Carr based training system?

[Evan]

Robert,


Disagree!

Escape and avoidance responses are an integral part of Operant Conditioning theory. In "Carr-based" retriever training a behaviour always precedes the stimulus. That is the behaviour targetted. A command also precedes the stimulus which starts a behaviour. That is the behaviour that is increased or decreased (reinforced or punished). In negative reinforcement, the dog escapes or avoids the stimulus and the behaviour preceding the stimulus increases.

For example, commands such as sit or back are followed by the onset of the behaviour and then the stimulus occurs and is escaped or avoided by completing the behaviour. This increases the liklihood of the sit or back occurring next time and the behaviour is reinforced.

You don't just turn on the e-collar and then get the dog to sit. The dog is already conditioned to a command.

Furthermore, if you would have trained with Carr or many of his disciples you would also see that they use all 4 of +ve and -ve R and P. which was my original statement. Incidentally, I have never seen a trainer use praise as strongly as Rex did.

I whole heartedly agree. "Fracture 'em" regards!

Evan

[jeff evans]

Robert,


Disagree!

Escape and avoidance responses are an integral part of Operant Conditioning theory. In "Carr-based" retriever training a behaviour always precedes the stimulus. That is the behaviour targetted. A command also precedes the stimulus which starts a behaviour. That is the behaviour that is increased or decreased (reinforced or punished). In negative reinforcement, the dog escapes or avoids the stimulus and the behaviour preceding the stimulus increases.

For example, commands such as sit or back are followed by the onset of the behaviour and then the stimulus occurs and is escaped or avoided by completing the behaviour. This increases the liklihood of the sit or back occurring next time and the behaviour is reinforced.

You don't just turn on the e-collar and then get the dog to sit. The dog is already conditioned to a command.

Furthermore, if you would have trained with Carr or many of his disciples you would also see that they use all 4 of +ve and -ve R and P. which was my original statement. Incidentally, I have never seen a trainer use praise as strongly as Rex did.

Was the "atta boy" tone on the tri-tronics collar Rexs' doing or did that come later?

[mitty]

Would someone pretty please clarify: Is the Rex Carr method...

A. The sequence of learning in Basics.
B. The application of operant conditioning to dog training.
C. Both A and B
D. Other

[mitty]

Dennis,
Technically speaking, the training of the root behaviors of Carr-based training is not operant conditioning. Skinner-based operant conditioning deals with the reinforcement of behaviors thru the application of a stimulus (reward or punishment) immediately following the occurrence of that behavior. Thus when a sit occurs and is immediately followed by a reward, then that sit will tend to occur more frequently. When a sit is followed by a punishment, then that sit will tend to occur less frequently.
The root behaviors of Carr-based training are force fetch, force to pile, force to sit, force to come. These are all trained as escape responses. The stimulus (shock) comes before the behavior. The stimulus is applied and the following behavior is guided into the applicable escape response. In force fetch by successive approximation you pinch the ear and guide the behavior into grabbing the dummy. In force to sit, you apply the shock and guide the following behavior into a sit. Operant conditioning doesn’t deal with behaviors that follow the application of the stimulus, be that stimulus positive or be it negative.
Operant condition;
Behavior------------apply stimulus ---------------increase or decrease in that behavior

Escape response
Apply Stimulus --------- behavior (escape response)----------increase whatever that escape response is

I'm a new student of dog training. The characterization of punishment following failure to obey the sit command etc. as escape behavior confuses me. Characterizing the sit-response as an escape behavior seems semantic.

Let's define the realm of possible behavior responses to the command "sit" as either sit vs. no-sit. If sit command is given and the dog response is a no-sit behavior, it is punished. This should decrease the likelihood of dog exhibiting no-sit behavior in the future, and therefore sounds like positive punishment to me. Is this not operant conditioning?

[Evan]

Was the "atta boy" tone on the tri-tronics collar Rexs' doing or did that come later?

Rex made his disdain very clear for all the gimmicks TT experimented with over the years. He said they sent him every new buzzer, bell, and whistle they came up with. He just wanted an efficient electric collar with as little delay as possible.

Evan

[Pete]

I'm a new student of dog training. The characterization of punishment following failure to obey the sit command etc. as escape behavior confuses me. Characterizing the sit-response as an escape behavior seems semantic.

That's because punishment doesn't generally produce an escape behavior..it generally produces an avoidance behavior.
However a single correction can be applied in such a way that it mimics an escape behavior. And this is with a dog which has never been conditioned through NR methods I don't know why for sure .

But also NR can produce indirect avoidance behaviors.
it all depends what the dog is thinking about at the time of application I guess

Pete

[JS]

Technically speaking, the training of the root behaviors of Carr-based training is not operant conditioning. Skinner-based operant conditioning deals with the reinforcement of behaviors thru the application of a stimulus (reward or punishment) immediately following the occurrence of that behavior. Thus when a sit occurs and is immediately followed by a reward, then that sit will tend to occur more frequently. When a sit is followed by a punishment, then that sit will tend to occur less frequently.


.......

This is a gross oversimplification of Behaviorism or Operant Conditioning as researched by Skinner. A thorough study of Behaviorism is much more than learning the "four quadrants" and will get you 6 hours or more credit.

And others took Skinner's findings and explored them much more deeply. If you really want to understand Behaviorism theory, including Operant Conditioning, take a look at Kurt Lewin's stuff. "Principles of Topological Psychology" will keep you busy for a while but will provide great insight into how it applies in actual practice.

P+ or R- regards,

JS

[RetrieversONLINE]

Would someone pretty please clarify: Is the Rex Carr method...

A. The sequence of learning in Basics.
B. The application of operant conditioning to dog training.
C. Both A and B
D. Other

It's far more than C. just as TRT or Smart Works or Fowl Dog or any of the programs are. The Rex Carr method could hardly be described in a book. I suspect few truly understood it. Perhaps his greatest disciples were Judy Aycock and more recently at the end Dave Rorem. Both would admit they didn't understand it all.

I hope Vicki is still tackling the Rex Carr book project!!

[RetrieversONLINE]

I'm a new student of dog training. The characterization of punishment following failure to obey the sit command etc. as escape behavior confuses me. Characterizing the sit-response as an escape behavior seems semantic.

Let's define the realm of possible behavior responses to the command "sit" as either sit vs. no-sit. If sit command is given and the dog response is a no-sit behavior, it is punished. This should decrease the likelihood of dog exhibiting no-sit behavior in the future, and therefore sounds like positive punishment to me. Is this not operant conditioning?

Renee

Trying to analyze all the things that occur in a single training session can make your head spin. The best advice I have is to try to think more about increasing desired behaviours rather than stop un-desired behaviours. This will make you a better trainer and your dogs will have a better attitude towards learning and life!

In your sit example, I would rather have the dog thinking that if he sat real quickly whenever commanded he would either receive a reward(praise/bird/food/chance to go get a bird) or he would avoid/escape any aversive. That is the basis of reinforcement training-increase the liklihood of a behaviour.

Thinking about stopping behaviours still may not achieve the desired behaviour. IE it's not that we want him to stop standing, it's that we want him to sit. So I don't think about punishing him for a non-sit behaviour. Of course, the complexity arises when a dog stops one behaviour and does another and it's desired. That's when the R/P labelling can make your head spin. A prime example is how we use Indirect Pressure all the time in training.

Think teach good behaviour, not stop bad.

Cheers

[elmer fencl]

then when carr applies the 5 steps, like when he stick fetches a dog on his tape, how does that fit into operant conditioning? teach, force, no force, praise, no praise