RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Skinner vs Pavlov

42K views 210 replies 26 participants last post by  Jere 
#1 ·
This ought to be good. I could also have said Operant, vs Classical conditioning.

Which one do you consider "better", when applied to Retriever Training?
Or, if you think that OC is "better" for certain aspects of training, while CC is "better" for others, what would those differences be?
 
#4 · (Edited)
You're kidding. Pavlov was working with the autonomic nervous system, triggering a reflex (salivating) when he rang a bell and then fed the dogs.

Skinner shaped behavior with either reward or punishment. Behavior isn't a reflex.

Later edit: I think I shouldn't have said reward or punishment for Skinner. I believe I should have said adding or removing stimuli.
 
#6 ·
I would say both; but then again, it depends on if my understanding of the differences between the two is correct.

I thought that with Skinner, the response was a conditioned response through a decision. This would be the case of a left or right cast, the dog is interpreting what the cast is, and deciding if they go with it or not.

With Pavlov, it was an involuntary response (i.e. drooling when they hear the dinner bell). They don't "decide" to drool, they just do. I suppose you can make the argument that the sit whistle can be conditioned to an involuntary response. I think it becomes so automatic that it no longer requires the dog to think, "there's that damn sit whistle again, I'd better sit down". I think it's more a matter of their but is headed to the ground when the whistle blows (well, eventually). Or would that still be a conditioned response, just really well conditioned?
 
#7 ·
I think reflex is controlled by the autonomic nervous system and behavior is controlled by the voluntary nervous system. I cannot think of what we do in retriever training as having much to do with the autonomic system. We're training the voluntary nervous system. The autonomic reacts too, but it's under the surface reacting to the stimulus but we're not trying to train it. Kinda like adrenalin increases when we have a bird thrown or use the collar to have the dog sit faster but we aren't training to have adrenalin flow, we're training a retrieve or a fast sit.
 
#9 ·
Here's something to think about.
Although we discuss classical and operant conditioningas if they were two separate things, they both
happen at the same time. You cannot learn something
operantly without also creating a classical association
and vice versa. What we, as trainers, need to
know is that classically learned behaviors will always
trump operantly learned behaviors if push comes
to shove. As Bob Bailey says in his training classes,
“Pavlov is always sitting on your shoulder.”
 
#11 ·
By definition, a reflex is inborn, does not have to be learned and has survival value. One definition of behavior is that it is anything an organism does as a response to a stimulus.

A behavior can be conditioned to become automatic. It is still a learned behavior. For example a boxer learns to slip a punch, doing so automatically through conditioning.
 
#13 ·
.....A behavior can be conditioned to become automatic....
Operantly, or Classically?

.....It is still a learned behavior. For example a boxer learns to slip a punch, doing so automatically through conditioning.
What kind of conditioning?

What is the stimulus that elicits the response?
 
#14 ·
Classical conditioning is also called associative learning. Learning associations means that certain things go together. I put my whistles around my neck and my dog runs to the door to go training.
 
#19 ·
It's not a trick question, but it does demonstrate either.. A lack of understanding or... an extreme desire to debate semantics.

There is no comparison to be made between OC and CC. They are two separate and distinct theories that, when combined in retriever training, create and re-enforce the trained responses we want from our dogs.

The two work in tandem and not in any way exclusively from one another, thus, there's no valid comparison to be made.
 
#20 ·
It's not a trick question, but it does demonstrate either.. A lack of understanding or...
Could be that. I guess I wouldn't know.

....an extreme desire to debate semantics.....
I have no desire to debate semantics.

.....There is no comparison to be made between OC and CC. They are two separate and distinct theories that, when combined in retriever training, create and re-enforce the trained responses we want from our dogs.

The two work in tandem and not in any way exclusively from one another, thus, there's no valid comparison to be made.
There are differences. Major differences.

And those differences significantly effect both how we read a dog's responses, and how we respond (or should respond) to them.
 
#21 ·
It's beyond me. I don't have a clue.

Put me in the TriTronics corner with my copy of the Total Retreiver Training DVD.
 
#22 · (Edited)
I think this is pretty "big". Even though I doubt most of the really good Retriever Trainers bother to think about it.
It determines the sequence of training, the dog's training attitude, and ultimately, how far the dog can be advanced in training, before it hits a "wall".

Think about things like when a dog freezes on the last bird of a series.
I'm not talking about sticking.
I'm talking zoned out, dilated pupils, in a whole nuther world kind of freezing.

I don't think that the dog has the conscious ability to control that behavior.
It wasn't Operantly Conditioned.
 
#23 ·
I also believe that some behaviors NEED to be Classically Conditioned, before the dog can advance to the "next level" of training.
 
#26 ·
"The most important thing is to keep the most important thing the most important thing." Donald Coduto, Foundation Designs
 
#27 · (Edited)
Every behavior we train into a dog (intentionally or unintentionally) is a classically conditioned response, including freezing on the last bird in a series.

Classic conditioning shows us the animal's ability to anticipate the next event (or events) in a chain. Operant conditioning shows us the various ways we can make classic conditioning occur. Both models depend on the animal anticipating the next event in a chain, and thus no matter how we get there, all man made behavior in a dog is classically conditioned.

Operant conditioning supports classical conditioning. They are not at all mutually exclusive, nor can they really be compared to one another.
 
#32 ·
Maybe this will make it a little easier to understand

Classical Conditioning
What Goes with What?

Classical conditioning, Pavlovian conditioning, associative learning – these are all terms for what happens when an animal learns associations among things. Learning associations means learning that things go together: when one thing happens (you burn your dinner), another thing will follow shortly (the smoke detector goes off). You say “Let’s go for a walk”, your dog jumps up all excited because he has learned that this particular phrase precedes going out for a walk. Your cat runs to its food dish when it hears the can opener because often this signals feeding time. In each case, there is a predictable relationship among the events and the animal learns to respond to the first event in anticipation of the second event. That’s what classical conditioning is all about: anticipation.

Reid, Pamela J. (2011-07-25). Excel-Erated Learning: Explaining in Plain English How Dogs Learn and How Best to Teach Them (Kindle Locations 391-399). James & Kenneth Publishers. Kindle Edition.


Operant Conditioning
Does What I Do Affect What Happens to Me?

Operant conditioning, instrumental learning1, Skinnerian conditioning – these are all terms for what happens when an animal learns that its behavior has consequences. Learning that a particular behavior has a consequence might be as simple as learning that rolling over on your side in bed feels good or as complex as learning that solving difficult mathematical problems leads to an opportunity to receive a scholarship. There are countless things we do everyday that lead to consequences that wouldn’t happen if we hadn’t done something. If you don’t work, you don’t get paid. If you don’t cook, you don’t eat. If I ask my dog to sit and he doesn’t, he doesn’t get a treat. If he were a wild animal and he didn’t bother to go out and hunt, he wouldn’t eat. In other words, things happen because we do things and animals learn these relationships the same as do people.

Reid, Pamela J. (2011-07-25). Excel-Erated Learning: Explaining in Plain English How Dogs Learn and How Best to Teach Them (Kindle Locations 452-461). James & Kenneth Publishers. Kindle Edition.
 
#34 ·
I think,,,I think


You can have classic conditioning going on while you apply operant conditioning but you don't have to have operant conditioning going on when the dog is learning by classic only

Because dogs make associations between events all the time when we are training them

but they also make associations when they are not being trained
All theives are malifactors but not all malifactors are thieves ,,,or something like that
Pete
 
#37 ·
I understand what you are saying. Lots of training methods work, that don't make sense when thought of in OC terms, but make perfect sense when thought of as CC.

However, I don't think it's possible to eliminate the laws of reinforcement/punishment, and action/consequence even though you are trying to use classical conditioning at the time.

Both theories apply, all the time.
 
#36 ·
[QUOTEWhat if the stimulus that triggers a conditioned response, is in itself aversive rather than neutral][/QUOTE]

Perfect example
There is always a dog somewhere that doesn't want to come out of his kennel because it is anticipating bad juju associated with training.
Doesn't matter if the training was bad or not,,,, bad training good dog or good dog bad training,,,,in their mind it was an association the dog doesn't like.

That's a classic example of CC taking place during OC,,,dogs associated pretty much everything. Its part of being a dog.
They even associate when their resting with both eyes closed.
Pete
 
#40 · (Edited)
What if the stimulus that triggers a conditioned response, is in itself aversive rather than neutral
Perfect example
There is always a dog somewhere that doesn't want to come out of his kennel because it is anticipating bad juju associated with training.
Doesn't matter if the training was bad or not,,,, bad training good dog or good dog bad training,,,,in their mind it was an association the dog doesn't like.

That's a classic example of CC taking place during OC,,,dogs associated pretty much everything. Its part of being a dog.
They even associate when their resting with both eyes closed.
Pete
That example is sort of opposite of what I was thinking about.

With CC, a stimulus is associated with a response, until the stimulus itself elicits the response.

That stimulus can be anything that a dog detects with one of it's 5 senses. And the response, can be any behavior that the dog has been conditioned to perform on cue.

We can associate any stimulus with any action, and condition the dog to perform that action in response to the stimulus.
And that stimulus can be aversive.
 
#52 ·
Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Samsa View Post
Studies have shown that things which are traditionally thought of as aversive (for example, electric shocks) can be set up in such a way that the introduction of an electric shock can actually increase responding - thus making it, technically, a reinforcer. To simplify the explanation, the electric shocks act as a signal or cue for future events (i.e. the presentation of food), and so they take on a conditioned value which can be used to increase behavior.

Isn't this the way of the collar use today ..? A reinforcer of a known command ...IE: dog is in route and back nick back ...Stimulation when the dog is doing a command correctly? Steve S
Yes.

But, that doesn't make sense does it?
 
#53 ·
Yes.

But, that doesn't make sense does it?
It does to me ...Isn't it considered a neg reinforcer..? The big question is , How much do we want to use to keep it a reinforcer ..too much and it will become a pos punishment if it stops the behavior..Correct...? Steve S
 
#39 ·
He had to use OC, to get the dog to the point of being classically conditioned to salivate in response to the bell.

And he also has to use OC, to maintain that conditioning.
 
#43 ·
Ok I see what you are saying! Getting the food ONCE they started to salivate would actually be considered Positive Reinforcement even though the salivation is not required to be fed.
 
#44 ·
Yes.

Our ultimate goal in training, is to end up with a classically conditioned behavior that we desire.
But, we also have to use operant conditioning to get there.

We can fail at either one.
 
#66 ·
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.
 
#70 ·
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
 
#77 ·
So are you saying CC is a by product of OC ? I don't know. I'm trying to assimilate this info but I'm actually more confused now than when I woke up this morning.

CC seems to have an anticipation factor,,,, No? Is this because it has been conditioned through OC,, ?

Pete
 
#78 ·
I've tried to type up an answer to this, that will help clarify it for you.
But, I think it's just going to add to your confusion.
 
#82 ·
Read through most of the pages, and decided you all have some anal retention issues. Did you forget about Freud? Perhaps there are some Id, ego, and super ego's in place here. :razz:

Nice thread, and good discussion---no psychoanalysis intended.
 
#91 · (Edited)
I've been following this thread for quite awhile. Since I'm a retired teacher I have at the very least a basic understanding of Pablov and Skinner. That being said, I know in ALL of my retriever training in the last 12 years, there hasn't been one instance of thinking about either......which explains my reluctance to post.

However, this last "interlude" with indirect pressure has proven to be more personal. I use it for effect in certain situations (and not very often) and my dogs have learned how to respond correctly to it. It has proven effective. They learned how to respond correctly through the use of consistent, fair reps with teaching as the main focus. A responsive dog doesn't just happen.

Basically, the dog must be in a situation where they are not doing anything wrong.......like sitting. Supposedly, the immediate reactions of the dog are 1) "I am sitting so that which you just sent me can't be for not sitting" (not doing anything wrong and you have my attention), 2) "I now can't remember what I wanted to do" (forgot what his mistaken mindset was) and asks 3) "What is it that you want me to do?" (re-focused and more responsive).

I have always looked at indirect pressure as a refocusing, attention "getter". I suppose the key here is that for me the scientific lingo of conditioning makes more sense when it is verbalized in a real time, simple English.

This communication issue reminds me of the street wise student I once had in chemistry. One day he raised his hand and "axed", "Hey Bro, can't you just say all this scientific "stuff" in street lingo so's I can get it?" Now I know how he felt. ;)

I suppose it would be better to understand why it works in terms of the "conditioning" discussed in this thread, but I am at a loss on how significant that is if I read the dog, have a solid, consistent way of communicating and seem to be accomplishing what I need for the level of dogs I work with.

Tell me why I need to know......for reasons other than to understand all the posts in this thread or the generic response "because it will improve your training".

One extra bit of info, I have trained with FT groups often and been to several retriever seminars held by established pros.....none of this "stuff" (Pablov, Skinner) was ever discussed.
 
#94 ·
.

However, this last "interlude" with indirect pressure has proven to be more personal. I use it for effect in certain situations (and not very often) and my dogs have learned how to respond correctly to it. It has proven effective. They learned how to respond correctly through the use of consistent, fair reps with teaching as the main focus. A responsive dog doesn't just happen.

Basically, the dog must be in a situation where they are not doing anything wrong.......like sitting. Supposedly, the immediate reactions of the dog are 1) "I am sitting so that which you just sent me can't be for not sitting" (not doing anything wrong and you have my attention), 2) "I now can't remember what I wanted to do" (forgot what his mistaken mindset was) and asks 3) "What is it that you want me to do?" (re-focused and more responsive).

I have always looked at indirect pressure as a refocusing, attention "getter". I suppose the key here is that for me the scientific lingo of conditioning makes more sense when it is verbalized in a real time, simple English.

This communication issue reminds me of the street wise student I once had in chemistry. One day he raised his hand and "axed", "Hey Bro, can't you just say all this scientific "stuff" in street lingo so's I can get it?" Now I know how he felt. ;)


Do you give a cold burn or nick with out a whistle sit ...? Steve S
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top