Positive Re-enforcement Only Techniques

[sidoney]

Thanks for that info vpzn(&t), I'd be interested in learning more about that and would be interested in the link too.

[Tabata]

pgm, what makes you think that social reinforcement is excluded from a behaviourist viewpoint? It most certainly isn't. To any socially-oriented species approval and feedback from others can be a powerful motivator. If a dog behaves in a certain way in order to get social approval, that is a reinforcer consistent with operant conditioning definitions.

[pgm]

vpzn

you know much more about herding than I do, so I am happy for you to correct me. However I would query your statement to the effect: Their instinct rather is to control them and bring them to the handler.

If that were their instinct, what need for training? My dog for instance has a natural instinct for chasing moving objects - bringing the ball back to me however is another matter and requires training.

vpzn: They theory (basically) is that you can reward your dog by releasing pressure at the right moment & let them "have their sheep".

PGM: yes, I have heard of this technique. But this method is internal to the practice - you let them have their 'sheep' - you don't let them have their tug toy or a treat do you?

It is similar to teaching a dog to retrieve, the reward for bringing the ball back to the handler, is that they get to chase it again. The reward is internal to the activity. The activity itself becomes self-rewarding.

The argument that I have been having is not how to motivate and teach the couch potato how to do scent work. These dogs have been specifically chosen for their high drive and suitability for the work.

What I have learnt on training sheepdogs comes from Donald McCaig (the author of 'Hop Trials' if you have read it). He is a member on a list of professional trainers called 'Balanced Trainers' - it is a yahoo group which you need to join. On this list I mostly read, and post very rarely.

[poodlefan]

PQM:

The argument that I have been having is not how to motivate and teach the couch potato how to do scent work. These dogs have been specifically chosen for their high drive and suitability for the work.

That's certainly not where I have been coming from PQM. I said that get a dog to work at a task that does not bring its own reward, and to ask it to use its instincts in a manner chosen by its handler and not itself, will require motivation and reinforcement.

Given that the vast majority of trainers will not train high drive dogs for tasks for which they have been selectively bred, I find a more general method of training the focus of my research and practice.

Frankly most 'pet' homes are wholly unsuitable for the type of dogs you describe.

I'd still be interested in what you use to motivate your own dog for obedience work.

[pgm]

Tabata: To any socially-oriented species approval and feedback from others can be a powerful motivator.

PGM: thankyou Tabata, I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. Indeed, I am inclined to believe that approval and feedback are more powerful motivators to a dog than is a treat or game of tug.

Tabata: pgm, what makes you think that social reinforcement is excluded from a behaviourist viewpoint?

PGM: there are a couple of reasons. Firstly, the tendency of the behaviorally minded to interpret any form of physical correction under the definition of 'positive punishment'. Physical corrections as they are used in the method I employ fall more properly under 'positive reinforcement'. If people understand this, why the hostility to physical corrections so often present in those advocating purely positive who rely so much on theory in order to substantiate their methods?

Secondly, insofar as behaviorism is a science, it necessarily adopts the scientific attitude towards the objects of its study. This means that the scientist takes a disinterested, objective stance towards the phenomena. If the scientist's own actions or emotions or judgments were to influence the behavior of the phenomena under observation, s/he would be accused of being unscientific. The scientist stands at a distance from what is being observed. The scientist who became involved in a 'relationship' with what was being studied would be deemed a poor scientist.

This is why behaviorism has from the beginning ignored the work of actual animal trainers who work with animals everyday of their lives - in a working 'relationship'.

[pgm]

Poodlefan: I'd still be interested in what you use to motivate your own dog for obedience work.

PGM: approval and feedback.

[poodlefan]

PQM:

PGM: thankyou Tabata, I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. Indeed, I am inclined to believe that approval and feedback are more powerful motivators to a dog than is a treat or game of tug.

So approval and feedback can motivate but are not rewards? - I really do think this is a matter of semantics. What can shape behaviour can also motivate and reward IMHO - its how and when its used that determines this.

I'd say that approval and feedback are more powerful motivators to some dogs. I think it really depends on the dog, its drives and how instinctive the work is. Some dogs are highly motivated by praise, some by games and some by food. Surely the job of a good trainer is to find out what works best for individual dogs rather than to try to motivate every dog in the same manner. I have three dogs and only one of them is really motivated by food. I use praise as an immediate reinforcer and either food or toys as 'end of work' rewards or jackpots. Bear in mind that the food or toy doesn't have to be on me or with me for the dog to perform as desired.

I don't believe in a a 'one size fits all' method of training for every dog. It certainly doesn't work on people!

I know plenty of obedience trainers who look down their noses at people who use food as a motivator. However, to suggest that positive reinforcement with food requires constant bribing with treats is inaccurate. Phasing out the lure and moving to intermitant rewards is the manner in which training is reinforced and enhanced.

Edited February 15, 2005 by poodlefan

[Vickie]

vpzn

you know much more about herding than I do, so I am happy for you to correct me. However I would query your statement to the effect: Their instinct rather is to control them and bring them to the handler.

If that were their instinct, what need for training? My dog for instance has a natural instinct for chasing moving objects - bringing the ball back to me however is another matter and requires training.

vpzn: They theory (basically) is that you can reward your dog by releasing pressure at the right moment & let them "have their sheep".

PGM: yes, I have heard of this technique. But this method is internal to the practice - you let them have their 'sheep' - you don't let them have their tug toy or a treat do you?

It is similar to teaching a dog to retrieve, the reward for bringing the ball back to the handler, is that they get to chase it again. The reward is internal to the activity. The activity itself becomes self-rewarding.

The argument that I have been having is not how to motivate and teach the couch potato how to do scent work. These dogs have been specifically chosen for their high drive and suitability for the work.

What I have learnt on training sheepdogs comes from Donald McCaig (the author of 'Hop Trials' if you have read it). He is a member on a list of professional trainers called 'Balanced Trainers' - it is a yahoo group which you need to join. On this list I mostly read, and post very rarely.

PGM,

I am not trying to correct you, I am trying to give my ideas on your comments in respect to this discussion. Although I have grown up with stock, I am very new to herding and expect to be still learning for the next 50 years, so currently what I know, in the greater scheme of herding would probably fit on a pinhead.

As far as what the need for training? Only my opinion but this is how I see it.

The dogs instinct is to feel in control & bring the sheep to the handler. For the dog, the activity doesn't really exist without a handler in the picture. As I said before, there are many ways a handler can move which will apply pressure to the situation, sometimes resulting in a positive effect, sometimes not. In practical terms, in a large field, a handler cannot always be where they need to be to apply that pressure hence the need for training a dog to obey a command at a distance.

Non herding people, when they talk about their having instinct for herding, usually refer to their dog wanting to chase something. That is not herding. Herding is the dogs ability to move sheep and the ability to feel where they should change their pace in order to impact the sheep. I think most importantly, herding is the dogs ability to do this while keeping the sheep relatively calm.

I'm not sure that I'm explaining my thoughts here very well. I just had a 2 hour conversation about training my pup and I have a lot of things going around in my head.

As a handler, training a dog in herding is about looking for opportunities that naturally present and using them to teach the dog something, and we talked a lot about this this morning. The example was getting a young dog to stop. I managed to achieve this on the weekend, without ever having trained it on sheep. All I needed to do was to feel the moment where everything was in balance, where my pup felt in control & she had brought the sheep to me. Asking for a stop there was natural, she had done her job & my stopping her was an acknowledgement of this.

Probably way to much information, but the concepts can be used in many areas of dog training, it really is just setting the dog up for success. I still don't have a stop on her and that is something I will set about training, but I will use opportunities to train it. Trying to stop her at this point, when she is not in control of her sheep will end up having the exact opposite effect of what I want.

Yes I have read Nops Trials, it is a very special book and I am slowly getting a lot of insight into the emotion and feeling with which it was written.

[sidoney]

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

I would need for this to be clarified in order to be able to understand it.

[Bonniescot]

pqm: would you be able to supply the web address for balanced trainers?

Cheers

ps did a google search but unable to find

Am so enjoying this topic!!

[sidoney]

Bonniescot, try here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BalancedTrainers/

[pgm]

Poodlefan: So approval and feedback can motivate but are not rewards? - I really do think this is a matter of semantics.

PGM: no, it is not a matter, or merely a matter of semantics. Though I understand how it can feel to be merely a matter of semantics in these kinds of discussions. But words matter, they shape the way we think. But to answer your question, no, I didn't say they weren't rewards. What I am saying is that the focus on reward obsures from view so much more (and more important stuff) that is going on in this relationship.

If you are really interested in what I am struggling to say, then I suggest that you get a copy of Adam's Task: Calling Animals By Name written by Vicki Hearne. Hearne was a dog and horse trainer as well as an academic.

vpzn might also be interested in this book as the introduction was written by Donald McCaig, who has this to say: "Adam's Task is certainly the finest philosophical animal study of our generation; and I am beginning to think the best of the twentieth century."

[pgm]

Sidoney: I would need for this to be clarified in order to be able to understand it.

PGM: no, you would need to see it. But in lieu of my ability to show you, Vicki Hearne will give you a much better and more in depth explanation than I can.

[sidoney]

Thank you for the reference. Always interesting to expand one's field of view.

[pgm]

bonniescot, a word of advice for you or anyone else thinking of joining this group. It is a tough group - most of the people on the list have been training dogs for 20 years or more. Think of a whole list of K9 force's. Say something silly and you will get creamed.

[Bonniescot]

Sidoney:

[poodlefan]

PQM:

It is a tough group - most of the people on the list have been training dogs for 20 years or more.

I'd be batting out of my league then so will stay away (besides, did you see the VOLUME of posts ) but I'd hope that being an experienced trainer didn't close anyone's minds to new ideas. Sometimes questions or opinions from the less experienced cause you to rethink assumptions.

[Bonniescot]

pqm: thanks for the advice.......I will be a lurker on that site as you are

Stupid me:: I can't spell

Edited February 15, 2005 by Bonniescot

[Guest Tess32]

That looks interesting (but WOW, I agree, look at the traffic!) and I will have fun lurking.

Nat

[pgm]

poodlefan: just reading the archives is worth the price of admission. You don't have to post. As for new ideas, you would be hard pressed to come up with something new that these trainers had not heard, seen and/or tried themselves.

There was a clicker trainer on there a short time ago that confidently asserted that a certain breed of dog could not be trained using certain methods. She got murdered with numerous examples of advanced obedience titles achieved with this method.

So you can say whatever you like - but expect to be asked for the evidence.