Positive Re-enforcement Only Techniques

[pgm]

Rusky: these methods are harsh ,cruel and not neccessary.

PGM: actually Rusky I agree. Such methods are no longer necessary. An ecollar would solve this problem in no time.

Rusky: I said about 12 pages ago

your dog will look at you

my dog will look at me

only the methods of getting the result differ.

You said you had no idea what I meant, have you yet?

PGM: I am sorry Rusky I don't have the patience to go back 12 pages to see what you actually wrote.

But I understand what you are trying to say here, the trouble you don't understand what I'm saying - if you did, you wouldn't infer that the results are the same. They are only superficially alike.

[sidoney]

Thanks to Tabata for posting the link. I'd not read any of this before but have now read all that was available on that link (about 13,500 words more or less). pgm, you would replace the head in the hole of water with an ecollar - to what extent does your belief system align with what else is written there, and in what places would you differ?

Edited February 15, 2005 by sidoney

[pgm]

Sidoney: to what extent does your belief system align with what else is written there, and in what places would you differ?

PGM: I do not know how to answer that question in the space of a post. Let me say this, Hearne's writing belongs to a philosophical tradition that includes such writers as Emerson, Thoreau, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein and Cavell to name a few. I myself identify and belong to that same tradition. I understand Hearne because I understand the philosophical sensibility out of which she writes.

It is really not a matter of agreeing with her - or agreeing with the particular methods she uses - it's about understanding the sensibility that informs her writing.

[sidoney]

Yes, that is kind of what I meant - most specifically, I refer to her description of what dogs are, and the nature of the relationship between dogs and humans. The way she trains dogs seems to be an expression of those beliefs.

I've read a little Wittgenstein and less of the others - that is not my field, although I have been touching on it more lately. I have noticed that the writings of someone like, say, Wittgenstein, are constructed/understood/used in a number of not necessarily aligned ways. Although as I say, I have touched on it only lightly.

Edited February 15, 2005 by sidoney

[Rusky]

PGM: I am sorry Rusky I don't have the patience to go back 12 pages to see what you actually wrote.

But I understand what you are trying to say here, the trouble you don't understand what I'm saying - if you did, you wouldn't infer that the results are the same. They are only superficially alike.

I understand and I have had the patience to read this thread too.

You are right, they do only look the same

my dog watches

your dog watches

Why do they watch is the question.

You have the ecollar

I have praise, cuddles, a tasty morsel (maybe, maybe not)

I do understand, I still disagree but I understand. I always disagreed, since being a child I disagreed.

[pgm]

There is a story about Hearne giving a lecture to a group of behaviorists. She showed them a clip from the Wizard of OZ, the scene where Judy Garland sung over the rainbow. In the same scene there was a dog with Garland (I forget its name). At the end of the clip she asked the behaviorists how the dog was trained - they gave the usual stuff about shaping behavior and so forth.

She then handed them a small terrier she had with her and a box of liver treats and said right - 'show me how to train the dog to 'look over the rainbow'. They had no idea what she was talking about and naturally never invited her back.

That about sums up the difference.

[pgm]

Rusky: I have never taught my dog to look up to me.

[Clicking Mad]

...

Edited January 7, 2008 by Clicking Mad

[sidoney]

Sorry pgm, that story is too allegorical for me to understand what you are saying. Are you saying, training a dog to "look over a rainbow" in a metaphysical sense?

[pgm]

clickingmad: can I safely say that you believe that reliability is evidenced in a dog that enjoys the task that it has been trained (regardless of the task) and that that task is the reward in itself? ergo: no need for external encouragement, or reward?

the trained task = reward!

PGM: a couple of things. Encouragement from the handler is internal to the task - it is after all a social and cooperative activity. Dogs that are rewarded with a game of tug for completing a trained task (as distinct from the process of training) I would argue associate the game of tug as internal to the activity itself. Hence you take away the game of tug and you lose reliability.

Secondly, encouragement from the handler can be as subtle as a nod of the head.

Clickingmad: and then can I safely say that you believe that positive reinforcement cannot produce such reliability?

PGM: it can so long as the what is internal to the activity (the game of tug, a treat) is maintained.

[Guest Tess32]

Tess32: I don't think I'd find any joy in sticking my dog's head in a hole but she sounds gleeful.

PGM: no offense, but that statement clearly shows that you have not understood what she is doing.

Your taking my comment out of context a bit- I said that the writing style is very alienating and her writing connotes a sense of glee or a kind of sadistic frivolity. Her motivations are irrelevant - that's the way it sounds to me, and I'd guess, a reasonable amount of other people. I don't see the point of writing a training book/article and alienating potential users of the book.

Thanks for the Koehler book, I will see if I can find it somewhere.

Nat

Edited February 15, 2005 by Tess32

[pgm]

Tess32: I said that the writing style is very alienating and her writing connotes a sense of glee or a kind of sadistic frivolity. Her motivations are irrelevant - that's the way it sounds to me, and I'd guess, a reasonable amount of other people.

PGM: these things would sound different to your ears if you understood what her intentions were.

Tess32: I don't see the point of writing a training book/article and alienating potential users of the book.

PGM: It is not a training book, it is a philosophical book. And if I may, to quote Wittgenstein: you cannot write philosophy to please people.

[sidoney]

I read the (chapter?) and I think she was writing about something quite different to training dogs, but using training that dog to illustrate what she was saying. As I don't have pgm's theoretical background in philosophy I don't totally understand the antecedents.

That said, it appears to come from a very different viewpoint about what dogs are and what our relationships with them are or should be to the one that I have. Perhaps each of us were predisposed to take such apparently different viewpoints by our previous knowledge and experience. However, from my viewpoint, the one espoused in the excerpt I read has some dangerous implications, eg. a belief in a dog's morality, that I referred to earlier on. She also makes a number of attributions about dog behaviour that are not uncommon, but which I would question, particularly to the extent that she is making them. Again, that is no doubt influenced by differing viewpoints - however for me the most telling difference is the implications that it could have for dogs themselves.

It also has a different definition of "punishment" to the one used in an OC sense, and this could be leading to some confusion in this discussion (apart from having other implications).

Always difficult to take something out of context but:

In order to get on with it, Koehler makes a sharp distinction between correction and punishment, understanding that the taint of punishment may be irrevocably in any authority, and that genuine authority must do something about this. This is not a distinction between lenience and harshness; it is part of a distinction between kindness and cruelty, or perhaps between rightness and cruelty. A sharp, two-handed, decisive upward jerk on the training lead, performed as impersonally as possible is a correction. Irritable, nagging, coaxing tugs and jerks are punishments, as beatings are. The self-esteem of the handler gets into them, with the result that, by obeying or failing to obey, the dog takes on responsibility for the handler's emotional well-being, as we can make children or spouses responsible for our souls. This is the sort of obedience Lear wanted from his daughters. With some dogs, managing to exact a pretense of such obedience is as dangerous as it was for Lear with Goneril and Regan.

Something I didn't find out from what I read was what pgm meant when s/he said

Physical corrections as they are used in the method I employ fall more properly under 'positive reinforcement'.

Does that statement tie in with the excerpt above?

Edited February 15, 2005 by sidoney

[Vickie]

Always difficult to take something out of context but:

In order to get on with it, Koehler makes a sharp distinction between correction and punishment, understanding that the taint of punishment may be irrevocably in any authority, and that genuine authority must do something about this. This is not a distinction between lenience and harshness; it is part of a distinction between kindness and cruelty, or perhaps between rightness and cruelty. A sharp, two-handed, decisive upward jerk on the training lead, performed as impersonally as possible is a correction. Irritable, nagging, coaxing tugs and jerks are punishments, as beatings are. The self-esteem of the handler gets into them, with the result that, by obeying or failing to obey, the dog takes on responsibility for the handler's emotional well-being, as we can make children or spouses responsible for our souls. This is the sort of obedience Lear wanted from his daughters. With some dogs, managing to exact a pretense of such obedience is as dangerous as it was for Lear with Goneril and Regan.

Actually I think I can identify with some of this. Sidoney, I'm sure you remember the method I used to stop Trim screaming at agility. I think there are many parallels in the method with the above, although I probably do not have teh background in theory to explain them properly.

I stand by the view that I don't believe all dogs can be trained in a purely positive manner to do all things. I also strongly believe that nagging a dog for years is crueller than a correction delivered without emotion that is effective on it's first application.

I have also read the extract of the head dumping exercise a number of times now & do agree that it's an odd writing styles but wonder if most of our horror at it is due to the human emotion of feeling terror at the thought of drowning. I wonder whether an unexpected harsh correction with a check chain would shock a dog as equally while at the same time producing more physical pain than dunking the dogs head. As for building up the joy in joining in with her dog, again, it's not that dissimilar to trainers who use happy motivation to their dogs & then inflict pain as a punishment for the dogs lack of understanding of a command. It happens all the time & while we don't agree with it, I doubt it would ellicit the same reactions as the head dunking story.

I'm just trying to see both sides & put this into perspective by seeing it from the dogs point of view.

[sidoney]

The point I was making there was that if one uses OC terminology, a punisher is a punisher whether one is emotional about it or not. Or whether it's painful or not. And I think that there have been some uses of the same word but different definitions that has been a bit confusing.

Ah, and also a punisher is one that does indeed stop or reduce the behaviour - which nagging "corrections" that have no effect don't do, so they aren't punishers at all. Even if they are painful.

And again, we see the problems with imprecise terminology.

I think the term "corrections" is one that people feel better about using than "punishment".

Oh yes and also if someone comes home and kicks a dog for spreading rubbish around, they may feel like they are punishing the dog, but all they are doing is abusing it.

Edited February 15, 2005 by sidoney

[Guest Tess32]

Wow if you think the the Balanced Trainers Yahoo group is tough then don't join Real Dog Training, it's even tougher http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realdogtraining/

Had a look at that one, seems to be a lot of bickering and hostility.

Nat

Edited February 15, 2005 by Tess32

[pgm]

As for building up the joy in joining in with her dog

PGM: what is the logic of doing this? The logic of doing this is to disassociate herself with positive punishment (as defined by OC). Meaning if this technique (using positive punishment as defined in OC) is going to succeed in stopping this behavior, and not just when she is around, but stopping it altogether, then she must disassociate herself from the adversive. This btw is why I suggested the ecollar is a much more effective tool in stopping this kind of behavior - it is much easier to disassociate oneself from the application of the adversive.

You will not understand this: it is difficult to explain. What she is trying to present to the dog (and remember, the only thing that really matters in this scenario is what the dog thinks, not what you or I think) is that her behavior is just something that happens to her - not something that she intends, but something that just comes over her uncontrollably. Like the wind, or thunder, just a fact of nature, part what kind of creature she is, rather than something she is doing, something that happens to her.

People read her descriptions of joy in this as if it is personal - it is exactly the opposite. But how can I say? - read the book.

[Vickie]

Actually you took my quote completely out of context. Obviously "joy" was not an appropriate word for me to use.

I think many of us are capable of understanding the concept of disassociating ourselves with an adversive whether or not we agree with it's use.

I wont read the book, anything that is that complicated for the average human to grasp, IMO is far too complex to be trying to get across to a dog and will usually fail in application more often than not by the majority who try it.

[Pete]

To answer the original question, every dog I have trained using positives has learnt well. I have had dogs that did not respond well at all using traditional methods.

As far as the rest of the post goes, the quoting of every persons post with a opposing point of view was so familiar and so boring to me that I couldn't read much more of a page of the running down of every post, not something I enjoy sitting and reading.

Edited February 15, 2005 by Pete