Persistent Dogs

[corvus]

I have a vague question about persistence.

Assuming that in behavioural terms a behaviour should go extinct sooner or later if it is not reinforced, what do you make of a dog that persists in a behaviour that is mildly punished? Presumably the behaviour is self-rewarding and the punishment is not as strong as the reward. But do you get dogs that need relatively little reward for a behaviour to persist in it in the face of mild to moderate punishments, or no reinforcement at all?

Well, it's not really a question because I know you can get dogs like that. I'm interested to know how people interpret or deal with these dogs. I was talking to someone recently about optimism and used Erik as an example of what I would consider optimism. He will go around poking things around the house quite sharply with his nose and it is not uncommon for them to fall down on him, or beside him, or almost fall and make him skitter backwards because he's had so many things fall around him and he's very wary of this happening. So why does he keep poking things when it's obviously punishing when they fall on him? Why does he keep jabbing things so sharply that they wobble dangerously and make him jump backwards in case they fall? I'm intrigued that poking something could be so inherently rewarding to Erik that he would keep doing it when it had been punished plenty of times and he's obviously savvy to the perils involved in this activity. Does he get a dopamine hit every time it almost falls but doesn't? Do I have a dog that likes taking risks??

So my roundabout question is do you know of or have a dog that seems persistent? Maybe they are easy to train because they just keep at it until they get it? What makes you think they are persistent and how do you adjust your training methods as a result?

[Aidan]

Neither punishment or extinction lead to "unlearning", only suppression. Even quite a strong punishment might fail in longer-term suppression of a self-reinforcing behaviour so most dogs will appear to be fairly persistent over a period of time, unless they are born or made into blobs of fur that don't do much of anything. This is why I usually seek to reinforce an alternative response, or more broadly, give the dog a really good repertoire of useful, polite behaviours with a strong history of reinforcement.

[raineth]

I am wondering whether there is something about this nose poking that occasioanlly leads to a big reward.

I am thinking of the Poker-machine analogy (no pun intended). People will pull that lever hundreds of times because just occasionally they will get a big reward.

do you think something like that could be happening?

[Nekhbet]

if it's not stopping the behaviour obviously it's not a punisher. He's skittling backwards probably because he learned there is a chance said object will land on your head so he simply avoids potential confrontation with the object.

If a dog is persistent then what you perceive as a punisher is not actually a punisher. It could be a mild hindrance but since it does nothing to modify the behaviour you cannot consider it truely a punisher to the dog. Some dogs can take a look, door slams, water, whacks, loud noises etc and not find them emough to change behaviour. Its depends on the individual dog.

[corvus]

I'm not talking about the value of a reward or strength of a punishment so much as the internal motivation of a dog. Say I had two dogs with the same reward history and comparable value for that reward and then I put a barrier in front of it. If it were Kivi and Erik, Kivi would give up then and there and go find something else to do, but Erik would try to get through the barrier. He would do that because it's worked in the past, but my point is not the history of the behaviour, but why one dog would try it and one wouldn't in the first place. What difference does that make to how you treat a dog? It's easy to handle Kivi's self-rewarding behaviours because he's easily dissuaded. You just have to make a piss poor attempt at physically stopping him and he's done. But if I'm going to try to stop Erik from doing something I would want to put a lot more effort into it straight up or he's just going to blitz whatever obstacle I use and come back at it with a vengeance.

The nose poking doesn't pay off in a traditional sense. He has never poked over the kitchen tidy and got a bonanza, for example. If he has learnt to avoid something than it has to be a punisher. For a while there it happened so often he was poking and leaping backwards without waiting to see if it looked like it was going to fall, so he must have associated things falling on his head with him poking them with his nose. He eventually refined his technique so he only jumps back now if whatever he has poked looks like it's going to fall. There are no primary rewards associated with the behaviour that I have ever seen, and he's been doing it for months and months. Kivi would have stopped the first time something fell on him, but Erik keeps doing it, even though he had some serious scares at times and continues to scare himself by almost knocking things down on top of him. Considering it must be a punisher or he wouldn't be trying to avoid having it fall on his head, then why does he keep doing it? What drives him to risk having something large fall on him for nothing I can see but the satisfaction of making something happen?

Well, there are several possible answers to that question, but I don't have one within the Behaviorism framework.

So are people saying you don't get dogs that are more persistent than other dogs?

[Staff'n'Toller]

This is why I usually seek to reinforce an alternative response, or more broadly, give the dog a really good repertoire of useful, polite behaviours with a strong history of reinforcement.

Yes my Toller is much more persistent than any of my previous dogs but I do what Aidan does ^^^ for things like poking his nose everywhere I don't want to use whatever punishment would be strong enough to extinguish the behaviour. I have a feeling it would need to be very harsh (considering what I have tried in the past). Generally the persistent behaviours he has are more annoying than anything else so I just train what I want instead. Makes me use my brain for a change.

ETA: I have noticed what you have in that there may be no reinforcement value or particularly in Tollers there may have been one extremely mild positively reinforcing consequence that cements it in forever.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Staff'n'Toller

[raineth]

So are people saying you don't get dogs that are more persistent than other dogs?

no not at all.

[corvus]

ETA: I have noticed what you have in that there may be no reinforcement value or particularly in Tollers there may have been one extremely mild positively reinforcing consequence that cements it in forever.

That is quite interesting. I have this theory that Erik has an over-sensitive reward system in his brain meats. Well, it's not my theory, as it has been suggested kind of tentatively in a few papers I've read. In humans, they reckon one of the ways you can get a manic personality is if the person is particularly sensitive to rewards, so they tend to put in a disproportionate amount of effort for a small reward, and they get very agitated when they encounter an obstacle to gaining a reward. I read a paper recently in which the author suggested animals with proactive coping styles may have a more sensitive dopaminergic system, which I guess means they may respond strongly to a bit of sympathetic nervous system activation. Perhaps they feel more keenly the dopamine kick when they escape or avoid something scary, and also when they figure out how to obtain a reward.

I certainly find that Erik is particularly excitable about rewards. And I agree, rewarding alternate behaviours makes so much more sense than simply trying to suppress. I've noticed that anything that has been accidentally punished with Erik pops back up in a matter of weeks at the most. I've never tried deliberately suppressing something without giving him directions for what he should do instead.

[raineth]

Eric reminds me a lot of my my great dane.

They sound very similar.

Anything aversive she overcomes quickly. I don't use many aversives anyway, but for instance last night our fire alarm went off and after an initial startle reaction she went to it to investigate. Her curiosity knows no bounds and it means she works things out that other dogs wouldn't, because they don't try.

I know you weren't talking about curiosity but it seems to me that curiosity is part of it. Like Erik poking everything with his nose, is a form of curiosity. He wants to see what happens.

she is a rescue and I know her history from her former owners who didn't take her out of the back yard. Yet to see her you would not think she has had limited socialisation - she investigates everything and is not afraid of anything, and quickly acclimatises to any new situation.

I don't mean for this to be off topic.

It seems to me that these sort of dogs have that sort of personality set.

[Staranais]

I have a vague question about persistence.

Assuming that in behavioural terms a behaviour should go extinct sooner or later if it is not reinforced, what do you make of a dog that persists in a behaviour that is mildly punished? Presumably the behaviour is self-rewarding and the punishment is not as strong as the reward. But do you get dogs that need relatively little reward for a behaviour to persist in it in the face of mild to moderate punishments, or no reinforcement at all?

I think if the dog is willing to work hard for something, then that thing must be rewarding enough to make him do that. Even if for the life of you, you can't understand why the dog finds that reward so pleasurable, it must be so, or he would not persist. So I don't think we need to invoke another quality ("persistence") to explain the dog's behaviour, we just need to accept that for some reason, he finds something more reinforcing than we feel he should.

Or perhaps I am misunderstanding the question.

My girl is rather persistent if she really wants something. But to me, that just means she is energetic & highly driven. It's a good trait in a working dog, since I do want her to persist in her tracking (for example) until she gets the reward, even if she runs into a disappointment or aversive of some type on the way. Less fun when I'm trying to teach her not to do something, I guess.

[Nekhbet]

my comment was what a dog finds aversive not how treatment affects behaviour.

I'm saying that obviously your dog finds no aversive in the situation. It does not stop the behaviour. Obviously its satisfying something, be it drive, curiousity or now its a game to scare ourselves. Your other dog just doesnt have a reason to try and get through situations hence he doesnt try. It doesnt mean situations have to be aversive, some animals just cant be bothered because they see no point to it, ie there's nothing worth it on the other side, or in the bin etc. A reward doesnt have to be revolutionary to set a behaviour, it just has to push the right button in the dog to make it ocntinue the behaviour.

I've noticed that anything that has been accidentally punished with Erik pops back up in a matter of weeks at the most

that simply means the punisher was not suffient to stop the behaviour. It may have stopped a soft dog, but a harder dog will try again if the punishment is not enough.

but why one dog would try it and one wouldn't in the first place

Its part of the personality of the dog. Every creature has a different personality and their behaviour is derived from that. One dog sees no reason to try something new, while the other has a greater natural curiosity and investigative drive. It's the same as some people go out there and try new things, while others are happy to just sit in their rut and not go out of their comfort zone even though there might be something out there better for them. Some are just happy as they are and see no need in trying new things.

Anything aversive she overcomes quickly. I don't use many aversives anyway, but for instance last night our fire alarm went off and after an initial startle reaction she went to it to investigate.

I wouldnt consider that an aversive. It more seems like she exhibits an initial residual hesitaion which she overcomes. You're lucky your dog obviously has some decent genetics.

[raineth]

Anything aversive she overcomes quickly. I don't use many aversives anyway, but for instance last night our fire alarm went off and after an initial startle reaction she went to it to investigate.

I wouldnt consider that an aversive. It more seems like she exhibits an initial residual hesitaion which she overcomes. You're lucky your dog obviously has some decent genetics.

Maybe I was not talking about aversive in that it was applied to modify behaviour. But aversive also means a stimulus that is negative and elicits avoidance. I can tell you our fire alarm is unbelievably loud and painful, the other dog hid under the desk and the kids ran outisde. So I would call that aversive. Yet her curiosity was more powerful than her desire to avoid the horrid sound. But I suppose you would say that because she didn't avoid it it is therefore not aversive to her... meh. We still both get the idea!

As she was in foster care I knew what she was like before getting her - so I'm not lucky - I chose her because I loved that quality. She is utterly brilliant

[raineth]

Anything aversive she overcomes quickly. I don't use many aversives anyway, but for instance last night our fire alarm went off and after an initial startle reaction she went to it to investigate.

I wouldnt consider that an aversive. It more seems like she exhibits an initial residual hesitaion which she overcomes. You're lucky your dog obviously has some decent genetics.

nah it wasn't risidual hesitation, it was a startle response I happened to be looking her when it went off.

she startled, and then got up straight away and went to the source of the sound.

[corvus]

I know you weren't talking about curiosity but it seems to me that curiosity is part of it. Like Erik poking everything with his nose, is a form of curiosity. He wants to see what happens.

Nono, that's exactly what I'm getting at! I should have thought this out better before I posted. There's no particular answer to one thing I'm looking for here, but for people to comment on the idea of a persistent dog. What I have read lately says that curiosity is highly likely to be a stable aspect of the personality trait I'm talking about. Persistence is a word that might resonate with some who have seen these dogs, but it was just one I picked because I thought it was most likely to resonate. Curiosity and exploratory behaviour is probably more accurate, though.

They use those novel situation and startle response tests in everything from kids to fish. It seems broadly applicable to most species, but how the animal reacts varies in stability. Some animals will change how they behave depending on their environment and some are born bold or shy and stay that way their whole life regardless of environment. It seems with dogs they mostly stay that way. The Swedish Working Dog test has several setups using novel situations and objects or noises expected to startle. The aim is to see how quickly the dog reacts, what they do, and how quickly they recover.

[corvus]

my comment was what a dog finds aversive not how treatment affects behaviour.

I'm saying that obviously your dog finds no aversive in the situation. It does not stop the behaviour.

But they are intertwined. The presence of an aversive doesn't mean the behaviour will stop. It just means the behaviour should decrease. But obviously that doesn't exist in a vacuum, either. If a reward that is bigger than the aversive is also present, the dog has a choice whether to pick the gaining of a reward or the avoiding of a punishment. They'll pick whichever one is more important to them. But we know all that. What interests me is how that balance plays out in different dogs.

Obviously its satisfying something, be it drive, curiousity or now its a game to scare ourselves. Your other dog just doesnt have a reason to try and get through situations hence he doesnt try. It doesnt mean situations have to be aversive, some animals just cant be bothered because they see no point to it, ie there's nothing worth it on the other side, or in the bin etc. A reward doesnt have to be revolutionary to set a behaviour, it just has to push the right button in the dog to make it ocntinue the behaviour.

Yes, obviously Erik is getting some sort of reward out of his behaviour. My suspicion is he has a drive to gather information. Curiosity, as Raineth said. Much the same as my drive to research stuff. But I think it's undeniable that something you avoid is aversive. He is good at avoiding having things fall on him and clearly associates this possibility with his behaviour. What's interesting is why he would persist with the behaviour when the rewards are minimal and not conventional and the risk of something scary happening is quite high. Yes, obviously he persists because it pushes his buttons, but what does it mean that it pushes his buttons? Do I change the way I handle him given I know something of the risks he will take for quite intangible rewards? Those are rhetorical questions, BTW. I know what I do with my dog, but I'm interested to know what other people do with theirs.

that simply means the punisher was not suffient to stop the behaviour. It may have stopped a soft dog, but a harder dog will try again if the punishment is not enough.

So is a "hard" dog a dog that is resistent or insensitive to punishments? Incidentally, I disagree that the behaviour comes back because the punishment wasn't strong enough. Aidan said earlier that punishments just suppress behaviour. Without motivation to do something else instead, (or maintenance punishment) the behaviour is likely to come back. I agree with that.

Its part of the personality of the dog.

Yes, so the question was, how would you handle a dog like this? Are there things you would do differently knowing it's a dog that is bold and highly motivated etc?

[Nekhbet]

But aversive also means a stimulus that is negative and elicits avoidance. I can tell you our fire alarm is unbelievably loud and painful, the other dog hid under the desk and the kids ran outisde. So I would call that aversive. Yet her curiosity was more powerful than her desire to avoid the horrid sound. But I suppose you would say that because she didn't avoid it it is therefore not aversive to her... meh. We still both get the idea

Meh? I think people on here have a preconceived notion of an aversive. If we find it unpleasant or have an idea that it is negative then the dog must find it an aversive. Not true at all. Let's look at humans, some people are terrified out of their skins with needles while others sit for hours getting tattoos. Traditionally we think, oh wow that must be so painfull etc how could anyone do that ... yet those with tattoos realise the pain in actually quite minimal if not sometimes totally unnoticable - therefor it can be appetitive. Some dogs are frightened of loud noises, yet others have no problem - eg my dogs can sleep through gunshots a few meters away while other dogs would run a mile. It's lound and to most unpleasant, yet mine dont give a rats.

So is a "hard" dog a dog that is resistent or insensitive to punishments?

It is a dog whos threshold of what is considered a punishment or even an aversive is higher, that is part of it. Hence the difference between working and show line dogs most of the time, what makes one dog avoid like crazy the other will show interest or resilience. Most of this is genetic.

Aidan said earlier that punishments just suppress behaviour. Without motivation to do something else instead, (or maintenance punishment) the behaviour is likely to come back. I agree with that.

And I dont believe that punushment simply suppresses behaviour. In some cases with ill timed or weak punishments yes, all they do is temporarily suppress. But the right punishment can extinguish the behaviour. The dog still needs to be shown an alternative if you want to do behaviour modification properly, but that it simply suppresses is a fallacy ... along with if you correct an aggressive dog you will make it more aggressive OR the doozy you will make it MORE aggressive towards its target uh huh.

But I think it's undeniable that something you avoid is aversive. He is good at avoiding having things fall on him and clearly associates this possibility with his behaviour. What's interesting is why he would persist with the behaviour when the rewards are minimal and not conventional and the risk of something scary happening is quite high. Yes, obviously he persists because it pushes his buttons, but what does it mean that it pushes his buttons? Do I change the way I handle him given I know something of the risks he will take for quite intangible rewards? Those are rhetorical questions, BTW. I know what I do with my dog, but I'm interested to know what other people do with theirs.

A dog obviously will avoid something they perceive to be aversive. And really it is perception. Some dogs shy at a breeze rattling leaves while other dogs can take a few good hits with a stick and not flinch. Some dogs sleep happily in a crate while others scream, panic and shit everywhere while tearing the crate to shreds to escape.

well your dog obviously has the intelligence to move when something is to fall on his head. Maybe the rewards are not outwardly visible to you - obviously to him he finds it rewarding enough to risk something falling on his head. Think about it, if the fear outweighed the reward he wouldnt do it. Obviously the fear is slim to none. I mean pushes his buttons in that the whole situation satisfys something for him - hell you never know maybe he likes trying to make things fall on his head to get a bit of a thrill, like puppies with new things that then proceed to scare themselves and go off on an excitement tangent pretending to be frightened but actually having a ball.

[Aidan]

Aidan said earlier that punishments just suppress behaviour. Without motivation to do something else instead, (or maintenance punishment) the behaviour is likely to come back. I agree with that.

And I dont believe that punushment simply suppresses behaviour. In some cases with ill timed or weak punishments yes, all they do is temporarily suppress. But the right punishment can extinguish the behaviour. The dog still needs to be shown an alternative if you want to do behaviour modification properly, but that it simply suppresses is a fallacy

I didn't say that punishment was ineffective. I said that you can't "unlearn" something, which has been well established. So if something isn't "unlearned", it is still there. If the reinforcers (whether they be the aversive used in the punishment procedure, or some other reinforcer) stop maintaining an alternative response, the punished response returns.

[corvus]

It is a dog whos threshold of what is considered a punishment or even an aversive is higher, that is part of it. Hence the difference between working and show line dogs most of the time, what makes one dog avoid like crazy the other will show interest or resilience. Most of this is genetic.

Okay, good, so now what? How does that affect how you handle a dog?

along with if you correct an aggressive dog you will make it more aggressive OR the doozy you will make it MORE aggressive towards its target uh huh.

Well, I have personally seen that happen with my own eyes. You can believe it is a myth all you like, but I hope other people reading this will take note that I believe I saw it happen. More than once.

well your dog obviously has the intelligence to move when something is to fall on his head. Maybe the rewards are not outwardly visible to you - obviously to him he finds it rewarding enough to risk something falling on his head. Think about it, if the fear outweighed the reward he wouldnt do it. Obviously the fear is slim to none. I mean pushes his buttons in that the whole situation satisfys something for him - hell you never know maybe he likes trying to make things fall on his head to get a bit of a thrill, like puppies with new things that then proceed to scare themselves and go off on an excitement tangent pretending to be frightened but actually having a ball.

Yes, thank you once again for repeating what has already been said. As I said before, obviously it is more rewarding than aversive. But the point I wanted to discuss was that some dogs seem to need little reward to persist in risky activities compared to other dogs. You still haven't answered the question of how this affects the way you might handle such a dog.

[raineth]

But aversive also means a stimulus that is negative and elicits avoidance. I can tell you our fire alarm is unbelievably loud and painful, the other dog hid under the desk and the kids ran outisde. So I would call that aversive. Yet her curiosity was more powerful than her desire to avoid the horrid sound. But I suppose you would say that because she didn't avoid it it is therefore not aversive to her... meh. We still both get the idea

Meh? I think people on here have a preconceived notion of an aversive. If we find it unpleasant or have an idea that it is negative then the dog must find it an aversive. Not true at all. Let's look at humans, some people are terrified out of their skins with needles while others sit for hours getting tattoos. Traditionally we think, oh wow that must be so painfull etc how could anyone do that ... yet those with tattoos realise the pain in actually quite minimal if not sometimes totally unnoticable - therefor it can be appetitive. Some dogs are frightened of loud noises, yet others have no problem - eg my dogs can sleep through gunshots a few meters away while other dogs would run a mile. It's lound and to most unpleasant, yet mine dont give a rats.

I did not feel the need to describe every single detail indepth that made me come to the conclusion that she did find the noise very unpleasant, that she chose to investigate it, and that it initially startled her - because it was an unexpected loud noise.

I know you are a very knowledgeable person Nehkbet.

back to Corvus' topic:

Well I find with Delta I have to be more persistant than she is.

For instance she had to be taught that when I am paying attention to the other dog (Digby) she is not to come and interfere.

She doesn't respond to an "uh uh" in this situation, or me getting inbetween her and him or any of those sorts of things.

So basically if she comes up and interferes, without looking at her, or saying anything, I lead her back to her bed. Initially I had to do it constantly! But by being more persistant than her, I have taught her that when I am doing something with Digby she can go to her bed. She will still occasionally try it again, and I just have to put her back. like you said with Erik, there persistance will mean that will occasionally try it out again "just in case"

With most things I am using the clicker and she responds so well to it and is so keen to work for it that I am getting the behaviours I want.

I also find that with persistant dogs, you can't take any short cuts!

I mean with Digby and my last Dane I could leave meat on the bench to defrost, go out and leave them in the house and they wouldn't have attempted to steal the meat. I know I could not do that with Delta. She is always watching, she would know the meat was there and the moment I left she's be having some lunch

So I have to form some new habits, Digby and Mr Darcy have made me lazy.

The other day I was rushing to got to an appointment. I put the dogs in the backyard and took there collars off. Becuase I was running late I put them in a place in the backyard. A place that is quite difficult to get to, in fact I'm not sure how she got to them! It did not occur to me that she would seek them out.

I found hers in the middle of the backyard, and I still don't know where Digby's is!

[corvus]

I have found that to be so true with Erik, Raineth. I can't take shortcuts, and if I'm going to change something I have to be committed enough to hold out longer than he can! I am very realistic about my commitment to changing his behaviour. Before I try I ask myself "Now, how long am I really going to keep at this? How consistent can I be?" If I start without the commitment I will likely turn what is a minor preoccupation for him into an obsession. He loves a challenge. So I set myself up so that it will be easy to act even when I'm in the middle of something.

I also found that I had to give him lots of directions. He's very good at doing what he's asked, but if I don't ask him to do anything he's very good at inventing things to do that I will not like.

And I don't take chances with him. If I think he might possibly get into something I move it so he can't. The last thing I need is for him to discover a new activity that I badly don't want him to do. He one day discovered that he can open one of the kitchen cupboards. It only has plastic containers in it, but now we have to keep a chair against it all the time or he may at any moment open the cupboard, drag out a plastic container and chew it into little pieces. I've heard him. He rummages looking for the most expensive one!

I can be much lazier with my other dog. He won't do anything unless there's a reason. Erik does things to see what will happen. What I find interesting is that nothing happening is not enough for him to put that behaviour in the "don't bother" basket. He will try it again and again. It will take several quite punishing consequences in a short space of time to convince him to stop, and even then, it will come back again if he hasn't tried it for a while.