Rom

Cosmolo, thanks for these statements....I get where you're coming from now.....its not so much that the concept that was wrong, but the language that I was using?? Eg, if an event occurs before a behaviour then it is labelled a trigger or a stimulus if it occurs after a behaviour then it is labelled in the terms of the motivation matrix even though the event could be exactly the same before or after the behaviour and produce the same biological stress in the animal? Perhaps Akitaowners wording was better by the use of the words 'pressure' or 'aversive'? ETA: the word aversive in last sentence.

In this case, you are defining a positive reinforcement as a punishment. AND ... See how the behaviour was instigated by a punisher though....to you driving in heavy traffic is a bad thing....something that you want to avoid, so you changed your behaviour so that you could avoid it. In this instance the move is from +P > -R. In this case, you are defining a negative reinforcement as a punishment too. You are right to say that all conditioning are punishments because in essence, you are defining ALL four quadrants of operant conditioning as punishments (i.e. drive of uncomfortable desires, actual punishments, threats to punish and denial of good things). Logic dictates that you are right by definition and I kinda suspect that you are a "glass half empty" person. Not quite. I'm saying that punishment is the instigating factor in you deciding to change your behaviour and you changed your behaviour in order to deliver the negative reinforcer of missing the heavy traffic. I'm saying that we are actually working on two behaviours. The first is you leaving at a time that meant you getting caught in the heavy traffic. Leaving at this time was weakened by a +P. The second is you leaving earlier to miss the heavy traffic...this behaviour was strengthened by -R.....and as dog trainers we would also add +R if the dog got it right. It depends on whats in the glass on rare occasions the glass hasn't a hope of staying half empty Edited for clarity

Still thinking See how the behaviour was instigated by a punisher though....to you driving in heavy traffic is a bad thing....something that you want to avoid, so you changed your behaviour so that you could avoid it. In this instance the move is from +P > -R.

Thanks :p I'm grateful to those who are contributing so that I can nut it all out Now, that takes experience and knowing the individual. Or testing the balance of drives and understanding the instinctive goals behind those drives, maybe?

M-J, picture yourself in this situation....another human example: You are a passenger in a car and your wallet/purse is sitting on dash. The driver takes a corner and your wallet suddenly starts to slide along the dash at speed heading for the open window. Think about your internal feelings at that moment.....are you feeling "Yahooo, I'm about to be rewarded", or "Shyte, I'm about to lose my money"(read opportunity to catch). There is discomfort for you in the fact that your wallet is sliding out the window (read getting away from you)and under those circumstances few would just sit and watch that happen without changing behaviour suddenly and explosively to try and catch the wallet and alleviate the discomfort.....and you felt that discomfort, even if momentarily, even though you were not being prevented from trying to catch your wallet. Did you act instinctively and just respond to the stimuli as they presented themselves, or did you have to rationalise and make a decision to catch your wallet? The discomfort that you felt was an intrinsic negative punisher (ie something that you valued being removed/withheld) that caused you to change your behaviour and move to try to catch the wallet. I believe that it is a similar process that is happening with your greys. And like your greys who showed no interest in the skin when it wasn't moving, your wallet sitting on the dash without moving was a neutral stimulus.....until it started heading for the window, so it didn't cause a change in behaviour until that point.

I've had an idea.......I think I understand why there are conflicting opinions in this thread. There is a clue in the below Denis Carty: This is not the first time that I've seen a trainer refer to operant theory as being flawed and I don't know if its right or not, but here's where I figure my thoughts are originating...I'm talking in terms of operant theory in my examples and operant theory, as it was originally written, has at its basis the four quadrants of the motivational matrix. But I'm thinking in terms of there actually being 8 octants (for want of a better word) in the motivational matrix when you take into account the terms intrinsic and extrinsic. Some of the negative punisher that I'm referring to are intrinsic negative punishers......does that make sense? Am I trying to apply operant theory and take into account the internal state of the animal?

Okaaayy......thinking cap on..... So could it be said in the instance of instinctive chase behaviours that it is too uncomfortable for the dog not to engage in the chase? That the intensity of the negative punisher delivered by not chasing (or the quarry withdrawing itself or acting to prevent the dog from catching it) that the dog has to change behaviour in order to relieve that discomfort....and so it engages in the chase in order to catch the reward. I guess what I'm asking here is by what function does instinct provide motivation? Is it through the motivation matrix? Through both intrinsic and extrinsic punishers and reinforcers? After all, instinct is not robotic behaviour and learning and behavioural change can still occur within the realms of instinct....if it couldn't, then a dog couldn't adapt to changing environments and hunting circumstances....what is training in drive if it is not harnessing hunting instincts and teaching a dog that an obedience routine, for example, gives you the best possibilty of having a successful 'catch'? So have we not super imposed an obedience routine over hunting instincts and influenced how the hunting behaviours are expressed? Also we know that negative reinforcement cannot exist without positive punishment......negative reinforcement is the removal of something unpleasant, right? But how did the unpleasant thing get there in the first place for us to be able to remove it? An aversive has to have been applied first before you could take it away to deliver the negative reinforcement. So, if the aversive is applied at the time of an unwanted behaviour and then removed when the dog engages in a wanted behaviour then you have applied both positive punishment and negative reinforcement in order to both weaken the unwanted behaviour and strengthen the wanted behaviour. So what I'm getting at is the opposite to the above and I feel that in line with the above positive reinforcement cannot exist without negative punishment....the dog has to want the positive reinforcer and if he's not getting it he will change his behaviours in order to get it because there is some discomfort for the dog in not having that reinforcer. So negative punishment weakens those behaviours that do not successfully deliver the positve reinforcer and the positive reinforcer strengthens those behaviours that do deliver the positive reinforcer.....

I agree Ah Ngau, that punishment only presents half of the equation (which is why I have highlighted the word 'begins' in the above).....but it is half of the equation, or a portion of it at least. By your example above, how did you teach the dog to wait patiently?......was it, in part at least, by withholding the food until you got the behaviour that you wanted? If so, that portion of the learning process was under the influence of negative punishment. The punishment weakened all of the behaviours that were not about sitting and waiting patiently. So the learning began with a punisher. Then when you got the behaviour you were looking for, you then gave positive reinforcement. "People do change if the gain of changing becomes greater than the gain of not changing" Even when the quote is worded this way, I can identify a punisher.....the gain has to be something that the person wants, something that they don't have now to motivate them to change or do something differently in order to get it. You don't get the gain until you get the change what you do right, or, the gain is withheld until you change. When you get it right, the gain is delivered. So you have been through the process of negative punishment > positive reinforcement. Who was it that said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"? You don't get different results unless you change what you do. Yes, but in the process of instilling the wanted behaviour are you not also weakening every other behaviour that is not wanted in that context?......for example, you ask your dog to sit but he stands, so you withhold the reward. You ask him to sit again and he lies down, so you withhold the reward. Finally you ask him to sit and he sits and you deliver the reward. You are effectively weakening the dogs response of standing or laying down when you ask him to sit by withholding the reward...that is a negative punisher. Even if he sits on the first command, you don't give him the reward until he sits.....so the behaviour of not sitting when you ask him to sit is weakened by the withholding of the reward....a negative punisher. I don't exclude + and - reinforcement in my training....far from it, infact I'd go as far as to say that my dog is one of the most heavily rewarded dogs at my club and is one of the most enthusiastic and reliable workers there. There is however, still punishment in her training and if I don't recognise that, how can I use it to its best advantage? Thats why I'm exploring this concept......and I really do appreciate everyones input here cuz you guys are really stretching my mind and making me think hard and really explore the material that I'm studying. Another thought....the ABC of behaviour....Antecedent Stimulus>Behaviour>Consequence. We know that dogs can learn without us (even though they're often learning things that we don't want them to ). When we put ourselves in the equation though, we think of our commands becoming the antecedent stimulus. But take us out of the picture and what is the antecedent stimulus? I don't think that it ceases to exist........and I can't think of an example where the antecedent stimulus is not a negative or positive punisher....can anyone else?

Hi Tony, I'm talking in terms of operant conditioning and referring to both positive punishment and negative punishment....I probably confused things by including the quote from my friend as it refers to humans, but I believe the concept behind the quote is the same for all learning/behavioural change. Think about punishment in the behavioural science sense though Jbbb, punishment is anything that weakens a behaviour. Yes animals do learn in the wild, but I don't believe that they do it without punishment. What motivation would an animal have to eat if he didn't feel hunger pains for example? Are hunger pains a punishment that motivate an animal to act to remove that discomfort? Is it the need to remove that discomfort quickly that helps an animal learn to become more efficient at hunting? Is it the effect of negative punishment that weakens all those behaviours that prevent a dog from hunting efficiently? Its not what I consider a punisher that is important, its the effect that the stimulus has on behaviour that is. I'm thinking in terms of the scientific definition of punishment...... I agree with you in that dogs are not in a constant state of punishment.....at the moment my dog is sleeping, she's getting exactly what she wants/needs at this time. Also, if a dog has just eaten his fill, he's less likely to want to hunt for food....so not hunting/eating is not a punisher at that time. ETA: Or....am I way off the mark?

Following on from some thoughts in raised in this thread, I'm thinking another concept through that I'd like to throw out there for thoughts. That is: All learning/behavioural change begins with punishment, positive or negative. A wise friend once said to me, and I think I agree, that "People don't change until the pain of not changing becomes greater than the pain of change". So, is this true for all living organisms including our dogs? At this point in time, I think it is....well at least I haven't yet been able to come up with an example where I couldn't identify a punisher that prompted learning/behavioural change..... Thoughts?

Thanks for that Thinking on this subject some more and I have just realised that this ties in with the ABC of behaviour = antecedent stimulus> behaviour> consequence. Don't ya just love those 'Eureka' moments in learning

Yes. That is why even 'reward based' training has its foundation in punishment...... We know that there are only 5 ways to categorise a stimuli. +P, -P, +R, -R or Neutral. So if the stimulus is not neutral to the dog then it has to be one of the other four. It can't be +R before the reward is delivered because at that point the reward is being withheld and we know that it can't be neutral to the dog if he is indicating a desire to have it. The stimuli can occur before the behaviour......does a dog scratch before the flea bites/annoys him, or after? Does a dog react before a startling event, or after it has been startled? In both of these examples the dog is moving from an area of discomfort to an area of comfort. The behaviour is an example of how he made that move. We do the same thing with rewards in training.....the dog wants the reward and he engages in a behaviour in order to move from the discomfort of not having it to the relative comfort of having it. If the dog does not comply to the command, you withhold the reward....but you are essentially extending the duration of the negative punisher.....the negative punisher didn't start at the moment of non compliance. All behaviours move through at least two of the elements in the motivational matrix in a kind of push me-pull me effect.

Negative punishment starts at the point where the dog shows a desire for the reward, but is prevented from getting it or the reward is withheld. The only way that negative punishment can be absent is if the dog has no desire for the reward, or what we percieve to be a reward is actually a neutral stimulus to the dog and in that instance not much would happen by way of learning because the dog would not be motivated by the stimulus. The command becomes a cue as to how the dog needs to behave in order to turn off negative punishment and attract positive reinforcement. K9's TOT is a good example. The dog is prevented from getting the reward and is encouraged to try on all behaviours in order to get it. Until it offers up the correct behaviour it is being negatively punished. Once it offers up the correct behaviour, that is marked and the dog is released to get the reward. All behaviours that do not deliver the reward weaken under the influence of negative punishment until the target behaviour is the only behaviour that the dog offers up in order to earn the reward.

Negative punishment reduces/weakens the behaviour of non compliance to the command. The reward is being withheld until the dog complies to the command.....so until the dog complies, it is being negatively punished....if that makes sense. Then when the dog complies, the reward is delivered and this is the +R portion of the progression. ETA: When you think about it, all 'reward based' training has negative punishment as its foundation. When we go about selecting the most potent reward for our dogs, we choose something that they will really want to work for, then we set up circumstances where we withhold that reward until the dog does what we want.....we subject the dog to negative punishment before we deliver the reward.

Bugger, well that'll learn me for being so smug, eh?!

I can't see the video on this old computer but I'll throw out some thoughts: The four quadrants of the motivational matrix in my opinion cannot and do not exist in total isolation from each other. For example, you cannot effectively use positive reinforcement without there also being elements of negative punishment. Technically, (and also in my opinion)no training method can be called reward based because depending on the actions of the dog, the negative punishment portion of the progression may out weigh the positive reinforcement portion. Also, in the example of calling the dog off sheep, if the dog really wanted to keep working the sheep, could the command to come off not be seen as a positive punishment from the dogs point of view? So, if you called him off when he was making an excellent move, then might he not see that move as being an error? Then while he is being prevented from returning to the sheep, is he not being negatively punished? The command to return to the sheep becomes a negative reinforcer and actually being allowed to engage the sheep a positive reinforcer. My answer in direct regards to Denis' OP though would be that he is using all four quadrants of the motivational matrix. There is a direct hint in the below: I'll admit to knowing something of Denis' training methods, however and would suggest that those that can see the video pay particular attention to the dog to see if there are any hints of it wearing training equipment.....of the remote style I'm assuming that the dog in the vid is a BC so there is a possibility that the equipment may not be clearly visible.

And excellent and friendly hospitality.....I can vouch for that

I'd like to see inter club 'match' competitions with slight changes of rules and run on a more social basis...like adapting some of the rules from rally obedience, but applying them to a normal obedience ring run out....eg...you are allowed to verbally encourage your dog. No group stays....but the 'honour' stay that is done in rally obedience where the dog who has just finished a ring run out holds a stay while the next dog is in the ring. That way if a dog breaks his stay, he is less likely to affect other dogs....and infact, this stay could be done on a long line to help proof the stay in that environment if necessary. I think that this serves two aims....not only is the dog exposed to the trial environment, but some of the pressure is taken off so that both handler and dog are introduced to competition in a more relaxed environment. The club that gains the most points wins on the day....to make sure there is some equity where entry levels are uneven from each of the 2 or 3 clubs that take part the final total score of each club can be divided by the total number of members that entered from that club. There could be a 'challenge cup' to award to the winning club at the end of the season. Each individual club could devise an 'unofficial' club encouragement award for their own members that performed well on the day....an engraved medallion only costs about $3 but means a lot to some people. It may not attract die hard triallers....maybe more just the pet owners who are looking for fun social activities to engage in with their dog...but in my experience, its the pet owners that make up the majority of numbers at a club anyway. Costs could be kept down because there is no need for official judges. These matches could be held as fundraisers for clubs. Generally here in Qld, each club only has to hold one sweepstakes a year.

Just curious Rocco1, isn't CGC a Delta thing? I could be wrong, but I wouldn't have thought that they'd approve the use of check chains or prongs?

My girl actually prefers the sphinx drop because she hates ants and likes to keep her tender bits off the ground During a drop stay she might roll over onto one hip but not until she's had a good sniff of the grass to check out for ants. I know a lot of trialling people prefer their dogs to move over onto a hip, but I'm wondering if this habit would slow the dog down during the drops on the move? Must watch at the next trial. Also...what about the change of position exercises? Wouldn't the hip drop slow them down? And wouldn't they be more likely to need to take a step forward in order to stand square when coming out of the drop....mmmm more things to watch out for....

Since I taught my girl the formal retrieve if I'm busy doing something and she wants my attention, she'll pick up anything that comes to hand (or mouth!) and bring it to me and sit in front with an expectant look on her face. She brings me socks from the laundry basket, shoes, pens from the coffee table, tools from the shed, my hair brush, what ever takes her fancy at the time. Today took the cake though....and I'm sure that it was just co-incidental....she bought me a packet of feminine hygiene products.....funny thing is, her timing was spot on (pardon the pun)

That sounds like a great idea Hey! You guys getting greedy??? Steve's already up in QLD in the next few months, doing a workshop isn't he? Or is that Perth? Or somewhere else? You're kidding me, he's coming up here in the next few months ??? Yes, I'd love to get Steve up here again this year....and Erny too! Sorry about that I need to find a venue in Brisbane and I was only able to get down there for Xmas day due to work commitments. If anyone can suggest a venue that will be available for a weekend, that would be great! Sorry to go OT Erny.

AFAIK its the only course that offers government recognised qualifications that covers all theories...thats why I chose it (Haven might come on and correct me on the use of the word 'qualifications' as opposed to 'accreditation' as she did once in the past....I can't remember exactly what she said, but I think it is that the course itself is government accredited, but the trainer ends up with qualifications....?)

The more I learn and observe, the more I agree with what you've written above Mark and its an area that I'd like to understand more about!