Skinner vs Pavlov

[DarrinGreene]

Why does a dog flare the place that it was forced on back, or stopped with a whistle/nick?

Because it associates the aversive, with the location.

Aversive stimulus, always punishes something.

By conditioning the dog to go, stop, and come in response to that aversive, we assure that applying it as reinforcement, doesn't punish going, stopping, or coming.
But, it still punishes SOMETHING, when we apply an aversive to reinforce a behavior that we have conditioned to that aversive stimulus.

That's why it works as an indirect pressure correction for what the dog was doing wrong at the time that it was applied. And it's also why the dog can "blame" it on something that we didn't want the dog to blame it on.

Agree with this, even when we are doing positive re-enforcement training there is at least a moment, if not several moments where the dog is doing the wrong behavior. During that time we are applying -p by withholding the reward, only to then apply +r when we get the correct behavior.

Whistle sits re-enforced with pressure always has a moment where we +p running and -r sitting.

You always have to quadrants at play. Which is why you have to be so careful with timing.

[copterdoc]

I have only seen these occur when the stimulation is too high or repeated numerous times in the same location....

That just makes it more obvious. There isn't a number of reps, or an intensity setting that "suddenly" causes a hotspot.

We can through conditioning, teach the dog that it wasn't always the place that nicked them.
However, that conditioning does not automagically happen. It takes lots, and lots, of smart and effective training.

I don't develop hot spots......

You are making "hotspots" with indirect pressure, whether you like it or not. You can reduce the effect, by using less intensity, and shorter duration, and you can also desensitize the dog to them. But they are still there.

[copterdoc]

......What can we do limit the fall out of the dogs blaming it on something else..?

That's a really good question.

For one thing, we need to make sure that the dog primarily understands it as reinforcement.

The better the dog's conditioning to respond to it as reinforcement, the less it will seek to find something else to "blame" it on.
The better we communicate it as as reinforcement, the better the dog will understand it as reinforcement.


Also, we need to make sure that the dog knows what we want from it at the time, and what it did that wasn't "right".
It has to know what it was doing wrong.

If it knows what it was doing wrong, it's far more likely to process the indirect pressure correction, as punishment for what it was doing wrong, and not "blame" it on something "weird".


Another biggie, is that throughout the course of all of the dog's training, we sequentially eliminate as many things as possible from the list of things that the dog might blame it on. In other words, teach the dog what it isn't.

It wasn't the gun station.
It wasn't the point.
It wasn't the water.

[copterdoc]

Makes sense you could actually load your E-Collar like you would a clicker. On very low levels obviously.

You know, I've been thinking about this since yesterday, and I wonder if that's what is happening with Bill Hillman's soft collar FF.

As in bridging the e-collar stim, as a secondary reinforcer for the reward of the bumper.

At least at the beginning anyway.

[gdgnyc]

m

Why does a dog flare the place that it was forced on back, or stopped with a whistle/nick?

Because it associates the aversive, with the location.

Aversive stimulus, always punishes something.

By conditioning the dog to go, stop, and come in response to that aversive, we assure that applying it as reinforcement, doesn't punish going, stopping, or coming.
But, it still punishes SOMETHING, when we apply an aversive to reinforce a behavior that we have conditioned to that aversive stimulus.

That's why it works as an indirect pressure correction for what the dog was doing wrong at the time that it was applied. And it's also why the dog can "blame" it on something that we didn't want the dog to blame it on.

You are describing superstitious behavior in your flaring example. The dog accidentally associates the aversive with the place rather than the command. Also might be a good reason not to use an aversive next to other dogs or people. (I found out the hard way.)

[copterdoc]

....You are describing superstitious behavior in your flaring example. The dog accidentally associates the aversive with the place rather than the command. Also might be a good reason not to use an aversive next to other dogs or people. (I found out the hard way.)

Yup.

Indirect pressure always punishes something. Even though it's indirect, and also serving as reinforcement, it can easily "accidentally" punish something that we don't want it to.

The same principle applies to reinforcement too. We can also easily "accidentally" reinforce things that we don't want to reinforce.

[gdgnyc]

Yup.

Indirect pressure always punishes something. Even though it's indirect, and also serving as reinforcement, it can easily "accidentally" punish something that we don't want it to.

The same principle applies to reinforcement too. We can also easily "accidentally" reinforce things that we don't want to reinforce.

It's constantly happening, dogs are learning from minute to minute. And you are right, we constantly accidentally reinforce things we don't want to reinforce.

[copterdoc]

There's something else that I feel is an important distinction between CC and OC.
The dog's attitude about training.

A dog's attitude, is not something that it has the ability to "decide" to have. It's beyond it's control to change it.
That falls under CC, but it can be changed by us through applying OC.

And we most certainly do effect a dog's attitude about training, with how we train.

The problem is, that I don't think that very many people really understand what it is, that conditions and maintains a good attitude about training.

I will say this.
It has a whole lot more to do with the dog's understanding of what everything means, and what predicts what, than how many cookies it gets during the average training session.

A constantly confused dog, is a sad dog.
No matter how much you try to make it happy.

[RookieTrainer]

I am as green as a gourd, but Kwick has summed up all of my instruction and understanding of this matter.

Example: you whistle sit your dog, which he does. You give him a right angle back and he goes straight back. Using attrition first, you whistle sit him again (possibly even with a "no - whistle") with no collar pressure, which he again does. You give the right angle back, and he again goes straight back. You want to sit him again, but I have been taught that you should probably use a "sit-nick-sit" in this situation for the reasons Kwick suggests. You have trained the dog to respond to the "sit-nick-sit" sequence, so he knows how to deal with the pressure - he sits. And it amazes me how often when I give my dog another right angle back after the indirect pressure he suddenly understands perfectly where he needs to go and does it. Of course this entire example assumes the dog knows and understands the instructions you are giving.

It appears to me that at some level this use of the collar and indirect pressure inspires a thought process exactly like the one Kwick laid out. Thoughts?

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.

[KwickLabs]

Many years ago I wrote my masters thesis. The title was “Memorize and Perish”. The basic philosophy behind this expression is when memorization becomes the foundation for learning, the skill of thinking is negatively impacted. The sheer magnitude of memorization (this is the way things are) inhibits brainstorming. Critical thinking is stifled.

Another important aspect of critical thinking is taking advantage of how the human mind/brain functions. The ability to think and reason is often impacted by how much stimulation is taking place. The timing of different brain waves is critical. In laymen terms, thinking functions are more effective when you have not been over stimulated. The best time to “get across an idea” (explain something and/or teach) is in the first five minutes of the effort. The subject mind/brain is more receptive. On a side note, my dogs are often taught “new things” near the beginning of a training day.

However, one must always remember that dogs do not think like humans (but that is another topic....or is it?).

Now you might wonder where this is going. Therefore, to clarify. I slept on the thoughts of this thread. My thinking was going nowhere last night. As is my routine (which was discovered many years ago) I gradually woke up this morning with an uncluttered, clear mind. The manner in which to contrast and compare the reward/punishment conflict created by this thread was quickly clarified (for me).

See if this is “reasonable”. Take a simple situation where indirect pressure works - the mouthing dog at the handler's side. The dog has heeled properly and sits without any verbal command. The dog's OB in this respect is “solid”. The word “solid” means the same thing as “excellent conditioned responses”. However, the dog begins to mouth/roll the bumper and the trainer does “sit/stick/sit” and he stops. This is classic and simple indirect pressure.

Most can describe the situation with anecdotal observations – the dog is “glassy eyed”, apparently unaware of his behavior, does it more when excited or “amped” and the ever popular doesn't know I'm even there. Some say it is a subconscious behavior. The general consensus is indirect pressure works (often). It seems that the difficult part (in this thread) is explaining why.

Apparently (and I use this word because I presently don't understand the explanations), the “stick” enforces sit and punishes mouthing. Here is my first question from this morning's moment of clarification. Are punishing, extinguishing, distracting, re-focusing and/or becoming more responsive all the same thing?

My second question is, since mouthing is more of a subconscious behavior (conjecture on my part), the dog does not actually think “I need to stop mouthing” and stops doing it because with sufficient reps the behavior is sub-consciously extinguished and/or punished enough?

In comparison, my training has been greatly influenced by the term balance. The dog that mouths is out of balance. How so? because he is not responsive/focused.....enough. I can see it. The dog is not paying attention to me and locked into his own somewhat compulsive behaviors. This is probably because I have given him too much to handle and poor coping skills allow him to manage this induced anxiety.

Rather than thinking that indirect pressure has punished the behavior, my “sit/stick/sit” application refocuses the dog in the area of responsiveness. If he learns to and/or is conditioned to pay more attention to me (enhanced responsiveness), his need to develop poor coping skills for his apparent anxiety is reduced. In essence, I don't think in terms of Pablov and/or Skinner terminology. It is more of “what you see is what you get” kind of thing as opposed to “what you see is not what you get”.

Which brings me to the present linguistic impedance. Does punishing “mouthing” indirectly while enforcing sit directly mean the same thing as “Good! You are sitting, but clear your mind and pay more attention to me?” Am I enforcing two things “sit” and “pay attention” and not really punishing anything?

OK, now I've reached the point of “cluttered thinking” which is the cue to stop (brain waves need resetting plus my dogs need to “air”).