Positive Re-enforcement Only Techniques

[Staff'n'Toller]

Where I disagree with other approaches is their preoccupation with the process of training over that of the result. For instance, I could give you many examples of activities that were highly satisfying and brought enormous fulfilment and sense of achievement, yet were far from ‘enjoyable’. Running a marathon for instance, could hardly be said to be ‘enjoyable’, yet achieving the end result of finishing brings enormous satisfaction to those who do. Likewise, climbing Mt Everest is a PROCESS of physical and psychological deprivation, yet brings enormous fulfilment to those that achieve the top. So much so that many do it again, knowing full well the physical and emotional suffering the process entails.

IMO, this is placing a human value/thought process/reasoning capability onto a dog which is unfair. In short- we do these 'unenjoyable' tasks because we know what the end result will be- satisfaction and achievement. Dogs just do. In the simplest of terms, you can't tell a dog- "this will be uncomfortable for a short time, until we get to this end result".

Mel.

[pgm]

StaffordsRule: "IMO, this is placing a human value/thought process/reasoning capability onto a dog which is unfair. In short- we do these 'unenjoyable' tasks because we know what the end result will be- satisfaction and achievement. Dogs just do.

PGM: With respect, your opinion doesn't count - neither does mine. It is the dog's opinion that counts. If you cannot read the dog's 'opinion' in his/her behavior and attitude then there isn't much we can say to each other. By claiming that 'dog's just do' you are denying them the capacity to even have an opinion - hence there is little chance that you will be able to see and read this opinion in your dog's body language.

StaffordsRule: "In the simplest of terms, you can't tell a dog- "this will be uncomfortable for a short time, until we get to this end result".

PGM: Yes that is true, but knowing that is why I don't train a dog in that fashion. The dog is never given a correction until the teaching phase is complete. Never subjected (in normal circumstances) to any discomfort until a context of understanding has been established. It is only within the context of understanding that corrections are used.

As a matter of curiosity, have seen your dog happy? Isn't saying that a dog is happy placing a "human value/thought process/reasoning capability" onto the dog? Or when you see your dog wagging it's tail do you just say: look, he's 'DOING happiness'? Can a dog BE happy, or can it only DO happiness?

Isn't saying a dog IS happy (as opposed to DOING happiness) being a little anthropomorhic?

Do you really think that saying 'dogs just do' captures all there is to say about dogs?

Edited February 9, 2005 by pgm

[Pete]

If you are interested in the different methods of training I would recommend this book, it does explain how to use different methods correctly: Excel-Erated Learning by Pamela Reid

As a side note, traditional trainers have a complete mistrust of people using positive reinforcement in their training, it works both ways.

My dog does not find physical corrections positively reinforcing, the exact opposite I would say.

[Bonniescot]

Maybe it's not a case of Positive trainers v Traditional trainers

Maybe it's a case of human emotion:

Could I hit my dog over the head with a crowbar?

I think emotionally I would have great difficulty doing that for training purposes but if it was to save his life......no problems!

Just my thoughts!!

Cheers

[sidoney]

I think it's a case here of human preference rather than canine preference. I stand by what I said before regarding training ethics. The greatest variation is in the people themselves, who differ in both their training preferences and their openness to alternative ideas and opinions.

One can end up with a dog that is well trained by a number of routes. I don't see the point in trying to proselytise. I know what works for me and what I prefer, as do others, and they might go a different path. So long as it is, as I said, ethical and effective, I don't have a problem.

People who come to train with me do so because they want to learn what and how I train. It's my job to ensure that they learn to do it effectively. It's the person's job to decide whether my approach suits them. The dog doesn't really enter into it, as if the person is effective, the dog will learn and enjoy learning, and end up reliable and all that. Some are more challenging than others, but I find that is largely down to past history and handler skill and consistency, and less down to the dog itself. If it's just down to the dog (sans history and handler), it comes out more to variations on a theme. That has been my experience. Which is not so great as the experience of some, but more than many.

Edited February 9, 2005 by sidoney

[snobbybobby]

.

Now the short answer as to why they fail to understand how corrections can indeed be positively reinforcing, is because they fail to take into account (because it plays no part in the theory) how what is going on inside the dog’s head (the way the dog itself interprets) influences the context in which reinforcement is applied.

Hi,

POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT - Anything GOOD that is added that INCREASES behaviour.

POSITIVE PUNISHMENT - Anything BAD that is added that DECREASES behaviour.

These are scientific facts. Please don't put your own interpretation on them.

Now, can you tell me where the confusion can be in the dog's mind?

Henrynchlo

[Tabata]

pgm, you say that dogs derive inherent satisfaction from achievement, and that is the internal state which motivates the dog. And yet you define achievement entirely in your terms: “what I mean by a trained dog is a confident, healthy, well balanced, obedient and reliable animal.”

Can you tell me what “obedience” and “reliability” might mean to a dog, and why they would aspire to achieve them? What inherent satisfaction would a dog derive from achieving, say, a ten minute down-stay?

As far as the definition of reinforcement goes, it is quite explicit in OC. A reinforcer is anything which increases the behaviour on which it is contingent. It is defined entirely by its results. So anyone who understands OC would have absolutely no problem with your statement “…that physical corrections can be … positively reinforcing.” Of course they can. If my dog jumps up, and I give him a leash pop, and as a result the dog jumps up more often, the leash pop has positively reinforced the jumping up behaviour.

[pgm]

henrynchlo:

"POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT - Anything GOOD that is added that INCREASES behaviour.

POSITIVE PUNISHMENT - Anything BAD that is added that DECREASES behaviour.

These are scientific facts. Please don't put your own interpretation on them."

Really? Then could you please provide me with the scientific citation.

[Vickie]

PGM: so long as your dog is motivated by reward, or even just the possibility of reward, it can be said that he has YET to actually understand.

PGM,

I wonder how this statement works. There are some activities that are self rewarding for a dog. I don't believe the dog is "yet to understand" in these instances.

I'm not exactly sure what my opinion is on this as I can agree & disagree with many of the points raised here. One thing I am sure of is that the dog itself and it's individual temperament/instinct/drive for the activity being trained can & will play an important part in the most efficient method of training it as will the consistency and skill of the trainer. To me it's much bigger than positive vs negative.

[pgm]

Tabata:"Can you tell me what “obedience” and “reliability” might mean to a dog, and why they would aspire to achieve them? What inherent satisfaction would a dog derive from achieving, say, a ten minute down-stay?"

PGM: What reliability means to a dog, at least in the way that I think of it, is the capacity to fully participate in life with it's handler. An obedient, reliable dog gets to do many things and participate in life with his or her owner to a far greater extent than an unreliable, disobedient dog. A disobedient dog is left in the backyard, a dog that continually pulls on the lead is taken out a lot less than one that doesn't. A dog that has a reliable recall - such as mine - gets to enjoy his liberty on walks to explore and enjoy himself, rather than be onlead the whole time. An obedient dog is never yelled out, is seldom told off. An obedient dog knows his place in the world and is comfortable and confident. There are many more advantages...

As to whether dogs aspire to this state of affairs, I can only say that human children do not aspire to be well-behaved anymore than dogs. That is why if they are not disciplined and given boundaries they often grow up to be insufferable adults. We discipline and educate children for the same reason as we train dogs, because we recognize that it is for THEIR long term benefit. A well brought up child is a child that is better able to enjoy the benefits and satisfactions of society - it is the same for dogs.

[pgm]

vpzn: "I wonder how this statement works. There are some activities that are self rewarding for a dog. I don't believe the dog is "yet to understand" in these instances."

PGM: 'self rewarding' is the key. If the dog requires external rewards and/or corrections then it is yet to understand.

[sidoney]

pgm, are you ascribing to dogs the same cognitive capabilities, and abilities to make moral and ethical judgements as children develop as they grow up? That is what your statement sounds like.

[Guest Tess32]

PGM: True. But then please explain why so many (not necessarily yourself) ‘positive’ trainers, who rely of the theory of operant conditioning as an authoritive source for their methods, are so often downright hostile to traditional trainers who employ physical corrections as part of their methods?

I believe it's often a chicken/egg scenerio. Traditional trainers are often *just* as hostile towards the positive trainers. Are either parties hostile *because* the other is or were they hostile initially? Who knows - that's individual. Perhaps the positive trainers are hostile because some traditionals either A) Don't seem to *want* positive training to really work or B) Continually state it doesn't work. Traditional trainers might be hostile towards positive trainers because A) They are being labelled as abusive by some pos trainers or B) They think it really doesn't work.

I don't think either party is the victim.

And as a rule of thumb, the more infatuated they are with the theory of OC, the more hostile they are to the idea of physical corrections.

It makes sense to me. If you honestly believe you DON'T need physical corrections then you may feel hostile to those who believe you DO need them. I am not saying either is right - just that I understand why.

Exactly the same reinforcement can change from being positive reinforcement  to positive punishment depending on the change in context.

Agreed.

PGM: No. The point at which a dog can truly be said to ‘understand’ is when ‘click’ is no longer necessary.

I disagree, but I think you are misunderstanding me.

I mean the click=correct in *general training* not in training the specific behaviour.

For example, I agree that there is no point to continue clicking once the dog knows how to sit. Once he does, there is no point to marking it, just in reinforcing it.

I *meant* that once the dog knows any click = correct in life that he truly understands how the trainer is communicating and can adjust accordingly.

PGM: so long as your dog is motivated by reward, or even just the possibility of reward, it can be said that he has YET to actually understand.

I don't understand this - could you clarify?

It sounds to me like you are saying that understand alone will always result in a behaviour. I know how to insert change into a pokie machine, but I won't always do it. Do you believe you can stop rewarding the dog as the understanding alone self rewards?

Nat

[Guest Tess32]

Where I disagree with other approaches is their preoccupation with the process of training over that of the result. For instance, I could give you many examples of activities that were highly satisfying and brought enormous fulfilment and sense of achievement, yet were far from ‘enjoyable’. Running a marathon for instance, could hardly be said to be ‘enjoyable’, yet achieving the end result of finishing brings enormous satisfaction to those who do. Likewise, climbing Mt Everest is a PROCESS of physical and psychological deprivation, yet brings enormous fulfilment to those that achieve the top. So much so that many do it again, knowing full well the physical and emotional suffering the process entails.

I disagree that it is not important. It is important partly because you cannot train if you feel a method is morally wrong. If you believe that, then the means to the end is vital in how you proceed.

Your examples above are sustained by the knowledge of the future - you know running a marathon is enjoyable because you know that you will most likely feel satisfaction at the end. You feel satisfaction because you KNOW a marathon is objectively difficult for any member of your species. The dog can't put what he's doing in a greater context in terms of contextual knowledge. Without being able to put the difficulty of the marathon in a general context, (it's hard for everybody and a sense of personal worth will follow) the satisfaction is hollow.

I believe dogs have a rich emotional life, but I don't think they *think* about their emotional life. Without that, I don't believe the means of training is unimportant. We don't truly know how they process current events - without the knowledge that "yes this is difficult but it will pass", then physical corrections are possibly damaging.

Where this mentality impacts dog training is that people cannot stand even the thought of a dog suffering discomfort in the process of training.

This is why I think the idea of "purely positive" is potentially dangerous. What happens to a dog that's never been forced to do anything at all and is suddenly faced with force? It may crumble.

I don't think corrects in theory are wrong - dogs use corrections amongst themselves all the time.

Nat

[Kavik]

I agree with Sidoney and vpzn.

Different methods work for different people and different dogs. Depends on temperament of dog and owner, and what you are trying to train. As long as you are not harming the dog and it works, go for it.

Some dogs train well with traditional methods, others crumble, and work best with alternative methods.

Some owners cannot comprehend correcting their dog, and don't use a method that requires physical correction, others use physical correction when necessary.

[dogdayz]

Some dogs train well with traditional methods, others crumble, and work best with alternative methods.

Total agreement. My collie is trained by traditional methods and it works well for her. My weim did not cope with these methods and has made the switch to as close to purely positive as we can be, that has worked wonders with him. The only one inconvenienced is me as i have to try hard to remember who i am training.

[pgm]

Sidoney: are you ascribing to dogs the same cognitive capabilities, and abilities to make moral and ethical judgements as children develop as they grow up? That is what your statement sounds like.

PGM: I am not ascribing the same cognitive capabilities in dogs that are possessed in humans - obviously. But neither does a child have the same cognitive abilities as an adult. Do we therefore deny that children possess any cognitive abilities at all, and are therefore incapable of any understanding right from wrong? In a legal sense we limit a child's level of responsibilies - that is we recognize limitations - but we don't deny them any capacity whatsoever. Which is why it is not illegal to discipline one's children (within reason).

Do I believe that dog's possess cognitive abilities? Yes I do, very much so. And I believe that such abilities (however limited they may be in relation to humans) are capable of being developed in the training relationship into an understanding of right and wrong. I believe dog's are perfectly capable of exercising cognitive judgment.

Or are you saying only humans possess cognitive abilities? Some philosophers would say so - most of them having spent zilch amount of time working and training animals.

[pgm]

"Do you believe you can stop rewarding the dog as the understanding alone self rewards?"

The short answer to that is yes. A dog that continually requires reinforcment, whether reward or correction, does not constitute a trained dog.

But that does not mean that all rewards end for the dog. It simply means that the rewards take on a different aspect. I don't reward my dog for coming to me when called, that is because he has been trained and no longer requires reinforcement. But the real reward the dog gains from this, is that he may enjoy himself at liberty and do as he pleases (within limits) without having to be on lead.

Understanding brings it own rewards. The dog that understands is able to participate more fully in the social life of his owner. A happy dog is a dog that has a meaningful place and role in life. Understanding is the basis in which one is able to give the dog a meaningful place and role.

[Kavik]

I disagree. I don't think the dog understands that because he comes to you when called he is able to enjpy more freedom. I think he understands that coming to you gets rewarded. I think he enjoys getting out. But I don't think he understands that the two are related.

[pgm]

Lia: I think he enjoys getting out. But I don't think he understands that the two are related.

pgm: maybe not in the way we understand such matters. But I can tell what he does understand. He understands certain rules or expectations (call them manners) that are involved in going for walks. He understands for instance that whenever he sees another human or dog approaching that he is to come to heel. I know this because he often offers the behavior without any word from me. Indeed I have found myself surprised on more than one occassion to find him next to me in a perfect heel, only to look up to realise that there are people approaching. And he will stay in that position without word or praise from me until I give him the okay to go off again. I do not carry treats, I rarely if ever praise him for this behavior. He simply offers the behavior of his own accord because he understands certain expections I have of him.

You can say he does this for reward. What reward? I don't give him any (once he has learnt and understood the behavior that it is - in other words, once he has been trained.)