Thanks emma, I think that is a good example of how operant theory is misunderstood.

Operant learning explains how any animal learns because of the consequences of its own behaviour, learning will usually have occurred within 3 repetitions of the same consequence under similar circumstances.

If I/anyone went into a restaurant & waited a few mins and then ‘ordered’ the food and at that point you got slapped, you would have learned that your own behaviour of ‘ordering’ the food would cause you to be slapped, it would ‘weaken’ your own behaviour of ordering that food under other similar circumstances to ‘avoid’ the positive punishment of being slapped.

The stimulus perceived causing the slap would be that your own behaviour of ‘ordering’ the food (the point you got a slap) caused the slap not the food itself, that’s the misunderstanding.

I read Skinner years ago wisiwig, what I am repeating his operant learning theory originated in his behaviour of organisms 1938 & other writings of his and what he tought.

This (below) from that site link you gave is not a part of operant learning theory, it does not make it clear at all thatthe animals behaviour causes a consequence, it would mislead many readers, is the site anything to do with some commercial concern or other?

Something Good can start or be presented, so behavior increases = Positive Reinforcement (R+)
Something Good can end or be taken away, so behavior decreases = Negative Punishment (P-)
Something Bad can start or be presented, so behavior decreases = Positive Punishment (P+)

The positive reinforcer cannot be a base/foundation of learning, simply not possible.

so how does that apply to dog training then?

The way you describe it though seems to be coloured alot by your own ideas. Perhaps it's just the way it comes across, not sure...

If you are suggesting that an animal cannot learn via positive reinforcement, I'd say you are quite wrong.


I thought you sounded a lot like Denis Carthy on your first post - you sound more like him now ...

Whatever, you've just shown that your posts cannot be taken seriously!
I don't really get what you mean anyway, there's nothing wrong with that, it's just put nice and simply. Sorry.

(but if you are DC, not sorry )

deleted .........

On the contrary, if any behaviour is likely to strengthen a reinforcer must occur, that is what reinforced means. The context I said that in was emmas slap example which was a positive punisher example (weakens any behaviour). Positive & negative punishers work by suppressing behaviours, the individual animal then works/behaves in ways which reduce the threat of any punishment, e.g. stopping at red lights avoids the threat of punishment, driving safely in general avoids the threat of punishments but the threat is the foundation/base for the avoidence behaviours not a positive reinforcer.

Nikie can you tell me why if I do a search using quotes taken from your posts I am taken to sites where the identical words are being written by someone posting links to Denis Carthy's videos ?

LOL no I can't tell you, you should be typing b f skinner in google, you might also get some of his works from ebay, he is after all one of the most read behaviourists.

Nikie, you fail to see the point, the slap is still a painful stimuli, so by saying the slap is appropriate you would be saying it is okay to physically hit your dog.
That is what I believe e-collars physically hurt and even if they stop the behaviour the means was not justified.
You might want to look at what Wysiwyg said in regards to my comment, she is going to slap me back and run off with the food............not all people are going to react the same and when hurt may hurt back