Skinner vs Pavlov

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve schreiner

To begin with I agree with the notion of being very confusing when we try to describe things in verbal fashion....This is how I understand the 4 quadrants Pos reinforcement ='s a reward ( treat ,happy bumper) Pos punishment ='s give a correction ( dog jumps up smack on the head ...avoidance teaching ) Neg reinforcement ='s escape training ,ear pinched dog opens mouth .....Neg punishment ='s reward with held ( dog in sit position , food pan placed on floor ,dog moves ,food pan picked up ) a verbal no but no punishment administered....

It really doesn't matter how we use it ...It's important how the dog understands or how they associate it with the behavior going on at the time of the stimulation... I was taught to always repeat the rep after a stimulation (without pressure) to see the effects of that stimulation...In other words did the dog make the correct association ....OR ..did we have a failure to communicate...I also agree with your thoughts that both CC and OC go hand in hand toward a final out come... Good discussion and food for thought... Steve S

---

Steve I agree, but don't you think that as trainers we should understand if you are rewarding a certain behavior or punishing an unwanted behavior.
I also agree that this has made me think about my training in a different way. For example on blinds if the dog makes a mistake I will first use Positive Punishment (add a collar correction to make the wrong way less appealing) if this doesn't work I use attrition which I see as Negative Punishment (because I am taking away something good "The Retrieve" in order to try to make the right way more appealing) If the dog gets the bumper after using either the bumper becomes a Positive Reinforcement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Couch

As far as I understand it you add something it is positive but is it positive reinforcement or positive punishment both are adding one good and one bad!

---

Stop thinking about adding or subtracting, and good or bad.

You can't add something, that you didn't first withhold. You can't remove something, that you didn't first provide.

This is about conditioned responses. Take emotion out of it, and read the dog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Couch

....FF to me would be considered Negative Punishment which is to take away something bad to make a behavior more likely (ear pinch= bad take bumper into your mouth removes the bad stimulant thus making taking the bumper behavior more likely). Also you are assuming that the addition of the stimulus is increasing the behavior, but could it be said that adding the bad stimulus is in fact making the wrong behavior less likely (I give a left over and dog goes back I add a bad stimulus to make the back reaction less likely or the dog is sent on a blind and starts to break down and I add a back nick back which in turn makes the breaking down on a blind less likely because adding a bad makes a behavior less likely)

---

You're thinking in circles. What matters, is how the dog understands it. The better that you can communicate with the dog, the quicker it will understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Couch

How would you punish with food? Dogs are hard wired to eat I think you would have a hard time convincing a dog that food is bad thing.

---

You can use reward, to punish behavior.

We aren't trying to reinforce or punish the dog. We are trying to reinforce or punish behaviors.

We do that by conditioning associations with stimuli. Those stimuli can be aversive, rewarding, or neutral.
It's not about good things, and bad things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jennifer Henion

Your take on this is sounding more and more like sadomasochism.

In force to pile or force fetch or force to water, the force is not used so the dog will like it, right? Isn't it used to convey: "you're not going fast enough, you must get there now" and in order to escape this electronic pulse, you must go and get there now? Thus creating a fast response to escape the nick/burn or stick on your ass. So, if my thinking on this is right, the nick/burn used in force training is not an indicator that dog is about to be rewarded with a retrieve, it's to say:you're going to get burned until you escape it by doing this drill and show a compulsion to get to the pile or water. Right?

---

I don't use pressure to create a faster response... a more dependable one...Too much pressure in an effort to create speed will have the opposite effect...Steve S

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Couch

Steve I agree, but don't you think that as trainers we should understand if you are rewarding a certain behavior or punishing an unwanted behavior.
I also agree that this has made me think about my training in a different way. For example on blinds if the dog makes a mistake I will first use Positive Punishment (add a collar correction to make the wrong way less appealing) if this doesn't work I use attrition which I see as Negative Punishment (because I am taking away something good "The Retrieve" in order to try to make the right way more appealing) If the dog gets the bumper after using either the bumper becomes a Positive Reinforcement.

---

I think that it's extremely important that you understand that almost every time the collar is used in training, it is to serve as reinforcement.

In other words, to increase a desirable behavior.
You HAVE TO, be able to apply it as positive reinforcement, or you CANNOT effectively use the collar in the field.

Since it is aversive stimulus, it is ALWAYS capable of punishing behavior.
Every time you use it, there is a risk that you are punishing a desirable behavior.

The only punishment that you should ever apply with the e-collar in the field, is through indirect pressure.
And you better know what you are doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copterdoc

Stop thinking about adding or subtracting, and good or bad.

You can't add something, that you didn't first withhold. You can't remove something, that you didn't first provide.

This is about conditioned responses. Take emotion out of it, and read the dog.

You're thinking in circles. What matters, is how the dog understands it. The better that you can communicate with the dog, the quicker it will understand it.

You can use reward, to punish behavior.

We aren't trying to reinforce or punish the dog. We are trying to reinforce or punish behaviors.

We do that by conditioning associations with stimuli. Those stimuli can be aversive, rewarding, or neutral.
It's not about good things, and bad things.

---

Could you please explain how you would use food as a punishment. I am using terms that are directly associated with OC I have no emotion involved just my understanding of the principles. In the excerpt you you used from Dennis it directly correlates Positive as adding something and Negative as removing something. I am just trying to understand where you are coming from. To me in retriever training by doing FF and Then CC we are teaching a dog how to react to pressure, but we are eliciting a pain response which in my eyes will never be positive reinforcement. I don't care how many times you punch me in the face it will never be a positive experience. I will however learn to avoid it!

When you apply indirect pressure with the collar, you are directly reinforcing a conditioned behavior, and in the same instant indirectly punishing an undesirable behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Couch

Steve I agree, but don't you think that as trainers we should understand if you are rewarding a certain behavior or punishing an unwanted behavior.
I also agree that this has made me think about my training in a different way. For example on blinds if the dog makes a mistake I will first use Positive Punishment (add a collar correction to make the wrong way less appealing) if this doesn't work I use attrition which I see as Negative Punishment (because I am taking away something good "The Retrieve" in order to try to make the right way more appealing) If the dog gets the bumper after using either the bumper becomes a Positive Reinforcement.

---

I don't think it is that important to understand all the technical jargon used to describe what we are doing ...I believe most trainers are hung up on making corrections for unwanted ( wrong ) than they are reinforcing good....I also believe most don't reward good enough or with enough enthusiasm for it to mean anything to the dog other than just noise from that guy/gal again...Why not try attrition first and use the pressure if that failed ...Are we too quick to come to the push button trainer ( a misnomer for sure ) when the dog doesn't perform as a robot..? Don't get me wrong , I wouldn't train if I couldn't use the collar...Steve S

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Couch

Could you please explain how you would use food as a punishment. I am using terms that are directly associated with OC I have no emotion involved just my understanding of the principles. In the excerpt you you used from Dennis it directly correlates Positive as adding something and Negative as removing something. I am just trying to understand where you are coming from. To me in retriever training by doing FF and Then CC we are teaching a dog how to react to pressure, but we are eliciting a pain response which in my eyes will never be positive reinforcement. I don't care how many times you punch me in the face it will never be a positive experience. I will however learn to avoid it!

---

Reinforcement has nothing to do with pleasure.
Punishment has nothing to do with pain.

If the application of a stimuli, results in an increase of a behavior, it reinforced it.
If the application of a stimuli, results in the decrease of a behavior, it punished it.

Rewards are stimuli.
Aversives are stimuli.

It is a lot easier to reinforce with a reward, than it is to punish with it. But, depending on the association that we have classically conditioned with that reward, it is possible to use it as positive punishment.

It is a lot easier to punish with an aversive, than it is to reinforce with it. But, depending on the association that we have classically conditioned with that aversive, it is possible to use it as positive reinforcement.

What allows us to "flip" that, is first establishing a classically conditioned response to that specific stimuli.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copterdoc

Reinforcement has nothing to do with pleasure.
Punishment has nothing to do with pain.

If the application of a stimuli, results in an increase of a behavior, it reinforced it.
If the application of a stimuli, results in the decrease of a behavior, it punished it.

Rewards are stimuli.
Aversives are stimuli.

It is a lot easier to reinforce with a reward, than it is to punish with it. But, depending on the association that we have classically conditioned with that reward, it is possible to use it as positive punishment.

It is a lot easier to punish with an aversive, than it is to reinforce with it. But, depending on the association that we have classically conditioned with that aversive, it is possible to use it as positive reinforcement.

What allows us to "flip" that, is first establishing a classically conditioned response to that specific stimuli.

---

Can you give some examples of how you would apply this to retriever training?
How would one create the association of an aversive to allow it to become a positive reinforcement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by copterdoc

When you apply indirect pressure with the collar, you are directly reinforcing a conditioned behavior, and in the same instant indirectly punishing an undesirable behavior.

---

How do you apply indirect pressure with the collar...? It doesn't exist...The only thing we apply is direct pressure every time we push the button..A term used to describe a dog getting religion on the next command .... It is use to get the next command given not something that is going on at that moment in time..Steve S