Ndtf V Delta Instructors Course

[Prydenjoy]

Sorry, when I used the word punishment I thought that the people reading this topic were educated enough to know what the word punishment ACTUALLY means.

My mistake, sorry if I offended anyone!!

[Quickasyoucan]

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek PF....you know, if yu say you're a purely positive trainer then if you're using the quadrants literally you can only use training methods that are "positive" ...which technically would be positive reinforcement and positive punishment, just to highlight that I don't agree with the term....it';s used incorrectly.

.......whoosh..... that's the tongue in cheek bit flying over my head.

There's a really good horse training website that stresses that the use of the terms "positive" "negative", "reinforcement" and "punishment" in the OP quadrants aren't about being "nice" or "nasty".. I honestly wonder how many folk truly grasp that sometimes.

That's why, like you, I don't use it in classes at all. While useful for people who understand it, the language is very counter-intuitive for the uninitiated.

Being even less sophisticated I talk about "good stuff for dogs" and "bad stuff for dogs" because the other thing people don't grasp all that well is that what a dog experiences as rewarding or aversive may not be what a human thinks is rewarding or aversive.

Damn, I thought that said. "that's why I like you"..

Yep, if the folk you are training can't grasp the concepts, you need to simplify.

I have to admit, and I consider myself to be reasonably intelligent (though others may disagree) that being a person with the requisite "5 minutes of real dog experience on dogs of my own acquaintance", I have to think long and hard about the whole 4 quadrant thing to categorise real life examples into it.

I was thinking about this a bit this morning when I exercised my dog. What I try to do is have an effective "conversation" with my dog to guide him away from dangers and help him have a good walk.

The park where we go is also a popular picnicking spot, naughty people tend to leave chicken legs and other potentially harmful stuff around which my boy loves to try and find. Most of the time the lure of some sort of drive/ball game is enough to keep his mind off the tasties, but sometime I have to give him a stern, "leave it" or an "uh uh". It works, he comes back to me and we continue the fun stuff. Sometimes when he is on lead he gets a correction as he has rather too a fondness for skateboards. But I don't abuse that, we move on and our walks are pleasant.

I guess people could say I should have a better recall and should have been able to work out the skateboard thing with counter-conditioning, but this is a dog I acquired through rescue at 10 months to a year and some of the behaviours were already there, plus I am certainly no expert, this is my first dog that hasn't been a family dog.

For me Joe Blow dog owner a balance of good and bad stuff keeps my dog safe so I am comfortable with that.

[poodlefan]

Sorry, when I used the word punishment I thought that the people reading this topic were educated enough to know what the word punishment ACTUALLY means.

My mistake, sorry if I offended anyone!!

How very condescending of you Jeanne. However it seems the concept continues to elude you.

All I'm saying is that there is room in this world for all types of trainers, so why slam positive trainers and give them a bad rap simply because they don't use punishment?

You fail once again to grasp that "positive" trainers do use "punishment" according to the terms used to describe the quadrants of operant conditioning. Go have another read.

[Prydenjoy]

When I write a post how am I to know that a word I use has been mis interpreted by certain people? I guess I could have been more technical and typed in "positive punishment" every single time but when in a hurry I tend to abbreviate.

So using an aversive is not positively punishing a behavior? Punishment is only when you get home hours after the deed and yell at the dog? Well, in fact by definition that is not punishment at all because it is hardly reducing the behavior when the dog doesn't even know what it is in trouble for. So sorry if I said one thing and you took it as a completely opposite thing and that offended you, though that is through no fault of my own.

[Aidan]

Some folk say they only use +R but I find they generally do "no reward" and that's -P. And that readers, is using "punishers".

Withholding a reinforcer is "extinction" and does not equate to punishment, either by definition or by function. -P requires that something (not necessarily a reinforcer) is taken away ('-' = take away or remove, which means that the organism had to have had the thing in the first place).

I think it is incomplete to say that you "only use +R", or possibly naive, but nearly every purely positive trainer will openly state that they use negative punishment and extinction, and most will admit to using -R these days. Karen Pryor has always admitted to using +P, I think people on both sides of the camp have a funny idea about what anyone else does.

By the way, I see the use of Haltis as +P. You put it on, the dog stops pulling.. voila - positive punishment. This is one of my objections to Delta advertising themselves as PP - they ain't.

Possibly, but preventing self-reinforcement does not equate to +P, nor does removing an aversive contingent upon a response. Adding something to the dog is not the same as adding a consequence for a behaviour. I think it pays to be accurate, +P should be absolutely minimal if using a Halti correctly.

I could be wrong, I know that Delta asks their graduates not to use certain tools, but I'm not sure where they say that they are "purely positive"? They have recommendations on tools and methods and have a policy of minimising harm. A head halter used appropriately should minimise harm, "appropriate use" may be up for debate though. I don't think Delta are making unsubstantiated claims regarding their published policies, but I'm not expert on Delta so feel free to correct me (just not with a prong collar!)

[poodlefan]

When I write a post how am I to know that a word I use has been mis interpreted by certain people? I guess I could have been more technical and typed in "positive punishment" every single time but when in a hurry I tend to abbreviate.

So using an aversive is not positively punishing a behavior? Punishment is only when you get home hours after the deed and yell at the dog? Well, in fact by definition that is not punishment at all because it is hardly reducing the behavior when the dog doesn't even know what it is in trouble for. So sorry if I said one thing and you took it as a completely opposite thing and that offended you, though that is through no fault of my own.

So people's lack of understanding of your posts is due to their lack of education? As you will no doubt find out, effective communication is the absolute bedrock of dog training. You can be the best dog trainer in the world but if you cannot explain yourself to handlers, you're next to useless. Having a hissy fit and blaming others for your failure to effectively communicate isn't a recommended response so you might like to start practising avoidance of that.

Scratch that bit, Aidan's covered it.

Edited April 20, 2010 by poodlefan

[Aidan]

... and should have been able to work out the skateboard thing with counter-conditioning

Don't bother, skateboards operate outside time, space and conditioning.

[JulesP]

... and should have been able to work out the skateboard thing with counter-conditioning

Don't bother, skateboards operate outside time, space and conditioning.

Arrr a sense of humor! Very important in dog training!

[Aidan]

Perhaps we would be better off considering certain equipment and associated techniques high and low risk rather than 'good' and 'bad'.

Settle down, there is no place for this sort of reasoned, logical thinking in a thread about NDTF vs DELTA!!!!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to watch "Aikido vs Ju Jitsu" and "Judo vs Kenpo" videos on YouTube. I reckon the Aikido master will win because he's non-violent and just uses the Ju Jitsu guy's violence against him...

[Aidan]

... and should have been able to work out the skateboard thing with counter-conditioning

Don't bother, skateboards operate outside time, space and conditioning.

Arrr a sense of humor! Very important in dog training!

You don't know how serious I am about this.

[poodlefan]

Aidan:

Withholding a reinforcer is "extinction" and does not equate to punishment, either by definition or by function. -P requires that something (not necessarily a reinforcer) is taken away ('-' = take away or remove, which means that the organism had to have had the thing in the first place).

So, I have the treat in my hand, dog expects treat. I lure the dog into a sit but it doesn't. So no treat. Are you saying the dog doesn't interpret that as something being taken away?

Possibly, but preventing self-reinforcement does not equate to +P, nor does removing an aversive contingent upon a response. Adding something to the dog is not the same as adding a consequence for a behaviour. I think it pays to be accurate, +P should be absolutely minimal if using a Halti correctly.

If the addition of the halti decreases the behaviour, I'm a bit stumped as to how it can't be +P. Consistent aversive effect aside,surely the contingent +P is that the dog feels pressure when it pulls. Pulling = pressure on the face AND potentially failure to progress. Dog pulls, leash tightens (because I allow it to) and dog's progress is thwarted. I'm doing this, not the dog.

[Staranais]

Perhaps we would be better off considering certain equipment and associated techniques high and low risk rather than 'good' and 'bad'.

Settle down, there is no place for this sort of reasoned, logical thinking in a thread about NDTF vs DELTA!!!!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to watch "Aikido vs Ju Jitsu" and "Judo vs Kenpo" videos on YouTube. I reckon the Aikido master will win because he's non-violent and just uses the Ju Jitsu guy's violence against him...

You mean like this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWBmEHzbOXI

Makes me every time.

[Staranais]

Ooops, double post

Edited April 20, 2010 by Staranais

[Nekhbet]

staranais that was so funny

[Prydenjoy]

As you will no doubt find out, effective communication is the absolute bedrock of dog training. You can be the best dog trainer in the world but if you cannot explain yourself to handlers, you're next to useless

I generally spend a lot more time explaining the technical terms etc to people before I actually use them, in this case I didn't think it was necessary as I (wrongly) assumed that people here had an understanding of them.

Perhaps we would be better off considering certain equipment and associated techniques high and low risk rather than 'good' and 'bad'.

Settle down, there is no place for this sort of reasoned, logical thinking in a thread about NDTF vs DELTA!!!!

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Damn, I thought that said. "that's why I like you"..

No, no. I like you because you have a sighthound and consequently you are clearly a person of superior taste and intelligence.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Sorry, when I used the word punishment I thought that the people reading this topic were educated enough to know what the word punishment ACTUALLY means.

My mistake, sorry if I offended anyone!!

and there you go again insulting people reading this thread. backhanded apologies with a sting in the tail

[Aidan]

Aidan:

Withholding a reinforcer is "extinction" and does not equate to punishment, either by definition or by function. -P requires that something (not necessarily a reinforcer) is taken away ('-' = take away or remove, which means that the organism had to have had the thing in the first place).

So, I have the treat in my hand, dog expects treat. I lure the dog into a sit but it doesn't. So no treat. Are you saying the dog doesn't interpret that as something being taken away?

No, he didn't have the treat so it wasn't taken away. Don't forget, behaviourists make observations and do not make assumptions about things like what a dog might "interpret" (not that it would make any difference in this case).

In an extinction procedure the reinforcer is likely always expected (as it is in your example). Dog expects treat, doesn't get it, response goes into extinction, which typically follows a curve and is subject to well-studied phenomena associated with extinction. One of the fastest ways to extinguish a response is to reinforce it continuously first so that the dog expects a reinforcer and figures out quickly that something has changed when there isn't one.

Possibly, but preventing self-reinforcement does not equate to +P, nor does removing an aversive contingent upon a response. Adding something to the dog is not the same as adding a consequence for a behaviour. I think it pays to be accurate, +P should be absolutely minimal if using a Halti correctly.

If the addition of the halti decreases the behaviour, I'm a bit stumped as to how it can't be +P. Consistent aversive effect aside,surely the contingent +P is that the dog feels pressure when it pulls. Pulling = pressure on the face AND potentially failure to progress. Dog pulls, leash tightens (because I allow it to) and dog's progress is thwarted. I'm doing this, not the dog.

I didn't say there wasn't ever going to be +P involved. There is a certain amount of escape and a certain amount of avoidance, or a certain amount of extinction that goes into the learning process. Then the dog is conditioned.

It's sometimes analogous to a prong collar. Ideally with a prong collar (or head halter) the dog learns quickly - pulling results in discomfort. So he no longer pulls. He is in control of that consequence. It is not a constant aversive. This is true for either tool.

The problem comes when distractions are not introduced correctly, or if the owner accidentally tightens the leash or attempts to use poorly timed corrections. If the dog doesn't feel that he can control the consequence through his behaviour then the result is stress, you get more fall-out, you get slower learning, you get displacement behaviours etc Most people are oblivious to it. Very easily managed with a double-ended leash though.

The dogs who find the head halter uncomfortable at all times can usually be conditioned to accept that something is on their face, although some do appear to be resistant to this. I think the vast majority who do not are those who have not been given reason to believe that they can control the consequences through their behaviour.

The example above is just one way a head halter might work. I have seen dogs who keep attempting to pull, they clearly don't find pulling into the head halter aversive. They just don't get where they want to go so the response extinguishes, often fairly quickly. It's the same as pulling into a flat collar, only with added leverage.

We should not assume that the head halter is always aversive.

[Aidan]

You mean like this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWBmEHzbOXI

Makes me every time.

LOL, yup!

[poodlefan]

Aidan:

Withholding a reinforcer is "extinction" and does not equate to punishment, either by definition or by function. -P requires that something (not necessarily a reinforcer) is taken away ('-' = take away or remove, which means that the organism had to have had the thing in the first place).

So, I have the treat in my hand, dog expects treat. I lure the dog into a sit but it doesn't. So no treat. Are you saying the dog doesn't interpret that as something being taken away?

No, he didn't have the treat so it wasn't taken away. Don't forget, behaviourists make observations and do not make assumptions about things like what a dog might "interpret" (not that it would make any difference in this case).

In an extinction procedure the reinforcer is likely always expected (as it is in your example). Dog expects treat, doesn't get it, response goes into extinction, which typically follows a curve and is subject to well-studied phenomena associated with extinction. One of the fastest ways to extinguish a response is to reinforce it continuously first so that the dog expects a reinforcer and figures out quickly that something has changed when there isn't one.

Let me see if I'm following this correctly. If the "lure to sit" example I gave is an extinction procedure, the response that will be extinguished is the failure to sit?

If I constantly reinforce my dog barking at the front door for some weeks, then stop reinforcing it (and presumably cue a more desireable behaviour), then I should see a decrease in barking?

Edited April 20, 2010 by poodlefan