# Skinner vs Pavlov



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

This ought to be good. I could also have said Operant, vs Classical conditioning.

Which one do you consider "better", when applied to Retriever Training?
Or, if you think that OC is "better" for certain aspects of training, while CC is "better" for others, what would those differences be?


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

Great question. I've been wondering about exactly the same thing. IMO, OC is better for complex activities when there is not a huge amount of pressure. CC kicks in when there is a lot of pressure or adrenaline. CC always trumps OC.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

I hope that Darrin sees this. If not, I may weigh in, breaking a promise to myself not to do so.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

You're kidding. Pavlov was working with the autonomic nervous system, triggering a reflex (salivating) when he rang a bell and then fed the dogs.

Skinner shaped behavior with either reward or punishment. Behavior isn't a reflex.

Later edit: I think I shouldn't have said reward or punishment for Skinner. I believe I should have said adding or removing stimuli.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Howard N said:


> Behavior isn't a reflex.


 It can be conditioned into a reflex.


----------



## Ron in Portland (Apr 1, 2006)

I would say both; but then again, it depends on if my understanding of the differences between the two is correct.

I thought that with Skinner, the response was a conditioned response through a decision. This would be the case of a left or right cast, the dog is interpreting what the cast is, and deciding if they go with it or not.

With Pavlov, it was an involuntary response (i.e. drooling when they hear the dinner bell). They don't "decide" to drool, they just do. I suppose you can make the argument that the sit whistle can be conditioned to an involuntary response. I think it becomes so automatic that it no longer requires the dog to think, "there's that damn sit whistle again, I'd better sit down". I think it's more a matter of their but is headed to the ground when the whistle blows (well, eventually). Or would that still be a conditioned response, just really well conditioned?


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

I think reflex is controlled by the autonomic nervous system and behavior is controlled by the voluntary nervous system. I cannot think of what we do in retriever training as having much to do with the autonomic system. We're training the voluntary nervous system. The autonomic reacts too, but it's under the surface reacting to the stimulus but we're not trying to train it. Kinda like adrenalin increases when we have a bird thrown or use the collar to have the dog sit faster but we aren't training to have adrenalin flow, we're training a retrieve or a fast sit.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Howard N said:


> You're kidding. Pavlov was working with the autonomic nervous system, triggering a reflex (salivating) when he rang a bell and then fed the dogs.
> 
> Skinner shaped behavior with either reward or punishment. Behavior isn't a reflex.
> 
> *Later edit: I think I shouldn't have said reward or punishment for Skinner. I believe I should have said adding or removing stimuli*.


That's important.

Stimuli can be rewarding, aversive, or neutral.
Reinforcement, and punishment refer to the behavioral change that the stimuli influenced.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Howard N said:


> I think reflex is controlled by the autonomic nervous system and behavior is controlled by the voluntary nervous system. I cannot think of what we do in retriever training as having much to do with the autonomic system. We're training the voluntary nervous system. The autonomic reacts too, but it's under the surface reacting to the stimulus but we're not trying to train it. Kinda like adrenalin increases when we have a bird thrown or use the collar to have the dog sit faster but we aren't training to have adrenalin flow, we're training a retrieve or a fast sit.


Here's something to think about.


> Although we discuss classical and operant conditioningas if they were two separate things, they both
> happen at the same time. You cannot learn something
> operantly without also creating a classical association
> and vice versa. What we, as trainers, need to
> ...


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Howard N said:


> I think reflex is controlled by the autonomic nervous system and behavior is controlled by the voluntary nervous system. I cannot think of what we do in retriever training as having much to do with the autonomic system. We're training the voluntary nervous system. The autonomic reacts too, but it's under the surface reacting to the stimulus but we're not trying to train it. Kinda like adrenalin increases when we have a bird thrown or use the collar to have the dog sit faster but we aren't training to have adrenalin flow, we're training a retrieve or a fast sit.





Howard N said:


> You're kidding. Pavlov was working with the autonomic nervous system, triggering a reflex (salivating) when he rang a bell and then fed the dogs.
> 
> Skinner shaped behavior with either reward or punishment. Behavior isn't a reflex.
> 
> Later edit: I think I shouldn't have said reward or punishment for Skinner. I believe I should have said adding or removing stimuli.



Great response Howard!


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

By definition, a reflex is inborn, does not have to be learned and has survival value. One definition of behavior is that it is anything an organism does as a response to a stimulus.

A behavior can be conditioned to become automatic. It is still a learned behavior. For example a boxer learns to slip a punch, doing so automatically through conditioning.


----------



## CRNAret (Oct 3, 2012)

You guys can have Skinner and Pavlov - I'll stick with Tri Tronics


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

gdgnyc said:


> .....A behavior can be conditioned to become automatic....


 Operantly, or Classically?



gdgnyc said:


> .....It is still a learned behavior. For example a boxer learns to slip a punch, doing so automatically through conditioning.


 What kind of conditioning?

What is the stimulus that elicits the response?


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Classical conditioning is also called associative learning. Learning associations means that certain things go together. I put my whistles around my neck and my dog runs to the door to go training.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

gdgnyc said:


> Classical conditioning is also called associative learning. Learning associations means that certain things go together. I put my whistles around my neck and my dog runs to the door to go training.


 That would be a conditioned emotional response.

And yes, it is Classically conditioned.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

CRNAret said:


> You guys can have Skinner and Pavlov - I'll stick with Tri Tronics


It's over my head to even think about training rats and B.F. Skinner. Agreed Tri Tronics rule.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> That would be a conditioned emotional response.
> 
> And yes, it is Classically conditioned.


Now I know that your original question is a trick question.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

gdgnyc said:


> Now I know that your original question is a trick question.


Certainly not a trick question.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

It's not a trick question, but it does demonstrate either.. A lack of understanding or... an extreme desire to debate semantics. 

There is no comparison to be made between OC and CC. They are two separate and distinct theories that, when combined in retriever training, create and re-enforce the trained responses we want from our dogs. 

The two work in tandem and not in any way exclusively from one another, thus, there's no valid comparison to be made.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

DarrinGreene said:


> It's not a trick question, but it does demonstrate either.. A lack of understanding or...


 Could be that. I guess I wouldn't know.



DarrinGreene said:


> ....an extreme desire to debate semantics.....


 I have no desire to debate semantics.



DarrinGreene said:


> .....There is no comparison to be made between OC and CC. They are two separate and distinct theories that, when combined in retriever training, create and re-enforce the trained responses we want from our dogs.
> 
> The two work in tandem and not in any way exclusively from one another, thus, there's no valid comparison to be made.


 There are differences. Major differences.

And those differences significantly effect both how we read a dog's responses, and how we respond (or should respond) to them.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

It's beyond me. I don't have a clue.

Put me in the TriTronics corner with my copy of the Total Retreiver Training DVD.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I think this is pretty "big". Even though I doubt most of the really good Retriever Trainers bother to think about it.
It determines the sequence of training, the dog's training attitude, and ultimately, how far the dog can be advanced in training, before it hits a "wall".

Think about things like when a dog freezes on the last bird of a series. 
I'm not talking about sticking. 
I'm talking zoned out, dilated pupils, in a whole nuther world kind of freezing. 

I don't think that the dog has the conscious ability to control that behavior. 
It wasn't Operantly Conditioned.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I also believe that some behaviors NEED to be Classically Conditioned, before the dog can advance to the "next level" of training.


----------



## RobinZClark (Jun 8, 2012)

I agree with you copterdoc. Have you watched Michael Ellis's video entitled "finishing work"? He discusses this.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

RobinZClark said:


> I agree with you copterdoc. Have you watched Michael Ellis's video entitled "finishing work"? He discusses this.


No, I haven't seen that.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

"The most important thing is to keep the most important thing the most important thing." Donald Coduto, Foundation Designs


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Every behavior we train into a dog (intentionally or unintentionally) is a classically conditioned response, including freezing on the last bird in a series. 

Classic conditioning shows us the animal's ability to anticipate the next event (or events) in a chain. Operant conditioning shows us the various ways we can make classic conditioning occur. Both models depend on the animal anticipating the next event in a chain, and thus no matter how we get there, all man made behavior in a dog is classically conditioned.

Operant conditioning supports classical conditioning. They are not at all mutually exclusive, nor can they really be compared to one another.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> Operantly, or Classically?
> 
> What kind of conditioning?
> 
> What is the stimulus that elicits the response?


Both. In the real world, not laboratory conditions, things aren't always "black and white".

The stimulus in my example would be seeing something coming towards my face.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

DarrinGreene said:


> Every behavior we train into a dog (intentionally or unintentionally) is a classically conditioned response, including freezing on the last bird in a series.
> 
> Classic conditioning shows us the animal's ability to anticipate the next event (or events) in a chain. Operant conditioning shows us the various ways we can make classic conditioning occur. Both models depend on the animal anticipating the next event in a chain, and thus no matter how we get there, all man made behavior in a dog is classically conditioned.
> 
> Operant conditioning supports classical conditioning. They are not at all mutually exclusive, nor can they really be compared to one another.


 So, a behavior is not trained, until it is classically conditioned?


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

copterdoc said:


> So, a behavior is not trained, until it is classically conditioned?


The goal is always to have the dog respond immediately, correctly, 100% of the time, regardless of circumstance or distraction. That's a classically conditioned response.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

DarrinGreene said:


> The goal is always to have the dog respond immediately, correctly, 100% of the time, regardless of circumstance or distraction. That's a classically conditioned response.


 Does that response have to be to a neutral stimulus?


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

Maybe this will make it a little easier to understand

*Classical Conditioning
What Goes with What? *
Classical conditioning, Pavlovian conditioning, associative learning – these are all terms for what happens when an animal learns associations among things. Learning associations means learning that things go together: when one thing happens (you burn your dinner), another thing will follow shortly (the smoke detector goes off). You say “Let’s go for a walk”, your dog jumps up all excited because he has learned that this particular phrase precedes going out for a walk. Your cat runs to its food dish when it hears the can opener because often this signals feeding time. In each case, there is a predictable relationship among the events and the animal learns to respond to the first event in anticipation of the second event. That’s what classical conditioning is all about: anticipation.

Reid, Pamela J. (2011-07-25). Excel-Erated Learning: Explaining in Plain English How Dogs Learn and How Best to Teach Them (Kindle Locations 391-399). James & Kenneth Publishers. Kindle Edition. 


*Operant Conditioning
Does What I Do Affect What Happens to Me? *
Operant conditioning, instrumental learning1, Skinnerian conditioning – these are all terms for what happens when an animal learns that its behavior has consequences. Learning that a particular behavior has a consequence might be as simple as learning that rolling over on your side in bed feels good or as complex as learning that solving difficult mathematical problems leads to an opportunity to receive a scholarship. There are countless things we do everyday that lead to consequences that wouldn’t happen if we hadn’t done something. If you don’t work, you don’t get paid. If you don’t cook, you don’t eat. If I ask my dog to sit and he doesn’t, he doesn’t get a treat. If he were a wild animal and he didn’t bother to go out and hunt, he wouldn’t eat. In other words, things happen because we do things and animals learn these relationships the same as do people.

Reid, Pamela J. (2011-07-25). Excel-Erated Learning: Explaining in Plain English How Dogs Learn and How Best to Teach Them (Kindle Locations 452-461). James & Kenneth Publishers. Kindle Edition.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

copterdoc said:


> Does that response have to be to a neutral stimulus?


I'm not going to get drug into a debate over details. We condition every command and every response the dog has. Pretty much everything they do outside of eating and chasing things is created by a human and conditioned through classical conditioning, supported by Skinner's re-enforcement schedules.

It's that simple and if newer folks keep that in mind, they will become better trainers. 

I do it with pet dog owners all day, every day. They get it because it's relatively simple and they train their own dogs very effectively when armed with the knowledge.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

I think,,,I think


You can have classic conditioning going on while you apply operant conditioning but you don't have to have operant conditioning going on when the dog is learning by classic only

Because dogs make associations between events all the time when we are training them 

but they also make associations when they are not being trained
All theives are malifactors but not all malifactors are thieves ,,,or something like that
Pete


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

DarrinGreene said:


> I'm not going to get drug into a debate over details.


 I think it's more significant than a minor detail.

What if the stimulus that triggers a conditioned response, is in itself aversive rather than neutral?


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

[QUOTEWhat if the stimulus that triggers a conditioned response, is in itself aversive rather than neutral][/QUOTE]

Perfect example
There is always a dog somewhere that doesn't want to come out of his kennel because it is anticipating bad juju associated with training.
Doesn't matter if the training was bad or not,,,, bad training good dog or good dog bad training,,,,in their mind it was an association the dog doesn't like.

That's a classic example of CC taking place during OC,,,dogs associated pretty much everything. Its part of being a dog.
They even associate when their resting with both eyes closed.
Pete


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Pete said:


> I think,,,I think
> 
> 
> You can have classic conditioning going on while you apply operant conditioning but you don't have to have operant conditioning going on when the dog is learning by classic only
> ...


 I understand what you are saying. Lots of training methods work, that don't make sense when thought of in OC terms, but make perfect sense when thought of as CC.

However, I don't think it's possible to eliminate the laws of reinforcement/punishment, and action/consequence even though you are trying to use classical conditioning at the time.

Both theories apply, all the time.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Both theories apply, all the time.


 But I don't see any OC taking place during pavlovs experiment. A bell causes the dog to have an involuntary metabolic response..
I think you can have CC without OC going on but cannot have OCgoing on without CC,,,,see
Pete


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Pete said:


> But I don't see any OC taking place during pavlovs experiment. A bell causes the dog to have an involuntary metabolic response..
> I think you can have CC without OC going on but cannot have OCgoing on without CC,,,,see
> Pete


He had to use OC, to get the dog to the point of being classically conditioned to salivate in response to the bell.

And he also has to use OC, to maintain that conditioning.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Pete said:


> > What if the stimulus that triggers a conditioned response, is in itself aversive rather than neutral
> 
> 
> Perfect example
> ...


 That example is sort of opposite of what I was thinking about.

With CC, a stimulus is associated with a response, until the stimulus itself elicits the response.

That stimulus can be anything that a dog detects with one of it's 5 senses. And the response, can be any behavior that the dog has been conditioned to perform on cue.

We can associate any stimulus with any action, and condition the dog to perform that action in response to the stimulus.
And that stimulus can be aversive.


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> He had to use OC, to get the dog to the point of being classically conditioned to salivate in response to the bell.
> 
> And he also has to use OC, to maintain that conditioning.


I don't know if I agree with this because the feeding of the dogs was not based on the requirement of salivation. The dogs anticipated the food based on the change in their surroundings. There was no Addition or subtraction of stimulus positive or negative that altered the feedings. The dogs merely made an association base on cues they received (the bell and the assistant) OC is based on the addition or Subtraction of a positive or negative stimulus. CC is based on the dogs making associations or anticipation of an outcome, but the anticipation is not required to obtain the outcome.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Jon Couch said:


> I don't know if I agree with this because the feeding of the dogs was not based on the requirement of salivation. The dogs anticipated the food based on the change in their surroundings. There was no Addition or subtraction of stimulus positive or negative that altered the feedings.


 Salivation, is an unconditioned response. It becomes conditioned, as it is reinforced with the reward of food.

If salivation is punished, it will decrease as a result.

Once associated with the bell, the association is continually reinforced with the reward of food. 
If the association with the bell is not continually reinforced, the conditioned association will be lost over time, through extinction.



Jon Couch said:


> The dogs merely made an association base on cues they received (the bell and the assistant) OC is based on the addition or Subtraction of a positive or negative stimulus.


 They had to first be conditioned to the point that they could make that association. And that would be Operant Conditioning. Not Classical Conditioning.



Jon Couch said:


> CC is based on the dogs making associations or anticipation of an outcome, but the anticipation is not required to obtain the outcome.


 Yes it is. 
That is what Classical Conditioning IS!


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

Ok I see what you are saying! Getting the food *ONCE* they started to salivate would actually be considered Positive Reinforcement even though the salivation is not required to be fed.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Jon Couch said:


> Ok I see what you are saying! Getting the food *ONCE* they started to salivate would actually be considered Positive Reinforcement even though the salivation is not required to be fed.


 Yes.

Our ultimate goal in training, is to end up with a classically conditioned behavior that we desire. 
But, we also have to use operant conditioning to get there.

We can fail at either one.


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> Yes.
> 
> Our ultimate goal in training, is to end up with a classically conditioned behavior that we desire.
> But, we also have to use operant conditioning to get there.
> ...


Ok! Makes Sense! so you and Darrin Greene are saying the same thing that we should be using OC principles to achieve the ultimate goal of CC. Am I on the same page here?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Jon Couch said:


> Ok! Makes Sense! so you and Darrin Greene are saying the same thing that we should be using OC principles to achieve the ultimate goal of CC. Am I on the same page here?


 I can't speak for Darrin, but I think that it helps to think of it as using Operant Conditioning as the "map" and Classical Conditioning as the "proof".

Once we know that the dog has been classically conditioned to perform as desired, we can't just throw away the "map" either. We could still get lost.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

copterdoc said:


> That example is sort of opposite of what I was thinking about.
> 
> With CC, a stimulus is associated with a response, until the stimulus itself elicits the response.
> 
> ...


This here, is what I was trying to get to.



Mr.Samsa said:


> Studies have shown that things which are traditionally thought of as aversive (for example, electric shocks) can be set up in such a way that the introduction of an electric shock can actually increase responding - thus making it, technically, a reinforcer. To simplify the explanation, the electric shocks act as a signal or cue for future events (i.e. the presentation of food), and so they take on a conditioned value which can be used to increase behavior.


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> This here, is what I was trying to get to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Makes sense you could actually load your E-Collar like you would a clicker. On very low levels obviously.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Jon Couch said:


> Makes sense you could actually load your E-Collar like you would a clicker. On very low levels obviously.


 It doesn't have to be very low levels, if the dog has been classically conditioned to respond to the stimulus.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

And it isn't bridged, like a clicker is. It doesn't work that way.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> This here, is what I was trying to get to.


 Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Samsa View Post
Studies have shown that things which are traditionally thought of as aversive (for example, electric shocks) can be set up in such a way that the introduction of an *electric shock can actually increase responding - thus making it, technically, a reinforcer.* To simplify the explanation, the electric shocks act as a signal or cue for future events (i.e. the presentation of food), and so they take on a conditioned value which can be used to increase behavior.

Isn't this the way of the collar use today ..? A reinforcer of a known command ...IE: dog is in route and back nick back ...Stimulation when the dog is doing a command correctly? Steve S


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Samsa View Post
> Studies have shown that things which are traditionally thought of as aversive (for example, electric shocks) can be set up in such a way that the introduction of an *electric shock can actually increase responding - thus making it, technically, a reinforcer.* To simplify the explanation, the electric shocks act as a signal or cue for future events (i.e. the presentation of food), and so they take on a conditioned value which can be used to increase behavior.
> 
> Isn't this the way of the collar use today ..? A reinforcer of a known command ...IE: dog is in route and back nick back ...Stimulation when the dog is doing a command correctly? Steve S


 Yes.

But, that doesn't make sense does it?


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> Yes.
> 
> But, that doesn't make sense does it?


It does to me ...Isn't it considered a neg reinforcer..? The big question is , How much do we want to use to keep it a reinforcer ..too much and it will become a pos punishment if it stops the behavior..Correct...? Steve S


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> It does to me .....


 Honestly, it does to me too.

And I think it makes sense to anybody, that understands why we force fetch.
But, when you try to explain it to somebody that is only thinking Operant Conditioning, they just can't wrap their mind around it.

It's like a "bridge" to nowhere.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> ...Isn't it considered a neg reinforcer..?


 I don't think so. 
I think that it serves as Positive Reinforcement.

At least that's how we use it anyway.

But, when you get to arguing positive vs negative, as it applies to OC, things get really confusing.

Here's something that Dennis Voigt posted in the Simplifying Dog Learning Science sticky.


> Positive and negative reinforcement: Should the distinction be preserved?Baron A, Galizio M.
> Abstract
> 
> Michael (1975) reviewed efforts to classify reinforcing events in terms of whether stimuli are added (positive reinforcement) or removed (negative reinforcement). He concluded that distinctions in these terms are confusing and ambiguous. Of necessity, adding a stimulus requires its previous absence and removing a stimulus its previous presence. Moreover, there is no good basis, either behavioral or physiological, that indicates the involvement of distinctly different processes, and on these grounds he proposed that the distinction be abandoned. Despite the cogency of Michael's analysis, the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement is still being taught. In this paper, we reconsider the issue from the perspective of 30 years. However, we could not find new evidence in contemporary research and theory that allows reliable classification of an event as a positive rather than a negative reinforcer. We conclude by reiterating Michael's admonitions about the conceptual confusion created by such a distinction.


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> I don't think so.
> I think that it serves as Positive Reinforcement.
> 
> At least that's how we use it anyway.
> ...


In order for it to be positive reinforcement it has to be associated as a good thing. I would tend to think that it would be considered Positive Punishment you are adding an deterrent to keep the dog from hunting, popping, going slow ect. It all just depends on how you look at it is FF more of a Negative punishment because you are taking the pressure away once the bumper is in the dogs mouth=grabbing the bumper is more likely.

Also in order for the stimulation for the E-collar to be considered a good thing you would have to condition the dog to a positive reinforcer before you could use it that way. How are you guys creating this association?

To make it really easy you need to think of "Negative" as removing something and "Positive" as adding something

Positive Reinforcement:
Present something good = behavior is more likely

Negative Reinforcement:
Take away something bad = behavior is less likely

Positive Punishment:
Present something bad = behavior is less likely

Negative Punishment:
Take away something good = behavior is more likely


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Jon Couch said:


> In order for it to be positive reinforcement it has to be associated as a good thing.


 Why?

If it's something that I add, it's positive.
If it increases the desired behavior, it was reinforcement.

There is nothing in Operant Conditioning, that says a dog has to "like" it.
Just because a dog "likes" a reward, doesn't mean that I can't punish behavior with a biscuit.


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> Why?
> 
> If it's something that I add, it's positive.
> If it increases the desired behavior, it was reinforcement.
> ...


As far as I understand it you add something it is positive but is it positive reinforcement or positive punishment both are adding one good and one bad!
FF to me would be considered Negative Punishment which is to take away something bad to make a behavior more likely (ear pinch= bad take bumper into your mouth removes the bad stimulant thus making taking the bumper behavior more likely). Also you are assuming that the addition of the stimulus is increasing the behavior, but could it be said that adding the bad stimulus is in fact making the wrong behavior less likely (I give a left over and dog goes back I add a bad stimulus to make the back reaction less likely or the dog is sent on a blind and starts to break down and I add a back nick back which in turn makes the breaking down on a blind less likely because adding a bad makes a behavior less likely)

How would you punish with food? Dogs are hard wired to eat I think you would have a hard time convincing a dog that food is bad thing.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> I don't think so.
> I think that it serves as Positive Reinforcement.
> 
> *At least that's how we use it anyway.*
> ...


To begin with I agree with the notion of being very confusing when we try to describe things in verbal fashion....This is how I understand the 4 quadrants Pos reinforcement ='s a reward ( treat ,happy bumper) Pos punishment ='s give a correction ( dog jumps up smack on the head ...avoidance teaching ) Neg reinforcement ='s escape training ,ear pinched dog opens mouth .....Neg punishment ='s reward with held ( dog in sit position , food pan placed on floor ,dog moves ,food pan picked up ) a verbal no but no punishment administered.... 

It really doesn't matter how we use it ...It's important how the dog understands or how they associate it with the behavior going on at the time of the stimulation... I was taught to always repeat the rep after a stimulation (without pressure) to see the effects of that stimulation...In other words did the dog make the correct association ....OR ..did we have a failure to communicate...I also agree with your thoughts that both CC and OC go hand in hand toward a final out come... Good discussion and food for thought... Steve S


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

copterdoc said:


> Why?
> 
> If it's something that I add, it's positive.
> If it increases the desired behavior, it was reinforcement.
> ...


Your take on this is sounding more and more like sadomasochism.

In force to pile or force fetch or force to water, the force is not used so the dog will like it, right? Isn't it used to convey: "you're not going fast enough, you must get there now" and in order to escape this electronic pulse, you must go and get there now? Thus creating a fast response to escape the nick/burn or stick on your ass. So, if my thinking on this is right, the nick/burn used in force training is not an indicator that dog is about to be rewarded with a retrieve, it's to say:you're going to get burned until you escape it by doing this drill and show a compulsion to get to the pile or water. Right?


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

steve schreiner said:


> To begin with I agree with the notion of being very confusing when we try to describe things in verbal fashion....This is how I understand the 4 quadrants Pos reinforcement ='s a reward ( treat ,happy bumper) Pos punishment ='s give a correction ( dog jumps up smack on the head ...avoidance teaching ) Neg reinforcement ='s escape training ,ear pinched dog opens mouth .....Neg punishment ='s reward with held ( dog in sit position , food pan placed on floor ,dog moves ,food pan picked up ) a verbal no but no punishment administered....
> 
> It really doesn't matter how we use it ...It's important how the dog understands or how they associate it with the behavior going on at the time of the stimulation... I was taught to always repeat the rep after a stimulation (without pressure) to see the effects of that stimulation...In other words did the dog make the correct association ....OR ..did we have a failure to communicate...I also agree with your thoughts that both CC and OC go hand in hand toward a final out come... Good discussion and food for thought... Steve S


Steve I agree, but don't you think that as trainers we should understand if you are rewarding a certain behavior or punishing an unwanted behavior.
I also agree that this has made me think about my training in a different way. For example on blinds if the dog makes a mistake I will first use Positive Punishment (add a collar correction to make the wrong way less appealing) if this doesn't work I use attrition which I see as Negative Punishment (because I am taking away something good "The Retrieve" in order to try to make the right way more appealing) If the dog gets the bumper after using either the bumper becomes a Positive Reinforcement.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Jon Couch said:


> As far as I understand it you add something it is positive but is it positive reinforcement or positive punishment both are adding one good and one bad!


 Stop thinking about adding or subtracting, and good or bad.

You can't add something, that you didn't first withhold. You can't remove something, that you didn't first provide.

This is about conditioned responses. Take emotion out of it, and read the dog.



Jon Couch said:


> ....FF to me would be considered Negative Punishment which is to take away something bad to make a behavior more likely (ear pinch= bad take bumper into your mouth removes the bad stimulant thus making taking the bumper behavior more likely). Also you are assuming that the addition of the stimulus is increasing the behavior, but could it be said that adding the bad stimulus is in fact making the wrong behavior less likely (I give a left over and dog goes back I add a bad stimulus to make the back reaction less likely or the dog is sent on a blind and starts to break down and I add a back nick back which in turn makes the breaking down on a blind less likely because adding a bad makes a behavior less likely)


 You're thinking in circles. What matters, is how the dog understands it. The better that you can communicate with the dog, the quicker it will understand it.



Jon Couch said:


> How would you punish with food? Dogs are hard wired to eat I think you would have a hard time convincing a dog that food is bad thing.


 You can use reward, to punish behavior. 

We aren't trying to reinforce or punish the dog. We are trying to reinforce or punish behaviors.

We do that by conditioning associations with stimuli. Those stimuli can be aversive, rewarding, or neutral.
It's not about good things, and bad things.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Your take on this is sounding more and more like sadomasochism.
> 
> In force to pile or force fetch or force to water, the force is not used so the dog will like it, right? Isn't it used to convey: "you're not going fast enough, you must get there now" and in order to escape this electronic pulse, you must go and get there now? *Thus creating a fast response to escape the nick/burn or stick on your ass.* So, if my thinking on this is right, the nick/burn used in force training is not an indicator that dog is about to be rewarded with a retrieve, it's to say:you're going to get burned until you escape it by doing this drill and show a compulsion to get to the pile or water. Right?


I don't use pressure to create a faster response... a more dependable one...Too much pressure in an effort to create speed will have the opposite effect...Steve S


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Jon Couch said:


> Steve I agree, but don't you think that as trainers we should understand if you are rewarding a certain behavior or punishing an unwanted behavior.
> I also agree that this has made me think about my training in a different way. For example on blinds if the dog makes a mistake I will first use Positive Punishment (add a collar correction to make the wrong way less appealing) if this doesn't work I use attrition which I see as Negative Punishment (because I am taking away something good "The Retrieve" in order to try to make the right way more appealing) If the dog gets the bumper after using either the bumper becomes a Positive Reinforcement.


I think that it's extremely important that you understand that almost every time the collar is used in training, it is to serve as reinforcement.

In other words, to increase a desirable behavior.
You HAVE TO, be able to apply it as positive reinforcement, or you CANNOT effectively use the collar in the field.

Since it is aversive stimulus, it is ALWAYS capable of punishing behavior. 
Every time you use it, there is a risk that you are punishing a desirable behavior.

The only punishment that you should ever apply with the e-collar in the field, is through indirect pressure.
And you better know what you are doing.


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> Stop thinking about adding or subtracting, and good or bad.
> 
> You can't add something, that you didn't first withhold. You can't remove something, that you didn't first provide.
> 
> ...


Could you please explain how you would use food as a punishment. I am using terms that are directly associated with OC I have no emotion involved just my understanding of the principles. In the excerpt you you used from Dennis it directly correlates Positive as adding something and Negative as removing something. I am just trying to understand where you are coming from. To me in retriever training by doing FF and Then CC we are teaching a dog how to react to pressure, but we are eliciting a pain response which in my eyes will never be positive reinforcement. I don't care how many times you punch me in the face it will never be a positive experience. I will however learn to avoid it!


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

When you apply indirect pressure with the collar, you are directly reinforcing a conditioned behavior, and in the same instant indirectly punishing an undesirable behavior.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Jon Couch said:


> Steve I agree, but *don't you think that as trainers we should understand if you are rewarding a certain behavior or punishing an unwanted behavior.*
> I also agree that this has made me think about my training in a different way. For example on blinds if the dog makes a mistake I will first use Positive Punishment (add a collar correction to make the wrong way less appealing)* if this doesn't work I use attrition *which I see as Negative Punishment (because I am taking away something good "The Retrieve" in order to try to make the right way more appealing) If the dog gets the bumper after using either the bumper becomes a Positive Reinforcement.


I don't think it is that important to understand all the technical jargon used to describe what we are doing ...I believe most trainers are hung up on making corrections for unwanted ( wrong ) than they are reinforcing good....I also believe most don't reward good enough or with enough enthusiasm for it to mean anything to the dog other than just noise from that guy/gal again...Why not try attrition first and use the pressure if that failed ...Are we too quick to come to the push button trainer ( a misnomer for sure ) when the dog doesn't perform as a robot..? Don't get me wrong , I wouldn't train if I couldn't use the collar...Steve S


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Jon Couch said:


> Could you please explain how you would use food as a punishment. I am using terms that are directly associated with OC I have no emotion involved just my understanding of the principles. In the excerpt you you used from Dennis it directly correlates Positive as adding something and Negative as removing something. I am just trying to understand where you are coming from. To me in retriever training by doing FF and Then CC we are teaching a dog how to react to pressure, but we are eliciting a pain response which in my eyes will never be positive reinforcement. I don't care how many times you punch me in the face it will never be a positive experience. I will however learn to avoid it!


Reinforcement has nothing to do with pleasure.
Punishment has nothing to do with pain.

If the application of a stimuli, results in an increase of a behavior, it reinforced it.
If the application of a stimuli, results in the decrease of a behavior, it punished it.

Rewards are stimuli.
Aversives are stimuli.

It is a lot easier to reinforce with a reward, than it is to punish with it. But, depending on the association that we have classically conditioned with that reward, it is possible to use it as positive punishment.

It is a lot easier to punish with an aversive, than it is to reinforce with it. But, depending on the association that we have classically conditioned with that aversive, it is possible to use it as positive reinforcement.

What allows us to "flip" that, is first establishing a classically conditioned response to that specific stimuli.


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> Reinforcement has nothing to do with pleasure.
> Punishment has nothing to do with pain.
> 
> If the application of a stimuli, results in an increase of a behavior, it reinforced it.
> ...


Can you give some examples of how you would apply this to retriever training?
How would one create the association of an aversive to allow it to become a positive reinforcement?


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> *When you apply indirect pressure with the collar,* you are directly reinforcing a conditioned behavior, *and in the same instant indirectly punishing an undesirable behavior.*


How do you apply indirect pressure with the collar...? It doesn't exist...The only thing we apply is direct pressure every time we push the button..A term used to describe a dog getting religion on the next command .... It is use to get the next command given not something that is going on at that moment in time..Steve S


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> Reinforcement has nothing to do with pleasure.
> *Punishment has nothing to do with pain.*
> 
> If the application of a stimuli, results in an increase of a behavior, it reinforced it.
> ...


Or ,you could just hold the bowl in yer hand? :razz:


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> How do you apply indirect pressure with the collar...? It doesn't exist...The only thing we apply is direct pressure every time we push the button..A term used to describe a dog getting religion on the next command .... It is use to get the next command given not something that is going on at that moment in time..Steve S


It's impossible to not apply indirect pressure, when you press the button and directly reinforce a conditioned response.

The question is, what did the dog associate that indirect pressure with?
Was it the cast refusal that it just gave you?
Was it the bank that it just beached on?
Was it the bird boy, that he was heading towards?

We have to be careful. 
Even though the pressure we are using to punish is indirect, it can still punish the wrong thing.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Jon Couch said:


> ....How would one create the association of an aversive to allow it to become a positive reinforcement?


 While it is aversive, it is also stimulus.

We can classically condition an association with ANY stimulus, and the dog will then perform the conditioned behavior, in response to that stimulus.


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

copterdoc said:


> It's impossible to not apply indirect pressure, when you press the button and directly reinforce a conditioned response.
> 
> The question is, what did the dog associate that indirect pressure with?
> Was it the cast refusal that it just gave you?
> ...


Because you have Classically Conditioned the dog to sit on the whistle?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Jon Couch said:


> Because you have CC the dog to sit on the whistle?


 That's part of it.

That does allow the collar to be used as positive reinforcement for sitting to the whistle.
However, you can't forget that when you apply reinforcement using collar pressure, you are ALWAYS applying indirect pressure at the same time.

We can't afford to punish the act of fetching, with indirect pressure.
So, before we can safely apply positive reinforcement on sit with the e-collar in the field, we need to have also conditioned the dog to fetch in response to collar pressure.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Your take on this is sounding more and more like sadomasochism.
> 
> In force to pile or force fetch or force to water, the force is not used so the dog will like it, right? Isn't it used to convey: "you're not going fast enough, you must get there now" and in order to escape this electronic pulse, you must go and get there now? Thus creating a fast response to escape the nick/burn or stick on your ass. So, if my thinking on this is right, the nick/burn used in force training is not an indicator that dog is about to be rewarded with a retrieve, it's to say:you're going to get burned until you escape it by doing this drill and show a compulsion to get to the pile or water. Right?


You're very entrenched in your emotions here Jenn. Anthropomorphism at it's finest! It is the simple use of a negative re-enforcement strategy to increase the likelihood of behavior to a point where it becomes reliable. That's all, no more, not big intimidating threat from us terrible humans. Simple negative re-enforcement that, when applied faithfully is quite easy on the dog.

I did a little demo today for a number of folks involved in a positive only training program for working dogs. I had to use some compulsion from the e-collar to maintain my training and with the exception of a minor head twitch that the head trainer did notice, the rest of the crowd had no idea. No screaming, no jumping, no wailing, just re-enforcement of a known behavior.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

So are you saying CC is a by product of OC ? I don't know. I'm trying to assimilate this info but I'm actually more confused now than when I woke up this morning.

CC seems to have an anticipation factor,,,, No? Is this because it has been conditioned through OC,, ?

Pete


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Pete said:


> So are you saying CC is a by product of OC ? I don't know. I'm trying to assimilate this info but I'm actually more confused now than when I woke up this morning.
> 
> CC seems to have an anticipation factor,,,, No? Is this because it has been conditioned through OC,, ?
> 
> Pete


 I've tried to type up an answer to this, that will help clarify it for you. 
But, I think it's just going to add to your confusion.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

DarrinGreene said:


> You're very entrenched in your emotions here Jenn. Anthropomorphism at it's finest! It is the simple use of a negative re-enforcement strategy to increase the likelihood of behavior to a point where it becomes reliable. That's all, no more, not big intimidating threat from us terrible humans. Simple negative re-enforcement that, when applied faithfully is quite easy on the dog.
> 
> I did a little demo today for a number of folks involved in a positive only training program for working dogs. I had to use some compulsion from the e-collar to maintain my training and with the exception of a minor head twitch that the head trainer did notice, the rest of the crowd had no idea. No screaming, no jumping, no wailing, just re-enforcement of a known behavior.


Darrin, I think it's you that is entrenched in emotion, given the nature of your reply. I was responding to a statement Copterdoc made about a high stimulus from an ecollar being trained to be a pleasurable thing to the dog. That statement was wrapped in the discussion about what force training is. Force training is escape training, no? I didn't say anything about screaming, jumping or wailing. Nor did I say force training was bad or cruel. It works, I know. You can do it soft and not hurt anyone, I know. What I was writing about was Copterdoc saying you could train a dog to see a high burn as pleasure.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Pete said:


> So are you saying CC is a by product of OC ? I don't know. I'm trying to assimilate this info but I'm actually more confused now than when I woke up this morning.
> 
> CC seems to have an anticipation factor,,,, No? Is this because it has been conditioned through OC,, ?
> 
> Pete


I know you're not talking to me Pete, but I think CC is instinctual in all animals as a built in means of survival. We simply leverage this instinctual ability to make associations and anticipate events by applying the principals of OC. 

I think all of our dog's conditioned responses are built using this this instinct, whether we as trainers realize it or not.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Darrin, I think it's you that is entrenched in emotion, given the nature of your reply. I was responding to a statement Copterdoc made about a high stimulus from an ecollar being trained to be a pleasurable thing to the dog. That statement was wrapped in the discussion about what force training is. Force training is escape training, no? I didn't say anything about screaming, jumping or wailing. Nor did I say force training was bad or cruel. It works, I know. You can do it soft and not hurt anyone, I know. What I was writing about was Copterdoc saying you could train a dog to see a high burn as pleasure.


The only emotion that struck me when I read your reply was one of happiness. I laughed pretty hard.


----------



## 7pntail (Jan 20, 2010)

Read through most of the pages, and decided you all have some anal retention issues. Did you forget about Freud? Perhaps there are some Id, ego, and super ego's in place here. :razz:

Nice thread, and good discussion---no psychoanalysis intended.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> It's impossible to not apply indirect pressure, when you press the button and directly reinforce a conditioned response.
> 
> *The question is, what did the dog associate that indirect pressure with?*
> Was it the cast refusal that it just gave you?
> ...


This point I have to disagree on ...If the dog just went the wrong direction and you stop on a sit with pressure, The dog should associate the pressure with the sit, I don't think they have those kind of discernment skills to put it together with a cast refusal...Just like yelling NO,sit and recast the dog should associate the NO with the cast though....not the sit....Steve S


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Jennifer Henion said:


> .....In force to pile or force fetch or force to water, the force is not used so the dog will like it, right?


 No, the dog can't like it.



Jennifer Henion said:


> Isn't it used to convey: "you're not going fast enough, you must get there now" and in order to escape this electronic pulse, you must go and get there now? Thus creating a fast response to escape the nick/burn or stick on your ass.


 Not exactly. You think that every training sequence is done only for the immediate result of changing behavior in the "now". 

However, the objective of processes like FF and Collar Conditioning, is not to change the dog's behavior. It's to change the dog's understanding of pressure.

It's about giving the aversive stimulus meaning. To allow the pressure itself, to have specific meaning to the dog.
We use Operant Conditioning to explain to the dog what the stimulus means. 

As it learns what it means, the dog forms an association between the pressure, and the action. That association becomes conditioned (classically) so that the dog actually responds to the pressure, by performing the behavior.

We aren't after the behavior. We want the conditioned association with the pressure.



Jennifer Henion said:


> ... So, if my thinking on this is right, the nick/burn used in force training is not an indicator that dog is about to be rewarded with a retrieve, it's to say:you're going to get burned until you escape it by doing this drill and show a compulsion to get to the pile or water. Right?


 No.

We only use Operant Conditioning, to get the classically conditioned response to the pressure. Once we have that, the same rules of escape and avoidance do not need to apply to aversives, in every instance.

Prior to this change, pressure can ONLY punish. 
If pressure can only punish, we can't reinforce with pressure.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> That's part of it.
> 
> That does allow the collar to be used as positive reinforcement for sitting to the whistle.
> However, you can't forget that when you apply reinforcement using collar pressure, you are ALWAYS applying indirect pressure at the same time.
> ...




In all my years of dog training I have never FF a dog with the collar ....so ...my dog should have problems when I blow a sit whistle at the pile just before the pickup signal is given...Steve S


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> This point I have to disagree on ...If the dog just went the wrong direction and you stop on a sit with pressure, The dog should associate the pressure with the sit, I don't think they have those kind of discernment skills to put it together with a cast refusal...Just like yelling NO,sit and recast the dog should associate the NO with the cast though....not the sit....Steve S


The pressure MEANS sit. We have already conditioned it to.

If the pressure means sit, the pressure doesn't punish sit.
The pressure punishes something else. Like where the dog was, or what it was doing immediately before being "told" to sit with applied pressure.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> In all my years of dog training I have never FF a dog with the collar ....so ...my dog should have problems when I blow a sit whistle at the pile just before the pickup signal is given...Steve S


 You've never forced to a pile?


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> You've never forced to a pile?


Not on the command fetch ...On back ......I never say fetch stimulate fetch ....to a pile or to a single bumper ....stop , go , come ...a lot ....Steve S


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> The pressure MEANS sit. We have already conditioned it to.
> 
> If the pressure means sit, the pressure doesn't punish sit.
> *The pressure punishes something else.* Like where the dog was, or what it was doing immediately before being "told" to sit with applied pressure.


It reinforces sit not punish some other behavior ...This is where it is so important to make the correct association with pressure ...Steve S


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> Not on the command fetch ...On back ......I never say fetch stimulate fetch ....to a pile or to a single bumper ....stop , go , come ...a lot ....Steve S


 It doesn't really matter what word you use.

When you force to a pile, you are "saying" fetch with the e-collar. The dog might not understand it at first. But you can adjust your timing, so that you can apply the pressure as P+ and R- until the dog establishes the association and the response is conditioned.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

I've been following this thread for quite awhile. Since I'm a retired teacher I have at the very least a basic understanding of Pablov and Skinner. That being said, I know in ALL of my retriever training in the last 12 years, there hasn't been one instance of thinking about either......which explains my reluctance to post. 

However, this last "interlude" with indirect pressure has proven to be more personal. I use it for effect in certain situations (and not very often) and my dogs have learned how to respond correctly to it. It has proven effective. They learned how to respond correctly through the use of consistent, fair reps with teaching as the main focus. A responsive dog doesn't just happen. 

Basically, the dog must be in a situation where they are not doing anything wrong.......like sitting. Supposedly, the immediate reactions of the dog are 1) "I am sitting so that which you just sent me can't be for not sitting" (not doing anything wrong and you have my attention), 2) "I now can't remember what I wanted to do" (forgot what his mistaken mindset was) and asks 3) "What is it that you want me to do?" (re-focused and more responsive).

I have always looked at indirect pressure as a refocusing, attention "getter". I suppose the key here is that for me the scientific lingo of conditioning makes more sense when it is verbalized in a real time, simple English. 

This communication issue reminds me of the street wise student I once had in chemistry. One day he raised his hand and "axed", "Hey Bro, can't you just say all this scientific "stuff" in street lingo so's I can get it?" Now I know how he felt.  

I suppose it would be better to understand why it works in terms of the "conditioning" discussed in this thread, but I am at a loss on how significant that is if I read the dog, have a solid, consistent way of communicating and seem to be accomplishing what I need for the level of dogs I work with. 

Tell me why I need to know......for reasons other than to understand all the posts in this thread or the generic response "because it will improve your training". 

One extra bit of info, I have trained with FT groups often and been to several retriever seminars held by established pros.....none of this "stuff" (Pablov, Skinner) was ever discussed.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> It reinforces sit not punish some other behavior ...This is where it is so important to make the correct association with pressure ...Steve S


 It reinforces sit.

And it indirectly punishes everything else.

If it didn't reinforce sit, it would punish sit too.
But it doesn't punish sit, because we collar conditioned to sit.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> It reinforces sit.
> 
> And it indirectly punishes everything else.
> 
> ...


I just can't make the connection that is punishes everything else....I guess I'm a lot like that street wise kid....I need better examples ...Steve S


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

KwickLabs said:


> .
> 
> However, this last "interlude" with indirect pressure has proven to be more personal. I use it for effect in certain situations (and not very often) and my dogs have learned how to respond correctly to it. It has proven effective. They learned how to respond correctly through the use of consistent, fair reps with teaching as the main focus. A responsive dog doesn't just happen.
> 
> ...


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> I just can't make the connection that is punishes everything else....I guess I'm a lot like that street wise kid....I need better examples ...Steve S


 Why does a dog flare the place that it was forced on back, or stopped with a whistle/nick?

Because it associates the aversive, with the location.

Aversive stimulus, always punishes something. 

By conditioning the dog to go, stop, and come in response to that aversive, we assure that applying it as reinforcement, doesn't punish going, stopping, or coming. 
But, it still punishes SOMETHING, when we apply an aversive to reinforce a behavior that we have conditioned to that aversive stimulus.

That's why it works as an indirect pressure correction for what the dog was doing wrong at the time that it was applied. And it's also why the dog can "blame" it on something that we didn't want the dog to blame it on.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> I know you're not talking to me Pete, but I think CC is instinctual in all animals as a built in means of survival. We simply leverage this instinctual ability to make associations and anticipate events by applying the principals of OC.
> 
> I think all of our dog's conditioned responses are built using this this instinct, whether we as trainers realize it or not



Darrin
There is a lot to it I guess,,,no absolutes in dog training,,,drives influence how dogs learn and assimalate. Timing/motivation and consistency tie in,, ,,but like Jim says its something most don't think about when training. Fun stuff to think about and talk about.

You and Copdoc are Rockin though,,I enjoy trying to understand it better,,,its a good change of pace.
Pete


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

> Do you give a cold burn or nick with out a whistle sit ...?


No. Dog is whistle sat first...then burn or nick at a higher level than a regular corrrection (what level depends on the dog). The usual protocal in training is attrition first and then indirect pressure (again depends on the dog). 

For me, this is more of a "finesse" thing than a "hammer" (again depends on the dog). It is not a "cookie cutter" process. 

It should be noted teaching the correct response to indirect pressure does not start with an e-collar.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

KwickLabs said:


> No. Dog is whistle sat first...then burn or nick at a higher level than a regular corrrection (what level depends on the dog). The usual protocal in training is attrition first and then indirect pressure (again depends on the dog).
> 
> For me, this is more of a "finesse" thing than a "hammer" (again depends on the dog). It is not a "cookie cutter" process.
> 
> It should be noted teaching the correct response to indirect pressure does not start with an e-collar.


I agree...no cold burns...All collar work needs to be finessed ...Steve S


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> Why does a dog flare the place that it was forced on back, or stopped with a whistle/nick?
> 
> *Because it associates the aversive, with the location.*
> 
> ...


*
*
I have only seen these occur when the stimulation is too high or repeated numerous times in the same location..I don't develop hot spots...Was a popular way to limit the possible routes a dog could choose from years ago....Too much pressure in volume or reps will cause all sorts of dog reactions...miscommunication...
Let say you are right in the blame game ...What can we do limit the fall out of the dogs blaming it on something else..?Steve S


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Pete said:


> Darrin
> There is a lot to it I guess,,,no absolutes in dog training,,,drives influence how dogs learn and assimalate. Timing/motivation and consistency tie in,, ,,but like Jim says its something most don't think about when training. Fun stuff to think about and talk about.
> 
> You and Copdoc are Rockin though,,I enjoy trying to understand it better,,,its a good change of pace.
> Pete


Thanks Pete, It is an interesting discussion for sure. Jim mentioned having never thought about these concepts, and I don't disagree. I spent a few years training without a complete understanding myself. There's a whole lot more to consider as you cycle through a large number of years and a large number of dogs, for sure.

I decided to learn as I tried to become more proficient at problem solving in a variety of breeds. Supporting that was the need to adapt to various limitations placed on my training by a customer who may or may not approve of, or be physically able to execute a certain method. Having an understanding allows me to better educate my customers, which increases their ability to maintain training. It also helps me when I run into some odd problems we wouldn't necessarily have with a retriever we trained from a puppy.

Fact is, I'm just a babe in the woods in terms of experience, but I am trying hard to accelerate my learning curve through solid study of the basic concepts and handling as many dogs as possible. After a couple of hundred dogs, I feel like I am starting to know a little bit, but only a little bit about training. There are still so many things to learn, and I think there always will be.

This discussion is more about someone's ability to talk the talk than walk the walk, IMHO.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

copterdoc said:


> Why does a dog flare the place that it was forced on back, or stopped with a whistle/nick?
> 
> Because it associates the aversive, with the location.
> 
> ...


Agree with this, even when we are doing positive re-enforcement training there is at least a moment, if not several moments where the dog is doing the wrong behavior. During that time we are applying -p by withholding the reward, only to then apply +r when we get the correct behavior. 

Whistle sits re-enforced with pressure always has a moment where we +p running and -r sitting. 

You always have to quadrants at play. Which is why you have to be so careful with timing.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> I have only seen these occur when the stimulation is too high or repeated numerous times in the same location....


 That just makes it more obvious. There isn't a number of reps, or an intensity setting that "suddenly" causes a hotspot.

We can through conditioning, teach the dog that it wasn't always the place that nicked them. 
However, that conditioning does not automagically happen. It takes lots, and lots, of smart and effective training.



steve schreiner said:


> I don't develop hot spots......


 You are making "hotspots" with indirect pressure, whether you like it or not. You can reduce the effect, by using less intensity, and shorter duration, and you can also desensitize the dog to them. But they are still there.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> ......What can we do limit the fall out of the dogs blaming it on something else..?


 That's a really good question.

For one thing, we need to make sure that the dog primarily understands it as reinforcement. 

The better the dog's conditioning to respond to it as reinforcement, the less it will seek to find something else to "blame" it on.
The better we communicate it as as reinforcement, the better the dog will understand it as reinforcement.


Also, we need to make sure that the dog knows what we want from it at the time, and what it did that wasn't "right".
It has to know what it was doing wrong.

If it knows what it was doing wrong, it's far more likely to process the indirect pressure correction, as punishment for what it was doing wrong, and not "blame" it on something "weird".


Another biggie, is that throughout the course of all of the dog's training, we sequentially eliminate as many things as possible from the list of things that the dog might blame it on. In other words, teach the dog what it isn't.

It wasn't the gun station.
It wasn't the point.
It wasn't the water.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Jon Couch said:


> Makes sense you could actually load your E-Collar like you would a clicker. On very low levels obviously.


You know, I've been thinking about this since yesterday, and I wonder if that's what is happening with Bill Hillman's soft collar FF.

As in bridging the e-collar stim, as a secondary reinforcer for the reward of the bumper.

At least at the beginning anyway.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

m


copterdoc said:


> Why does a dog flare the place that it was forced on back, or stopped with a whistle/nick?
> 
> Because it associates the aversive, with the location.
> 
> ...


You are describing superstitious behavior in your flaring example. The dog accidentally associates the aversive with the place rather than the command. Also might be a good reason not to use an aversive next to other dogs or people. (I found out the hard way.)


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

gdgnyc said:


> ....You are describing superstitious behavior in your flaring example. The dog accidentally associates the aversive with the place rather than the command. Also might be a good reason not to use an aversive next to other dogs or people. (I found out the hard way.)


 Yup.

Indirect pressure always punishes something. Even though it's indirect, and also serving as reinforcement, it can easily "accidentally" punish something that we don't want it to.

The same principle applies to reinforcement too. We can also easily "accidentally" reinforce things that we don't want to reinforce.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> Yup.
> 
> Indirect pressure always punishes something. Even though it's indirect, and also serving as reinforcement, it can easily "accidentally" punish something that we don't want it to.
> 
> The same principle applies to reinforcement too. We can also easily "accidentally" reinforce things that we don't want to reinforce.


It's constantly happening, dogs are learning from minute to minute. And you are right, we constantly accidentally reinforce things we don't want to reinforce.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

There's something else that I feel is an important distinction between CC and OC.
The dog's attitude about training.

A dog's attitude, is not something that it has the ability to "decide" to have. It's beyond it's control to change it.
That falls under CC, but it can be changed by us through applying OC.

And we most certainly do effect a dog's attitude about training, with how we train.

The problem is, that I don't think that very many people really understand what it is, that conditions and maintains a good attitude about training.

I will say this. 
It has a whole lot more to do with the dog's understanding of what everything means, and what predicts what, than how many cookies it gets during the average training session.

A constantly confused dog, is a sad dog. 
No matter how much you try to make it happy.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

I am as green as a gourd, but Kwick has summed up all of my instruction and understanding of this matter.

Example: you whistle sit your dog, which he does. You give him a right angle back and he goes straight back. Using attrition first, you whistle sit him again (possibly even with a "no - whistle") with no collar pressure, which he again does. You give the right angle back, and he again goes straight back. You want to sit him again, but I have been taught that you should probably use a "sit-nick-sit" in this situation for the reasons Kwick suggests. You have trained the dog to respond to the "sit-nick-sit" sequence, so he knows how to deal with the pressure - he sits. And it amazes me how often when I give my dog another right angle back after the indirect pressure he suddenly understands perfectly where he needs to go and does it. Of course this entire example assumes the dog knows and understands the instructions you are giving.

It appears to me that at some level this use of the collar and indirect pressure inspires a thought process exactly like the one Kwick laid out. Thoughts?



KwickLabs said:


> Basically, the dog must be in a situation where they are not doing anything wrong.......like sitting. Supposedly, the immediate reactions of the dog are 1) "I am sitting so that which you just sent me can't be for not sitting" (not doing anything wrong and you have my attention), 2) "I now can't remember what I wanted to do" (forgot what his mistaken mindset was) and asks 3) "What is it that you want me to do?" (re-focused and more responsive).
> 
> I have always looked at indirect pressure as a refocusing, attention "getter". I suppose the key here is that for me the scientific lingo of conditioning makes more sense when it is verbalized in a real time, simple English.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

Many years ago I wrote my masters thesis. The title was “Memorize and Perish”. The basic philosophy behind this expression is when memorization becomes the foundation for learning, the skill of thinking is negatively impacted. The sheer magnitude of memorization (this is the way things are) inhibits brainstorming. Critical thinking is stifled. 

Another important aspect of critical thinking is taking advantage of how the human mind/brain functions. The ability to think and reason is often impacted by how much stimulation is taking place. The timing of different brain waves is critical. In laymen terms, thinking functions are more effective when you have not been over stimulated. The best time to “get across an idea” (explain something and/or teach) is in the first five minutes of the effort. The subject mind/brain is more receptive. On a side note, my dogs are often taught “new things” near the beginning of a training day. 

However, one must always remember that dogs do not think like humans (but that is another topic....or is it?).  

Now you might wonder where this is going. Therefore, to clarify. I slept on the thoughts of this thread. My thinking was going nowhere last night. As is my routine (which was discovered many years ago) I gradually woke up this morning with an uncluttered, clear mind. The manner in which to contrast and compare the reward/punishment conflict created by this thread was quickly clarified (for me). 

See if this is “reasonable”. Take a simple situation where indirect pressure works - the mouthing dog at the handler's side. The dog has heeled properly and sits without any verbal command. The dog's OB in this respect is “solid”. The word “solid” means the same thing as “excellent conditioned responses”. However, the dog begins to mouth/roll the bumper and the trainer does “sit/stick/sit” and he stops. This is classic and simple indirect pressure.

Most can describe the situation with anecdotal observations – the dog is “glassy eyed”, apparently unaware of his behavior, does it more when excited or “amped” and the ever popular doesn't know I'm even there. Some say it is a subconscious behavior. The general consensus is indirect pressure works (often). It seems that the difficult part (in this thread) is explaining why. 

Apparently (and I use this word because I presently don't understand the explanations), the “stick” enforces sit and punishes mouthing. Here is my first question from this morning's moment of clarification. Are punishing, extinguishing, distracting, re-focusing and/or becoming more responsive all the same thing? 

My second question is, since mouthing is more of a subconscious behavior (conjecture on my part), the dog does not actually think “I need to stop mouthing” and stops doing it because with sufficient reps the behavior is sub-consciously extinguished and/or punished enough? 

In comparison, my training has been greatly influenced by the term balance. The dog that mouths is out of balance. How so? because he is not responsive/focused.....enough. I can see it. The dog is not paying attention to me and locked into his own somewhat compulsive behaviors. This is probably because I have given him too much to handle and poor coping skills allow him to manage this induced anxiety. 

Rather than thinking that indirect pressure has punished the behavior, my “sit/stick/sit” application refocuses the dog in the area of responsiveness. If he learns to and/or is conditioned to pay more attention to me (enhanced responsiveness), his need to develop poor coping skills for his apparent anxiety is reduced. In essence, I don't think in terms of Pablov and/or Skinner terminology. It is more of “what you see is what you get” kind of thing as opposed to “what you see is not what you get”. 

Which brings me to the present linguistic impedance. Does punishing “mouthing” indirectly while enforcing sit directly mean the same thing as “Good! You are sitting, but clear your mind and pay more attention to me?” Am I enforcing two things “sit” and “pay attention” and not really punishing anything? 

OK, now I've reached the point of “cluttered thinking” which is the cue to stop (brain waves need resetting plus my dogs need to “air”).


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

Here is a short introduction to the E-Collar by Michael Ellis. In it he discusses how the collar lends itself to superstitious associations if not properly introduce. I though it was worth the watch and pertained to this discussion some what.

http://michaelellisschool.com/vid_properuse.htm


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

KwickLabs said:


> Are punishing, extinguishing, distracting, re-focusing and/or becoming more responsive all the same thing?


 The words mean to you, what you make them mean.

But what they mean to you, doesn't help me understand what you are trying to say. 
You can make it work for you, but you can't communicate to me how you make it work, because I have no idea what you mean.


If nothing else, studying theories like OC and CC, allows us to standardize at least some of the definitions, and effectively communicate with others that are also familiar with those standardized definitions.


Now, if you are actually thinking about fire extinguishers, plus peas, and minus arghs while you are working a dog, you are going to be way behind the ball, with every swing you take!

But, when you have time to sit down and really think this stuff through, it helps you be able to form training plans that make sense, and are effective.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

> copterdoc said:
> 
> 
> > The words mean to you, what you make them mean.
> ...


That's kind of the response I expected. Thanks.


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

Here is another Michael Ellis video that is part of a lecture on OC and also talks about how an e-collar can play into all of this. It also helped me understand some of the things that Copterdoc has stated. If you are interested it is worth a watch.

http://michaelellisschool.com/vid_opperantcondit.htm


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

gdgnyc said:


> m
> 
> *You are describing superstitious behavior in your flaring example. The dog accidentally associates the aversive with the place rather than the command.* Also might be a good reason not to use an aversive next to other dogs or people. (I found out the hard way.)


I agree on this point....That is the job of the handler to make communications clear...Steve S


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> I agree on this point....That is the job of the handler to make communications clear...Steve S


 But, the thing that you need to realize, is that an indirect pressure correction RELIES on superstitious behavior!

We are using it, to punish an undesirable behavior. 

The only difference between a behavior change following an indirect pressure correction, and superstitious behavior is that one just happened to be what we wanted to change, and the other we didn't mean to!


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Jon Couch said:


> Here is a short introduction to the E-Collar by Michael Ellis. In it he discusses how the collar lends itself to superstitious associations if not properly introduce. I though it was worth the watch and pertained to this discussion some what.
> 
> http://michaelellisschool.com/vid_properuse.htm


I don't care about Pavlov vs Skinner, I don't know exactly what classical conditioning and operant conditioning are. 

But everybody who trains with, is thinking about training with, or has ever heard of or has an opinion on ecollar training should watch the above video. That guy is a good communicator.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

> Howard said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care about Pavlov vs Skinner, I don't know exactly what classical conditioning and operant conditioning are.
> ...


I totally agree!


----------



## sixpacklabs (Jan 21, 2009)

Howard N said:


> I don't care about Pavlov vs Skinner, I don't know exactly what classical conditioning and operant conditioning are.
> 
> But everybody who trains with, is thinking about training with, or has ever heard of or has an opinion on ecollar training should watch the above video. That guy is a good communicator.


If you liked that one, I highly recommend watching Ellis's entire set of streaming videos on collar conditioning, which are available through Leerburg. I watched them all (several times!) last year, and found them incredibly helpful. IMO, they're far and away the best source of info available if you want to better understand collar conditioning and the relevant learning theory, and want to condition the collar and use it in a way that seeks to minimize fallout. Ellis's system of collar conditioning is really well thought out and meticulous in its approach in terms of trying to minimize the likelihood of superstitious behaviors. 

I've watched a lot of training DVDs and videos over the years, and thought his collar conditioning videos were some of the very best. Pretty much like everything Ellis does...it's all awesome. I really think they're a "must watch" for anyone who uses an e-collar in training, or plans to do so. You'll even learn some helpful stuff that has nothing to do with collar conditioning! He's definitely an excellent communicator, knows his learning theory, and really knows dogs. His other training DVDs are great as well. 

Here's the link to the videos, with a description of the contents of each video:
http://leerburg.com/flix/landing_new.php?id=692


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> But, the thing that you need to realize, is that an indirect pressure correction RELIES on superstitious behavior!
> 
> We are using it, to punish an undesirable behavior.
> 
> The only difference between a behavior change following an indirect pressure correction, and superstitious behavior is that one just happened to be what we wanted to change, and the other we didn't mean to!


I guess I missed the day in school they taught " indirect pressure correction" ...I have never heard that term used in the use of pressure before this thread... Indirect pressure has been defined as ....Direct pressure on a known command is used to achieve the proper response to the next command given ...is the way I have been taught it.....It acts as an attention getter ..a mind clearer ....It refocuses the dogs attention back on the handler...the dog gets religion again...Steve S


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> I guess I missed the day in school they taught " indirect pressure correction" ...I have never heard that term used in the use of pressure before this thread... Indirect pressure has been defined as ....​ Direct pressure on a known command is used to achieve the proper response to the next command given ...is the way I have been taught it.....It acts as an attention getter ..a mind clearer ....It refocuses the dogs attention back on the handler...the dog gets religion again...Steve S


 It is given as a correction, following the dog's demonstration of a behavior that we desire to decrease.

I don't know anybody that applies indirect pressure, when they think the dog might not respond correctly to the next cast they are going to give.
The dog had to screw up first.

It serves as a correction, that punishes the behavior immediately preceding it.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Howard N said:


> I don't care about Pavlov vs Skinner, I don't know exactly what classical conditioning and operant conditioning are.
> 
> But everybody who trains with, is thinking about training with, or has ever heard of or has an opinion on ecollar training should watch the above video. That guy is a good communicator.


Ellis has a pile of free vids at leerburg.com that are definitely worth the time. I have even paid for the full version of a few.


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

Here is another Ellis video on Classical Conditioning

http://leerburg.com/flix/player.php...ure_on_Classical_Conditioning_in_Dog_Training


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> It is given as a correction, following the dog's demonstration of a behavior that we desire to decrease.
> 
> I don't know anybody that applies indirect pressure, when they think the dog might not respond correctly to the next cast they are going to give.
> *The dog had to screw up first.
> ...


You got that part right ....I totally disagree with the rest of the statement...IE:dog is off line ( on a blind ) whistle sit , right angle back cast given...dog goes left...another sit whistle, try again , same results...sit whistle with pressure ,right angle back cast again and dog gives it to you...If I wanted to communicate to the dog he went the wrong direction I would have yelled NO( the moment the dog started to move) to indicate that ...then give a whistle sit and try again...If same results a sit with pressure...Pavlov - Skinner? ...That is how Steve does it ...His way ....Steve S


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> ...IE:dog is off line ( on a blind ) whistle sit , right angle back cast given...dog goes left...another sit whistle, try again , same results...sit whistle with pressure ,right angle back cast again and dog gives it to you...


How do you NOT see that as punishing the behavior of taking the wrong cast?


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> steve schreiner said:
> 
> 
> > > Originally Posted by copterdoc
> ...



Steve's "NO" with a correction is within the range of my understanding. But coperdoc, yours on the other hand is not .
Will you tell us more about how this Indirect pressure/superstitious behavior thing
works , after all the last thing that the dog did before being corrected was correctly sit to the whistle.

john


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Man this is some damn fine Internet dog training!


/paul


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> How do you NOT see that as punishing the behavior of taking the wrong cast?


As John said , the last thing the dog did is respond to a sit whistle...and then the pressure was applied...The dog should make the connection with the whistle... Steve S


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

john fallon said:


> Steve's "NO" with a correction is within the range of my understanding. But coperdoc, yours on the other hand is not .
> Will you tell us more about how this Indirect pressure/superstitious behavior thing
> works , after all the last thing that the *dog did before being corrected *was correctly sit to the whistle.
> 
> john


John , I don't view this as correcting for the bad cast ..I view it as using pressure to reinforce my sit command... The NO would have been tied with the bad action of moving in the wrong direction...Steve S


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

steve schreiner said:


> John , I don't view this as correcting for the bad cast ..I view it as using pressure to reinforce my sit command... The NO would have been tied with the bad action of moving in the wrong direction...Steve S


Yes,I under stand that part. 

Where it gets a little unclear to me is how the dog interprets a nick after a sit compliance( Indirect pressure) to being a correction for the cast refusal. Perhaps an explanation of how IP works would help to clear this up. 

I am really interested in the IP/superstitious behavior school of thought.

john


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

If you consider the dog's work as a series of smaller behaviors where one behavior leads to another, you have a behavior chain. Completing one behavior leads to the next behavior and so on until the task is completed. When the dog does something wrong it has departed from the correct behavior chain and has started a different set of behaviors. In theory, any correction for a preceding behavior will be indirect pressure for a behavior following it in the chain. 

I am surprised that it works but it does.

Luckily a trainer doesn't have to understand the theory but just has to know correct application.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

gdgnyc said:


> If you consider the dog's work as a series of smaller behaviors where one behavior leads to another, you have a behavior chain. Completing one behavior leads to the next behavior and so on until the task is completed. When the dog does something wrong it has departed from the correct behavior chain and has started a different set of behaviors. *In theory, any correction for a preceding behavior will be indirect pressure for a behavior following it in the chain. *
> I am surprised that it works but it does.
> 
> Luckily a trainer doesn't have to understand the theory but just has to know correct application.


This is the way I understand indirect pressure too..the direct pressure effects the next command indirectly ....Not the preceding action being punished..as in the example give before...Steve S 

John , we have all been wanting to know the same thing since the begining of this threead....Steve S


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

steve schreiner said:


> This is the way I understand indirect pressure too..*the direct pressure effects the next command indirectly ....Not the preceding action being punished*..as in the example give before...Steve S
> 
> John , we have all been wanting to know the same thing since the begining of this threead....Steve S



Could someone elaborate on this phenomenon ?

john


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

The correction tells the dog "You have started on the wrong behavior chain. Let me cast again and so that you can do the right behavior chain." I think that understanding behavior chains is important to understanding why this works. Maybe a good model would be to think of the behavior chain like a chain reaction. You are telling the dog that he is doing the wrong chain reaction.

These are not my own thoughts. I credit Lorie Jolly and Marilyn Fender.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

gdgnyc said:


> The correction tells the dog "You have started on the wrong behavior chain. Let me cast again and so that you can do the right behavior chain." I think that understanding behavior chains is important to understanding why this works. Maybe a good model would be to think of the behavior chain like a chain reaction. You are telling the dog that he is doing the wrong chain reaction.
> 
> These are not my own thoughts. I credit Lorie Jolly and Marilyn Fender.


For a cast refusal, why wouldn't Steve's "NO", sit whistle , cast... or a "cold burn", sit whistle, cast work at least as well as IP.

Better for me in fact, since I can understand why I got the compliance.

john


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> As John said , the last thing the dog did is respond to a sit whistle...and then the pressure was applied...The dog should make the connection with the whistle... Steve S


How could reinforcing the SIT command, possibly punish the act of sitting?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

john fallon said:


> For a cast refusal, why wouldn't Steve's "NO", sit whistle , cast... or a "cold burn", sit whistle, cast work at least as well as IP.
> 
> Better for me in fact, since I can understand why I got the compliance.
> 
> john


Unless the aversive stim means something specific to the dog, it will "look for" something to associate it with.

That could be one of a thousand different things, that was happening at the time.

However, since we have conditioned the stim to MEAN sit, it doesn't leave the dog thinking "what the hell was that?"
It doesn't "look" for a reason.


Where I/P comes in, is that it is impossible to reinforce with an aversive, without also punishing SOMETHING.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Man this is some damn fine Internet dog training!
> 
> 
> /paul


For me, it's either this or shovel snow.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> Unless the aversive stim means something specific to the dog, it will "look for" something to associate it with.
> 
> That could be one of a thousand different things, that was happening at the time.
> 
> ...





> we have conditioned the stim to MEAN sit


Walk me through that, will you? 

You are* not *applying the aversive for* not *sitting, you are applying it after a complaint sit, and somehow this is extrapolated by the dog to mean that it took the wrong cast.

On the other hand you do not feel that a dog conditioned to the meaning of "NO" from it's earliest puppy/human contact, along with a successful training regimen - basics through advanced, can figure out that a CR followed by a "NO", or a Nick, or a No Nick, then a sit whistle, is the reason for the aversive it did get...... and that subsequent casts will probally elicite the requested response ?

john


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

john fallon said:


> ....you are applying it after a complaint sit,


 That's a cold burn. It is not direct pressure to reinforce sit, if you command sit, and then burn the dog after it is already sitting.

It doesn't matter THAT the dog was sitting. 
There was no reinforcement associated with the aversive stimulus.

If there isn't a reinforcement component to the pressure, it is not direct, or indirect pressure. It's just "stupid pressure".



john fallon said:


> ....On the other hand you do not feel that a dog conditioned to the meaning of "NO" from it's earliest puppy/human contact, along with a successful training regimen - basics through advanced, can figure out that a CR followed by a "NO", or a Nick, or a No Nick, then a sit whistle, is the reason for the aversive it did get...... and that subsequent casts will probally elicite the requested response ?


 NO, is either a conditioned non-reinforcer, or a conditioned secondary punisher.

It doesn't mean anything to the dog other than "that wasn't what I wanted" or "this means the same thing as pain".


There are LOTS of ways to punish the behavior of taking the wrong cast, other than using indirect pressure as a correction. I'm not saying that using a cold burn, or NO doesn't work. But, it's not the same thing as indirect pressure.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> How could reinforcing the SIT command, possibly punish the act of sitting?


It does not punish the act of sitting...it reinforces the act...

Why is every one so hung up on punishing the dog ..?? The stimulation or pressure is not to punish any one ...it is to reinforce the command to sit...When a trainer comes to the conclusion of reinforcing commands with pressure( proper behavior ) gets you a lot more than punishing mistakes you will see an improvement in behavior...Punishment never teaches the correct behavior..It may retard bad behavior but in never creates...unless by accident...That is what I'm interested in creating, proper behavior....Steve S


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

john fallon said:


> Walk me through that, will you?
> 
> You are* not *applying the aversive for* not *sitting, you are applying it after a complaint sit, and somehow this is extrapolated by the dog to mean that it took the wrong cast.
> 
> ...


I would consider this punishment for the dog moving in the wrong direction and would assume with proper training in the past the dog would assume the same thing....You have in essence told the dog "wrong move, try again"...Steve S


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Why don't we just ask a dog?

/Paul


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> It does not punish the act of sitting...it reinforces the act...
> 
> Why is every one so hung up on punishing the dog ..?? The stimulation or pressure is not to punish any one ...it is to reinforce the command to sit...When a trainer comes to the conclusion of reinforcing commands with pressure( proper behavior ) gets you a lot more than punishing mistakes you will see an improvement in behavior...Punishment never teaches the correct behavior..It may retard bad behavior but in never creates...unless by accident...That is what I'm interested in creating, proper behavior....Steve S


You are hung up on your own definitions.

Think about the standardized definitions of reinforcement and punishment in Operant Conditioning.

Reinforce = increase behavior.
Punish = decrease behavior.



With those definitions in mind, re-read everything that I wrote, that you think is about punishing DOGS, and pay attention to the word BEHAVIOR.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> *That's a cold burn. It is not direct pressure to reinforce sit, if you command sit, and then burn the dog after it is already sitting.
> 
> It doesn't matter THAT the dog was sitting.
> There was no reinforcement associated with the aversive stimulus.
> ...


* 


When using the sit, nick, sit, cast Indirect pressure for a CR, at what point and how does it(the nick) acquire a reinforcement component ?

john*


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> It does not punish the act of sitting...it reinforces the act...


Since this IS true, the following in bold doesn't make any sense.




steve schreiner said:


> As John said , the last thing the dog did is respond to a sit whistle...and then the pressure was applied..*The dog should make the connection with the whistle*.... Steve S


The only association that the dog has between the whistle, and the aversive stim, is as reinforcement of the behavior of sitting. 
It CAN'T punish the behavior that it is also reinforcing.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Quote Originally Posted by john fallon View Post
....*you are applying it after a complaint sit,*



copterdoc said:


> *That's a cold burn. It is not direct pressure to reinforce sit, if you command sit, and then burn the dog after it is already sitting.*
> 
> It doesn't matter THAT the dog was sitting.
> There was no reinforcement associated with the aversive stimulus.
> ...



This is where you and I depart company ,....In all my years of training with a collar and all the seminars and videos I have watch and attended it has always been conveyed that a verbal command and then stimulation or pressure is applied results in reinforcing the previous command given ... Steve S


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

john fallon said:


> When using the sit, nick, sit, cast Indirect pressure for a CR, at what point and *how* does it(the nick) acquire a reinforcement component ?
> 
> john


 It was established via Classical Conditioning during the process of collar conditioning.

Prior to collar conditioning, it is impossible to reinforce with the e-collar. 
Because it is aversive.

Unconditioned aversive stimulus can ONLY punish. It cannot reinforce.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

I've spent a good bit of time trying to read each and every post in this thread right up to #144 which currently precedes my reply.

Frankly, this stuff really muddies the water for me. 

Copterdoc. If all of this talk and theory and syntax helps you and your training, that's great. What matters is what works for you and your dogs.

I personally un-benefit from all of this stuff. 

Here's my analogy. I could study germination, GMO seed development, photosynthesis and meteorology to plant a killer crop of tomatoes. Or I could watch for the right temperature and the calendar, buy some good seeds, plant them and water the garden if it doesn't get enough rain. In the end, I'll have some nice tomoatoes if I do it right.

All this theory and definitiion and discussion may benefit some of you. If it does, that's awesome. For me and my dogs at this point in time, it is overload and overcomplication.

Chris


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> Since this IS true, the following in bold doesn't make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My point exactly ...It doesn't punish ...it reinforces ...I don't agree that it has to punish something at the same time ..and ...you have not given me adequate examples that I can understand it happening ....Steve S


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> My point exactly ...It doesn't punish ...it reinforces ...I don't agree that it has to punish something at the same time ..and ...you have not given me adequate examples that I can understand it happening ....Steve S


 There are always two out of the four quadrants in play, when a stimulus is applied.

One of them is reinforcing, and the other is punishing.
Every time, and at the same time.


Now, when it comes to training with the e-collar, you are correct that we need to always be using it to reinforce.

Read this post by Darrin again.



> > Originally Posted by *copterdoc* _Why does a dog flare the place that it was forced on back, or stopped with a whistle/nick?
> >
> > Because it associates the aversive, with the location.
> >
> ...


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> It was established via Classical Conditioning during the process of collar conditioning.
> 
> Prior to collar conditioning, it is impossible to reinforce with the e-collar.
> Because it is aversive.
> ...


I agree ..that is why we go through the process of CC with proper association to each command we will be using ...This is the reason when the collars first came into use they just replaced ,whips,chains,prods and guns which were all used to punish bad behavior and because of the effectiveness of the communication it destroyed dogs..punishment never taught correct behavior ...reinforcement of proper behavior has a far greater effect on the dogs mental psyche ...Steve S


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> It was established via Classical Conditioning during the process of collar conditioning.
> 
> Prior to collar conditioning, it is impossible to reinforce with the e-collar.
> Because it is aversive.
> ...


If the nick is as you say, *classicaly paired *with SITduring CC, how does it perform a function when used elsewhere, such as in back nick back, or to come( here). or kennel (to go)......... 

john


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

A Jist train Dugs !


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

"Whistle sits re-enforced with pressure always has a moment where we +p running and -r sitting. "


As in the case of a dog already in a sit position or in the process of sitting and pressure is applied ( as talked about in the use of indirect pressure to get the next command ) where is the +p ? If you only stimulate ( to reinforce ) while the dog is doing a command correctly where is the +p ? Heel ,dog in motion pressure ...back dog in motion ...Improper use of the collar scares me a lot...With out proper training in its use it can and will cause more problems than can be fixed ....Steve S


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

polmaise said:


> A Jist train Dugs !


Dude, I'm on the same soil and I don't get it. So don't feel bad!


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

steve schreiner said:


> "Whistle sits re-enforced with pressure always has a moment where we +p running and -r sitting. "
> 
> 
> As in the case of a dog already in a sit position or in the process of sitting and pressure is applied ( as talked about in the use of indirect pressure to get the next command ) where is the +p ? If you only stimulate ( to reinforce ) while the dog is doing a command correctly where is the +p ? Heel ,dog in motion pressure ...back dog in motion ...Improper use of the collar scares me a lot...With out proper training in its use it can and will cause more problems than can be fixed ....Steve S


Steve I don't ever nick or burn a dog whose ass is already on the ground. That serves no purpose I know of.
Nick/burn on sit is either avoid a nick or escape a burn. The dog is out of position then the pressure is applied, even in the case of indirect pressure. The way it's timed the last behavior the dog did just before the pressure is moving, so that is punished and the next behavior (sitting) in re-enforced.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

In Biology class I liked to dissect the frog

john


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Chris Atkinson said:


> I've spent a good bit of time trying to read each and every post in this thread right up to #144 which currently precedes my reply.
> 
> Frankly, this stuff really muddies the water for me.
> 
> ...


Chris some of us want to know why it works ..INQUIRING MINDS...I agree it is hard to get a complete understanding of all the stuff ( gdg) but the more one understands the why they can appreciate the out come.. ..I'm not saying I have the complete understanding but struggling to get there...Steve S


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

john fallon said:


> If the nick is as you say, *classicaly paired *with SITduring CC, how does perform a function when used elsewhere, such as in back nick back, or to come( here). or kennel (to go).........
> 
> john


 Those are all conditioned with the collar too.

Since we are using it to reinforce a known command, it doesn't punish the behavior that we want. It reinforces it.


However, since there IS a punishing component to every aversive stimuli that a dog perceives, it HAS TO punish something else at the same time. 
Every time that the button is pushed, there is the potential that a behavior that it punishes, is a desirable behavior that we want to keep.

We have to be cognizant of that, every time we apply aversive stim.



It's not like we can press the button all "willy-nilly" and not end up suppressing all kinds of desirable behaviors.
By making SURE that we are reinforcing something desirable, we avoid punishing a whole bunch of behaviors that we want to keep.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Dude, I'm on the same soil and I don't get it. So don't feel bad!


Thanks Chris, I don't feel bad, But a grey mist comes down ,when I read all that jargon?..much in the way that 'Clicker Trainers' ram stuff down yer neck like they have invented the wheel ! with 'words and phrases' that are probably alien to most dog trainers . It's not that I don't want to listen to them!..But my head just says'>>> 
'Say it like it is man'! It's a bloody dug for god's sake! ...I run many training classes for obedience (pet owners), and usually the more academically intelligent the owner is! ,the worst handler they are! (ime) ..They often look for e=mc2 ?, when really it's just a + or - !


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> Steve I don't ever nick or burn a dog whose ass is already on the ground. That serves no purpose I know of.
> Nick/burn on sit is either avoid a nick or escape a burn. The dog is out of position then the pressure is applied, even in the case of indirect pressure.


Run us through an example of when(at what point) you nick in an IP for a CR scenario.

john


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Dude, I'm on the same soil and I don't get it. So don't feel bad!



You do too understand it, both of u! I only learned to talk the talk because I occasionally get cornered by a vet or some other "educated" person who wants to test me.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> Steve I don't ever nick or burn a dog whose ass is already on the ground. That serves no purpose I know of.
> Nick/burn on sit is either avoid a nick or escape a burn. The dog is out of position then the pressure is applied, even in the case of indirect pressure. The way it's timed the last behavior the dog did just before the pressure is moving, so that is punished and the next behavior (sitting) in re-enforced.


Sounds a lot like punishment training to me ....just my opinion ...If it works for you good ...Steve S


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> Sounds a lot like punishment training to me ....just my opinion ...If it works for you good ...Steve S


 There is no such thing as "punishment training" or "reinforcement training"

ALL training involves both punishment, and reinforcement, at the same time.

We just need to make sure that what we reinforce, is what we want to reinforce.
And what we punish, is what we want to punish.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

polmaise said:


> Thanks Chris, I don't feel bad, But a grey mist comes down ,when I read all that jargon?..much in the way that 'Clicker Trainers' ram stuff down yer neck like they have invented the wheel ! with 'words and phrases' that are probably alien to most dog trainers . It's not that I don't want to listen to them!..But my head just says'>>>
> 'Say it like it is man'! It's a bloody dug for god's sake! ...I run many training classes for obedience (pet owners), and usually the more academically intelligent the owner is! ,the worst handler they are! (ime) ..They often look for e=mc2 ?, when really it's just a + or - !


This thread takes it beyond E=MC2 to me. No grey fog. No gray fog. No fog. It just pops a circuit breaker here and it all goes dark..... When the power comes back on, the clocks are flashing and need to be reset.

I don't have time to reset clocks.

Chris


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

john fallon said:


> Run us through an example of when(at what point) you nick in an IP for a CR scenario.
> 
> john


You have no chance of engaging me in that discussion for the sake of your entertainment.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> You have no chance of engaging me in that discussion for the sake of your entertainment.


You have already stated when you would not nick during IP, what is unclear is when you would .........or if you use IP at all ?

john


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

john fallon said:


> You have already stated when you would not nick during IP, what is unclear is when you would .........or if you use IP at all ?
> 
> john


That's not what I said John. I said when you use IP and perform sit nick sit, the dog is still in motion when the is delivered, thus punishing motion and re-enforcing sit, with the side benefit of a little religion on the next cast. 

To answer your question, I have been taught some new ways to train and I doubt you'll see much IP from me in a CR situation.


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

DarrinGreene said:


> That's not what I said John. I said when you use IP and perform sit nick sit, the dog is still in motion when the is delivered, thus punishing motion and re-enforcing sit, with the side benefit of a little religion on the next cast.
> 
> To answer your question, I have been taught some new ways to train and I doubt you'll see much IP from me in a CR situation.


You have piqued my interest in how you would handle a CR situation. I am not baiting you, but am interested.

This is what I would do... For a CR, in most cases I would toot-sit-same cast. If I got a second CR with an experienced dog, and I thought the dog was not giving me effort, I would recall a few yards with pressure , sit and recast. In some circumstances I might just use attrition before collar pressure. It depends on the dog's tendencies and what is happening at the moment. 

With a young dog on the second CR I would recall a few yards with no pressure and recast. If I got another I might walk out part way and recast with a helpful cast. At this point, if I get direction change I will let the dog roll and enjoy the cast. If I don't, I might walk even closer and cast again. I might recall with pressure if the dog is not giving effort. I am more interested in building momentum than casting perfectly with a youngster. 
Steve


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Sabireley said:


> .....If I got a second CR with an experienced dog, and I thought the dog was not giving me effort, I would recall a few yards with pressure , sit and recast.


 In this example, I believe that you are applying I/P on the command HERE, by creating a hotspot in the direction that the dog wanted to go.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Sure miss uncle Jerry. He could explain this no problem

/paul


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> "Whistle sits re-enforced with pressure always has a moment where we +p running and -r sitting. "
> 
> 
> As in the case of a dog already in a sit position or in the process of sitting and pressure is applied ( as talked about in the use of indirect pressure to get the next command ) *where is the +p ?* If you only stimulate ( to reinforce ) while the dog is doing a command correctly where is the +p ? Heel ,dog in motion pressure ...back dog in motion ...Improper use of the collar scares me a lot...With out proper training in its use it can and will cause more problems than can be fixed ....Steve S


The +P is in the fact that it's an aversive influence. As far as "where" it is, that's determined by the dog.

We can "steer" the punishment to what we want to punish, by timing, situation, communication, etc. But, ultimately the dog decides "where" the +P "went". And we can't tell where that was, until we recognize the change in behavior.


The fact remains, that when you apply an aversive, there is ALWAYS punishment applied to something.


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

copterdoc said:


> In this example, I believe that you are applying I/P on the command HERE, by creating a hotspot in the direction that the dog wanted to go.


I agree on the IP to Here, however, I don't see the same behavior I see when they think there is a hot spot during FTP or TT, ie; avoiding the location of the last direct pressure. On the sit after the recall, the dog is looking back eagerly waiting for the next cast. On the next cast, hope the dog is trying something else it knows rather than simply avoiding a hot spot.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Sabireley said:


> ....hope the dog is trying something else it knows rather than simply avoiding a hot spot.


 Here's a test you can try.

See if you can get the dog to go back through the same spot you burned it from.


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

copterdoc said:


> Here's a test you can try.
> 
> See if you can get the dog to go back through the same spot you burned it from.


I guess it depends on how much pressure you use. More than once I have gotten the same CR. I am trying to communicate no, let's try again, with just enough pressure to get a change in behavior. In the case of a CR on a long angle entry,the dog is choosing to not get in when it has been trained to and has done it correctly many times. It's cold or windy, or there is a PB lying up on the bank. I don't believe I have created a hot spot on the bank by correcting the dog for a CR and not getting in. I have corrected the dog for non-compliance ( lack of effort) to a known command. Taking the correct cast and allowing the dog to carry it for sometime reinforces the desired behavior. 

I could try to anticipate the instant the dog makes the decision to not get in. It could be on the line, or in route. Rather than give the dog a freebee cast, I could stop, correct while the sit is in progress, then cast. Or, call back with or without pressure and resend.

I will add that in the past I have created hot spots the dog learned to avoid. That does not always work so well when you try to generalize the behavior to new locations. I ended up with a dog out of balance to the watery side.

I try to give the dog the benefit of the doubt and err on the side of no pressure if I am not sure. Learning as I go...


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Testing Dogs and 'Trialling' Dogs are two different things (in my world)!...Maybe that IS! the difference between Pavlov and Skinner?...and a few more besides?
I'm off' you guy's now,and leave you to your 'games'!...Shame!...
..............


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Sabireley said:


> I guess it depends on how much pressure you use. More than once I have gotten the same CR.


 It definitely depends on how much pressure you use. If it's not enough to change the behavior, it's not effective at changing behavior.

I'd say that if you got the same cast refusal, it wasn't effective at changing the behavior that you were trying to change.



Sabireley said:


> I am trying to communicate no, let's try again, with just enough pressure to get a change in behavior.


 I'd hope that's what we all are shooting for!



Sabireley said:


> In the case of a CR on a long angle entry,the dog is choosing to not get in when it has been trained to and has done it correctly many times. It's cold or windy, or there is a PB lying up on the bank. I don't believe I have created a hot spot on the bank by correcting the dog for a CR and not getting in. I have corrected the dog for non-compliance ( lack of effort) to a known command.


 You are correcting for what you read as a lack of effort. But, it's not for lack of effort to a known command.

If there was a "don't cheat" command, we could apply direct pressure to reinforce that. And I'm sure that we would all love to be able to do that.



Sabireley said:


> Taking the correct cast and allowing the dog to carry it for sometime reinforces the desired behavior.


 I agree with that. By the time a dog is that advanced, success is extremely rewarding to the dog. 



Sabireley said:


> I could try to anticipate the instant the dog makes the decision to not get in. It could be on the line, or in route. Rather than give the dog a freebee cast, I could stop, correct while the sit is in progress, then cast. Or, call back with or without pressure and resend.


 If you make it black and white to the dog what is right, and what is wrong, it's extremely likely that it will understand an indirect pressure correction, as what you want the dog to understand it as. 
Even if you accomplish that by making "hotspots" with I/P. 
As long as the dog eventually generalizes it as meaning "the shoreline over there is hot", and that thinking results in the dog being "right", you have achieved the trained behavior that you desire.



Sabireley said:


> I will add that in the past I have created hot spots the dog learned to avoid. That does not always work so well when you try to generalize the behavior to new locations. I ended up with a dog out of balance to the watery side.


 And that's the downside. The criteria the dog is using to decide what to do, is not really the right criteria. If you design a test that the dog beats by avoiding shoreline, it wins. If you don't, it doesn't.



Sabireley said:


> I try to give the dog the benefit of the doubt and err on the side of no pressure if I am not sure. Learning as I go...


 I think that's the way that we have to train. When it comes to applying pressure, the results are long lasting. Both the good ones, and the bad ones.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

@ Steve B. Hi! All I am referring to there in terms of "new methods" is that I'm now of the mindset to avoid collar pressure in all but the most clear cut situations. Go/stop/come, for instance. As you mentioned, sometimes pressure can be interpreted incorrectly, thus, I would rather avoid it unless I'm pretty sure the dog is going to understand it 100%.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> @ Steve B. Hi! All I am referring to there in terms of *"new methods"* is that I'm now of the mindset to avoid collar pressure in all but the most clear cut situations. *Go/stop/come, for instance.* As you mentioned, sometimes pressure can be interpreted incorrectly, thus, I would rather *avoid it unless I'm pretty sure the dog is going to understand it 100%.*


*
*
Very good ..Welcome aboard....Your " new method " is what I have been doing since the 70's...Steve S ...


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

steve schreiner said:


> [/B]
> Very good ..Welcome aboard....Your " new method " is what I have been doing since the 70's...Steve S ...


What's new for me is certainly old hat for someone Steve. After all, I didn't make it up! 

There's more to what I am doing right now. If you care to chat on it, I'm happy to PM. I just don't need a giant public debate.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> I just don't need a giant public debate.


Very wise.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

But will not learn from the info passed back and forth ...That is what an open forum is for ...open debate and discussion...All we need to do is keep it civil and respect others views even if they are different from ours...After all there is more than one way to train a dog.....Steve S


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

Pavlov is always on your shoulder. Classical conditioning is always in play. Classical conditioning is why your dog gets excited when you get out the guns and bumpers and e-collars.

In Bob Bailey's Fundamentals of Animal Training DVD he explains gives an example of how to tell if a behavior is operantly conditioned or classically conditioned.

"I want to go to the movies. There is no place you can hit me to make me want to go to the movies."

(Well he phrases it better than that I don't have the disc on hand to check)

Classical conditioning is always in play. But I'd say 90% of retriever training is operant conditioning, particularly because in so many cases we're fighting against the dog's natural inclination (prime example: cheating water/cover).

Most dog training is primarily operant. Only with aggression/fear/behavior problems of that ilk do you work primarily with classical conditioning, because you're working to change the dog's internal state.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

RaeganW said:


> ....I'd say 90% of retriever training is operant conditioning, particularly because in so many cases we're fighting against the dog's natural inclination (prime example: cheating water/cover).


 I agree. But, the foundation of the training for a handling Retriever, relies on Classically conditioned responses.

We can't get to the 90%, until we have established those responses.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

copterdoc said:


> Unless the aversive stim means something specific to the dog, it will "look for" something to associate it with.
> 
> That could be one of a thousand different things, that was happening at the time.
> 
> ...


When does the stim start to _mean_ sit? (And even then you're still in operant conditioning not classical, because if pressure means sit, that's a cue to the dog to preform a behavior) In most of basics, don't pressure mean go? I am thinking of collar conditioned force fetch and force to pile.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

RaeganW said:


> When does the stim start to _mean_ sit?


 During collar conditioning.



RaeganW said:


> (And even then you're still in operant conditioning not classical, because if pressure means sit, that's a cue to the dog to preform a behavior)


 The cue, is still the command word. The dog needs to obey the command, not the collar. A dog that is collar wise, is obeying the collar, not the command.



RaeganW said:


> ......In most of basics, don't pressure mean go? I am thinking of collar conditioned force fetch and force to pile.....


 It needs to mean go, it needs to mean stop, and it needs to mean come.

At that point, the dog has the required Classical conditioning that it needs, in order for the collar to be applied to advanced handling.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

The stim never means sit... unless it comes directly after a sit command...

It never means anything really. The commands we give, be they verbal or via body language are meaningful. The stim is simply there to be either escaped or avoided with compliance.

It is a re-enforcer and a punisher, but never, does it ever come to be a cue to an particular action.

At least not the way we train.

It most certainly can be used that way. If I only ever wanted one command I could turn the stim on, lure the dog into a sit position and turn it off... If I did this enough times without ever saying anything there would coma a time when I hit the button and the dog did the only thing he knew, in this case sit. We don't do it that way (hopefully). I suppose you could probably equate it to a number of commands just like we do treats, and occasionally get a dog that cycles through all known behaviors trying to turn the collar off. I think this is neat when it's to earn a treat, but I would never do it with a collar.

Because we use the collar to punish and or re-enforce a whole variety of behaviors, it never really signals anything, except that the dog needs to expediently do what he was commanded.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

DarrinGreene said:


> ......The stim is simply there to be either escaped or avoided with compliance........


 That's how we use the collar to shape future behavior. 

Collar conditioning, is not about shaping behavior. 
It's about conditioning responses, to the specific aversive used.

The dog is already performing the behaviors, in response to the commands, prior to starting collar conditioning.
But, it won't respond correctly to the pressure applied by the collar, until it is classically conditioned to.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Dogs can be conditioned to respond a certain way in a certain context with the push of a button without a command or cue. When a dog is made responsible for a specific behavior and that behavior fails on cue with the context,,, a well conditioned dog will do what is needed to be done ,,,silently,,,with only stimulous to cause him to do the correct behavior
Pete


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Pete said:


> Dogs can be conditioned to respond a certain way in a certain context with the push of a button without a command or cue. When a dog is made responsible for a specific behavior and that behavior fails on cue with the context,,, a well conditioned dog will do what is needed to be done ,,,silently,,,with only stimulous to cause him to do the correct behavior
> Pete


 That's true.

When a dog knows sit-to-flush, and a bird gets up, it can be held to a high enough standard that sit is enforceable with the collar, without the command being given.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

Dogs can be conditioned to respond a certain way in a certain context with the push of a button without a command or cue. When a dog is made responsible for a specific behavior and that behavior fails on cue with the context,,, a well conditioned dog will do what is needed to be done ,,,silently,,,with only stimulous to cause him to do the correct behavior
Pete 

When a dog knows sit-to-flush, and a bird gets up, it can be held to a high enough standard that sit is enforceable with the collar, without the command being given. copterdoc..

If the dog associated the bird flush with the stimulation in a positive manner it works ...but,if in a negative manner you get a dog that is bird shy now...Just as a dog can be conditioned to sit on a call or shot...the correct association is a must to have the proper out come....Steve S


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> If the dog associated the bird flush with the stimulation in a positive manner it works ...but,if in a negative manner you get a dog that is bird shy now...Just as a dog can be conditioned to sit on a call or shot...the correct association is a must to have the proper out come....Steve S


It's called chaining.

If the dog knows that "B" predicts "A", and is conditioned to perform an action in response to "B" in preparation for "A", we can then condition another link in the chain.

So, we can create a new "C", that predicts "B", and have the dog perform the same behavior that it was conditioned to perform in preparation for "A".

That's all Classical Conditioning.

And it's how we condition a complete retrieve, from a series of conditioned behaviors.
We condition them all separately, and then each one "commands" the next in sequence.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> It's called chaining.
> 
> If the dog knows that "B" predicts "A", and is conditioned to perform an action in response to "B" in preparation for "A", we can then condition another link in the chain.
> 
> ...


I have noticed when my dogs start chaining they want skip the in between behaviors and go straight to the end link...Steve S


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

steve schreiner said:


> I have noticed when my dogs start chaining they want skip the in between behaviors and go straight to the end link...Steve S


 It might happen really fast, but there's no "link skipping" going on. Each link predicts the next.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

copterdoc said:


> That's how we use the collar to shape future behavior.
> 
> Collar conditioning, is not about shaping behavior.
> It's about conditioning responses, to the specific aversive used.
> ...


I'm not sure I believe this definition.

I have classically conditioned to stim before, in the instance of counter surfing or dumpster diving, but I don't think you're classically conditioning during CC. 

In that case I think the dog is already classically conditioned, meaning he understands the cue/response/re-enforcement relationship. In CC I think you're simply introducing a new re-enforcer to the equation, that being escape or avoidance.

In fact it's pretty standard than unless classic conditioning is already in place, we don't apply e-collar pressure. 

As I mentioned, I have taken advantage of suspicious behavior in some instances to classically condition a dog NOT to do a certain action, but that is quite a different case than collar conditioning to a known (classically conditioned) behavior.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

steve schreiner said:


> I have noticed when my dogs start chaining they want skip the in between behaviors and go straight to the end link...Steve S


Actually that's quite true and different than what copterdoc is talking about. 

Your dog learns any number of things by skipping links in a chain. Sit to the whistle is perhaps the easiest one to understand.

We start by luring as a puppy, hand movement precedes behavior which precedes reward. 

When then build to verbal command, hand movement, behavior, reward. Then whistle, verbal, hand, behavior, reward.

In the end we get whistle = behavior, effectively skipping the verbal and the hand movement.

This is the theory I use in teaching pet dog folks how to get fifi to sit, down etc...


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

copterdoc said:


> That's true.
> 
> When a dog knows sit-to-flush, and a bird gets up, it can be held to a high enough standard that sit is enforceable with the collar, without the command being given.


Yes, the cue for a given behavior need not be a verbal or hand command, it may not even come from a human, and it is still re-enforceable.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

DarrinGreene said:


> ...In CC I think you're simply introducing a new re-enforcer to the equation,....


 How is that different, than classically conditioning a secondary reinforcer, like the clicker?

Doesn't the dog need to make an association, on the same "level"?


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

copterdoc said:


> How is that different, than classically conditioning a secondary reinforcer, like the clicker?
> 
> Doesn't the dog need to make an association, on the same "level"?


I have to think about that one. The application of pressure precedes the behavior and the marker comes after. They don't seem to be the same thing to me.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

DarrinGreene said:


> ....They don't seem to be the same thing to me.


 I agree. They aren't the same thing.

But, during Collar Conditioning, something changes with how the dog understands it.
It's not just a matter of trying to escape or avoid it. They learn that they know HOW to escape or avoid it.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Difference is !
Ivan Pavlov never had a collar.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

After 21 pages this thread is starting to http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FAVKG0I6XXA


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Actually Bill when we start to talk about the similarity or difference between a marker and negative re-enforcement, it's a completely different discussion.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

copterdoc said:


> I agree. They aren't the same thing.
> 
> But, during Collar Conditioning, something changes with how the dog understands it.
> It's not just a matter of trying to escape or avoid it. They learn that they know HOW to escape or avoid it.


I don't know if I agree with a dog's ability to reason like that either but doesn't really matter. 

You're right, there's definitely an association. Turning of the pressure would be the same as the food/toy on the other side of the equation. 

I suppose the marker is just a step in the chain that happens to be missing when we use -r.


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

Along the same lines, you should be able to condition an association between a collar correction and a particular whistle tone or trill through consistent application. Once the association is made you should be able to maintain it with intermittent application of the collar and associated whistle tone. Ultimately, you should be able to get the desired response from just the conditioned whistle tone in situations where the dog does not have the collar on. I am sure people do this already but I do not consciously make it part of my training program. I do use whistle modulation to communicate with the dog.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Sabireley said:


> Along the same lines, you should be able to condition an association between a collar correction and a particular whistle tone or trill through consistent application. Once the association is made you should be able to maintain it with intermittent application of the collar and associated whistle tone. Ultimately, you should be able to get the desired response from just the conditioned whistle tone in situations where the dog does not have the collar on. I am sure people do this already but I do not consciously make it part of my training program. I do use whistle modulation to communicate with the dog.


It would be nice to have a whistle tone/tune for telling the dog to get in the water at distance. Wonder if the judges would balk at that...


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Jennifer Henion said:


> It would be nice to have a whistle tone/tune for telling the dog to get in the water at distance. Wonder if the judges would balk at that...


No one would balk but they would consider it a cast, so if it were on a mark, you would get marked down, possibly dropped in some stakes.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

[QUOTEThat's true.

When a dog knows sit-to-flush, and a bird gets up, it can be held to a high enough standard that sit is enforceable with the collar, without the command being given.][/QUOTE]

Dog sampling a pile of birds on a blind. Push button ---dog returns
Dog drops bird on his way back from retrieve,,dog is screwing around---push button dog picks up bird and straightens his act out.
Dog returns after retrieve--- handler starts BSing-- dog veers off because of handlers lack of focus-handler wakes up-- handle rpushes button---dog returns to heel
Dog rolls bird in mouth--handler pushes button---dog stops rolling

It works for any well conditioned response in context


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

DarrinGreene said:


> No one would balk but they would consider it a cast, so if it were on a mark, you would get marked down, possibly dropped in some stakes.


Good point.


----------



## Jere (Dec 22, 2007)

polmaise said:


> Difference is !
> Ivan Pavlov never had a collar.


Actually, There were experiments done in Pavlov's lab using electric shock.

Jere


----------

