I'll Just Throw This Into The Mix -

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

I don't talk about drive. I get confused. I talk about enthusiasm for the task at hand. Either the dog is keen to work with you or they'd rather be doing something else (eg go sniffing is something my dog likes).

If they have no enthusiasm for the task, you've got a bunch of choices...

1. quit trying to get them to do the task

2. pair the task with something they love and use a bit of PREMACK - you get what you want when I get what I want.

3. remove the distraction or thing that they are enthusiastic about.

And it's important to remember - if you're training to break the task down to baby steps and train with few or no distractions before trying to get it all going together in a place of many distractions (eg your average footpath).

How much does your dog like walking next to or near you? How much fun have you made that for your dog? How can you pair that with something your dog loves? (treats are easy but not the only option). Have you practiced in lots of different places with varying competing distractions?

No need to mention drive, or operant conditioning quadrants or maths (positive/negative). Keep it fast, fun and short and simple. If the dog is not enthusiastic about working - change that first. Don't try to drag an unwilling dog into training. It's going to start avoiding you.

[Willem]

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.

actually - from a scientific view - it is, it might be hard so see because the roles are changed: the dogs apply this aversive stimulus to you now - they want the lollies and they learned that they get it by applying highest tension via the leash to reduce your behaviour (trying holding them back).

if you want a better example where leash pulling is not aversive: e.g. dogs pulling a sledge.

[Simply Grand]

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.

actually - from a scientific view - it is, it might be hard so see because the roles are changed: the dogs apply this aversive stimulus to you now - they want the lollies and they learned that they get it by applying highest tension via the leash to reduce your behaviour (trying holding them back).

if you want a better example where leash pulling is not aversive: e.g. dogs pulling a sledge.

Way to change the argument so that you can "win". And you still aren't correct, because the dogs' pulling hard did not reduce Corvus's behaviour in holding them back.

[Willem]

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.

actually - from a scientific view - it is, it might be hard so see because the roles are changed: the dogs apply this aversive stimulus to you now - they want the lollies and they learned that they get it by applying highest tension via the leash to reduce your behaviour (trying holding them back).

if you want a better example where leash pulling is not aversive: e.g. dogs pulling a sledge.

Way to change the argument so that you can "win". And you still aren't correct, because the dogs' pulling hard did not reduce Corvus's behaviour in holding them back.

...not about winning for me, and conversely to others I think I kept the discussion pretty factual.

[Scottsmum]

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?

[Cosmolo]

Can't we just train dogs? Can't we just look at dogs and situations and teach people how to maximise opportunities for reinforcement of desirable behaviour? Can't we ask ourselves- is this in the dogs best interest? Is this minimally aversive? Am i actively minimising stress in the dog?

I am so sick of different quality trainers who practice good animal welfare being attacked. I was on the receiving end today- behind my back, with comments to an associate that are just blatantly false. It poisons an industry and profession i love.

[mita]

Can't we just train dogs? Can't we just look at dogs and situations and teach people how to maximise opportunities for reinforcement of desirable behaviour? Can't we ask ourselves- is this in the dogs best interest? Is this minimally aversive? Am i actively minimising stress in the dog?

I am so sick of different quality trainers who practice good animal welfare being attacked. I was on the receiving end today- behind my back, with comments to an associate that are just blatantly false. It poisons an industry and profession i love.

Well said, Cosmolo.

Dogs' learning follows the same principles as human learning.... where a certain principle will be applied, by a parent/teacher/counsellor/ therapist according to an individual's current stage, context & needs. Ethically & humanely. Which, when applied to dogs, you've neatly summed up in your first paragraph!

The light bulb went on for me when we had a year old Sheltie with severe.... what I came to learn from a behaviourist vet.... separation anxiety. Up to then, I only thought we had a desperately unhappy dog who just needed heaps of cuddles & hugs.

But, when the behaviourist vet explained the mechanisms of precisely what she was doing in her case, where the source was, & how to set up 're-learning' .... the light went on! 'We follow the same principles of assessment & intervention & individualization ... ethically & humanely with children!'

In fact, I taught management of children's learning & behaviour problems in another part of that university. Yet, here I'd been, with a dog, doing the total opposite.... like failing to set up situations where I could promote desired behaviour & reward it....but rather rewarding the undesirable behaviours.

I've always followed your posts & appreciated how your dog assessment/management practices fit in so neatly with good, evidence-based learning theory.

Edited April 8, 2016 by mita