JulesP Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 I only ever use a front attach harness when I walk Em around bird life as sometimes she completely loses her head and nearly hurts herself on a regular collar. The predictive nature of the harness means she goes off her NUT with excitement when I get it out because it means "oh my Dog! BIRDS!!!!" Poppy gets excited when she sees Aussie Sheps as we did herding at an Aussie Shep breeders place So Aussie Sheps = SHEEP!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simply Grand Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Gosh they're funny. Quinn gets all excited whenever we walk past certain house up the road because she said hello to a cat there ONCE :laugh: She loves cats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 it tells us that by avoiding negative punishment in the past you reinforced this behaviour - I used negative punishment with our dog (did a lot of crazy walking) and she became a good loose leash walker responding to the slightest increase in leash tension...conversely to you I don't have to use 'heaps of leash pressure' now to control the dog. Eta: so actually 'lead pulling' always affects the future behaviour: if you don't stop it respectively let the dog get away with it you reinforce this behaviour (positive reinforcement)... Well, gee, Willem. You totally nailed it, there, and really burned me in the process. Excuse me while I rethink everything I thought I knew about dog training. I'll be in my ivory tower playing checkers with pigeons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huski Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 When Blaze was a baby puppy I thought it was so cute when she kissed me on the mouth so I put it on cue and it was adorable It's not so adorable now when we are doing drive work and she punches me in the mouth Why did I reinforce that :headdesk: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spotted Devil Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 it tells us that by avoiding negative punishment in the past you reinforced this behaviour - I used negative punishment with our dog (did a lot of crazy walking) and she became a good loose leash walker responding to the slightest increase in leash tension...conversely to you I don't have to use 'heaps of leash pressure' now to control the dog. Eta: so actually 'lead pulling' always affects the future behaviour: if you don't stop it respectively let the dog get away with it you reinforce this behaviour (positive reinforcement)... Well, gee, Willem. You totally nailed it, there, and really burned me in the process. Excuse me while I rethink everything I thought I knew about dog training. I'll be in my ivory tower playing checkers with pigeons. And here I was thinking you played chess with chickens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spotted Devil Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 I only ever use a front attach harness when I walk Em around bird life as sometimes she completely loses her head and nearly hurts herself on a regular collar. The predictive nature of the harness means she goes off her NUT with excitement when I get it out because it means "oh my Dog! BIRDS!!!!" Poppy gets excited when she sees Aussie Sheps as we did herding at an Aussie Shep breeders place So Aussie Sheps = SHEEP!! Pavlov's always on your shoulder eh :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simply Grand Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 it tells us that by avoiding negative punishment in the past you reinforced this behaviour - I used negative punishment with our dog (did a lot of crazy walking) and she became a good loose leash walker responding to the slightest increase in leash tension...conversely to you I don't have to use 'heaps of leash pressure' now to control the dog. Eta: so actually 'lead pulling' always affects the future behaviour: if you don't stop it respectively let the dog get away with it you reinforce this behaviour (positive reinforcement)... Well, gee, Willem. You totally nailed it, there, and really burned me in the process. Excuse me while I rethink everything I thought I knew about dog training. I'll be in my ivory tower playing checkers with pigeons. Willem, I seem to recall that you did a fair bit of work making really rewarding for your girl to focus on you and respond to your cues (commands) in the face of distractions, and rewarded a loose lead as well. Crazy walking involves a lot of focus on handler work, which you had built up a reward history for, so I wonder whether that contributed to her stopping pulling as much as, or even moreso than, the punishment aspect of the pressure of the lead. Border Collies do tend to find engagement with their handler quite intrinsically rewarding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavik Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 When Blaze was a baby puppy I thought it was so cute when she kissed me on the mouth so I put it on cue and it was adorable It's not so adorable now when we are doing drive work and she punches me in the mouth Why did I reinforce that :headdesk: :laugh: ouch! Diesel did that once to me when I went through my food spitting phase with heeling, and he is not a high drive dog! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 (edited) it tells us that by avoiding negative punishment in the past you reinforced this behaviour - I used negative punishment with our dog (did a lot of crazy walking) and she became a good loose leash walker responding to the slightest increase in leash tension...conversely to you I don't have to use 'heaps of leash pressure' now to control the dog. Eta: so actually 'lead pulling' always affects the future behaviour: if you don't stop it respectively let the dog get away with it you reinforce this behaviour (positive reinforcement)... Well, gee, Willem. You totally nailed it, there, and really burned me in the process. Excuse me while I rethink everything I thought I knew about dog training. I'll be in my ivory tower playing checkers with pigeons. Thanks guys for so beautifully illustrating the point i made earlier about peeing contests. What matters is that the client who cannot walk their dog because it pulls like a train gets practical help. I'm sure they don't give a damn how or what you label that help - what matters is that they get it in language that THEY (not fellow trainers) understand and in steps that they can implement. Its not about you as trainers. Its about clients and dogs. If you are getting the results that clients are paying for, then who cares about the rest of it really? Be judged by your results. They speak for themselves. Edited April 6, 2016 by Haredown Whippets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willem Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 it tells us that by avoiding negative punishment in the past you reinforced this behaviour - I used negative punishment with our dog (did a lot of crazy walking) and she became a good loose leash walker responding to the slightest increase in leash tension...conversely to you I don't have to use 'heaps of leash pressure' now to control the dog. Eta: so actually 'lead pulling' always affects the future behaviour: if you don't stop it respectively let the dog get away with it you reinforce this behaviour (positive reinforcement)... Well, gee, Willem. You totally nailed it, there, and really burned me in the process. Excuse me while I rethink everything I thought I knew about dog training. I'll be in my ivory tower playing checkers with pigeons. ...the subtile irony here is that you provided a pretty good example for what can happen when self-absorbed people forget to apply negative punishment when it's needed - you got what you asked for: positive reinforcement... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huski Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 (edited) When Blaze was a baby puppy I thought it was so cute when she kissed me on the mouth so I put it on cue and it was adorable It's not so adorable now when we are doing drive work and she punches me in the mouth Why did I reinforce that :headdesk: :laugh: ouch! Diesel did that once to me when I went through my food spitting phase with heeling, and he is not a high drive dog! It's hard with our Mals. They are so highly motivated, you have to be so careful what you allow them to learn. What's cute when we are having a nice cuddle on the lounge isn't so cute once you add prey drive and they offer the same behavior, x10000 It's the same reason why I am super anal about my dogs having impeccable life skills. The consequence is much greater if you get that wrong, compared to the average dog that has a lot less drive. Edited April 6, 2016 by huski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willem Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 it tells us that by avoiding negative punishment in the past you reinforced this behaviour - I used negative punishment with our dog (did a lot of crazy walking) and she became a good loose leash walker responding to the slightest increase in leash tension...conversely to you I don't have to use 'heaps of leash pressure' now to control the dog. Eta: so actually 'lead pulling' always affects the future behaviour: if you don't stop it respectively let the dog get away with it you reinforce this behaviour (positive reinforcement)... Well, gee, Willem. You totally nailed it, there, and really burned me in the process. Excuse me while I rethink everything I thought I knew about dog training. I'll be in my ivory tower playing checkers with pigeons. Willem, I seem to recall that you did a fair bit of work making really rewarding for your girl to focus on you and respond to your cues (commands) in the face of distractions, and rewarded a loose lead as well. Crazy walking involves a lot of focus on handler work, which you had built up a reward history for, so I wonder whether that contributed to her stopping pulling as much as, or even moreso than, the punishment aspect of the pressure of the lead. Border Collies do tend to find engagement with their handler quite intrinsically rewarding. ...of course it was also a lot of positive reinforcement involved...and of course the lower the tension in the leash the more praise she got - but could I have done it with a string attached to her collar instead of the leash?...I doubt it. Wrt 'reward history': it is definitely one important pillar that the dog 'learns to learn' respectively that he finds out that he gets rewarded for the right choice...the other important pillar is - IMO - the time spent with the dog, whether for training or just on walks. I guess one of the reasons why I like dogs is that they are authentic - they don't care whether your clothing is fancy, what job you have, or whether you are a behaviourist with a PHD or just a normal mortal: they always see the real person in you - you can't hide your mood from them. They sense when they scare you (luckily I was never scared of dogs) and they sense when you are confident. IMO recognizing this is the real key to a successful training. The different training tools are just this: tools, techniques...but they are not a substitute for a strong bond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 (edited) it tells us that by avoiding negative punishment in the past you reinforced this behaviour - I used negative punishment with our dog (did a lot of crazy walking) and she became a good loose leash walker responding to the slightest increase in leash tension...conversely to you I don't have to use 'heaps of leash pressure' now to control the dog. Eta: so actually 'lead pulling' always affects the future behaviour: if you don't stop it respectively let the dog get away with it you reinforce this behaviour (positive reinforcement)... Well, gee, Willem. You totally nailed it, there, and really burned me in the process. Excuse me while I rethink everything I thought I knew about dog training. I'll be in my ivory tower playing checkers with pigeons. ...the subtile irony here is that you provided a pretty good example for what can happen when self-absorbed people forget to apply negative punishment when it's needed - you got what you asked for: positive reinforcement... No, I think the irony was not subtle and was quite lost on you. I was trying not to engage, because that always seems to be an exercise in frustration with you. Seems not engaging is even more frustrating than engaging. As it happens, you put the cart before the horse again, which is exactly why I brought up this example in the first place (hence, screaming irony lost on Willem). You assumed I avoided negative punishment. I don't even know what exactly I should have been removing, but I can say the whole reason why the dogs move so fast and pull in those circumstances is BECAUSE they have a history of me stopping them from obtaining the things they really want to obtain by using the leash. If they can move faster than I can, they get the goodies. If they can pull me a step or two unawares, they get the goodies. It's not just that they happened to pull and get rewarded because I somehow failed to... what? Remove the reward they actually had not obtained yet? Remove their ability to go forwards? They only got rewarded when they pulled as hard as they could, because that's the only way they could get to the goodies before I could stop them. Imagine that, pulling HARD has been reinforced - ergo, pressure is not negatively reinforcing IN THIS SCENARIO. Ergo, Corvus' point withstands. It's neither here nor there how this might or might not have been prevented with negative punishment. The point is pressure is not necessarily aversive. We should not make these assumptions, because they are too broad. For the record, I teach clients to train LLW with negative reinforcement. Leash pressure means we stop. Slack means we go. Dogs should move into the leash pressure to create slack. My older dogs were taught with treats and moving forwards but no leash pressure. Mostly I control them with my voice and the leashes are gathered into my hand so we don't all trip over them, and our walks are very easy and pleasant and there's little difference between on leash and off leash. We could easily argue there were aspects of negative punishment to their training and in the way I now teach this, but what would be the point? It would be difficult to tease the quadrants apart and I'm not sure what we would gain from it except to wave our butts in the faces of other trainers. Lots of people struggle with LLW. If pressure was always aversive, this struggle would be vastly easier to overcome. Edited April 7, 2016 by corvus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted April 7, 2016 Author Share Posted April 7, 2016 it tells us that by avoiding negative punishment in the past you reinforced this behaviour - I used negative punishment with our dog (did a lot of crazy walking) and she became a good loose leash walker responding to the slightest increase in leash tension...conversely to you I don't have to use 'heaps of leash pressure' now to control the dog. Eta: so actually 'lead pulling' always affects the future behaviour: if you don't stop it respectively let the dog get away with it you reinforce this behaviour (positive reinforcement)... Well, gee, Willem. You totally nailed it, there, and really burned me in the process. Excuse me while I rethink everything I thought I knew about dog training. I'll be in my ivory tower playing checkers with pigeons. And here I was thinking you played chess with chickens... of course not, silly :) Corvus uses pigeons, 'cos of the magnets in their heads ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 Thanks guys for so beautifully illustrating the point i made earlier about peeing contests. You can't have a peeing contest with Willem. Willem would shit on it and then argue how it was pee all along. It is only trying to stay sane with some people. I would be lucky if I ever named a quadrant to a client. They don't need to know jargon, but trainers do. It is fascinating that the author of the article in the original post spends an enormous amount of time listing qualifications and then promptly demonstrates a poor understanding of learning theory anyway. That IS an issue IMO. Quadrants are our bread and butter. We should be able to correctly identify what they are actually useful for. Quadrant-based ethics and broad statements about what quadrant what falls in are worse than useless. We can only tell what quadrant is in play by observing the effect on behaviour. This gives us a tool we can use to figure out the function of behaviours, and test our predictions. Once you miss that critical point, what are you even using operant conditioning for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 it tells us that by avoiding negative punishment in the past you reinforced this behaviour - I used negative punishment with our dog (did a lot of crazy walking) and she became a good loose leash walker responding to the slightest increase in leash tension...conversely to you I don't have to use 'heaps of leash pressure' now to control the dog. Eta: so actually 'lead pulling' always affects the future behaviour: if you don't stop it respectively let the dog get away with it you reinforce this behaviour (positive reinforcement)... Well, gee, Willem. You totally nailed it, there, and really burned me in the process. Excuse me while I rethink everything I thought I knew about dog training. I'll be in my ivory tower playing checkers with pigeons. And here I was thinking you played chess with chickens... of course not, silly :) Corvus uses pigeons, 'cos of the magnets in their heads ! I'm a bit of a Columbid devotee, and I've never been very good at chess. :D It's possible a chicken may actually beat me at chess even as it's scattering the pieces and soiling the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted April 7, 2016 Author Share Posted April 7, 2016 it tells us that by avoiding negative punishment in the past you reinforced this behaviour - I used negative punishment with our dog (did a lot of crazy walking) and she became a good loose leash walker responding to the slightest increase in leash tension...conversely to you I don't have to use 'heaps of leash pressure' now to control the dog. Eta: so actually 'lead pulling' always affects the future behaviour: if you don't stop it respectively let the dog get away with it you reinforce this behaviour (positive reinforcement)... Well, gee, Willem. You totally nailed it, there, and really burned me in the process. Excuse me while I rethink everything I thought I knew about dog training. I'll be in my ivory tower playing checkers with pigeons. And here I was thinking you played chess with chickens... of course not, silly :) Corvus uses pigeons, 'cos of the magnets in their heads ! I'm a bit of a Columbid devotee, and I've never been very good at chess. :D It's possible a chicken may actually beat me at chess even as it's scattering the pieces and soiling the board. :) :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulesP Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 I would be lucky if I ever named a quadrant to a client. I tried to talk about drive once to a puppy class. Fairly sure they thought I was mental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willem Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 it tells us that by avoiding negative punishment in the past you reinforced this behaviour - I used negative punishment with our dog (did a lot of crazy walking) and she became a good loose leash walker responding to the slightest increase in leash tension...conversely to you I don't have to use 'heaps of leash pressure' now to control the dog. Eta: so actually 'lead pulling' always affects the future behaviour: if you don't stop it respectively let the dog get away with it you reinforce this behaviour (positive reinforcement)... Well, gee, Willem. You totally nailed it, there, and really burned me in the process. Excuse me while I rethink everything I thought I knew about dog training. I'll be in my ivory tower playing checkers with pigeons. ...the subtile irony here is that you provided a pretty good example for what can happen when self-absorbed people forget to apply negative punishment when it's needed - you got what you asked for: positive reinforcement... No, I think the irony was not subtle and was quite lost on you. I was trying not to engage, because that always seems to be an exercise in frustration with you. Seems not engaging is even more frustrating than engaging. As it happens, you put the cart before the horse again, which is exactly why I brought up this example in the first place (hence, screaming irony lost on Willem). You assumed I avoided negative punishment. I don't even know what exactly I should have been removing, but I can say the whole reason why the dogs move so fast and pull in those circumstances is BECAUSE they have a history of me stopping them from obtaining the things they really want to obtain by using the leash. If they can move faster than I can, they get the goodies. If they can pull me a step or two unawares, they get the goodies. It's not just that they happened to pull and get rewarded because I somehow failed to... what? Remove the reward they actually had not obtained yet? Remove their ability to go forwards? They only got rewarded when they pulled as hard as they could, because that's the only way they could get to the goodies before I could stop them. Imagine that, pulling HARD has been reinforced - ergo, pressure is not negatively reinforcing IN THIS SCENARIO. Ergo, Corvus' point withstands. It's neither here nor there how this might or might not have been prevented with negative punishment. The point is pressure is not necessarily aversive. We should not make these assumptions, because they are too broad. For the record, I teach clients to train LLW with negative reinforcement. Leash pressure means we stop. Slack means we go. Dogs should move into the leash pressure to create slack. My older dogs were taught with treats and moving forwards but no leash pressure. Mostly I control them with my voice and the leashes are gathered into my hand so we don't all trip over them, and our walks are very easy and pleasant and there's little difference between on leash and off leash. We could easily argue there were aspects of negative punishment to their training and in the way I now teach this, but what would be the point? It would be difficult to tease the quadrants apart and I'm not sure what we would gain from it except to wave our butts in the faces of other trainers. Lots of people struggle with LLW. If pressure was always aversive, this struggle would be vastly easier to overcome. ...'ergo, pressure is not negatively reinforcing IN THIS SCENARIO.' I never said this is 'negative reinforcement'...your dog's unwanted behaviour (hard pulling - or just moving fast - to catch you off guard) was rewarded with the lollies, that's clearly 'positive reinforcement', and that is what I stated in my previous post. And because you let it happen, the hard pulling / pressure is not 'negative punishment'. Now that this unwanted (I just assume that it is unwanted) behaviour is reinforced it is even harder to eliminate. By using just 'negative punishment' now it will be likely very difficult to eliminate the behaviour without adding also positive reinforcement. I'm not a trainer, but my simple approach as a normal mortal would be: 'negative punishment': laying out lollis, treats or other goodies the dog is attracted to on a course (can be marked with a tent peg so the location is easier to recognize); I would walk the course making sure that the dog can't reach the 'appetitive stimulus'. If she pulls hard to get there I change direction (removing the appetitive stimulus by applying force via the leash). The setup allows me easy repetition of the exercise in a controlled environment. 'positive reinforcement': when she passes an 'appetitive stimulus' without pulling, I reward her with a treat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 Willem, you made a broad comment about leash pressure's role in negative reinforcement. All I am saying is that is too broad. Sometimes leash pressure is not aversive. This is one example where that is the case. What's the point in making an enormous production so you can ultimately agree with me? And yes, I did forcefully remove the dogs from the appetitive stimulus. That is precisely how they learned to either go hard or go home. Do you see what I'm saying? Attempting to apply the negative punishment you are telling me I forgot to apply is actually itself how I ended up with this problem. If I'd just focused on leave-it with positive reinforcement instead of relying on my physical strength, I wouldn't have dogs that play the "Cat poo treasure hunt! GOGOGO BEFORE SHE STOPS US!" game. So, either I get their full and willing cooperation (i.e. sufficient practice with "leave it") or I sigh and accept lots of defeats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.24e6b92cfb44a6dfd939a6143f4c77e7.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now