Hate to be technical but neither of those is -r. NO is either a cue for positive or negative punishment in either of those cases. You have either taught her that NO means a consequence is coming, or that her reward is being withheld.
Originally Posted by Bartona500
If we're going to discuss the topic it helps if the correct terms are used. I see this incorrect definition of -r constantly from the +r only zealots out there. It gets a bit tiresome listening to people preach who don't even know the science well enough to use the correct terms.
Not saying that's you Bart, not at all, just clarifying for the purpose of productive discussion.
This from wikipedia:
Here the terms positive and negative are not used in their popular sense, but rather: positive refers to addition, and negative refers to subtraction.
What is added or subtracted may be either reinforcement or punishment. Hence positive punishment is sometimes a confusing term, as it denotes the "addition" of a stimulus or increase in the intensity of a stimulus that is aversive (such as spanking or an electric shock). The four procedures are:
- Positive reinforcement (Reinforcement): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus that is appetitive or rewarding, increasing the frequency of that behavior. In theSkinner box experiment, a stimulus such as food or a sugar solution can be delivered when the rat engages in a target behavior, such as pressing a lever.
- Negative reinforcement (Escape): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of an aversive stimulus, thereby increasing that behavior's frequency. In the Skinner box experiment, negative reinforcement can be a loud noise continuously sounding inside the rat's cage until it engages in the target behavior, such as pressing a lever, upon which the loud noise is removed.
- Positive punishment (Punishment) (also called "Punishment by contingent stimulation"): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus, such as introducing a shock or loud noise, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.
- Negative punishment (Penalty) (also called "Punishment by contingent withdrawal"): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of a stimulus, such as taking away a child's toy following an undesired behavior, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.
I agree with you guys here and preach this to pet dog clients on an almost daily basis. I tend to say that if a dog isn't performing a known task reliably, they aren't fully conditioned yet, which is pretty much the same as Robert saying they "haven't been adequately prepared". I happens that I have no issue whatsoever with using aversives to condition certain behaviors, especially at a distance, when the e-collar vastly improves my timing. Even in heeling, the pinch collar and lead approach in conjunction with rewards produces a reliable result much quicker and easier than using rewards alone, particularly when the dog is a lower drive critter.
Originally Posted by rmilner
I have definitely learned to balance back in the direction of rewards, adding more and more of them as I go along in my evolution as a trainer. I doubt I'll ever exclude the use of aversives in my training though and believe pretty strongly that those who claim to be +r only are simply ignoring the punishments they do employ. I think you'd have to never even put a collar on a dog to be purely +r, and I don't see that happening very often.
I've asked many people to allow me to put a harness or collar and leash on them to see how they liked it. Haven't had a taker yet.
Hotel4dogs - or is it merely about one 'reward' outweighing another? ie. the 'reward' (positive reinforcement? forgive me if my tech terms aren't completely right) of having sex with the bitch is outweighing your reward of "good boy" or here's a treat, or I withhold punishment... So, the dog is doing the more rewarding behaviour, and you need to find a way of motivating him to do what you want instead, with a greater reward!!! LOL :D
thinking the poor fluffly feller ever heard the command is like thinking a guy hears the bartender say "wife on phone" while he is getting a lap dance! Get the bandana on the floor!
So Cory, you're saying that if strong instinct is involved, it's not disobedience because he's become temporarily insane?
Hmmm.....I've seen a couple of dogs become temporarily insane when there's a bird involved due to very strong instinct. Especially if the shot was missed and the bird is flying away.
Really I was just playing devil's advocate and saying that there are, in my humble and often wrong opinion, some instances in which a dog does deliberately disobey you. His desires override his training.
Kennel Maiden, I had to laugh because there is absolutely no "positive reinforcement" that I could offer him that would override that urge, which I think was your point! I have, however, found that fear of being killed (exaggerating) if he doesn't knock it off will, in fact, cause him to stop.
Originally Posted by FinnLandR
You crack me up!
But that is why I did specify that, in my hypothetical ($5 word?) example, he looked right at me and went back to trying to mount her.
Originally Posted by Ken Bora
Originally Posted by kennel maiden
Not sure why folks are not open to other people’s training methods!or ideas or suggestions??
KM Yes I use words to convey what I am expecting and use “good” “yes” for praise.
Attrition is probably the way I would go to correct first or simplify. If we have an issue (loopy sit) I return to pile work no force! And practice whistle sits on the way out to the pile to decrease the momentum and get the quick sits. Just my way of doing things IMHO. I am really looking to make sure he understands what I am asking. May have to reteach. Again use positive comments for praise.
You are correct KM to have the dog well versed on land before attempting water. I practice lining drills and through attrition and simplifying get the dog to look out himself , then I put my hand down tweak and say "dead bird" "good" or "yes that is it" to cue him.
I am guilty of saying "no leave it". I run the mark on one side and it is a poison bird I say "leave it" and heel him to the other side and run the blind. Works well for me IMHO
And again like you I would stress doing land work first. Not saying any of this the only way but it works for me IMHO
KM really enjoyed your response. Hope you continue to comment We could all learn something. Thank you.
Originally Posted by Mary Lynn Metras
I enjoyed it as well. Thank you for taking the time to post. If you're still following this thread, I'd be very interested in learning a little bit more about the methods you use to train for blind retrieves, in particular how you begin training young dogs. Thank you!
Sometimes all these positive and negative discussions get so confusing that it leads me to wonder if it is even worth worrying about for the amateur trainer or possibly any retriever trainer. I try to follow the Lardy system and the following is right out of his TRT video:
Originally Posted by DarrinGreene
"An animal behaviorist came out to watch us train and we were working on a simple lining to the pile drill and in the process of lining to the pile, we used positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, punishment and to distinguish which part of the training was which type of training would require a whole days discussion. Our training involves punishment, R+, R-, all of those. We are not hung up on those terms and will not dissect our training as to what is occurring at that moment. We are not in a laboratory and within a one minute span of training, we will have used all three of those and these dogs are smart enough to adapt to different kinds of timing and different types of correction all within that minute. I will avoid those terms because I will use them incorrectly if I do. I also will not use the terms avoidance training and escape training. If you're training laboratory rats to push a lever, you can distinguish when those terms apply to what types of training. But when you're training retrievers to perform the tasks we're doing, you go in and out of all of those types of training."
Is the goal to have a well trained retriever or prove a theory through the scientific process? At the end of the day I think this stuff is cool to read about in a good internet debate but am really starting to think it may be more worthwhile to focus on the task at hand (training) and leave the rest to the scientists. My point is that maybe these discussions do more harm than good when the majority of us try to figure out how it applies to our training instead of just training!
I truly understand Tito's behavior---highest value reward.
Originally Posted by kennel maiden
I think this is called instinctive drift.