Conditioned stimulus

[Stacia]

Yes, you are right, I have been known to say 'no' but in the nicest possible way I just thought a truly instinctive dog trainer would only be positive as they would see that is the only thing which works. However, I have known people continually punish and achieve nothing, so they have no instinct! Sorry, brain addled, tired and OH just be taken off to hospital.

 

[snowbunny]

Well, for the purposes of this conversation, I think we can say that people who want to learn as much as they can about the science will get a deeper knowledge of that science, which may or may not help them in practical terms. Training dogs is both a science and a skill, and a real test of temperament at times!

 

[Stacia]

Sometimes one can be blinded by science, however, I agree with your principle.

 

[Beanwood]

Sometimes one can be blinded by science, however, I agree with your principle.

I agree to some extent. I am always surprised that people who "know" and have worked/had dogs for many, many years just don't really "see" the dog in front of them. It's those really subtle nuances of communication from dog to person or dog to dog, that some trainers/handlers just have and act on naturally with empathy. Those to me are the instinctive trainers....and some just don't or refuse to observe these behaviour nuances, because it goes against the grain of their training style.

Then there are those who have the instinct, the innate desire to explore and improve their relationships with their dogs, but want to explore in a more scientific way, to build blocks of solid evidence that everyone can work with.

 

[snowbunny]

I think you're easily blinded by the science if you don't understand it. That's fine, there's loads I don't understand yet, but I'm working away at that and am increasing my understanding all the time. That understanding helps me in a practical sense to make the best decisions for my dogs based on what I can see in them. I don't expect everyone else to feel the same, or to seek the same level of understanding as I strive for as not everyone is as interested in it as I am. That's cool; I'm not the slightest bit interested in music, but can still appreciate that people are, and want to get as good as they can at it - and again with music, there's the technical, mathematical side to it that complements the artistic side. There is also the strong cultural side that influences what we think makes good music in one country, compared to people from another country whose music sounds discordant to our ears. Your average musician is probably interested most in the instrument they are playing, to get as fluent at that as possible. They may dabble into the technical side for transposing and the like. But there is a vast subject beyond that that brings the art and the science together. Just because someone is interested in the science it doesn't mean they can't also strive for the practical skills, and studying the technical side can improve someone's skills as they learn the rules that govern what makes things sound good.

Understanding the science doesn't make you a good dog trainer, but if you do understand the scientific principles that are at work, you are in a better place to make better decisions within the confines of your skill set. You are also better placed to improve those practical skills.

What I'm saying is that it can never be a bad thing to want to increase your understanding, and we shouldn't to try to reduce the importance of the science that governs a subject - any subject. If you're not interested, that's fine, but for those of us who are, it provides clarity, it doesn't add confusion. For those that are confused by the conversations in this section of the forum, your choice is to either start smaller and increase your understanding incrementally until you do get it - and by all means ask as many questions as you'd like; or else make the decision that the science isn't of any interest, and keep doing what you're doing without it. There's no right or wrong.

 

[Boogie]

I agree. I’m very much an intuitive trainer with a lot of empathy and inbuilt ‘dog sense’
, oodles of patience and ability to read dog body language. But I’m still working against my inbuilt ‘corrective’ behaviours - especially verbal corrections which pop out unbidden quite often.

When ‘training’ human children I think correctives are needed along with rewards. Children who are only R+ ‘trained’ tend to be spoiled, arrogant, entitled brats - but this is due to the fact that we can use language and warnings imo. Just th threat of consequences is enough for most children, especially if you are really consistent and use lots of rewards alongside.

.

 

[Boogie]

Another inbuilt behaviour is using our hands (gently, but still correctively). If our monkey children wander off it’s completely natural to pick them up/hold their hand/bring them close using our hands. It doesn’t work with dogs at all. I take my dogs’ collars off indoors because it’s one thing I’ve failed in training Mr Boogs not to do. He will get hold of collars to manoeuvre dogs about - and it’s counter productive in their training imo.

 

[Joy]

I think there are people who are instinctively kind. (My late father is one example - he never shouted at or smacked children or dogs.) I think people like this can achieve success in training their dogs at least in basic behaviours, but by reading studies into learning theory as it relates to dogs I think a person is bound to become more skillful in their training.

And actually I just find it interesting to think about language used to convey concepts - and to learn new things generally. (As long as it's not sewing - I hate sewing )

 

[snowbunny]

Another inbuilt behaviour is using our hands (gently, but still correctively). If our monkey children wander off it’s completely natural to pick them up/hold their hand/bring them close using our hands. It doesn’t work with dogs at all. I take my dogs’ collars off indoors because it’s one thing I’ve failed in training Mr Boogs not to do. He will get hold of collars to manoeuvre dogs about - and it’s counter productive in their training imo.

I'd say that, when well thought-out, that's more management than correction - although of course if it affects behaviour going forwards then you are using some sort of negative punishment. We use leads, harnesses and collars to restrain our dogs in the same way. If you teach the dog that the collar touch/grab/pressure is a cue then you can prevent it from being aversive. Luna was horribly sensitive to having her collar touched when she was a baby, so I paid into it and now she is happy to have me hold onto it if I need to.

Children who are only R+ ‘trained’ tend to be spoiled, arrogant, entitled brats

I can't say I know any children who have been trained exclusively with R+, but learning theory is learning theory and not species specific. When applied correctly, this shouldn't be true at all. It sounds like the same criticism as we get as R+ dog trainers, that we're bribing and luring our dogs, letting them get away with things. Positive reinforcement does not mean permissive. If the children are all of those things, it sounds like their parents are permissive rather than using "real" R+, which is a fault of the trainer not understanding what R+ is all about. After all, those undesirable behaviour traits are behaviours we could eliminate using the concepts of learning theory!
I'm definitely not saying it's easy and I know I wouldn't be up to the task of applying it correctly in a human context (because I'm far less tolerant of humans than I am of dogs), but I reckon the fault is less with the science and more with those who are trying to apply it without fully grasping how it works - and the practicalities of doing that. Do those parents sit down and write out training plans that split the behaviours into manageable chunks? Hmmm, I gotta say, I doubt it in the vast majority of cases. So the result is someone who is applying a half-assed approach of reinforcing the things they like, just ignoring the things they don't and thereby allowing the child to self-reward with undesirable behaviours. That doesn't work in dog training and it won't work in human training, either.

 

[Boogie]

When I was a teacher I used ‘start’ behaviours and ‘stop’ behaviours. To encourage children to do the things you want and discourage them from doing things you don’t.

I was kind and gentle throughout. Plenty of rewards for doing the right thing. Learning good behaviour is a slow build up over time.

But - when it comes to stopping unwanted behaviours it takes a child no time at all - 3 seconds maximum. So long as they know the consequence will always be applied - and applied consistently. And so long as the consequence was something they really dislike (usually, almost always, time out, sometimes missing playtime) They would get time out (10 minutes for a ten year old) for three instances of low level disruption. (Counted). By the time I’d taught the class three lessons I only needed to count to two. I can count on one hand the times I needed to use the punishments in a year.

It works because we can explain, warn and use language.

 

[snowbunny]

I have no doubt it does work - and the counting is a good example of the use of negative reinforcement. The child works in order to avoid something aversive (if timeout, that itself is negative punishment). It's the same in all animals. For horses, an example of negative reinforcement is when you apply the pressure of your legs which you release when they move forwards. For a dog, you apply an ear pinch which you release when they comply. It may be less physical in the above example, but the principle is exactly the same. To achieve behaviour change, you will always be using one (or more) of the four quadrants

My training philosophy (for dogs) sees no need to use negative reinforcement in a planned training scenario. It is undoubtedly effective, but it is not what I want to do as it requires something "icky" to work and I want to avoid that. Of course, negative reinforcement "happens" in everyday life, as does positive punishment. No-one can avoid ending up in any of the quadrants at some time or another because life happens. Those of us who see it for what it is will learn from it and come up with "if...then..." strategies to deal with that scenario next time.

The use of aversives very often makes training quicker, there is no doubt about that, as animals (including humans) will often work harder to avoid a punishment than they will for a prize. Is it more ethical to use aversive-based teaching with humans than it is with animals, since you can explain the action and consequence? I dunno. That's not my area of interest or experience.

 

[Boogie]

The use of aversives very often makes training quicker, there is no doubt about that, as animals (including humans) will often work harder to avoid a punishment than they will for a prize. Is it more ethical to use aversive-based teaching with humans than it is with animals, since you can explain the action and consequence? I dunno. That's not my area of interest or experience.

No it isn’t. But it is needed - humans can’t be allowed to practice bad behaviour, which (usually) hurts others. They need to be stopped - and, as I said, ‘stop’ behaviours are easy if the punishments are clear, fair and consistent. Better to meet the boundaries at school than in prison.

I used a rule of thumb - ten positives to every negative. But, quite often, teachers are so unclear about which is which that children are confused. I made it crystal clear as soon as I met a class. “If you do as you are asked .... will happen and if you don’t ..... will happen.”

And I agree with you entirely re: dog training.

 

[snowbunny]

I don't teach kids on the ski hill very often anymore, but I'm going to make it an experiment next time I do; see if I can come up with structured training scenarios that use R+ and see how successful it is.
Kids tend to be brilliant for the first two days (we have them three hours a day for five days), but start showing their true colours on the third day! I've always gone for the approach of "I don't have many rules but those I have are for safety. If you can't stick to those, you don't get to ski with me, and I'll leave you in the kindergarten with the babies. If you stick to the rules, we'll have a great week". I generally get one who says "You can't do that, my parents have paid for you to teach me to ski!". I tell 'em I can, I will and I have before, that shuts them up.

Yeah, me + kids + R+. Tough ask

 

[Joy]

With dogs, a trainer wanting to use R+ as far as possible will manage the situation so the dog isnt put on a position where the owner has to use punishment to prevent injury to the dog itself, another dog or human (eg a trainer wouldnt take a dog-reactive dog to an area where they knew they would meet lots of other dogs.) With human children we put them in classrooms regardless of how likely they are to be able to cope and therefore most teachers end up resorting to some punishment (time-out etc) even if they would prefer to use only R+. Schools like Steiner, Summerhill etc were/are attempts to change the educational environment- a move away from one-size fits all.