Pulling And Pulling

[Staranais]

There are not many "purely positive" methods out there. 

I've met a couple of several people who claim they train purely positive.

I think most PP people merely mean that they train without P+, because the ones I've met definately use negative punishment (P-) as well as both positive and negative reinforcement.

A bit off topic, sorry

[Kavik]

I doubt anyone claiming to be a purely positive trainer would use negative reinforcement . . .

Negative Reinforcement = Removal of undesirable stimuli when action is done -> action more likely to be repeated in the future.

[haven]

Agree 100% Amhailte. I posted a similar suggestion a few pages back I think, unless it was another topic.

[Staranais]

I doubt anyone claiming to be a purely positive trainer would use negative reinforcement . . .

I agree it's not common.

However, I'm currently reading a PP book ("Click to Calm") in which the author claims that a dog should not be removed from a mildly stressful situation unless it behaves politely, as to do otherwise might encourage the aggressive behaviour.

To me, that definately sounds like negative reinforcement. The author may not have actually created the adversive stimulus, but still she's only removing it when the dog behaves appropriately, and that in turn will encourage the desired behaviour.

[haven]

Yep that sounds like negative reinforcement to me

However they probably claim this is ok as they are not controling the aversive.

To guard against confusion, can I suggest using the initals PR (positive reinforcement) rather than PP which could be confused with positive punishment.

[haven]

Hey, maybe we should start a new thread, we're way off the origional post!!!

[George my Doggie]

so true. I think the original author is long gone.

[Guest Tess32]

I didn't think the author of that book claimed to be PP.

Nat

[Kavik]

Very interesting Amhailte. It does sound like negative reinforcement. I haven't read that book but it is on my list of books to read.

[Staranais]

I can't recall if she ever uses the actual phrase "purely positive" - as you say, few people do.

What she does say is that she is a clicker trainer, and defines this as a "positive reinforcement training system, based on operant conditioning". The blurb on the back cover states that her methods are "all grounded in positive reinforcement".

I think the problem is that when most clicker trainers say they are "positive trainers", they merely mean that they use little or no P+. It's confusing to people who know a little bit about operant conditioning since we use the word "positive" differently, and it's obvious that clicker trainers use at least R- as well as R+ (and sometimes P- as well). Just my 2 cents.

Yes, I would recommend the book - especially if you've got a fear aggressive dog. Lots of good ideas in there.

[haven]

Anybody claiming to use only positive reinforcement either lacks education or is lying. It isn't possible because if you withold positive reinforcement when the dog ignores a known command, that's negative punishment.

[Guest Tess32]

I think it's fine to say you're a "positive trainer" - that isn't illogical and it doesn't equate to "positive reinforcement" exactly. It's the equivalent of saying you're a "traditional trainer". It's just a description.

I have only heard of one or two people saying they are PP.

A lot of people saying they only use "positive reinforcement" are not referring to OC, it's just a catchphrase to them.

I agree there are so many words floating around now that you can barely keep track of who means what!

Nat

[pgm]

I think it's fine to say you're a "positive trainer" - that isn't illogical and it doesn't equate to "positive reinforcement" exactly. It's the equivalent of saying you're a "traditional trainer". It's just a description.

The only reason people describe themselves as 'positive trainers' is to differentiate themselves from other types of trainers, such as traditional trainers. There would be no point in calling oneself a 'positive trainer' if it didn't mark some kind difference with other trainers. Otherwise why not just say that you are a dog trainer?

I have only heard of one or two people saying they are PP.

Maybe, but almost everytime someone suggests that correcting a dog might be a good thing, there is no shortage of people jumping up ready to condemn.

A lot of people saying they only use "positive reinforcement" are not referring to OC, it's just a catchphrase to them.

The trouble with the language of OC is that it is a specialized language. Punishment for instance does not mean the same thing as punishment in its everyday sense. Yet all too often people who preach positive methods (and such people typically claim their methods are based on OC) condemn the use of punishment and 'punishment based methods' (of which none exist) - but they do so relying on its everyday meaning to condemn other methods.

All positive punishment means in OC is to ADD something to decrease behavior. Everytime you say 'no' to your dog is an example of positive punishment - big deal, what's the problem?

[haven]

Personally, I think the whole "positive reinforcement only" and "anti punishment" attitudes came about because people are being anthropomorphic.

These days people tend towards the warm and fuzzy notion of not using physical violence Eg smacking their kids. My opinion on that is beside the point, what I'm trying to say is that because we (society today in general) abhor that kind of treatment we are attributing that to our pets.

The trouble is humans and dogs are not the same. We evolved differently from different needs in different environments.

Instead of using what works in humans, people should be looking at dogs and wolves for more context specific methods.

[pgm]

Personally, I think the whole "positive reinforcement only" and "anti punishment" attitudes came about because people are being anthropomorphic.

Actually, I just think people have become soft in the head.

Instead of using what works in humans,

Since we have given up the concept of using physical corrections on children, we now put them on drugs instead. There are over half a million children in this country on anti-depressants and amphetamines for what are essentially behavioral problems. I suspect dogs are headed for the same fate.

[haven]

I agree PGM.

I think people are assuming that positive punishment is 'bad' because they consider it to be bad for humans. But in reality, what constitutes bad is different for everyone and everything and in fact, for many animals there are far more 'cruel' methods to use that +punishment (assuming the animal isn't being beaten half to death). We consider violence to be 'unethical' and yet we use extremely severe psychological punishments and call it a better way.

For example: I have studied Natural Horsemanship and agree this is a far better way than the 'traditional method' because it is more context specific to horses. Do I think it is 'better' ethically? That is a BIG can of worms! I think it is unneccesary to hit a horse under most circumstances. But using NH, we use isolation from the 'herd' (which is you) as punishment. WE think that physical punishment is worse, but for the HORSE being separate from the herd is a virtual death sentence and it terrifies them because it goes against every instinct they have. So which is the 'cruel' method?

I hope I'm getting what I mean across, I'm not well at the mo so it's a bit of a challenge.

At this point I really think we have digressed from the origional thread!

[pgm]

Do I think it is 'better' ethically?

To my way of thinking, the only thing that is better 'ethically' is to get better results - meaning: a confident, healthy, well-behaved animal. If one could produce better results by smashing the dog over the head with a sledgehammer, then in principle, I would have no objections.

I put the emphasis of ethics on the result, not the process.

[haven]

I learned something very interesting in lectures today that is very similar in fact.

Two mice in adjoing cages that were wired up to a battery and given an electric shock. There was also a control group of mice that were never put in the cages and never received a shock. Both mice in the cages received the same shock, for the same length of time, at the same level of intensity etc. The difference was that one mouse had the opportunity to control the situation as there was a level by which he could push and turn off the electric shock. When he did this, the shock was turned off in BOTH cages.

Mouse 2, that couldn't control the shock, became a very depressed individual and eventually made no attempts to avoid the shock EVEN AFTER he was showed how to turn off the shock by putting him in mouse 1's box it took between 20 and 50 repetitions for it to learn. Mouse 1 however, became the smartest and most confident mouse of ALL, including the control group. Performed better in all tests than any other mouse in problem solving ability tests. So, ethical debate aside, giving mouse 1 electric shocks with the ability to control the environment resulted in a smarter, more confident and more successful mouse> Does this make a happier mouse? I'd say so. So is the electric shock treatment worth the result?

[pgm]

Haven, you have just described why the ecollar is such an effective training tool. The first thing that a trainer does is to teach the dog how to turn off the ecollar stim.

Was this experiment worth it? Well, my answer is to wonder why behaviorists never consult animal trainers. An animal trainer could have told you the result without the need for this experiment. But nobody listens to animal trainers. Instead, they boast how science is advancing our knowledge of training - yeah, right!

Confidence comes from learning how to control our enviroment. It does not come from reward, though that is certainly an aspect - it comes from learning to master our enviroment.

[pgm]

BTW, can you provide a reference for this experiment by any chance? Very handy for future debates.