, it is 2 times the reward, without punishment. I am not emotional about my dog training, and do not think there is anything wrong with what I am doing, and the dogs drive increased as does the speed and reliability, when employing -R methods..

the aversives that I use are not much more stressful to the dog most of the time, than withholding the reward is to the dog. 

in my scenario, the dog is working to get something, his reward, he anticipates both rewards, the one we disagree on, and the other reward, the toy, or whatever it is. 



> But really, watching how this thread has progressed, I can see the reasoning for the viewpoint of screw the labeling, I'll just do what works for me.


that is fine, not trying to get to use methods that dont fit your training, and not trying to get you to strap on an ecollar and try it, especially if you do not know how to do it correctly.

the issues I have with your portrayal of the method is your introduction of words such as punishment and the it seems to be used in..punishment can also be just witholding a toy.

I also have a problem with your use of the word fear in regards to it, there is no fear involved..you may say pain in some cases I suppose, pain is a huge motivator to a dog usually, but I am not even saying I use pain..

it is more of a pestering, uncomfortable stimulus... like the pouring rain..not a painful or fear inducing one...

I also think that you are assuming that the dog is conscious that it is me causing the aversive to turn on or off, I am not willing to deny that 100% as a possibility, but I am also not convinced that the dog is aware that I am causing it, the dog may be viewing it as just something that happens.

please if nothing else, elaborate on what your environmental aversive is in your example, am interested in that, and its relevance in this discussion.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Gillian Schuler said:


> Ok Ariel, call it a "punishment" when the dog is inattentive. However I "call the dog back to be attentive" is, as you say, immaterial.
> 
> Why does this affect the dog. I must admit I only took my dog to IPO 3 but had obedience scores of over 90 *and very often had to "swear under my breath" at him whilst walking up the 50 steps away from the judge just so that he remained in control.*
> 
> I would never belittle your communications but would always reiterate - no verbal communication about the dog can ever replace the training on the field.
> 
> Every handler, each dog is unique and has to be closely observed by a trainer. It is simply not possible to train a dog from theory, although I follow your comments with interest. Have even copied some out to read at leasure.


Hahahahaha! I chuckled at this bit because I can relate entirely, did you will him to stay there also?


----------



## Matt Vandart

louise jollyman said:


> ok, took a long walk in the woods with the dogs thinking about this, and i think i've got you - finally . I was thinking about teaching the retrieve, i put a dumbell on the ground, and click and treat the dog for looking at it, then maybe the dog spontaneously takes a step towards the dumbell. Why did he do that, he wasn't reinforced for that, he was reinforced for looking. Aren't dogs great? They experiment to see what we want. Can they think that if i was rewarded for looking, stepping towards it is going to be better?
> 
> It's not explained by extinction bursts because that happens when one behavior has been reinforced a lot of times and then suddenly not reinforced.
> 
> I guess when i was thinking about the retrieve behavior, i think in broad terms, anything towards the dumbell is rewarded. But how does the dog know that?
> 
> Hmmm, interesting...... And thanks for making me think



bingo!


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Matt Vandart said:


> I posted this in the original thread but I thought I better post it here as well to clear up some confusion:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to operant conditioning as a general model.
> 
> The main downfall of the concept as I see it is the second part of each quadrant 'to increase/decrease the frequency of a behaviour'
> 
> My problem with this is its about probability. To make it short but I can really write an essay on this if you would like, is it introduces uncertainty into the equation.
> 
> Probability (future frequency) by definition is about (un)certainty.
> 
> You can never really know if your reinforcement is actually reinforcing a behavior.
> 
> Lets take for example shaping. I will assume everyone involved in this conversation is well versed or at least familiar with the concept of shaping.
> How does shaping fit in with the ideals/concepts of OC in terms of probability (increase/decrease of frequency of a behavior).
> 
> Short answer is it doesn't.
> If the reinforcing event worked as OC describes then shaping would not work (please correct me if I am wrong)
> 
> What I am trying to say in all my posts is that OC as a concept has flaws DESPITE it seeming apparent. I am not in any of my posts trying to teach anyone they are getting the concept of OC incorrect. I am looking at the concept itself as a thinking human being and questioning it's validity as an all encompassing bible on animal behavior.
> I don't doubt that as a method of behavior modification it is a very effective tool, which works, I just believe that as an explanation of what is occurring in real life it is not without question.
> 
> As a side note, many people here seem to think I have no real understanding of the OC concept. This is an incorrect assumption. I am very well 'versed' in the strict dogma of the concept.
> This very fact is the reason I question it.
> 
> Just for clarification as we are clarifying terms here:


Have you ever free shaped a behavior in an animal? If so what? As I said before, generally I think this is pointless because you already have a preconceived belief and NOTHING is going to change your mind but I'm curious what the basis of the belief is.


T


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I must admit that I am having problems with methods of correction.

Some of us (no names mentioned) are talkiing theoretically. Some of us are talking about training and further on to trialling.

Would it be possible to segregate the two?

On my part I am taling about trialling.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Have you ever free shaped a behavior in an animal? If so what? As I said before, generally I think this is pointless because you already have a preconceived belief and NOTHING is going to change your mind but I'm curious what the basis of the belief is.
> 
> 
> T


Yes I have and my statement stands.

I am going to look for some links on the internet that support my problem of probability in OC.

If I cannot find it I will look through all my books I own to find something that backs me up.
If I fail in this endevour then I will completely concede to the opinion that there is no problem to do with probability in OC or shaping.

Edit: also I am not trying to change anyone else mind so why would you or anyone else be trying to change mine.
My ideas are not preconceived, I have conceived them myself after having started out using OC with no question at all, thinking about how it works and coming ti my own conclusion. This is something I have thought about not just pulled out of my ass two days ago


----------



## Nicole Stark

Louise Jollyman said:


> I guess when I was thinking about the retrieve behavior, I think in broad terms, anything towards the dumbell is rewarded. But how does the dog know that?
> 
> Hmmm, interesting...... and thanks for making me think


Through differential reinforcement of successive approximations.


----------



## Louise Jollyman

Nicole Stark said:


> Through differential reinforcement of successive approximations.


How does the dog know to perform a new approximation?


----------



## Jennifer Coulter

Louise Jollyman said:


> How does the dog know to perform a new approximation?


Because the reward is withheld, so the dog tries something else?


----------



## Louise Jollyman

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Because the reward is withheld, so the dog tries something else?


Why, according to +R, he should just keep doing the behavior that was rewarded before. Maybe there is some -P going on here as he tries different things until he gets another reward. 

However, what makes the dog try something else? 

How would that be explained in OC. Would -P be enough?

Just continuing with the brain exercise here :-D


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Joby Becker said:


> missed that one upon re-reading..no I do not reward with a shut-off for going faster, I reward with a shut-off at the same instant I would if the dog was crawling, or running in circles, the reward comes when action is completed. just as the reward with the toy or food comes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of the word punishment is wrong in definition, as also attempts to place an undesirbale connotation to the method, it is not punishment by definition or practice.
> 
> T. the added speed is one result, it is not the only result. The dog is completing the action to get his rewards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if one of your dogs is eating a duck of yours I imagine he would get more than an aversive, he would get a punishment, that was much stronger than what I consider an aversive.
> 
> 
> 
> averive is aversive, regardless if it is the environment or -r is used by the handler..source is irrelevant. it is still there.
> 
> 
> 
> not surprising at all, if the "stress" is lessened upon reward".
> 
> Your aversive is different in origin of course.WHAT IS THE AVERSIVE WITH THE DOG IN QUESTION?
> 
> you are getting it sort of, the perception of the dog , and the tolerance of the how dog views averisves can and does often change.
> as I said, it just is...there is no cause for it..your are choosing to train your dog where environmental aversive is present, therefore introducing the aversive to the dog, I am choosing to introduce the aversive the same as you are. of course we both have the option of not having the aversive present.
> 
> 
> 
> not sure what you asking, if the dog did not view it as an aversive condition, it would not be -R,
> 
> 
> 
> I dont need to tell myself that, I am telling you that, it is 2 times the reward, without punishment. I am not emotional about my dog training, and do not think there is anything wrong with what I am doing, and the dogs drive increased as does the speed and reliability, when employing -R methods..
> 
> the aversives that I use are not much more stressful to the dog most of the time, than withholding the reward is to the dog.
> 
> in my scenario, the dog is working to get something, his reward, he anticipates both rewards, the one we disagree on, and the other reward, the toy, or whatever it is.
> 
> 
> 
> that is fine, not trying to get to use methods that dont fit your training, and not trying to get you to strap on an ecollar and try it, especially if you do not know how to do it correctly.
> 
> the issues I have with your portrayal of the method is your introduction of words such as punishment and the it seems to be used in..punishment can also be just witholding a toy.
> 
> I also have a problem with your use of the word fear in regards to it, there is no fear involved..you may say pain in some cases I suppose, pain is a huge motivator to a dog usually, but I am not even saying I use pain..
> 
> it is more of a pestering, uncomfortable stimulus... like the pouring rain..not a painful or fear inducing one...
> 
> I also think that you are assuming that the dog is conscious that it is me causing the aversive to turn on or off, I am not willing to deny that 100% as a possibility, but I am also not convinced that the dog is aware that I am causing it, the dog may be viewing it as just something that happens.
> 
> please if nothing else, elaborate on what your environmental aversive is in your example, am interested in that, and its relevance in this discussion.


Joby, if i withhold reward, my dog can choose to perform the behavior or he may even quit. That's not going to happen with that continuous buzz. As you said, its something the dog wants to shut off or stop so this will never be a pure working for reward other than the reward of shutting it off. Like you said, he gets two. Are they equally motivating? No way would I equate the two but you would because that'something you tell yourself to justify it or justify it to others. For me its semantics at best as to what you call it. What I can't stand is the idea of this is something pleasant for the dog as you toss in words like happy and increasing the like. Use it to your heart's content but enough of the euphemisms. People will use the word fear in defense as concern for their well being but you have a problem with that when its electrical current and you say the dog wants to stop the current. I'm glad you know from the dog's point of view what the sensation is and how he feels about it and can equate it to your human hypothetical. Truthfully, can you, do you really know. Do you really care? I love the dog doesn't know where it comes from argument too. Agreed. Some do. Some don't. How relevant is that? Some think it comes from somewhere in the environment. I have someone who wants to work with me training-wise and after her story of e-collar training with the retrieve, I'm convinced the dog thinks it came from the dumbell. I've seen some think it came from that spot in the ground. Then the smart one will know its daddy pushing the button. But really it doesn't matter. Rather than hear all these comparatives and justifications, I'd just soon see someone say its what they do because they like it and it works for them. That's my take on what I do and why I do it. 

So the reward comes when the action is completed and the speed is only a by-product of the buzz and becomes a part of the trained behavior. Very similar to my environmental fear/stress dog. Your dog is having a physiological response to stress and you are capitalizing on that. See that's not something I would CHOOSE for the dog. I'm hoping to get rid of that state of mind. I am choosing to work my dog with a stressor to GET HER OVER THE STRESSOR SO IT NO LONGER IS A STRESSOR. Apples and oranges, Joby. There is a reason they call the type of trianing you do "escape training." I feel the dog I'm working is in a similar state of mind when she feels environmental stress. That stress comes from changing indoor environments and I think when there is increased stimuli in the environment. I'm not using the environment to establish the speed behavior as part of another behavior. I'm hoping over time to get rid of the physiological stress reactions. I don't believe all that cortisol/adrenaline release is good for the dog in the long run. I prefer a dog that has as little stress as possible in the work. They tend to be the most consistent performers. I know of a stress case and have resolved that what keeps him the game is fear and avoidance of a stronger stimulus--his owner's corrections. I have watched that dog do every physiological stress response known in these heightened states. 


T


----------



## Nicole Stark

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Because the reward is withheld, so the dog tries something else?


Yes. 

I really didn't mean to insert myself into this discussion but something I wanted to comment on is that intuitively the stove example appears to me to be a situation of classical conditioning (reflexive/involuntary) vs OC which is why I think there was some difficulty in trying to find a way that it fit the OC paradigm.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Matt Vandart said:


> Hahahahaha! I chuckled at this bit because I can relate entirely, did you will him to stay there also?


I swore under my breah I would have his guts for garters if he didn't obey.

It's amazing how "whispering" can work especially when someone like me shouts out commands without thinking about it.


----------



## Louise Jollyman

Nicole Stark said:


> Yes.
> 
> I really didn't mean to insert myself into this discussion but something I wanted to comment on is that intuitively the stove example appears to me to be a situation of classical conditioning (reflexive/involuntary) vs OC which is why I think there was some difficulty in trying to find a way that it fit the OC paradigm.


Yes, I realized that too, was just trying to fit it into the current discussion. However, while the initial response is classical, it becomes operant later, and I still believe the stove is a cue, I don't know about you, but I still don't touch the rings on any stove, red light or not.....


----------



## Matt Vandart

So far I have found nothing on probability but I did find this which was interesting it is from Noam Chomsky:



> The other fundamental notion borrowed from the description of bar-pressing experiments is reinforcement. It raises problems which are similar, and even more serious. In Behavior of Organisms, "the operation of reinforcement is defined as the presentation of a certain kind of stimulus in a temporal relation with either a stimulus or response. A reinforcing stimulus is defined as such by its power to produce the resulting change [in strength]. There is no circularity about this: some stimuli are found to produce the change, others not, and they are classified as reinforcing and nonreinforcing accordingly" (62). This is a perfectly appropriate definition12 for the study of schedules of reinforcement. It is perfectly useless, however, in the discussion of real-life behavior, unless we can somehow characterize the stimuli which are reinforcing (and the situations and conditions under which they are reinforcing). Consider first of all the status of the basic principle that Skinner calls the "law of conditioning" (law of effect). It reads: "if the occurrence of an operant is followed by presence of a reinforcing stimulus, the strength is increased" (Behavior of Organisms, 21). As reinforcement was defined, this law becomes a tautology.13 For Skinner, learning is just change in response strength.14 Although the statement that presence of reinforcement is a sufficient condition for learning and maintenance of behavior is vacuous, the claim that it is a necessary condition may have some content, depending on how the class of reinforcers (and appropriate situations) is characterized. Skinner does make it very clear that in his view reinforcement is a necessary condition for language learning and for the continued availability of linguistic responses in the adult.15 However, the looseness of the term reinforcement as Skinner uses it in the book under review makes it entirely pointless to inquire into the truth or falsity of this claim. Examining the instances of what Skinner calls reinforcement, we find that not even the requirement that a reinforcer be an identifiable stimulus is taken seriously. *In fact, the term is used in such a way that the assertion that reinforcement is necessary for learning and continued availability of behavior is likewise empty.*


What I said ^^^^

Noam Chomsky for those who dont know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

He does however clear up the OC/shaping part but does not aproach the problem of probability:



> Suppose that release of the pellet is conditional on the flashing of a light. Then the rat will come to press the bar only when the light flashes. This is called stimulus discrimination. The response is called a discriminated operant and the light is called the occasion for its emission: this is to be distinguished from elicitation of a response by a stimulus in the case of the respondent.2 Suppose that the apparatus is so arranged that bar-pressing of only a certain character (e.g., duration) will release the pellet. The rat will then come to press the bar in the required way. This process is called response differentiation. By successive slight changes in the conditions under which the response will be reinforced, it is possible to shape the response of a rat or a pigeon in very surprising ways in a very short time, so that rather complex behavior can be produced by a process of successive approximation.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

I'm really not sure where the disconnect is. I'm also not sure why it's an easy conclusion to make that because I talk about theory and operant conditioning I can't apply proper training techniques on the field. I've not completed in IPO, but I have trialed a dog to PSA 3 always earning obedience scores. In fact, for both the PSA 1, PSA 2 and PSA 3, I earned the highest obedience scores of the year. Trying to be objective, I believe our obedience routines would have earned high scores in IPOs well.

Although it seems like many people don't believe it, it is possible to both have a grasp of theory and also be able to put it into practice. I train my dogs using both rewards and corrections ... positive reinforcement and positive punishment. I also use some escape training when necessary ... negative reinforcement. through association, I make sure my dog understands that a verbal correction and verbal phrase are the same as physical corrections or tangible rewards that way when I walk onto the trial field I can still punish or reinforce behavior even without a leash, collar or rewards.

Gillian, it doesn't sound like you and I train much differently. I just choose to explain my training in terms of operant conditioning.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Gillian, it doesn't sound like you and I train much differently. I just choose to explain my training in terms of operant conditioning.

That can be


----------



## Louise Jollyman

Interesting reading....if you like this sort of thing!

http://www.caninecognition.com/psychology/Publications_files/Feuerbacher.pdf


----------



## Matt Vandart

I am very interested indeed.

Here have one back, less interesting but interesting question of reinforcement:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psychology/the-concept-of-reinforcement-t16516.html


----------



## Skip Morgart

Gillian Schuler said:


> I swore under my breah I would have his guts for garters if he didn't obey.
> 
> It's amazing how "whispering" can work especially when someone like me shouts out commands without thinking about it.


let's talk more about the garters.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Skip Morgart said:


> let's talk more about the garters.


But it worked!!


----------



## Louise Jollyman

Matt Vandart said:


> I am very interested indeed.
> 
> Here have one back, less interesting but interesting question of reinforcement:
> 
> http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psychology/the-concept-of-reinforcement-t16516.html


I like it. I guess I could see a possibility for an extension of OC or a new hypothesis. Don't get me wrong, I am still going to be a proponent of OC for right now, but I can also see where there are times it might be a bit simplistic. I think this sentence explains it:
_
The implication being that a correlation between a stimulus and a consequence is not enough to change behavior, but that the correlation must be informative or relevant and it is this "information" which increases the behavior, not the correlation._

I was also thinking about "101 things to do with a box" (description here - http://www.clickertraining.com/node/167), how the dog is being reinforced for being creative or trying a new behavior. Not sure that OC provides the explanation of +R with the behavior being "gimme something new". The behavior we are reinforcing is creativity, not a specific behavior.

Cool


----------



## Matt Vandart

Indeed!

On a side note although no one may have guessed it, I am an avid promoter of OC, because its simplicity is its win factor and it works.


----------



## Joby Becker

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Joby, if i withhold reward, my dog can choose to perform the behavior or he may even quit. That's not going to happen with that continuous buzz. As you said, its something the dog wants to shut off or stop so this will never be a pure working for reward other than the reward of shutting it off. Like you said, he gets two. Are they equally motivating?


when I use this method it is coupled with marker training and variable, and use of rewards on a variable schedule, I do not always use R-, but do use -R, -P, as well as +P, everytime I am training...I am using usually a healthy mix of all of the quadrants. So I cannot say which is more motivation to the dog .I also do not reward my dog for every behavior it does when I ask it, in real life, and rarely ask the dog to do things, and rarely allow much room for options other than what I want. I am thinking we have fairly different dogs, and with the type of dogs I like to own, allowing them choices, usually does not work out well for anyone. I do not allow my dog to quit either, if given a command. quitting means the dog did not comply...

You asked which is more motivating? all I can say is that since I use both the +R and the -R at times, when using the -R in conjunction with the +R, the motivation appears to be stronger than if just using +R.

like the rain example, if someone told me they would pay me a dollar everytime to run to my car, I may or may not do it, depending on a few factors..

If it is pouring rain, I will almost always run to the car.

If they told me they would pay me a dollar everytime I ran to my car in the pouring rain, I would always run to the car.



> No way would I equate the two but you would because that'something you tell yourself to justify it or justify it to others. For me its semantics at best as to what you call it.


it seems you are now using the term motivation to only mean something pleasurable, motivation comes from many many sources..



> What I can't stand is the idea of this is something pleasant for the dog as you toss in words like happy and increasing the like. Use it to your heart's content but enough of the euphemisms.


I am quite sure the dog is happier and gets a pleasant feeling when aversive is removed and additional reward is given. and I use increasing, because it does increase performance, plain and simple, for me and lots of others.



> People will use the word fear in defense as concern for their well being but you have a problem with that when its electrical current and you say the dog wants to stop the current. I'm glad you know from the dog's point of view what the sensation is and how he feels about it and can equate it to your human hypothetical. Truthfully, can you, do you really know. Do you really care? I love the dog doesn't know where it comes from argument too. Agreed. Some do. Some don't. How relevant is that? * Some think it comes from somewhere in the environment.*


like the pouring rain does.
I dont use the word fear becuase there are no signs of fear present, I am well aware of the signs of dogs in fear. Like I said it is for sure discomfort and for some may be even passing into the among the least perceptable pain thresholds...

People go to work everyday and do hard jobs that cause them discomfort, or even pain, does this mean they fear the job? dogs jump headfirst into things that cause them pain, all the time, without being fearful...fear is just not a word I would use if what I am describing is done correctly.

can I make a dog fearful of the ecollar? sure? can I make him operate out of fear without an ecaollar? sure.. but that is not what I am talking about..



> I have someone who wants to work with me training-wise and after her story of e-collar training with the retrieve, I'm convinced the dog thinks it came from the dumbell. I've seen some think it came from that spot in the ground.


you are attempting to lump in the ecollar usage with this dog into what we are discussing, which I am sure was quite different.. if the dog is showing superstitious behaviors, it surely was not used correctly, in my book anyhow...



> Then the smart one will know its daddy pushing the button. But really it doesn't matter. Rather than hear all these comparatives and justifications, I'd just soon see someone say its what they do because they like it and it works for them. That's my take on what I do and why I do it.


just offering different perspective on it than you are offering, which is fear, superstitious behaviors, painful, non-motivational.. etc.etc. 



> So the reward comes when the action is completed and the speed is only a by-product of the buzz and becomes a part of the trained behavior. Very similar to my environmental fear/stress dog. Your dog is having a physiological response to stress and you are capitalizing on that.


I am quite sure the picture of your dog which is fearful of whatever it is, is probably considerably different than the picture of what I am doing looks like.



> See that's not something I would CHOOSE for the dog. I'm hoping to get rid of that state of mind. I am choosing to work my dog with a stressor to GET HER OVER THE STRESSOR SO IT NO LONGER IS A STRESSOR. Apples and oranges, Joby.


stressors are added into training all the time. I am quite sure the stress of having high value reward visibly withheld, while dog is offering up multiple behaviors, and/or quitting, is at least as stressful as the very minor stims I am giving a dog when using that method.




> There is a reason they call the type of trianing you do "escape training." I feel the dog I'm working is in a similar state of mind when she feels environmental stress.


Most likely not comparable, your dog is fearful of the environment, my dog is not fearful, just annoyed, or under some sort of minor pain, and is in no way shape or form scared of the ecollar, like I said, she likes to wear it very much...



> That stress comes from changing indoor environments and I think when there is increased stimuli in the environment. I'm not using the environment to establish the speed behavior as part of another behavior. I'm hoping over time to get rid of the physiological stress reactions.


I really really wish you liked to film things, I would love to see a video of this dog that is fearful of the environment and stimuli in it, and then compare that side to side, to a video of me using -R on a dog, then we could see together if there was really any comparison to be made.




> I don't believe all that cortisol/adrenaline release is good for the dog in the long run. *I prefer a dog that has as little stress as possible in the work. They tend to be the most consistent performers.*


that is a huge stretch, maybe your opinion, but for most forms of working dogs, I would not agree at all...stress is a very powerful motivator in dogs. almost all forms of work a dog does include various stressors. and some of the most consitant performers have underwent major amounts of stress in the training process.



> I know of a stress case and have resolved that what keeps him the game is fear and avoidance of a stronger stimulus--his owner's corrections. I have watched that dog do every physiological stress response known in these heightened states.


This guy sounds like a dickhead...what game is he playing that he is kept in. because of his fear?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Louise Jollyman said:


> Why, according to +R, he should just keep doing the behavior that was rewarded before. Maybe there is some -P going on here as he tries different things until he gets another reward.
> 
> However, what makes the dog try something else?
> 
> How would that be explained in OC. Would -P be enough?
> 
> Just continuing with the brain exercise here :-D


I have never read +R as you do or seen it as so static. Maybe that's the problem here. I've free shaped a retrieve on a number of dogs and within that is the concept of "getting the behavior." As have been said regarding successive approximation or what can be referred to as raising the criteria, the dog figures it out even if some resort to environmental inducements to help him. I generally think of -P as something I do with the dog that understands the behavior and doesn't comply; not as part of the shaping process but I gues it could be interpreted that way. I don't think dogs are lab rats and have one dog that will outsmart the entire process if you don't outsmart her but for the most part its a system that has worked well for me and certainly increased reliability on and off the trial field. Generally, if you set out to disprove something, you probably can.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Matt Vandart said:


> Yes I have and my statement stands.
> 
> I am going to look for some links on the internet that support my problem of probability in OC.
> 
> If I cannot find it I will look through all my books I own to find something that backs me up.
> If I fail in this endevour then I will completely concede to the opinion that there is no problem to do with probability in OC or shaping.
> 
> Edit: also I am not trying to change anyone else mind so why would you or anyone else be trying to change mine.
> My ideas are not preconceived, I have conceived them myself after having started out using OC with no question at all, thinking about how it works and coming ti my own conclusion. This is something I have thought about not just pulled out of my ass two days ago


 
I like books and such and have spent tons of time on books, the original studies, etc. It is a system that has evolved and even the Brelands noted exceptions to the rule in terms of instinct and/or hard wired motor patterns. This has been the most interesting to me in terms of herding and how I apply it. I'm really interested in your free shaping process and the results it yielded in terms of the dog's understanding of what the desired behaviors are.

T


----------



## Louise Jollyman

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I have never read +R as you do or seen it as so static. Maybe that's the problem here. I've free shaped a retrieve on a number of dogs and within that is the concept of "getting the behavior." As have been said regarding successive approximation or what can be referred to as raising the criteria, the dog figures it out even if some resort to environmental inducements to help him. I generally think of -P as something I do with the dog that understands the behavior and doesn't comply; not as part of the shaping process but I gues it could be interpreted that way. I don't think dogs are lab rats and have one dog that will outsmart the entire process if you don't outsmart her but for the most part its a system that has worked well for me and certainly increased reliability on and off the trial field. Generally, if you set out to disprove something, you probably can.
> 
> T


I was just playing around with concepts and my own thinking, I like to continue to learn and also challenge my own "rules". It doesn't stop me being a proponent of OC or from using it in my training.

I am just starting my 12th clicker retrieve and continue to refine and change the process a bit.....


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Joby Becker said:


> when I use this method it is coupled with marker training and variable, and use of rewards on a variable schedule, I do not always use R-, but do use -R, -P, as well as +P, everytime I am training...I am using usually a healthy mix of all of the quadrants. So I cannot say which is more motivation to the dog .I also do not reward my dog for every behavior it does when I ask it, in real life, and rarely ask the dog to do things, and rarely allow much room for options other than what I want. I am thinking we have fairly different dogs, and with the type of dogs I like to own, allowing them choices, usually does not work out well for anyone. I do not allow my dog to quit either, if given a command. quitting means the dog did not comply...
> 
> You asked which is more motivating? all I can say is that since I use both the +R and the -R at times, when using the -R in conjunction with the +R, the motivation appears to be stronger than if just using +R.
> 
> like the rain example, if someone told me they would pay me a dollar everytime to run to my car, I may or may not do it, depending on a few factors..
> 
> If it is pouring rain, I will almost always run to the car.
> 
> If they told me they would pay me a dollar everytime I ran to my car in the pouring rain, I would always run to the car.
> 
> 
> 
> it seems you are now using the term motivation to only mean something pleasurable, motivation comes from many many sources..
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite sure the dog is happier and gets a pleasant feeling when aversive is removed and additional reward is given. and I use increasing, because it does increase performance, plain and simple, for me and lots of others.
> 
> 
> 
> like the pouring rain does.
> I dont use the word fear becuase there are no signs of fear present, I am well aware of the signs of dogs in fear. Like I said it is for sure discomfort and for some may be even passing into the among the least perceptable pain thresholds...
> 
> People go to work everyday and do hard jobs that cause them discomfort, or even pain, does this mean they fear the job? dogs jump headfirst into things that cause them pain, all the time, without being fearful...fear is just not a word I would use if what I am describing is done correctly.
> 
> can I make a dog fearful of the ecollar? sure? can I make him operate out of fear without an ecaollar? sure.. but that is not what I am talking about..
> 
> 
> 
> you are attempting to lump in the ecollar usage with this dog into what we are discussing, which I am sure was quite different.. if the dog is showing superstitious behaviors, it surely was not used correctly, in my book anyhow...
> 
> 
> 
> just offering different perspective on it than you are offering, which is fear, superstitious behaviors, painful, non-motivational.. etc.etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite sure the picture of your dog which is fearful of whatever it is, is probably considerably different than the picture of what I am doing looks like.
> 
> 
> 
> stressors are added into training all the time. I am quite sure the stress of having high value reward visibly withheld, while dog is offering up multiple behaviors, and/or quitting, is at least as stressful as the very minor stims I am giving a dog when using that method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most likely not comparable, your dog is fearful of the environment, my dog is not fearful, just annoyed, or under some sort of minor pain, and is in no way shape or form scared of the ecollar, like I said, she likes to wear it very much...
> 
> 
> 
> I really really wish you liked to film things, I would love to see a video of this dog that is fearful of the environment and stimuli in it, and then compare that side to side, to a video of me using -R on a dog, then we could see together if there was really any comparison to be made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that is a huge stretch, maybe your opinion, but for most forms of working dogs, I would not agree at all...stress is a very powerful motivator in dogs. almost all forms of work a dog does include various stressors. and some of the most consitant performers have underwent major amounts of stress in the training process.
> 
> 
> 
> This guy sounds like a dickhead...what game is he playing that he is kept in. because of his fear?


Joby,

If you didn't know my dog, you'd probably think she was just drivey. Most people don't pick up on it. She 'looks happy" and loves to engage people and is a working fool. I know when the stress kicks in and the physiological manifestations of it--speed, mucosa goes from black to pale black and even pink, panting. Like you, I pair everything with this dog with marker training, but with +R/reward only. I do not want to increase stress with corrections and I'm trying to desensitive/habituate or whatever term you want to use. Stress is like a continum that when that cortisol/adrenaline activates, you get to flight/fight behaviors. For me escape is flight. My dog willingly pulls to go to that environment but its also a stress for her. If that stress peaks and overloads, her reactivity increases and you will see flight/escape response. I think that same process is active in escape training. 

As for the other dog, competitive obedience with typical scores of 192-196/200 which is really all they care about. He's had lots of R- and P+ coupled also with inability to adapt to different environments so there is handler induced as well as environmentally induced stress at play. Every time I start talking about the dog's mental state, he prints off his title record to show me. The end justifies the mean.

Interesting discussion that adds context to discussions in the past involving some aspects of protection training and particularly when I think of what has been said of Lance Collins training and "adding stress."

T


----------



## Dave Colborn

Louise Jollyman said:


> How does the dog know to perform a new approximation?


-P

this is interesting


----------



## Dave Colborn

so what is the disscussion?




Matt Vandart said:


> Lol I am Australian.
> 
> Dave i am not admitting anything, I am stating as I have many times that it works.
> 
> Just like the theory of electrodynamics I mentioned above.
> I have no 'problem' with OC, like I have also stated many times I just don't think it is the whole picture because of the flaw with the probability.


----------



## James Downey

Louise Jollyman said:


> Why, according to +R, he should just keep doing the behavior that was rewarded before. Maybe there is some -P going on here as he tries different things until he gets another reward.
> 
> However, what makes the dog try something else?
> 
> How would that be explained in OC. Would -P be enough?
> 
> Just continuing with the brain exercise here :-D


Well -P is an influence to try a new behavior, because the old behavior is no longer being reinforced. 

But here's what really gets them to try something new. A "drive" if you will that is highly under rated and noticed. The drive to explore. All animals explore, explore behaviors, explore environment. If they did not they would die. It's as essential to survival as is food, water...air. Because we all know little puppies stick close to the den, but then soon explore as they age. Well when a mature dog uses up all it's resources in an area of it's environment it has no choice but to explore. It goes look for more. It's an instinctual behavior. When something stopped producing that once did....they explore new unknown things till the find something that produces.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

James Downey said:


> Well -P is an influence to try a new behavior, because the old behavior is no longer being reinforced.
> 
> But here's what really gets them to try something new. A "drive" if you will that is highly under rated and noticed. The drive to explore. All animals explore, explore behaviors, explore environment. If they did not they would die. It's as essential to survival as is food, water...air. Because we all know little puppies stick close to the den, but then soon explore as they age. Well when a mature dog uses up all it's resources in an area of it's environment it has no choice but to explore. It goes look for more. It's an instinctual behavior. When something stopped producing that once did....they explore new unknown things till the find something that produces.


+1. I've been thinking about the -P in terms of shaping and for some reason it doesn't fit for me but that's probably because of the emotional response to the "P." Watching the dog, it really is more aptly described with your word "explore." The dog is going through a process of what ifs to see what will trigger the slot machine. Whereas the last time I used -P on a trained dog, the look was reall "WTH, you mean its game over????" 

T


----------



## Joby Becker

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Joby,
> 
> *If you didn't know my dog, you'd probably think she was just drivey.* Most people don't pick up on it. She 'looks happy" and loves to engage people and is a working fool. I know when the stress kicks in and the physiological manifestations of it--speed, mucosa goes from black to pale black and even pink, panting. Like you, I pair everything with this dog with marker training, but with +R/reward only. I do not want to increase stress with corrections and I'm trying to desensitive/habituate or whatever term you want to use. Stress is like a continum that when that cortisol/adrenaline activates, you get to flight/fight behaviors. For me escape is flight. My dog willingly pulls to go to that environment but its also a stress for her. If that stress peaks and overloads, her reactivity increases and you will see flight/escape response. I think that same process is active in escape training.
> 
> As for the other dog, competitive obedience with typical scores of 192-196/200 which is really all they care about. He's had lots of R- and P+ coupled also with inability to adapt to different environments so there is handler induced as well as environmentally induced stress at play. Every time I start talking about the dog's mental state, he prints off his title record to show me. The end justifies the mean.
> 
> Interesting discussion that adds context to discussions in the past involving some aspects of protection training and particularly when I think of what has been said of Lance Collins training and "adding stress."
> 
> T


which dog are you referring to? and what is the breed?

stress is stress,
people do protection work day in and day out, everyday, every other day, 2 times a week, on time a week, there is always some form of stress involved. Hell frustration is stress, is it not? Amd there is always stress involved in OB training..

life has its stresses..

thre guy doing OB with a dog in total fear, that guy is an azzhole... I agree with you there...no OB trophys is worth a dog going through major fear and major stress that is so bad he is exhibiting every sign in the book.


----------



## Joby Becker

Joby Becker said:


> which dog are you referring to? and what is the breed?


T?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Hahaha, I'm in and out working dogs. Pembroke Welsh Corgi. As for stress, it depends on the dog. Just because there is an activity, doesn't mean it is a stressor to the dog. The overly reactive nervous system has a LOT to do with this I think. I don't have it all worked out and it remains to be seen how this will pan out and my conclusions will be once I'm done with it. For sure its a genetic issue and something that needs to be bred out. I typically have a dog similar to my bouv--environmental nerves of steel so this is new for me. The stress thing is more of how they handle it, assuming they stress at all. To the degree that I start seeing physiological responses, that's a red flag for me. It would be the same in humans.

T


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Matt Vandart said:


> I posted this in the original thread but I thought I better post it here as well to clear up some confusion:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to operant conditioning as a general model.
> 
> The main downfall of the concept as I see it is the second part of each quadrant 'to increase/decrease the frequency of a behaviour'
> 
> My problem with this is its about probability. To make it short but I can really write an essay on this if you would like, is it introduces uncertainty into the equation.
> 
> Probability (future frequency) by definition is about (un)certainty.
> 
> You can never really know if your reinforcement is actually reinforcing a behavior.
> 
> Lets take for example shaping. I will assume everyone involved in this conversation is well versed or at least familiar with the concept of shaping.
> How does shaping fit in with the ideals/concepts of OC in terms of probability (increase/decrease of frequency of a behavior).
> 
> Short answer is it doesn't.
> If the reinforcing event worked as OC describes then shaping would not work (please correct me if I am wrong)
> 
> What I am trying to say in all my posts is that OC as a concept has flaws DESPITE it seeming apparent. I am not in any of my posts trying to teach anyone they are getting the concept of OC incorrect. I am looking at the concept itself as a thinking human being and questioning it's validity as an all encompassing bible on animal behavior.
> I don't doubt that as a method of behavior modification it is a very effective tool, which works, I just believe that as an explanation of what is occurring in real life it is not without question.
> 
> As a side note, many people here seem to think I have no real understanding of the OC concept. This is an incorrect assumption. I am very well 'versed' in the strict dogma of the concept.
> This very fact is the reason I question it.
> 
> Just for clarification as we are clarifying terms here:


I've been driving all day and have only read bits and pieces of the newest pages of this thread. I'm trying to catch up now and thought I'd give my thoughts on shaping. Sorry if I'm repeating something that's been said by someone else more recently ...I am behind.

I think, when using P+, the behavior doesn't always immediately increase to a noticeable degree. The first time it's reinforced, the dog may not even understand why it was reinforced (works the same for punishment, but I'll stick to reinforcement and keep it simple). That's why we, as the capable trainers we are, don't just show the dog something once and expect it has the behavior down pat. We train the behavior during many sessions, over the course of many days and in many different environments.

When we are shaping, we use the fact that new behaviors aren't learned instantly to our advantage. The dog does something and gets R+. It tries to repeat what it thinks was reinforced and accidentally does something a little closer to the final behavior we are looking for and gets R+. I'm shortening the process for the sake of description, but I think the basis of free shaping is that the dog is sure what's been reinforced so it keeps experimenting to see if it can replicate the last behavior and, in doing so, does something closer to what we want. 

I know if I reward the same behavior in the shaping process too many times, the dog will get hung up and only offer that behavior. Then, we have to go through a mini extinction process in order to decrease the frequency of that behavior and then I have to manipulate the environment to try to get a new behavior closer to the final behavior that I wanted. 

Learning is rarely instant and shaping takes advantage of that. I don't think that contradicts OC at all.


----------



## Nicole Stark

Ariel Peldunas said:


> Learning is rarely instant and shaping takes advantage of that. I don't think that contradicts OC at all.


It certainly does not. Reinforcing responses (shaping) is a fundamental principle of operant conditioning.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Ariel Peldunas said:


> Learning is rarely instant and shaping takes advantage of that. I don't think that contradicts OC at all.


I think there is no contradiction if you firmly believe that reinforcement increases the probability of future emission.

Here is one that really puzzles me and I think may be the key to understanding reinforcement properly.

Randomized scheduling if reinforcement.

Somone help me out here, purely in terms of OC


----------



## Matt Vandart

Should say:

Randomized scheduling of reinforcement.


----------



## Joby Becker

Matt to be honest I have not read your debates very throughly here, I will now, looks like a whopper... 

is there a short sentence or two that you can post, that I can jump in with to see what your main point(s) is/are. to start fresh, without having to hash out whatever everyone is saying.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Yes, no worries.

My opinion I am advocating here is that due to the mathematics of probability we cannot say with certainty that giving a 'reinforcment' for one event
eg.

signal (sit) response (dog sits) outcome (gets a treat)

is going to have an effect on the next signal response i.e the dog is more likely to sit.

therefore is a reinforcer actually reinforcing anything as described by OC

increases the frequency (probability) of any given behavior.

Or is there something else going on?

Edit: to clarify again, I am aware that it works I just don't think OC is an adequate explanation as to why/how it works.


----------



## Joby Becker

Matt Vandart said:


> Yes, no worries.
> 
> My opinion I am advocating here is that due to the mathematics of probability we cannot say with certainty that giving a 'reinforcment' for one event
> eg.
> 
> signal (sit) response (dog sits) outcome (gets a treat)
> 
> is going to have an effect on the next signal response i.e the dog is more likely to sit.
> 
> therefore is a reinforcer actually reinforcing anything as described by OC
> 
> increases the frequency (probability) of any given behavior.
> 
> Or is there something else going on?
> 
> Edit: to clarify again, I am aware that it works I just don't think OC is an adequate explanation as to why/how it works.


so you agree it works, but also do not feel that the reinforcement increases the likelyhood of the behavior repeating? is that correct?

How are you on the punishment side of the OC thing?


----------



## Matt Vandart

Oh no I feel giving the dog a treat works great it's the use of probability in Skinners actual theory that ****s it up.
If he is gonna make such a glaring error how can we say that the theory is 'correct'?
I feel there is something else that I cannot identify that increases the dogs 'propensity' to repeat the same behavior from the same signal.
The signal is affecting the probability/frequency as well as if not more than the so called reinforcer maybe.

I still really need someone to explain randomized reinforcement in terms of OC before I can wrap my head around what the 'extra' thing may be. 

Punishment= 
hmm interesting, hadn't thought of that.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Matt Vandart said:


> Yes, no worries.
> 
> My opinion I am advocating here is that due to the mathematics of probability we cannot say with certainty that giving a 'reinforcment' for one event
> eg.
> 
> signal (sit) response (dog sits) outcome (gets a treat)
> 
> is going to have an effect on the next signal response i.e the dog is more likely to sit.
> 
> therefore is a reinforcer actually reinforcing anything as described by OC
> 
> increases the frequency (probability) of any given behavior.
> 
> Or is there something else going on?
> 
> Edit: to clarify again, I am aware that it works I just don't think OC is an adequate explanation as to why/how it works.


 
Why don't you start with restating Skinner's theory and I'd love to know what behavior you have free shaped and the outcome of that process. Furthermore, as some sort of mathametician, is this merely a question of numbers and probability for you. If you don't think the reinforcment or reward is the reason for the dog repeating the behavior, what is ? 

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Matt Vandart said:


> Oh no I feel giving the dog a treat works great it's the use of probability in Skinners actual theory that ****s it up.
> If he is gonna make such a glaring error how can we say that the theory is 'correct'?
> I feel there is something else that I cannot identify that increases the dogs 'propensity' to repeat the same behavior from the same signal.
> The signal is affecting the probability/frequency as well as if not more than the so called reinforcer maybe.
> 
> I still really need someone to explain randomized reinforcement in terms of OC before I can wrap my head around what the 'extra' thing may be.
> 
> Punishment=
> hmm interesting, hadn't thought of that.


I thought you were a proponent of OC. You need someone to explain variable reinforcement schedules? PLEASE explain what Skinner's glaring error is after you state what you think his theory is .

T


----------



## Matt Vandart

I'm not restating skinners whole theory it would take too much typing.

Randomized reinforcement schedules. The reason why they work is............?

If the standard idea of signal response outcome (positive reinforcement) increases the frequency of a behavior, then why do randomized schedules work best where the 'reinforcement' is left out for much of the time?

also I have stated it many times now, the use of probability.

edit: I have free shaped loads of things from heeling, place position to retrieves, what is the point of me recounting them here?

Also I do not know what it is, I am not just spouting a load of rhetoric here with some answer I have hidden up my sleeve to surprise everyone with for some kind of wacky ego reason, I am interested in working out what it actually is that increases the frequency.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Matt Vandart said:


> I'm not restating skinners whole theory it would take too much typing.
> 
> Randomized reinforcement schedules. The reason why they work is............?
> 
> If the standard idea of signal response outcome (positive reinforcement) increases the frequency of a behavior, then why do randomized schedules work best where the 'reinforcement' is left out for much of the time?
> 
> also I have stated it many times now, the use of probability.
> 
> edit: I have free shaped loads of things from heeling, place position to retrieves, what is the point of me recounting them here?
> 
> Also I do not know what it is, I am not just spouting a load of rhetoric here with some answer I have hidden up my sleeve to surprise everyone with for some kind of wacky ego reason, I am interested in working out what it actually is that increases the frequency.


Maybe it has to due with raising the criteria for the rewarded behavior. Having so called done it, I can't believe the questions actually. It really does depend on the dog in terms of how much you have to randomize. I don't think anyone said randomized works best when reinforcement is left out much of the time. That's why I asked for the restatement. Nor did they say that the probability is based on a 1:1 ratio--necessarily. Skinner did his part and others came later and expanded on it. So I'm curious, what you are attributing to Skinner and what context.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Here is one summary of the experiment. If you accept the summary, what doesn't work for you as far as the theory is concerned?


*In the ‘Skinner box’ experiment, a rat was placed in a cage with a pedal on one side. When the rat pushed the pedal, (the behavior) a food pellet, (the reinforcement) would drop into the cage. The rat quickly recognized that multiple compressions yielded multiple pellets (Skinner). However, there were not mass amounts of these pellets; they had to be made by hand. Skinner, seizing the opportunity to manipulate the situation, established the schedules of reinforcement. *

*The original schedule was also called continuous reinforcement, which is where one pedal press produced one food pellet (Moloney). In the beginning of his experimentation, Skinner discovered the fixed ratio schedule. With this schedule, for every 3 times, 5 times, or even 20 times the pedal was pushed, the rat would receive 1 treat. Skinner’s fixed interval schedule uses time as a variable as opposed to pedal-press repetitions (Moloney). With this schedule however, the rats would speed up their pressing as the time approached for the pellet to drop, as opposed to waiting patiently (Boeree). The last schedule, known as a variable schedule was inconsistent, using neither time nor repetition as a variable, which Skinner compared to the aspect of gambling in humans. *


*Read more: **http://socyberty.com/psychology/operant-conditioning-theory/#ixzz2OyQa5FWj*


----------



## Matt Vandart

What questions can't you believe?

I'm sorry I don't know what you are referring to now, are you referring to free shaping? 

THIS:::::


> Also I do not know what it is, I am not just spouting a load of rhetoric here with some answer I have hidden up my sleeve to surprise everyone with for some kind of wacky ego reason, I am interested in working out what it actually is that increases the frequency.


 IS NOT REFERRING TO FREE SHAPING IT IS REFERRING TO REINFORCEMENT IN GENERAL.

Maybe it does have something to do with raising the criteria, assuming the dog knows that is what is happening :-\"

Take shaping a dog to pick something up.

Does the dog know at the beginning of the training when you place the object on the floor that the aim of the game is picking the object up?
How would raising the criteria have an effect on how reinforcement works?
If the dog new he was getting closer to the ultimate goal and that fact was satisfying for him, then I would understand, but he doesn't so what is going on?

You are progressively asking the dog to do more work for basically less treats (reinforcement)

Dog looks at object- click and treat etc (i'm not going to put all the repetitions in)

Dog looks at object and moves toward object- click and treat etc

Dog looks at object, moves towards it and touches with nose- click and treat.

dog looks at object, moves towards it, touches with nose and opens mouth click and treat blah blah blah 

blah blah blah

Dog retrieves object across a room.

More work less reinforcement.

Randomized schedules have to have more periods overall without reinforcement, that too is mathematics.

Randomized schedule of reinforcement for heeling:

1,7,3,9,1,17,5,9

If we take one step= one response (instead of getting all mixed up in duration)
total number of responses: 52
total number of reinforcements: 8 
total number without reinforcement: 52-8= 44


Taking a variable schedule of reinforcements from 'when Pigs Fly' by Jane Killion which is an awesome book by the way:

Heeling.
Level one: (mean=5 steps): 5 steps 2,6,3,7,3,5,1,7,4,3,5,1: 52 steps total (mad coincidence)

Total number of steps: 52
Total number of reinforcements: 13

that's an awefull lot of responses of the total NOT being reinforced......again, what is going on here then? (assuming the heeler isn't luring the Heelee with a treat in front of its nose).

I am genuinely asking these questions, I am not trying to trick anyone or piss anyone off, I just would like someone to give me a clear answer as to why these things work, when the basic premise of reinforcement is:

To increase the frequency of a behavior.

Seems to me if the reinforcement alone is increasing the frequency the lack of reinforcement is doing a better job according to randomized (variable) reinforcement scheduling.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Here is one summary of the experiment. If you accept the summary, what doesn't work for you as far as the theory is concerned?
> 
> 
> *In the ‘Skinner box’ experiment, a rat was placed in a cage with a pedal on one side. When the rat pushed the pedal, (the behavior) a food pellet, (the reinforcement) would drop into the cage. The rat quickly recognized that multiple compressions yielded multiple pellets (Skinner). However, there were not mass amounts of these pellets; they had to be made by hand. Skinner, seizing the opportunity to manipulate the situation, established the schedules of reinforcement. *
> 
> *The original schedule was also called continuous reinforcement, which is where one pedal press produced one food pellet (Moloney). In the beginning of his experimentation, Skinner discovered the fixed ratio schedule. With this schedule, for every 3 times, 5 times, or even 20 times the pedal was pushed, the rat would receive 1 treat. Skinner’s fixed interval schedule uses time as a variable as opposed to pedal-press repetitions (Moloney). With this schedule however, the rats would speed up their pressing as the time approached for the pellet to drop, as opposed to waiting patiently (Boeree). The last schedule, known as a variable schedule was inconsistent, using neither time nor repetition as a variable, which Skinner compared to the aspect of gambling in humans. *
> 
> 
> *Read more: **http://socyberty.com/psychology/operant-conditioning-theory/#ixzz2OyQa5FWj*


I don't know what you are expecting me to say about this lot.
It has no reference to which yielded the best learning results just that all three types of reinforcement scheduling produced results which appear succesfull.
Its like a stupid alternative health treatment advert 'studies show our product will make you cry tears of pure gold' and '88% of women agreed that hydroxy spheroids worked to moisturize their skin and made them feel younger looking' 
lol


If anything the omission of this information only tells me that reinforcement is not that important a part of increasing frequency.
The rats are hammering away and getting no reinforcement yet they are still hammering away at the pedal.
Emitting more and more of the desired behavior with less reinforcement.

Seeing as we are using the internet to ask questions, I found this on wikipedia, everyone's favorite box of knowledge:



> Fixed ratio: activity slows after reinforcer and then picks up.
> *Variable ratio: high rate of responding greatest activity of all schedules, responding rate is high and stable.*
> Fixed interval: activity increases as deadline nears, can cause fast extinction.
> Variable interval: steady activity results, good resistance to extinction.
> Ratio schedules produce higher rates of responding than interval schedules, when the rates of reinforcement are otherwise similar.
> *Variable schedules produce higher rates and greater resistance to extinction than most fixed schedules. This is also known as the Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect (PREE).
> The variable ratio schedule produces both the highest rate of responding and the greatest resistance to extinction (for example, the behavior of gamblers at slot machines).*


So if variable ratio and variable schedules produce the highest rate of response and resistance to extinction, and they are the least 'reinforced' schedules.
Then, how does reinforcement in isolation increase the frequency of behavior?


Edit: that last line in both out internet 'quotes' has got me thinking, what if it is 'hope' that is doing the reinforcing?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Matt Vandart said:


> I don't know what you are expecting me to say about this lot.
> It has no reference to which yielded the best learning results just that all three types of reinforcement scheduling produced results which appear succesfull.
> Its like a stupid alternative health treatment advert 'studies show our product will make you cry tears of pure gold' and '88% of women agreed that hydroxy spheroids worked to moisturize their skin and made them feel younger looking'
> lol
> 
> 
> If anything the omission of this information only tells me that reinforcement is not that important a part of increasing frequency.
> The rats are hammering away and getting no reinforcement yet they are still hammering away at the pedal.
> Emitting more and more of the desired behavior with less reinforcement.
> 
> Seeing as we are using the internet to ask questions, I found this on wikipedia, everyone's favorite box of knowledge:
> 
> 
> 
> So if variable ratio and variable schedules produce the highest rate of response and resistance to extinction, and they are the least 'reinforced' schedules.
> Then, how does reinforcement in isolation increase the frequency of behavior?
> 
> 
> Edit: that last line in both out internet 'quotes' has got me thinking, what if it is 'hope' that is doing the reinforcing?


Matt:

I just dawned on me where there may be a disconnect. You said you free shaped a behavior. How did you build distance, duration or reliability? As for "hope," you are headed in the right direction. I tend to think in terms of "expectation." Part of the reason discussion is difficult is because of language. What is "reinforcement in isolation." I also feel you speak in mathematical absolutes that the behaviorist do not. I don't recall any absolute statement that variable reinforcement yields higher reliability than say fixed 1:1 ratio. This is why I asked to restate which theory or language you think is Fu**** up. Its also not one or the other. Where did you get that? And really the degree can depend on the dog. I have a young dog that I swear if you ever gave her food for a behavior, she will forever perform it. She is also what I call more genetically obedient. But really its not about what produces the best "learning" result. By the time you get to variable reinforcement schedules, the behavior is learned. Now we get into fading the reinforcement yet maintaining reliable performance of a learned behavior. Part I and Part II.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Matt Vandart said:


> What questions can't you believe?
> 
> I'm sorry I don't know what you are referring to now, are you referring to free shaping?
> 
> THIS::::: IS NOT REFERRING TO FREE SHAPING IT IS REFERRING TO REINFORCEMENT IN GENERAL.
> 
> Maybe it does have something to do with raising the criteria, assuming the dog knows that is what is happening :-\"
> 
> Take shaping a dog to pick something up.
> 
> Does the dog know at the beginning of the training when you place the object on the floor that the aim of the game is picking the object up?
> How would raising the criteria have an effect on how reinforcement works?
> If the dog new he was getting closer to the ultimate goal and that fact was satisfying for him, then I would understand, but he doesn't so what is going on?
> 
> You are progressively asking the dog to do more work for basically less treats (reinforcement)
> 
> Dog looks at object- click and treat etc (i'm not going to put all the repetitions in)
> 
> Dog looks at object and moves toward object- click and treat etc
> 
> Dog looks at object, moves towards it and touches with nose- click and treat.
> 
> dog looks at object, moves towards it, touches with nose and opens mouth click and treat blah blah blah
> 
> blah blah blah
> 
> Dog retrieves object across a room.
> 
> More work less reinforcement.
> 
> Randomized schedules have to have more periods overall without reinforcement, that too is mathematics.
> 
> Randomized schedule of reinforcement for heeling:
> 
> 1,7,3,9,1,17,5,9
> 
> If we take one step= one response (instead of getting all mixed up in duration)
> total number of responses: 52
> total number of reinforcements: 8
> total number without reinforcement: 52-8= 44
> 
> 
> Taking a variable schedule of reinforcements from 'when Pigs Fly' by Jane Killion which is an awesome book by the way:
> 
> Heeling.
> Level one: (mean=5 steps): 5 steps 2,6,3,7,3,5,1,7,4,3,5,1: 52 steps total (mad coincidence)
> 
> Total number of steps: 52
> Total number of reinforcements: 13
> 
> that's an awefull lot of responses of the total NOT being reinforced......again, what is going on here then? (assuming the heeler isn't luring the Heelee with a treat in front of its nose).
> 
> I am genuinely asking these questions, I am not trying to trick anyone or piss anyone off, I just would like someone to give me a clear answer as to why these things work, when the basic premise of reinforcement is:
> 
> To increase the frequency of a behavior.
> 
> Seems to me if the reinforcement alone is increasing the frequency the lack of reinforcement is doing a better job according to randomized (variable) reinforcement scheduling.


Lord, you are a mathemtician aren't you. Freeshaping is one thing. That's raising the criteria to get to the completed behavior that you desire. I has nothing to do with variable reinforcement or more for less. Your problem is that you can't see that the reinforcement is still there even if it takes more to get it from the dog's point of view. The dog is willing to work for less pay if the pay is high enough. I may begin with one sit and pay the dog. Next, I'll ask for two sits and pay. Next 3. With variable there is the expectation of reward and you don't know when its coming so you keep working--slot machine theory, I guess. With fixed, the dog knows when its coming and if you don't deliver, you may reduce reliability.

T


----------



## Bob Scott

T said
"With variable there is the expectation of reward and you don't know when its coming so you keep working--slot machine theory, I guess. With fixed, the dog knows when its coming and if you don't deliver, you may reduce reliability".


This is exactly where the "ring wise" dog comes from. It has nothing to do with stubbornness. It's all about a confused dog. 
Mark, reward, correct every time with the same sequence of behaviors and then go into competition and give no marks, rewards, corrections. Is the dog giving the handler the finger or just confused because that handler didn't properly wean off the rewards and/or corrections? :wink:


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Matt,

Have you been exploring something like Ian Dunbar's explanations of how all this works?

http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/reinforcement-schedules


----------



## Matt Vandart

No I havn't I shall do forethwith!

Ny the way I am not saying freeshaping is variable reinforcment, I never meant to imply it either. I am sorry I often do this thing where I have too conversations going at once and some people can't handle it.
I will stick to one point at a time.
again I apologize

Expectation in combination with the presented 'reinforcer' sounds good to me.
So the expectation of reinforcement reinforces the behavior, lol

what about the signal itself? It is the only thing which is completely constant.


----------



## Matt Vandart

That Ian Dunbar article was very cool, seeing as he is one of my favorite, if not my favorite dog trainers I am not surprised.
However it says nothing of why presented treats increase the frequency of behavior. 

If constant reinforcement does nothing but make response rate rubbish then is the reinforcement actually increasing the probability of the behavior to manifest in the future. Clearly from that statement it doesn't in isolation.

Are you not a little bit intrigued as to why the above is apparent?


----------



## Matt Vandart

Is this simply a case of correlation being mixed up with causation? Probably not but I am gonna put it out there in case someone knows the reason it is not and they can share.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Matt Vandart said:


> No I havn't I shall do forethwith!
> 
> Ny the way I am not saying freeshaping is variable reinforcment, I never meant to imply it either. I am sorry I often do this thing where I have too conversations going at once and some people can't handle it.
> I will stick to one point at a time.
> again I apologize
> 
> Expectation in combination with the presented 'reinforcer' sounds good to me.
> So the expectation of reinforcement reinforces the behavior, lol
> 
> what about the signal itself? It is the only thing which is completely constant.


 
I wouldn't get wrapped up with Ian Dunbar. I was looking for something that simplifies this and stumbled across it. I keep it simple and read the dog. It starts getting too much like math and my brain turns off. Again, I don't get caught up in absolutes. I did this with one dog and systematically got her to performing what would be an entire trial routine and then 3 trial routines to get ready for trials--with reliable compliance. I look at it in terms of behavior performed multiple times--duration or distance. There is also the behavior chained with others which eventually gets me to the entire routine with maybe a jackpot at the end. First you reward for 1 sit, then 3 sits, then 5 or something like that. With variable, you may do 1, 5, 3, 2. That's how I do heeling. With behavior chains its multiple things put together. The retrieve is the hold, wait while I throw it, the pick up, the carry, the presentation and the release. I may work them all or only parts. I randomly reinforce different parts of the chain. The slot machine theory--i.e. keep pulling the lever and eventually you'll jackpot seems to be the best way to look at it for building the trial routine and reliability of performance. Some people teach the behavior with reinforcement and then maintain reliability with corrections added. I don't. 

I don't know what you are calling a signal. Do you mean marker? I also don't know what you mean by "completely constant." Each dog I work is different and the activity also affects how I work the system. You can't think in absolutes; i.e. a + b always = c.

My markers are always a verbal "yes" or a clicker. Rarely do I use a clicker because it requires me to find and remember to carry one of the ten or so that I own. I trialed my bouv once where she was about to do something in relationship to the livestock that was correct but hesitated because it could have fallen apart. I knew what she was thinking to do so I gambled and said "yes." As a marker, its also a release. I didn't need her to end the behavior but if I didn't communicate that her thought was right it was going to fall apart anyway. So I marked it. She performed as she was thinking and continued to work for a gorgeous run. She understood to keep going and not release. She understood the job and context. This is why I say this is not static and dogs aren't lab rats. I use this system as a communication tool on the herding field. The dog knows unequivocally what "right" is. 

I take one of my young dogs to Purina and work on agility. The first time I taught the A-Frame, I put a treat at the bottom. She does like the A Frame. However, one week later, she takes one look at it and sails over it staring at the ground as she was going down. The way she works, for the rest of her life I bet she will think that there is the possibility that there will be food at the bottom so its worth it. Her food drive is so high that anything you have marked and reinforced with food she will perform multiple times without reward because there is a possibility that she could get food out of it. My male, is more of a continuous reinforcement kinda guy, excpet for the behaviors that were imprinted before he was 16 weeks old. But that's another discussion. Each dog is different and may be different in multiple contexts. You have to read them to determine how you want to structure the reinforcement schedule to get the most reliable performance out of them.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Matt Vandart said:


> That Ian Dunbar article was very cool, seeing as he is one of my favorite, if not my favorite dog trainers I am not surprised.
> However it says nothing of why presented treats increase the frequency of behavior.
> 
> If constant reinforcement does nothing but make response rate rubbish then is the reinforcement actually increasing the probability of the behavior to manifest in the future. Clearly from that statement it doesn't in isolation.
> 
> Are you not a little bit intrigued as to why the above is apparent?


Again, dogs aren't lab rats. Rewards/Reinforcements [something the dog wants immensely] incrase the frequency of behavior because the dog really wants the reward/reinforcment and he understands what can get him to the holy land. I don't agree with Dunbar. I don't know what you mean by isolation. Its not a geometric proofs debate. Your above isn't apparent to me. This is why I keep asking what quandrants have you used to train with and with what behaviors. No one does continuous reinforcement because who wants to get dressed with the reinforcement every day to maintain compliance. For a trialist, you can't take the reinforcement in the ring. However, that said, I can tell you that the secondary reinforcer can mean just as much as the primary. But again, that's something else. 

The theory was that reinforcement increased rate of performance. It did. If you hadn't reinforced it, you wouldn't get the behavior in the first place and the dog wouldn't repeat it. You started with 0 performance and now you have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. The theory is proved. Now that pooch has learned it, you now want to maintain reliable performance or prevent extinction. That's where the reinforcement schedule comes into play. Its two different concepts for me. 

T


----------



## Matt Vandart

1: Ah now I understand. *I am in fact arguing the toss from a mathematical stand point and you have failed to see this.*

2: That they are not lab rats or even in a laboratory is exactly what I am saying

3: Signal is a discrete stimulus I am not referring to bridge reinforces such as clickers and marks.

4: You may not rate Ian Dunbar however I do, so that is fine.

5: You have said the dog really *wants* the 'reward/reinforcer' which I agree with, so is it this want that is doing the reinforcing? the want itself

6: In isolation means. When you go through the routine of signal, response, outcome routine the signal is the only constant, in isolation from the others.

eg three completely separate situations occur, maybe with the same dog maybe not, it is irreverent so long as we look at them as three separate trials. They are not in chronological order.
They can have happened with three different dogs, on different days years months whatever as long as each is not co related to each other for the purpose of this illustration.

1: sit (signal) dog sits (response) gets treat (outcome)

2: sit (signal) dog sits (response) dog doesnt get treat (outcome)

3: sit (signal) dog doesn't sit (response) dog doesn't get a treat (outcome)

Only the sit (signal) is constant the others are variable according to their 'binary values' 
i.e you always say 'sit' whether the dog sits or not or whether the dog gets the treat or not.

7: I'll try again.

Even by skinners own evidence and conclusion:
If constant reinforcement does nothing but make response rate rubbish then is the reinforcement actually increasing the probability of the behavior to manifest in the future? Clearly from that statement it doesn't in isolation.

Are you not a little bit intrigued as to why the above is apparent?

It is apparent because constant reinforcement ultimately reduces the frequency of the behaviour.
If a reinforcer as a stand alone concept is meant to increase the frequency of a behavior then how does this above statement stand true?

Surely if you reinforce every 'correct' response then the frequency would improve at the same fixed ratio, because each 'reinforcment' is supposedly increasing the frequency of the behavior.

As you seem to be waving doubt over my knowledge of OC both theoretical and practical, I feel I must point out here that I AM AWARE THAT FIXED RATE REINFORCEMENT ULTIMATELY REDUCES THE PROBABILITY OF THE BEHAVIOR OCCURRING.

I do not train my dogs by giving them a treat EVERY time they emit a 'correct' response, just saying to save you the time of typeing 'You claim you understand OC yet you are rewarding your dog every time it sits, that makesme think you have no understanding of OC and you should go somewhere and read it, or prove to us that you understand it by recounting here all the work and studies done of OC'


----------



## Joby Becker

For T...fits in our discussion here...



Peter Cho said:


> ....
> Many animal studies have shown that if an animal has control over the EXPECTED stimulus, there is less stress hormone (as measured by levels of cortisol) in the bloodstream. Well, the e collar does that and you can see the performances at very high level competitions, where OUTLOOK makes a huge difference in overall performance. proof in in the pudding as it were.
> 
> I don't think anyone would argue at this point that the correct use of the e collar produces happier competition dogs.
> 
> I know it produces a better bond between dog and handler. To me, this is the biggest reason I use the collar. I don't correct him. He created the correction or stiim.
> But to teach him how to control the collar takes months and months of basic meticulous work. So, many simply revert to using it as a positive punishment tool.
> 
> it is a tool that manages threshhold, better timed corrections, overcomes the limitations of a leash (distance), but it gives not direction.
> 
> I would start a 12 week old pup on the collar. Teach it positively that it is the master of his own fate. It has ALL the control.
> 
> Now, if you did not know how to work with a leash, an e collar will be of no use. In fact, it will make things worse. But it is THE most important piece of equipment I have. .......besides my mental focus.........which sucks sometimes. #-o


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Freeshaping?

In the 1990s when I first started dog training we rewarded the dog without his expecting it, i.e. increasing his anticipation.

How many years have you used to get to this conclusion


----------



## Matt Vandart

Gillian Schuler said:


> Freeshaping?
> 
> In the 1990s when I first started dog training we rewarded the dog without his expecting it, i.e. increasing his anticipation.
> 
> How many years have you used to get to this conclusion


Can you explain please I don't quite get what you are saying?

Were you actively increasing his expectation?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Matt Vandart said:


> 1: Ah now I understand. *I am in fact arguing the toss from a mathematical stand point and you have failed to see this.*
> 
> 2: That they are not lab rats or even in a laboratory is exactly what I am saying
> 
> 3: Signal is a discrete stimulus I am not referring to bridge reinforces such as clickers and marks.
> 
> 4: You may not rate Ian Dunbar however I do, so that is fine.
> 
> 5: You have said the dog really *wants* the 'reward/reinforcer' which I agree with, so is it this want that is doing the reinforcing? the want itself
> 
> 6: In isolation means. When you go through the routine of signal, response, outcome routine the signal is the only constant, in isolation from the others.
> 
> eg three completely separate situations occur, maybe with the same dog maybe not, it is irreverent so long as we look at them as three separate trials. They are not in chronological order.
> They can have happened with three different dogs, on different days years months whatever as long as each is not co related to each other for the purpose of this illustration.
> 
> 1: sit (signal) dog sits (response) gets treat (outcome)
> 
> 2: sit (signal) dog sits (response) dog doesnt get treat (outcome)
> 
> 3: sit (signal) dog doesn't sit (response) dog doesn't get a treat (outcome)
> 
> Only the sit (signal) is constant the others are variable according to their 'binary values'
> i.e you always say 'sit' whether the dog sits or not or whether the dog gets the treat or not.
> 
> 7: I'll try again.
> 
> Even by skinners own evidence and conclusion:
> If constant reinforcement does nothing but make response rate rubbish then is the reinforcement actually increasing the probability of the behavior to manifest in the future? Clearly from that statement it doesn't in isolation.
> 
> Are you not a little bit intrigued as to why the above is apparent?
> 
> It is apparent because constant reinforcement ultimately reduces the frequency of the behaviour.
> If a reinforcer as a stand alone concept is meant to increase the frequency of a behavior then how does this above statement stand true?
> 
> Surely if you reinforce every 'correct' response then the frequency would improve at the same fixed ratio, because each 'reinforcment' is supposedly increasing the frequency of the behavior.
> 
> As you seem to be waving doubt over my knowledge of OC both theoretical and practical, I feel I must point out here that I AM AWARE THAT FIXED RATE REINFORCEMENT ULTIMATELY REDUCES THE PROBABILITY OF THE BEHAVIOR OCCURRING.
> 
> I do not train my dogs by giving them a treat EVERY time they emit a 'correct' response, just saying to save you the time of typeing 'You claim you understand OC yet you are rewarding your dog every time it sits, that makesme think you have no understanding of OC and you should go somewhere and read it, or prove to us that you understand it by recounting here all the work and studies done of OC'


Matt, you will never understand it trying to run mathematical formulas. Give it up. The premise was the reinforcement will increase peformance. Proven. Extinction is the second part. Dunbar's fix is that certain schedules are impractical. I doubt it because you haven't said how you employ it although you believe in it, yet object to its validity at the same time. I gave you an example. I didn't say I rewarded the dog every time it sat. Even if I did employ continuous reinforcment, it would still be OC. I'm not out to disprove a mathematical equation. If you can read a dog, you won't get to the point of reducing performance because you will know how to employ it as to not reach the point of reducing performance. The experiements were set up to see what would happen so as to give information to prevent that from happening. At all times, its do what's necessary to get the result obtained. 

I told you there is a terms/language issue. Trainers don't speak in terms of signals. I shape the behavior first. Once the behavior is reliable, I put a stimulus/cue/command right before the marker. The next step of the process is to gain stimulus control. Dog does the behavior in response to the stimulus, mark/reward. Next, build duration/repetition and implement variable reinforcement schedule that WORKS TO MAINTAIN THE LEVEL OF RELIABLE PERFORMANCE I NEED. You say they are not lab rats but you want to treat this is a lab experiment with mathematical formulas and proofs. As for what I know and proof, I'd invite you to do the same or at least say how you disproved Skinner's theory in training a dog.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Joby Becker said:


> For T...fits in our discussion here...


 
Actually, it doesn't. Its just Peter's conclusions on happiness and the e-collar and his assumption of a "better bond." That's all warm and fuzzy but it has nothing to do with negative reinforcement. I've seen the e-collar studies on increased cortisol levels/heart rate and submission behaviors and the study with Mals that had a high state of arousal and further considered the Mal's unique heightened frustration and the effect of negative punishment because of it. This study also had a fixed time of 80 seconds in comparing the effect of punishment with a pinch, e-collar and negative punishment. Interesting viewpoint of frustration and cortisol release when you think of bite work training. Punishment vs. negative reinforcement may yield different results. It was a very breed and type specific study with a disclaimer that they needed to study different breeds and types. This isn't about e-collars for me. I work my dog in a class format. I completely trained her before going--particularly the retrieve. Years ago, I quit competitive obedience classes because I got tired of arguing about another form of negative reinforcement--the ear pinch.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Joby Becker said:


> For T...fits in our discussion here...


http://www.rottilounge.de/downloads/E_collar_Article.pdf

I think Peter's conclusion is a little oversimplified in light of this study. 

T


----------



## Joby Becker

Matt. I am not mentally prepared to jump into this, more so (hopefully) due to fatigue than understanding. I dont have an interest to argue the science, or to try to disprove the theories, we all agree that the OC model works. And there are many other variables being tossed into this topic, such as markers and CC...

Here is what I have to say on it though.

There is a whole picture of interaction of dog and handler.
There are a whole different range of relationships between dogs and handlers.
There is also a huge variance in the internal motivations of dogs to "work" for us, and huge variances in what dogs may consider rewarding. A variance in atttention span, boredom and other things I am not including I am sure.

There is also a difference in the teaching/learning phases of behaviours, the proofing, and securing phases. Those differences can be markedly different in the applications that it takes, depending on factors,and the individual dogs.

You are looking at the +R, seemingly isolating that from the other quadrants, when in fact it is it is all interconnected, in my mind at least.

You are also trying to isolate it from other factors. 

I dont see a way to argue that the R+ part of the theory is not accurate in definition, either the intial learning of the behaviors, or in shaping. It is the rewards that effectively facitlitate the learning of the behavior.

It is also pretty clear to me that the expectations of the R+ is the motivator to keep performing those actions, even when shifted to a fixed or variable schedule of rewards. 

The expectation is there, the dog works to get the R+, it does so because it assumes it will be coming.

I see your thinking in it is the expectation, the want, that is re-enforced, and cannot argue that, but that in itself does not tell me that the reward is no longer enforcing the occurance rates. The want to perform, and perfrorming are both increased, as it the expectation of the reward. It does tell me though the the use of the R+ IS increasing the frequency of the behavior.

Dogs are highly variable in how the above may come into play.


I do not think you can say that the R+ is not the source of the re-occuring behavior's frequesncy., no matter what the schedule of rewards, the reward is still present, it eventually comes. 

Try taking a dog and training it using strictly R+ and then just stop rewarding the dog at all, you will see a sharp decline of performance, if strictly R+ is being used, isolated. I know this is not quite what you are looking at, but I think it is releveant to my point of view on your argument.

I also think that the other quadrants when used play a significant role in repetition frequecies. 

It maybe impossible to use R+ without also using -P, so I am not sure how it can be isolated in that fashion.

I also think that the R+ does increase the frequency of behaviors, and that it is correctly defined, but this increase is not infinite, and cannot stand solely on its own in most cases, with just one behavior..it is a picture of everything, multiple schedules, mutliple behaviors, multiple uses of the various quadrants considering the variances in the dogs motivations, and the other differences in the dogs and the type of bond, and intereaction of dog and handler. 

I think the R+ on its own, being effective in increasing correct responses is not unlimited, due to some of the aforementioned variables, its most impressive benefits seem to me to be in the learning phases. I builds the hope, the drive, the expectation, the stress to be used for intermittent, and indirect rewards, and then used to satisfy drives and relieve stress during other things.I think that the frustration, the hope or whatever, the stress it creates, the drive to work, the confidence to make things happen, is a huge byproduct, which may be what you are trying to describe.

here are a couple videos of Bart B. that may help with trying to nail down what the X factor is that you are looking for. Or maybe not LOL 

Just trying to help 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NLlqiccc_Y&feature=endscreen&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDkfPqyXjeM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RikxTES2Hzk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksrd9R4giEo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_It-FwNer9M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1plenTkw2vY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llxh6X8fi7s


----------



## Joby Becker

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Actually, it doesn't. Its just Peter's conclusions on happiness and the e-collar and his assumption of a "better bond." That's all warm and fuzzy but it has nothing to do with negative reinforcement. I've seen the e-collar studies on increased cortisol levels/heart rate and submission behaviors


you mean with or without ecollar, period, as opposed to strictly +R training? or comparatively against other corrective devices or -P? unlcear to me.



> and the study with Mals that had a high state of arousal and further considered the Mal's unique heightened frustration and the effect of negative punishment because of it.


the negative punishment of witholding rewards? negative punishment? was the cortisol raised for that?



> This study also had a fixed time of 80 seconds in comparing the effect of punishment with a pinch, e-collar and negative punishment. Interesting viewpoint of frustration and cortisol release when you think of bite work training.


ok. sounds interesting.



> Punishment vs. negative reinforcement may yield different results.


I imagine they would anything in those studies on this, as it is a very big part of ecollar use/

T[/QUOTE]

if you get time, are there any links to these studies,

could not make heads or tails if there was 1 or 2..

I would very much like to read these studies, thank you if you can find and post links.


----------



## rick smith

sidebar to the Schalke studies...
- cortisol levels are a proven indicator of stress
- this test showed clear results when used with a controlled group of lab raised beagles
- reactions and resistance to stress is a basic element of dogs that will be trained for PSD/MWD jobs

so it would seem that this is exactly the type of scientific research that should be used with working breeds that will be used in the PSD/MWD fields
- it could be a valuable tool both for testing and evaluating potential candidates and would also be a good baseline to give breeders additional ways of testing litter potentials
- a million dollars spent on standardizing and refining these testing procedures would seem a lot more useful than a nutrition study for detection dogs

it won't replace the Mike Suttles and others who are breeding and testing K9's but there is always room for hard science to assist those who are willing to keep an open mind and find out more about what makes dogs tick


----------



## Joby Becker

rick smith said:


> sidebar to the Schalke studies...
> - cortisol levels are a proven indicator of stress
> - this test showed clear results when used with a controlled group of lab raised beagles
> - reactions and resistance to stress is a basic element of dogs that will be trained for PSD/MWD jobs
> 
> so it would seem that this is exactly the type of scientific research that should be used with working breeds that will be used in the PSD/MWD fields
> - it could be a valuable tool both for testing and evaluating potential candidates and would also be a good baseline to give breeders additional ways of testing litter potentials
> - a million dollars spent on standardizing and refining these testing procedures would seem a lot more useful than a nutrition study for detection dogs
> 
> it won't replace the Mike Suttles and others who are breeding and testing K9's but there is always room for hard science to assist those who are willing to keep an open mind and find out more about what makes dogs tick


Salgirli also did a study on Police dogs.

it showed that the Ecollar produced the highest learning when compared to pinch, and to -P.

is also showed that -P produced a higher cortisol level then either the E collar or the pinch, the Ecollar being the lowest.

The conclusion was that for the study group, the Ecollar produced the highest learning and the lowest stress.

The pinch collar came in second on both of those.

And the -P produced the least effectiveness in training and the highest stress levels in the study.


----------



## Meg O'Donovan

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I've seen the e-collar studies on increased cortisol levels/heart rate and submission behaviors and the study with Mals that had a high state of arousal and further considered the Mal's unique heightened frustration and the effect of negative punishment because of it. This study also had a fixed time of 80 seconds in comparing the effect of punishment with a pinch, e-collar and negative punishment.
> 
> Teresita,
> Would you kindly post or PM me the link for the study on frustrated Malinois & effects of negative punishment, as referred to above? I'd like to read that.
> Thanks.


----------



## Joby Becker

Meg O'Donovan said:


> Terrasita Cuffie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen the e-collar studies on increased cortisol levels/heart rate and submission behaviors and the study with Mals that had a high state of arousal and further considered the Mal's unique heightened frustration and the effect of negative punishment because of it. This study also had a fixed time of 80 seconds in comparing the effect of punishment with a pinch, e-collar and negative punishment.
> 
> Teresita,
> Would you kindly post or PM me the link for the study on frustrated Malinois & effects of negative punishment, as referred to above? I'd like to read that.
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Not T...but I think she was talking about this one...if not plase provide link T, for everyone...
> http://www.ecma.eu.com/Comparison o... three different training methods in dogs.pdf
Click to expand...


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Joby Becker said:


> Salgirli also did a study on Police dogs.
> 
> it showed that the Ecollar produced the highest learning when compared to pinch, and to -P.
> 
> is also showed that -P produced a higher cortisol level then either the E collar or the pinch, the Ecollar being the lowest.
> 
> The conclusion was that for the study group, the Ecollar produced the highest learning and the lowest stress.
> 
> The pinch collar came in second on both of those.
> 
> And the -P produced the least effectiveness in training and the highest stress levels in the study.


This is for Mals of a certain type [high frustration and high arousal] and in a very limited context and it excludes positive reinforcment; i.e. not tested to evaluate its effect on learning as opposed to punishment and legal reinforcement. You still had increased cortisol/stress with the punishment models. The higher cortisol levels with negative punishment were attributed a perceived uniqueness with Mals--i.e. heightened frustration.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> This is for Mals of a certain type [high frustration and high arousal] and in a very limited context and it excludes positive reinforcment; i.e. not tested to evaluate its effect on learning as opposed to punishment and legal reinforcement. You still had increased cortisol/stress with the punishment models. The higher cortisol levels with negative punishment were attributed a perceived uniqueness with Mals--i.e. heightened frustration.
> 
> T


 
That should state "negative", not legal reinforcement. Here are a couple of references that contain a laundry list of the e-collar studies:

http://www.4pawsu.com/IAABC_Ecollar.pdf

http://smartdogs.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/see-no-evil-read-no-evil-cite-no-evil/


----------



## Joby Becker

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> This is for Mals of a certain type [high frustration and high arousal] and in a very limited context and it excludes positive reinforcment; i.e. not tested to evaluate its effect on learning as opposed to punishment and legal reinforcement. You still had increased cortisol/stress with the punishment models. The higher cortisol levels with negative punishment were attributed a perceived uniqueness with Mals--i.e. heightened frustration.
> 
> T


huh? the study was on mals, but things were attributed to a "perceived" uniqueness in the mals? it was also for special "high frustration, or high arousal mals"? are there other kinds of working mals?

*Aim*
• Comparing stress and learning 
effects of three different forms of 
punishment in police dog training
– Two forms of positive punishment (ecollar and pinch collar)
– One form of negative punishment 
(conditioned quitting signal)

also says directly about the learning aspects..
the name of the study is:

*Comparison of stress and learning effects of three different training methods in dogs
*

any links that will explain what you are saying somewhere, i am not understanding what you are saying

of course it does not include +R. no one said it did.

where are links to describe any of the studies you were talkin about, about ecollars?? Maybe the link that Meg was looking for or any others? Especially any ones that might include -R work, since you seem to think an ecollar study should include R+

so if it is a mal, dutchie or other highly frustratable working dog, the perception is that it is more stressful to use -P than an ecollar as a corrective device? or just mals? 

please provide links to your studies...and one about this one, that I posted, that will explain what you are talking about...


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Joby Becker said:


> huh? the study was on mals, but things were attributed to a "perceived" uniqueness in the mals? it was also for special "high frustration, or high arousal mals"? are there other kinds of working mals?
> 
> *Aim*
> • Comparing stress and learning
> effects of three different forms of
> punishment in police dog training
> – Two forms of positive punishment (ecollar and pinch collar)
> – One form of negative punishment
> (conditioned quitting signal)
> 
> also says directly about the learning aspects..
> the name of the study is:
> 
> *Comparison of stress and learning effects of three different training methods in dogs*
> 
> 
> any links that will explain what you are saying somewhere, i am not understanding what you are saying
> 
> of course it does not include +R. no one said it did.
> 
> where are links to describe any of the studies you were talkin about, about ecollars?? Maybe the link that Meg was looking for or any others? Especially any ones that might include -R work, since you seem to think an ecollar study should include R+
> 
> so if it is a mal, dutchie or other highly frustratable working dog, the perception is that it is more stressful to use -P than an ecollar as a corrective device? or just mals?
> 
> please provide links to your studies...and one about this one, that I posted, that will explain what you are talking about...


 
You should really stop trying to say what I think or say because you don't know. Where did I say an e-collar should include positive reinforcement. I said the study didn't evaluate it in determining what was the best method for learning. Read your own link, like slide 37. Its the slide that states that you need further studies regarding the effect of punishment and other breeds. You are talking about 80 seconds of work and 40 seconds of play. How many 2 minute training sessions do you know of? What happens when its over 5, 10, 15, 20 minutes--successive days. Do you really equate a Mal with other working breeds other than some dutchies where there is cross/inter-breeding in terms of arousal/frustration? When you look at the three--all involved stess, vocalisation with the e-collar and submissive behaviors [lowered body and tail tuck] with 2 of them I believe. Its a positive and negative punishment study with 80 seconds of work. 

As for the source for breed significance, try pg 128 http://elib.tiho-hannover.de/dissertations/salgirliy_ws08.pdf

The summary doesn't do this justice and there are some other important aspects of the study regarding dog/handler relationship, effective training, literature/study history etc. 

T


----------



## Matt Vandart

> You should really stop trying to say what I think or say because you don't know.


You should take your own advice. 

Joby has come closest to understanding what I am actually saying in fact most of your last post contains exactly what I am saying but in a better format.

T from your posts it seems you have absolutely no understanding of what I am trying to get across and I am gutted because you have alot of understanding of dog training and I think if you could actually understand what I am saying you would have the answer for me, instead of going off on subjective tangents and introducing confusion to my basic position with markers and other 'stuff'.

The whole system in the skinner model is based on probability.
The probability of future emissions of a behavior, specifically the increase and decrease of said probability.
The basic use of the concept of probability is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't 'add up' for single trials (one signal response outcome) and very high numbers of trials, or even randomized reinforcement (as outlined in my above post) 
As such I cannot agree that in isolation as in the statement:

Reinforcement = something that *increases* the future frequency of a behavior = future behavior probability.

Is strictly correct.
For this to be completely correct it would have to work to infinity amd on single trials. It doesn't even stand true for 'relatively' small numbers.
I think reinforcement is co-relalative, not the actual causation of the increase in future probability (in isolation).
Which is what skinners conclusion was as can be seen in the definition of reinforcement above. 

I will try and rephrase again what exactly I am putting forward.

Operant conditioning is a useful tool for training dogs in the real world which is based on observation of behavior in an empirical setting.
The conclusion drawn from the data is that reinforcement is the part of the system that increases the frequency of the behavior in isolation (taking the definition of a reinforcer stated above as literal).
The delivery and consumption of a food item when a lever was pressed 'caused' lever to be pressed again. (delivery and consumption of a treat when a dog sits causes the dog to sit a second time)

I am putting forward that the food item in isolation does not 'cause' the second sit.
I am putting forward that it is a factor in the causation of the second sit in combination with one of the other factors or both (signal and response).

My reasoning behind this is based on the mathematics of probability whereby the above mentioned 'skinner' observation does not hold true for single trials and large numbers of trials and as such the definition of 'reinforcement' is questionable. In empirical science there are no grey areas. The reinforcement either increases the frequency all the time or the definition is bunk. 
It cannot stand true that 'reinforcement increases the frequency of a behavior, except when it doesn't'.

This is why I say Joby has come closest to understanding what I am saying and why Joby's answer offers me some answers to my actual line of thought.

I have to say though, way back when this started I was the one not looking at the quadrants in isolation I was the one saying that they work in parings and I think I stated that again. 
It was someone else that said something along the lines of:

A pop on a prong collar is purely positive punishment and nothing else.
My position was that it was both positive punishment and positive reinforcement.

The prong pop itself was what decreased the pulling behavior and increased the 'not pulling' behavior.

In another setting withholding a treat decreases the unwanted behavior whilst simultaneously reinforcing the emission of another (in combination with a signal) 
Dog learns to sit when sit signal is present, dog learns not to lie down when sit signal is presented.

This last bit could be complete bullshit as far as I know, I just think this is what is happening and like everyone else has said, it works for me. This is what I am observing is happening, just like skinner and his box.
Only with mine the maths adds up :-\"
I shall call it the 'Vandart bullshit theory of animal learning' maybe I can write a book about it and people in the future can believe it without question also.
Point is its a theory based purely on observation of behavior and drawing my own conclusions from the data, just like OC.

When I pop the prong on a dog it stops pulling and does 'something else'.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Matt Vandart said:


> You should take your own advice.
> 
> Joby has come closest to understanding what I am actually saying in fact most of your last post contains exactly what I am saying but in a better format.
> 
> T from your posts it seems you have absolutely no understanding of what I am trying to get across and I am gutted because you have alot of understanding of dog training and I think if you could actually understand what I am saying you would have the answer for me, instead of going off on subjective tangents and introducing confusion to my basic position with markers and other 'stuff'.
> 
> The whole system in the skinner model is based on probability.
> The probability of future emissions of a behavior, specifically the increase and decrease of said probability.
> The basic use of the concept of probability is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't 'add up' for single trials (one signal response outcome) and very high numbers of trials, or even randomized reinforcement (as outlined in my above post)
> As such I cannot agree that in isolation as in the statement:
> 
> Reinforcement = something that *increases* the future frequency of a behavior = future behavior probability.
> 
> Is strictly correct.
> For this to be completely correct it would have to work to infinity amd on single trials. It doesn't even stand true for 'relatively' small numbers.
> I think reinforcement is co-relalative, not the actual causation of the increase in future probability (in isolation).
> Which is what skinners conclusion was as can be seen in the definition of reinforcement above.
> 
> I will try and rephrase again what exactly I am putting forward.
> 
> Operant conditioning is a useful tool for training dogs in the real world which is based on observation of behavior in an empirical setting.
> The conclusion drawn from the data is that reinforcement is the part of the system that increases the frequency of the behavior in isolation (taking the definition of a reinforcer stated above as literal).
> The delivery and consumption of a food item when a lever was pressed 'caused' lever to be pressed again. (delivery and consumption of a treat when a dog sits causes the dog to sit a second time)
> 
> I am putting forward that the food item in isolation does not 'cause' the second sit.
> I am putting forward that it is a factor in the causation of the second sit in combination with one of the other factors or both (signal and response).
> 
> My reasoning behind this is based on the mathematics of probability whereby the above mentioned 'skinner' observation does not hold true for single trials and large numbers of trials and as such the definition of 'reinforcement' is questionable. In empirical science there are no grey areas. The reinforcement either increases the frequency all the time or the definition is bunk.
> It cannot stand true that 'reinforcement increases the frequency of a behavior, except when it doesn't'.
> 
> This is why I say Joby has come closest to understanding what I am saying and why Joby's answer offers me some answers to my actual line of thought.
> 
> I have to say though, way back when this started I was the one not looking at the quadrants in isolation I was the one saying that they work in parings and I think I stated that again.
> It was someone else that said something along the lines of:
> 
> A pop on a prong collar is purely positive punishment and nothing else.
> My position was that it was both positive punishment and positive reinforcement.
> 
> The prong pop itself was what decreased the pulling behavior and increased the 'not pulling' behavior.
> 
> In another setting withholding a treat decreases the unwanted behavior whilst simultaneously reinforcing the emission of another (in combination with a signal)
> Dog learns to sit when sit signal is present, dog learns not to lie down when sit signal is presented.
> 
> This last bit could be complete bullshit as far as I know, I just think this is what is happening and like everyone else has said, it works for me. This is what I am observing is happening, just like skinner and his box.
> Only with mine the maths adds up :-\"
> I shall call it the 'Vandart bullshit theory of animal learning' maybe I can write a book about it and people in the future can believe it without question also.
> Point is its a theory based purely on observation of behavior and drawing my own conclusions from the data, just like OC.
> 
> When I pop the prong on a dog it stops pulling and does 'something else'.


If your mathematical probability analysis works for you, groovy. I don't think there are any OC religious fanatics here that believe without questioning, but if that type of statement makes you feel special, groovy.


T


----------



## Meg O'Donovan

> As for the source for breed significance, try pg 128 http://elib.tiho-hannover.de/dissert...irliy_ws08.pdf


Teresita, thank you for that link. The literature review had a lot of interesting detail.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Meg O'Donovan said:


> Teresita, thank you for that link. The literature review had a lot of interesting detail.


Oh, you're welcome. Took me awhile to figure out where I had seen it. Like you, I think the literature review is interesting. I'd probably fact check it eventually. But regardless of whether you use an e-collar or not, I think there is some really useful information that's relevant to how dogs can perceive punishment, handler involvement, etc.

T


----------



## Matt Vandart

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> If your mathematical probability analysis works for you, groovy. I don't think there are any OC religious fanatics here that believe without questioning, but if that type of statement makes you feel special, groovy.
> 
> 
> T


What type of statement? Lighten up, it is a blatant piece of self pisstaking.

OC was developed as a purely mathematical theory of course I am going to use its own engine to show why dog training isn't a purely mathematical problem. 

After reading many of your posts of how you 'just know' a dog will do this or that, 'conections' with dogs, and that dogs are more than just a science study, I am simply amazed that you of all people are arguing against my position.
In fact I seem to remember you going round in circles arguing the toss with Dave Colbourne about one time when a dog protected you from cattle having never been 'taught to' 
He said he could prove through OC why this occurred and you argued that it was 'instinctive' or a cognitive decision or something along those lines.

I have consistently stated that I am thinking that there is something more than 'just probability' and Maths involved in what we view as OC.
The basic concept of reinforcement:



> 'an increase of the future probability of a specific response as a result of the immediate delivery of a stimulus for that response'.


Probability is a mathematical concept, so I used maths to show its weakness.

IMO better words/concepts to use would be, incentive, motivator, verifier or con-firmer. I think that is what is happening in training. 
As the dogs 'prediction' is confirmed or verified the dog makes a decision to repeat a response either consciously or subconsciously.
I think the method used by skinner particularly, that of looking at past events in order to 'predict' future events in terms of probability is flawed in terms of causation although to be fair that is more attributed Azrin and Holtz. 
IMO it's a correlate. As the reinforcement increases the response rate increases co relatively. It's not the direct cause.
If we look at early concepts of instrumental learning we see subjective ideas such as satisfying and unsatisfying or in Skinners words something the animal 'likes' and 'dislikes' and pair them with signals:

'If you do this you will get something you like'

It shows another factor in the equation of 'expectation' or 'prediction' which will require satisfying in order for the likelihood (probability) of the behavior occurring again increasing. 
It injects a cognitive response to the learning rather than rote action.

Massive advocators of OC such as Dave refer to a dog 'becoming operant' 
I personally like this phrase as it denotes a situation of 'realization' in the dog. The dog has learned a situation where it can 'predict' a treat coming and that its action will control whether that 'prediction' will manifest or not.

This prediction coupled with the manifestation of its prediction is the true reinforcer.
If the dog is not predicting the reinforcement will come, the behavior is less likely to show.
Equally if the dog is predicting the outcome 'i'm in with a good chance of getting a treat here' then the behavior is more likely to show.

For example in teaching a puppy to sit the puppy learns if it sits it will get a treat.
This may take some time for the puppy to couple the action of sitting with the treat getting (in the presence of a signal) it may jump around excitedly, whine, look around etc but will come to associate the signal for sit with a treat.
Now in my experience anyway it is much easier to teach the dog to 'down' or any other second behavior. Yes the dog may sit a few times but the jumping and barking and whining and stuff is way less apparent.
The association of signal and treat has been made and the dog has 'become operant' i.e the dog has learned it can control the outcomes and just as it prefers 'treat' to 'not treat' it is satisfying for the dog to observe it's predictions come to pass in the same way it likes eating treats.
The presence of a 'reinforcer' merely confirms the actual motivation for emitting the response, that motivation being the expectation/prediction/control of the outcome.

There you go, my position argued from a non mathematical standpoint.


----------



## jim stevens

Sometimes I think there are people here who spend way too much time analyzing, instead of just getting their animal to do what's required. That's just me, lol! I don't care what method anyone uses, or why, I only care that it works.


----------



## Matt Vandart

I concur, so I am leaving it now, shoulda done ages ago I spose.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Matt Vandart said:


> Yes, no worries.
> 
> My opinion I am advocating here is that due to the mathematics of probability we cannot say with certainty that giving a 'reinforcment' for one event
> eg.
> 
> signal (sit) response (dog sits) outcome (gets a treat)
> 
> is going to have an effect on the next signal response i.e the dog is more likely to sit.
> 
> therefore is a reinforcer actually reinforcing anything as described by OC
> 
> increases the frequency (probability) of any given behavior.
> 
> Or is there something else going on?
> 
> Edit: to clarify again, I am aware that it works I just don't think OC is an adequate explanation as to why/how it works.


I've once again missed a couple days worth of this conversation because of the holiday, but I would like to address this post.

Perhaps it would be worth teaching a completely new behavior to a dog or pup and timing how long it takes for each desired response to be elicited. Increasing the likelihood doesn't mean the dog has instant acquisition of the behavior ...which it seems like you're trying to argue it should if the OC definitions are correct. You don't reward "sit" once and then suddenly the dog offers sit immediately when presented with a situation where reward is available. But, I believe, of all the behaviors the dog is able to offer, "sit" becomes more likely to be offered ...increasing the likelihood. It moves further up on the list of things to try ...the dog tries it more quickly than in past trials ...thus, over time, increasing how frequently it happens (more sits happen in a minute than happened before they were reinforced). 

I'm going to try to think of something new to teach one of my dogs and see if I can time/record the number of responses over a number of sessions. I know it will be ugly in the beginning because they will offer all the other behaviors they have been reinforced for, but I think it will be interesting.

As a side note, I can't give any significance to the cue or anything that happens before the behavior (leash pressure, etc.) because I don't introduce cues until I know the dog is offering the behavior reliably. I do, sometimes, manipulate the environment ...putting a new object in it for them to interact with (a bowl for hind end awareness) or changing the surface to make doing the behavior I want more comfortable (putting them on something small so they are more inclined to sit or stand than down).

I'm off to be creative.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Matt Vandart said:


> Can you explain please I don't quite get what you are saying?
> 
> Were you actively increasing his expectation?


Sorry for late answer.

We rewarded the dog randomly (without his expecting it) thereby increasing his expectation of a reward, i.e. the dog would be more attentive.

Non-attention was "rewarded" by a tug on the collar.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Ariel- sounds cool, are you saying you are purely capturing the behavior?
I can see a reinforcer working as it is supposed to in a capturing situation.
I hadn't thought of capturing, but then does capturing fit in with OC as it has no discrete signal?
Maybe capturing is the only situation where pure quadrant OC works.
After all a skinner box would seem to be a capturing device.
Let us no how you get on!

Gillian- thanks for the answer I understand now.

Could it be that the S-R-O situation only comes into play after a number of events? That would solve the lower number of trials/probability problem.

Another thing that popped into my head today while I was out training with one of my older dogs.
At what point does a behavior become learned?

Being a dork again I will discuss the maths of the situation.
Taking probability of behavior emission.......again, sorry
If we assume that after say 100 trials and the dog is sitting every-time can we say that sitting is a dead certainty? 
Well again unfortunately not because even in the situation of it only taking 10 trials before the dog is sitting every time if he didn't sit on say 3 occasions, that is a probability for the 101 trial of 97/100 or 0.97
Seeing as 1 is a dead certainty we can see it is very unlikely the dog will not sit but it is not a certainty.
Say he does sit on 101 the probability becomes 0.970297
102= 0.970588
103= 0.970873

Blah blah blah point is it never reaches 1

So at what point is the behavior learned?
From a probability standpoint.
From a purely boring scientific view I mean. This was the problem I was referring to about large numbers of trials.

I know I am being a complete twat about all this but I am really interested in knowing the answers. I will be perfectly happy if someone can come on here and answer without a shadow of a doubt that it is the reinforcer alone that increases frequency of behavior as per the definition.
What happens in the dogs head that means it has 'learned' a behavior?
Can a behavior ever be said to be learned?
Is extinction a pointer to the fact that nothing is ever truly fixed unless it it is instinctive/reflexive?
Can learned behaviors become reflexive?


----------



## rick smith

What happens in the dogs head that means it has 'learned' a behavior?
--- when it responds to the command without thinking of another "optional" behavior it could perform that is different from the command behavior given by the handler
(called a trained response in my neck of the woods)

Can a behavior ever be said to be learned?
--- see above 

Is extinction a pointer to the fact that nothing is ever truly fixed unless it it is instinctive/reflexive?
--- you lost me here 

Can learned behaviors become reflexive?
--- interesting POV ... that would seem more like "self satisfying" according to my dictionary 

measuring the probability factor is an irrelevant part of OC ... to me
...if it were "1" it wouldn't require training in the first place 
..... therefore quitting before you have proofed the behavior would also seem to be very relevant tho 

u think this theory is somewhat "circular" ....also by my dictionary


----------



## rick smith

typo ....
should be "I" think ....

typed this from the hip instead of drafting it and REreading b4 i posted like i normally do ... my bad :grin:


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Matt Vandart said:


> Ariel- sounds cool, are you saying you are purely capturing the behavior?
> I can see a reinforcer working as it is supposed to in a capturing situation.
> I hadn't thought of capturing, but then does capturing fit in with OC as it has no discrete signal?
> Maybe capturing is the only situation where pure quadrant OC works.
> After all a skinner box would seem to be a capturing device.
> Let us no how you get on!
> 
> Gillian- thanks for the answer I understand now.
> 
> Could it be that the S-R-O situation only comes into play after a number of events? That would solve the lower number of trials/probability problem.
> 
> Another thing that popped into my head today while I was out training with one of my older dogs.
> At what point does a behavior become learned?
> 
> Being a dork again I will discuss the maths of the situation.
> Taking probability of behavior emission.......again, sorry
> If we assume that after say 100 trials and the dog is sitting every-time can we say that sitting is a dead certainty?
> Well again unfortunately not because even in the situation of it only taking 10 trials before the dog is sitting every time if he didn't sit on say 3 occasions, that is a probability for the 101 trial of 97/100 or 0.97
> Seeing as 1 is a dead certainty we can see it is very unlikely the dog will not sit but it is not a certainty.
> Say he does sit on 101 the probability becomes 0.970297
> 102= 0.970588
> 103= 0.970873
> 
> Blah blah blah point is it never reaches 1
> 
> So at what point is the behavior learned?
> From a probability standpoint.
> From a purely boring scientific view I mean. This was the problem I was referring to about large numbers of trials.
> 
> I know I am being a complete twat about all this but I am really interested in knowing the answers. I will be perfectly happy if someone can come on here and answer without a shadow of a doubt that it is the reinforcer alone that increases frequency of behavior as per the definition.
> What happens in the dogs head that means it has 'learned' a behavior?
> Can a behavior ever be said to be learned?
> Is extinction a pointer to the fact that nothing is ever truly fixed unless it it is instinctive/reflexive?
> Can learned behaviors become reflexive?


In all this, you hadn't thought of capturing? What's the difference between capturing and free-shaping--to you? I still want to know how you employ OC as you understand it, in dog training. If you really want to know the answer, like Ariel, go out and do that with a dog and record/video all the results and then work out your probability formulas from what occurred. And really, what in life is a "dead certainty' other than death when you are dealing with live organisms with a mind and will of their own. 

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Matt Vandart said:


> What type of statement? Lighten up, it is a blatant piece of self pisstaking.
> 
> OC was developed as a purely mathematical theory of course I am going to use its own engine to show why dog training isn't a purely mathematical problem.
> 
> After reading many of your posts of how you 'just know' a dog will do this or that, 'conections' with dogs, and that dogs are more than just a science study, I am simply amazed that you of all people are arguing against my position.
> In fact I seem to remember you going round in circles arguing the toss with Dave Colbourne about one time when a dog protected you from cattle having never been 'taught to'
> He said he could prove through OC why this occurred and you argued that it was 'instinctive' or a cognitive decision or something along those lines.
> 
> I have consistently stated that I am thinking that there is something more than 'just probability' and Maths involved in what we view as OC.
> The basic concept of reinforcement:
> 
> 
> 
> Probability is a mathematical concept, so I used maths to show its weakness.
> 
> IMO better words/concepts to use would be, incentive, motivator, verifier or con-firmer. I think that is what is happening in training.
> As the dogs 'prediction' is confirmed or verified the dog makes a decision to repeat a response either consciously or subconsciously.
> I think the method used by skinner particularly, that of looking at past events in order to 'predict' future events in terms of probability is flawed in terms of causation although to be fair that is more attributed Azrin and Holtz.
> IMO it's a correlate. As the reinforcement increases the response rate increases co relatively. It's not the direct cause.
> If we look at early concepts of instrumental learning we see subjective ideas such as satisfying and unsatisfying or in Skinners words something the animal 'likes' and 'dislikes' and pair them with signals:
> 
> 'If you do this you will get something you like'
> 
> It shows another factor in the equation of 'expectation' or 'prediction' which will require satisfying in order for the likelihood (probability) of the behavior occurring again increasing.
> It injects a cognitive response to the learning rather than rote action.
> 
> Massive advocators of OC such as Dave refer to a dog 'becoming operant'
> I personally like this phrase as it denotes a situation of 'realization' in the dog. The dog has learned a situation where it can 'predict' a treat coming and that its action will control whether that 'prediction' will manifest or not.
> 
> This prediction coupled with the manifestation of its prediction is the true reinforcer.
> If the dog is not predicting the reinforcement will come, the behavior is less likely to show.
> Equally if the dog is predicting the outcome 'i'm in with a good chance of getting a treat here' then the behavior is more likely to show.
> 
> For example in teaching a puppy to sit the puppy learns if it sits it will get a treat.
> This may take some time for the puppy to couple the action of sitting with the treat getting (in the presence of a signal) it may jump around excitedly, whine, look around etc but will come to associate the signal for sit with a treat.
> Now in my experience anyway it is much easier to teach the dog to 'down' or any other second behavior. Yes the dog may sit a few times but the jumping and barking and whining and stuff is way less apparent.
> The association of signal and treat has been made and the dog has 'become operant' i.e the dog has learned it can control the outcomes and just as it prefers 'treat' to 'not treat' it is satisfying for the dog to observe it's predictions come to pass in the same way it likes eating treats.
> The presence of a 'reinforcer' merely confirms the actual motivation for emitting the response, that motivation being the expectation/prediction/control of the outcome.
> 
> There you go, my position argued from a non mathematical standpoint.


YOU think that OC was developed as a mathematical probability theory. No one else cares about whether you can disprove the theory by establishing that the numbers are less than perfect. We accept that with most things alive, they cannot be manipulated to absolute perfection/dead certainty all of the time--or at least I do. It doesn't mean that it isn't a useful module for dog training even though its not dead certain in its results. Skinner only did one aspect of the work and I believe with rats and/or pidgeons. With dogs, we are talking about an entire different species. Experiements can be specific to the conditions and subjects used. Doesn't mean you can't try and apply it elsewhere but it may not yield the same results outside of those conditions/variables used and the subjects of the experiments. The Brelands' studies in the 1950s established that there could be an exception to how OC worked if the animal had a biological/reflexive/instinctive behavior that could interrupt what was trying to be trained. We already know that there isn't necessary 100% dead certainty in all things with OC. The studies established that as well. Dave has argued in the past that certain things are trained and conditioned. My response is that some aren't. I do not think that everything a dog does is a result of training and conditioning. Has NOTHING to do with what is being discussed here. How many times has free shaping been discussed here? Of course the earlier experiments involved free shaping or capturing. As far as signals and stimulus/cue/command control, that's an entire different process. First the dog has to learn that when the signal is presented, you want him to perform the behavior. In that process alone you can encounter a whole lot of confusion and error, depending on how you have established the behavior and the type of dog you are dealing with. Okay, now that you think pooch knows his signal/stimulus/cue/command and that he should produce the behavior, how are you going to maintain it? Fixed schedule, variable schedule. . . ? Each level [free shaping/capturing the behavior; stimulus/signal to produce the behavior on command instead of spontaneous rehearsal; and gaining reliable performance of the behavior on demand] has its own issues and there were experiments addressing each. You keep wanting to disprove the capturing experment with what can happen in the reliable performance of the behavior part. The only thing that disproves the free shaping idea is proving that you can withhold reward/reinforcement and the dog will perform the behavior with the same frequency as if the reward/reinforcement was present. 

T


----------



## Matt Vandart

I'm not being funny here but where exactly did I say OC 'isn't a useful model for dog training' or that I was trying to disprove it?
It is a mathematical probability theory, that was the whole point of it.

I use it in exactly the same way as everyone else, how else would I use it?
I don't sit there calculating probabilities in my head and sh*t, This is a forum, forums are for discussing stuff, ideas and suchlike that is where I think of these things, forums, the key here being 'discussing' and 'ideas'.
and no capturing hadn't crossed my mind as it goes, whats the problem with that?

My problem isn't that the theory is bunk, my problem is with the use of the definition 'increases the probability of a behavior' 
Thanks for clearing this up for me with that completely disjointed rant in which you have completely confused what I have been saying.
Why are you arguing so vehemently about this? Do you have shares in operant conditioning?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Moving on......

Rick: Would you say behaviors ever become 'immune' to extinction?

and yes it is a bit circular. #-o


----------

