Positive Re-enforcement Only Techniques

[Guest MattandBuddy]

Hi All,

My question is very simple. Does this technique work for ALL dogs. I agree that alot of the time this is all that is needed but will it work for all dogs.

Thanks,

Matt

[Guest Tess32]

What do *you* mean when you say positive reinforcement?

Most people don't use the term correctly, so best to clarify.

Nat

[Guest MattandBuddy]

I mean, only give him treats etc. No choker chain, no yelling?

I am not 100% myself sorry.

[poodlefan]

If you are talking PURELY positive reinforcement M&B, then my answer would be no. Some negatives (not necessarily harsh or abusive) are necessary in dog training IMHO.

However, as a general training method, it can be highly successful for many dogs.

[pgm]

MattandBuddy

all methods of dog training rely on positive reinforcement. The difference is that some people believe that you should 'only' use positive reinforcement - and no it wont work for all dogs. Indeed it is debatable whether it would work for any dog. Even people who use purely positive methods incorporate some use of negative punishment. Neg Pun is simply taking something away from the dog - whether be attention, or something the dog wants, such as treat etc.

[Lablover]

I for one, and it is my own opinion, there is no way, to achieve what I require in my dogs, purely using positive enforcement.

[Vehs]

Positive reinforcement is only an element of training, not a training method

check out this link:

http://www.clickersolutions.com/articles/2001/ocguide.htm

[Guest Tess32]

Yes, positive training will work on all dogs in theory.

I say theory, because some people are simply inefficient at training and simply confuse dogs.

Positive reinforcement is just a quadrant of operant conditioning, it is not an actual training technique.

Positive training does not mean the absence of punishment - most positive trainers (those that don't consider themselves "purely positive") use "negative punishment", they take away something good from the dog, like taking away a toy if the dog won't "leave" on command, or taking away attention.

Honestly, the most rewarding aspect of using positive training is watching your dog work out things and try new behaviours and really *think*. You really feel like you're working with your dog and learning together, rather than just telling the dog what to do.

You definitely don't need a check chain or yelling - but depending on your dog, you will need management tools if for example, he pulls really strongly and you can't control him physically.

As for "purely positive" training, no I don't think it will work on all dogs. It's also very hard to do in real life.

Nat

Edited February 8, 2005 by Tess32

[pgm]

"You definitely don't need a check chain or yelling."

No matter what the method, you don't need yelling. A person yelling at a dog is a sure sign of incompetence. See a trainer yelling at their dog no matter what the method - walk away very quickly.

Edited February 8, 2005 by pgm

[Tralee]

Hi MattandBuddy. ;)

I am not 100% myself sorry.

If that is the case then I think the first thing to do is to bring you up to speed.

What is a reinforcer?

A reinforcer is a stimulus event which, if it occurs in the proper temporal relation with a response, tends to maintain or to increase the strength of a response, a stimulus-response connection, or a stimulus-stimlus connection.

For example, food is a reinforcer because it produces an increase in the frequency, or probablity, of the response that it follows.

What is the difference between positive reinforcers and negative reinforcers?

A positive reinforcer is a reward.

Negative reinforcers reverse the pairing.

That is, a noxious event is removed when the desired behaviour is displayed.

Negative reinforcement is not the same as punishment.

In punishment, the aversive stimulus follows the behaviour.

Also, extinguishing a response is not negative reinforcement either; it occurs when the reward is removed.

So where would we use negative reinforcers and still be acting ethically?

Simple, behaviours that have to be desensitised have a natural noxious or aversive stimulus.

I hope this helps.

;)

Edited February 8, 2005 by pewithers

[pgm]

The theory of operant conditioning is like the theory of the stockmarket - buy low, sell high - if you don't know the first thing about the stockmarket, what it is so to speak, then the advise to buy low, sell high is useful. Beyond that, it is all but useless.

The same goes for operant conditioning, if you don't know the first thing about a dog or animal (what such things are) then operant conditioning is useful. But likewise, beyond that it is useless.

Find a good trainer and forget about theory.

[Guest Tess32]

Why find a trainer and forget about theory? Why not find a good trainer *and* learn theory and learn to train your own dog?

Nat

[pgm]

Tess32, you don't need a theory to train a dog, what you need is a good method, tried and tested. Method and theory are not the same thing.

One no more needs a theory to train a dog than one needs a theory in order to speak. What one needs is experience, either one's own, or much better still, the experience of a successful trainer to learn.

Personally I do not trust trainers that quote theory. And that is not because I do not understand it.

[Guest Tess32]

From the lists I am on and my own obedience school experiences, I find a lot of people "get" clicker training when they combine a bit of reading with the practical work, the two combined seem to help, especially for people who need and want to know why they are doing something and why it works.

And some people enjoy learning the theory, and why the practical work...works.

Nat

[abzndbonnie]

what i do is most positive training and some firm training. by firm i mean using a deep voice. Not yelling, but letting her know who's boss. I think dog's need it. In the wild dogs get growled at if they do the wrong thing, so this is a way for me to let her know im in charge. Its also the way I was taught at obedience training. Works for me. still plenty of treaties but!

[Guest Tess32]

what i do is most positive training and some firm training. by firm i mean using a deep voice. Not yelling, but letting her know who's boss. I think dog's need it. In the wild dogs get growled at if they do the wrong thing, so this is a way for me to let her know im in charge. Its also the way I was taught at obedience training. Works for me. still plenty of treaties but! ;)

That's still positive training - positive training doesn't mean sounding all nice and happy all the time and shoving treats into their mouth at every opportunity

Nat

[pgm]

Tess32, I am sure that doing a bit of reading (indeed, the more the better) helps.

But I would argue that it is not helping in quite the way you think it is helping.

Indeed, I would argue that it often prevents people from coming to a fuller understanding of the training relationship. This is one of explanations for why people (not necessarily yourself) who advocate purely positive methods based on scientific theories are so often hostile to traditional methods.

I for one understand the principles that inform the method I use (this is both helpful and interesting, but not necessarily necessary). Behaviorism on the other hand is incapable of understanding those principles. Why? Because it has ruled them out of the equation as irrelevant.

B.F Skinner was famous, amongst other things, for completely dismissing the internal states of animals (their minds) as irrelevant for predicting behavior.

But this is the MOST important aspect of the training relationship - developing the dog's UNDERSTANDING.

As far as the theory of operant conditioning has no place in its theory for the role that UNDERSTANDING plays in shaping the context of reinforcment (meaning what is reinforcing in one context, is not necessarily reinforcing in another) the theory is hopelessly superficial at best, and just plain wrong at worst.

Unfortunately, the slavish idolization of science (and bad science at that) is what prevents people from understanding this.

[Bonniescot]

Theory:

Explanation of how things work, i.e. learning theory is an account of how learning takes place.

Method:

A way of doing something

pgm: Why can't you train a dog with operant conditioning?

Cheers

[Tralee]

pqm. ;)

MattandBuddy are not training dogs here.

They are asking a questions.

How on earth do you expect someone to understand the answers they are given when they don't even understand their own questions?

You suggest that there should be a separation between practice and understanding.

I suggest that there is a separation between Breeding, Health, Training, Showing, Rescue, etc. and a discussion forum.

[Guest Tess32]

Indeed, I would argue that it often prevents people from coming to a fuller understanding of the training relationship. This is one of explanations for why people (not necessarily yourself) who advocate purely positive methods based on scientific theories are so often hostile to traditional methods.

Do you mean because people who take theory as gospel are inhibited from trusting or taking into account something that happens in practice if it does *not* fit in with the said theory?

As far as the theory of operant conditioning has no place in its theory for the role that UNDERSTANDING plays in shaping the context of reinforcment (meaning what is reinforcing in one context, is not necessarily reinforcing in another) the theory is hopelessly superficial at best, and just plain wrong at worst.

I'm not quite sure how to disect that

What do you mean by the dog's understanding? Understanding of the point of the behaviour or ?

Nat