|
Location: Lincolnshire
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,062
|
|
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
I've read the original Adam and referenced it quite a bit
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