|
Location: Manchester
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 320
|
26-02-2011, 12:21 PM
Originally Posted by Adam Palmer 
Did I say that?
I simply suggested that its possible they find neg punishment an aversive state.
Certainly people do, I think conditioned humanising is ok in some circumstances.
Adam
|
|
Location: Essex, UK
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 14,147
|
26-02-2011, 01:32 PM
What are the rules about removing members - anyone know?
|
|
|
|
Location: Manchester
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 320
|
26-02-2011, 01:33 PM
Originally Posted by Adam Palmer
Sorted lol
Adam
|
|
|
|
Location: Lincolnshire
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,952
|
26-02-2011, 03:30 PM
Originally Posted by Adam Palmer
Negative punishment is by definition is the withholding of something the dog wants. It changes behaviour in that an animal will change its behaviour to achieve the thing it wants (positive reinforcement). EG: a child wants chocolate, but has to wait until dinner is eaten.
Dog wants treat but has to wait until it downs!
Thanks for proving my point, btw the reference is just skinners stuff, not the stuff some of the reward based schools have simplified to their own ends but the original.
Adam
It's a strange one, isn't it. On the one hand, you are correct, non-physical aversion is at play when treats etc are withheld. The longer they are withheld, then the more the aversion which is why, of course, when training using positive reinforcement and negative punishment, the emphasis is on the positive reinforcement with the negative punishment kept to a minimum. On the other hand, you appear to assume that the withholding of the treat causes anxiety, which, of course, when used correctly does not unless either the technique is being used incorrectly, or the trainer is (unforgivably) using the withholding of food (negative punishment) to excess to deliberately 'hype' the dog (frustrate/agitate so drive is intensified).
Learning theory is great for developing a deeper understanding of the processes involved in learning, but it is limited in that it only deals in black and white, but when observing the process of dog training, there is far more involved than the simple 'black and white'. Outside learning theory, we take note of the 'emotional responses' of the dog being trained which is why many scientists, far from poo-pooing observational studies, actually welcome them. Often they are far more revealing than reliance on the strict black and white that learning theory alone offers.
Give an honest answer to one question Adam. Comparing the processes of early training using physical aversion on the one hand, and predominantly reward based training on the other, in which circumstances do the dogs look more relaxed and happy with the process?
As you've said (often), life is full of aversions, surely our jobs as trainers (and in this I include anyone who shares their lives with a dog) is to ensure that those aversions are both minimised and as mild as we can possibly make them in our efforts to teach a dog to live by our rules and conditions. Nature throws enough aversions our way so it's got to be our responsibility to ensure that we add as few as we possibly can.
ETA: Adam, could you please point to the relevant document where Skinner actually goes into the ins and outs of aversion and how it is linked to the four quadrants of learning theory. I'm pretty certain that he never said that negative punishment is linked to aversion that causes distress/anxiety. In fact, I'll go further and say he didn't. That explanation is one that those who use physical aversion in their training have used which they intimate is from Skinner's texts when indeed, it isn't
|
|
|
|
Location: Lincolnshire
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,952
|
26-02-2011, 03:37 PM
Originally Posted by Adam Palmer
Yes I did say that.
I simply suggested that its possible they find neg punishment an aversive state.
Certainly people do, I think conditioned humanising is ok in some circumstances.
Adam
|
|
|
|
Location: Essex, UK
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 14,147
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,551
|
26-02-2011, 05:11 PM
Ooh excellent, Azz I do like your post 649!
I was actually going to suggest that if Adam could not stop actually telling untruths, which he has been doing about reward based training (claiming all reward based training is using negative training and aversives all the time) then he should be somehow stopped until he agrees to stop telling and spreading fibs about rewards based training, but this is better
because he is getting more restricted, and it is his own fault entirely, due to his own comments re videos etc..Wys
x
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,551
|
26-02-2011, 05:17 PM
Originally Posted by Brierley
......
ETA: Adam, could you please point to the relevant document where Skinner actually goes into the ins and outs of aversion and how it is linked to the four quadrants of learning theory. I'm pretty certain that he never said that negative punishment is linked to aversion that causes distress/anxiety. In fact, I'll go further and say he didn't. That explanation is one that those who use physical aversion in their training have used which they intimate is from Skinner's texts when indeed, it isn't
It is not good when people who should know better try to infer things which are not correct.
Wys
x
|
|
|
|
Location: West Sussex UK
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,044
|
26-02-2011, 05:18 PM
Whilst we can't get AP banned on current Dogsey rules (although he seems to be managing it quite well on his own
), we could let these threads on those topics that mustn't be mentioned die a death. Just all stop posting. He can't start anymore so as long as no-one else does, so he can't get the publicity he so craves. Then any other threads he starts can just be ignored or confined to discussion of other topics.Are there any rules about "bumping" threads?
|
|