|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,551
|
08-12-2010, 10:17 PM
Originally Posted by Adam Palmer 
Brierly/wysweig
Positive reinforcment does not start with ONLY a negative punishment. Either a negative punishment, a positive punishment or a negative reinforcer MUST happen BEFORE a positive reinforcement (reward on this forum) can occure, therefor there is no place in operant for a reward (reinforcer) base learning system. Its throughout Skinners works starting with the Behaviour Of Organisms 1938
Adam
Adam, thanks for replying but honestly, go get to grips with Skinner and read his book yourself. You don't seem to understand it (I suspect, deliberately, or else you are listening too much to others, elsewhere).
No offence but your insistence is annoying.
Wys
x
|
|
Location: Lincolnshire
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,001
|
08-12-2010, 10:20 PM
Originally Posted by Adam Palmer
Brierly/wysweig
Positive reinforcment does not start with ONLY a negative punishment. Either a negative punishment, a positive punishment or a negative reinforcer MUST happen BEFORE a positive reinforcement (reward on this forum) can occure, therefor there is no place in operant for a reward (reinforcer) base learning system. Its throughout Skinners works starting with the Behaviour Of Organisms 1938
Adam
Let me give you an example of why it's balony in my opinion -
dog offers a behaviour not asked for, but handler likes it enough to reward it so that it is likely to be repeated.
The only operant in place is positive reinforcement
Please explain where the negative or positive punishment or negative reinforcement is in this example
I could give more, but this is the simplest and most clearly demonstrable
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,497
|
08-12-2010, 10:22 PM
Originally Posted by Dobermann
Adam, Why should a dog suffer pain and anxiety because they arent good at training?
So, you admitt the E-collar is just easier for people to use than to learn..?
Adam
|
|
Location: Lincolnshire
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,001
|
08-12-2010, 10:23 PM
Originally Posted by Adam Palmer
Is that the same tramp with the bad wig who wrote a challenge to section 4 of the Lincoln study in Aug 09 and resulted in Prof Mills having to contact DEFRA to explain he did not know enough about e-collars to continue the study?
What happened after that? If that’s the same bad wig tramp you mean of course.
Adam
. By the way, the study is still continuing.
|
Location: Usually in a muddy field somewhere
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 20,145
|
08-12-2010, 10:25 PM
Originally Posted by Adam Palmer
Is that the same tramp with the bad wig who wrote a challenge to section 4 of the Lincoln study in Aug 09 and resulted in Prof Mills having to contact DEFRA to explain he did not know enough about e-collars to continue the study?
What happened after that? If that’s the same bad wig tramp you mean of course.
Adam
|
Location: In an English country cowpat
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,810
|
08-12-2010, 10:27 PM
Originally Posted by Lucky Star
If he has done this, he disgusts me more than I can say. Only a foul lowlife would do this and whoever does should be prosecuted for abuse.
I guess if you buy your morals on eBay, you have to expect to pay duty when they come into this country, or hope customs don't catch up with you...
I am still not making light of this.... One e-collar is distasteful, but two is abuse. I think your days are numbered Adam... not just on here.
|
|
Location: dullsville
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,241
|
08-12-2010, 10:30 PM
Originally Posted by Adam Palmer
Kruse
You've said that before. What do you base that on?
Adam