While e collars (used properly) don't cause pain the definition of pain is a tricky issue. OF course indivaduals will have different sensitivity's ect. But at the same time the modern e collars available are designed not to cause pain (because that would have a negative effect on the dog and could well get you sue'd, manifactures perspective).

Often when expermienting with e collars the sensation at the top level is hot as opposed to painful. At the lowest level you feel virtually all humans say it's just a tickling sensation. It maybe that dogs percieve it the same as this and the training is effective not because of aversive but because of the nerve thing Niki mentions. Vey interesting subject.

Adam

Unfortunately there are other ways to train dogs other than operant theory.
There is no specific information that Skinner ever talked of where e-collars lie in his theory.
It is all speculation on the users point of view and can be in at least two of the catergories. Skinner did not ever agree with adverse stimuli, so even in his views this was not the way to go.
As for all the 'nerve stuff' I believe the suspected troll was talking out her/his a**, not even the manufacturers have mentioned this nor any study that even agrees with them, Adam it is quite easy to make up things, without evidence it makes it unfounded and baseless.
To understand the 'nerve stuff', pain is caused by nerve endings, and there are plenty of examples of that, such as Shingles it irritates the never endings causing pain (excruciating apparently), ever hit you funny bone? that is a nerve and not so funny, neuropathy, is nerve pain, so to say it is a specifically aimed at nerves not pain is fundamentally flawed.
Pain is individual and dogs perception of pain would be no different.
As for them not designed to cause pain, I have looked at manufacturers and sites selling them, they have T&C and do not cover for abuse or misuse and/or any incidental or consequential damages. so I am guessing they can cause pain and they have covered themselves by that fact.
Some have even admitted 'a small static shock' is released, at varying degrees, some collars have up to 10 levels.

Adam[/QUOTE]
I am sorry if you stick my hand in hot water for a second it is a painful reponse, again jazz it up as you wish it can still be determined as pain.
Again Nikie's mentioning of this 'nerve thing', is baseless, and fundementally flawed due to nerves actual ability to cause pain.
If Nikie is a troll, then, why the need to cover up who they really are, to jump on a forum and sprout some ludicrous statements, is easy, again Adam use some of the university degree you have, the source must be looked at to see the validation of their remarks, and apply it to Nikie and you will see the creditials of Nikie are suspect and fraudulent, from the beginning and therefore not reliable or to be used in any way that holds merit, due to the deception given by the poster from the out set. So even if we disagree, I would appeal to your senses and keep Nikie's postings not as any justification for the use of e-collars, as people like that are doing nothing for the e-collar crusaders.

If the reward is withheld or withdrawn, that is -P Adam, but you appeared to suggest that pos. reinforcement and -P literally go together, as +P and -R do, and that isn't really correct, because there is no automatic relationship, in the same way as +p and -R.

It's often the case that pos. reinforcement is used and there is no neg. punishment at all, during training. IF the reward is never withheld, but always given (ie the dog is set up for success, which is the aim of positive training) there is no neg. punishment involved in the training.

(As previously stated, reward based trainers sometimes do use negative punishment, but it's usually set up carefully and is meant to instruct and help the dog to understand what is acceptable behaviour. They may also use extinction which can cause some frustration, but most dogs learn easily how to work/think for the reward, and offer different behaviours.Clicker training is a subset of OC and may use pos. reinforcement, extinction, neg. punishment and ofcourse the event marker to modify behaviour).

You rigntly place a lot of emphasis on Skinner and operant learning . I guess then you have heard of Bob Bailey? BB worked with Skinner and learnt what he knew from him, and the Brelands, who did work very closely with Skinner, and between them they trained a huge number of species of animals for many things, from war work to shows and displays. I've had an email conversation with him on this exact subject

BB: "Here is my take for those who spend an inordinate amount of time trying to parse the strict interpretation of the "quadrant" view of behavior:
Time spent on the endless discussions of into what quadrant an event or stimulus falls might better be spent on training the animal." Have to admit that made me laugh - he's quite right!

"Behavior of animals, especially of the "higher" animals is complex and dynamic. The neurologic processes underlying behavior are complex and dynamic. Simplifying behavior by division into actions and consequences can be useful and can further communication between students, practitioners, and scientists. Failing to recognize that these divisions of actions and consequences are simplifications can lead to hindering of communication and even misunderstanding between students, practitioners, and scientists.

The discussions of the thinking that goes on behind what an animal knows or does not know takes it out of the realm of OC, simply because those (Skinner, et al) that study OC say it does. OC has to do with measurable behavioral events. In the future, when we can measure thinking, and what an animal is thinking, then OC may indeed study what is in the mind of the animal. Right now, we can't do that.

According to OC what we know of what the animal knows we discover by measuring behavior. This is one of the (more or less legitimate) arguments some use that OC is limiting what we can know about animals, and humans. Before condemning OC too much, the cognitivists have their problems too, creating constructs and processes that really don't explain how and why behavior is the way it is. In addition, the closer the cognitivists get to really dealing in the changing of behavior, the more it looks like OC."

What he is basically saying, is that we cannot measure if an animal is experiencing neg. reinforcement unless the measurable behaviour itself is affected. This is the scientific way. I would agree with this. You can't say that a dog is experiencing neg. reinforcement if the owner has sausages in pocket and is just wandering around with them, and the dog knows the sausages are there, because that would be trying to mind read. I've seen shock collar people pretend that this is the case, and that the dog is experiencing -p, but I don't agree with that as it's not classic OC and it's not scientific. Perhaps in the future, as BB said, things may change, when/if we ever get to read minds.

In science, it's important to make up one's own mind based on the evidence, and not to rely on the interpretation of others, who may want to tweak it a little here and there for their own ends. If you use OC Adam, be true to the principles and don't be led astray by those who have a wee agenda, whatever your own methods.

Wys
x

The modern collars are designed to cause sensations at different levels, some of which, at higher levels, are significantly painful and emotionally distressing. This is taken from S Lindsay, who is a supporter, mostly with some reservations, of shock collars. He would like to see the collars made better (no cheap ones which can give horrible painful sensations to the dog) and with a much much lower top level of shock. He also says that everyday pet owners are not "au fait" with behaviour or training enough to use shock collars. I don't agree with everything he says, but do on this.

Most owners who choose to use these collars are going to be the ones whose previous training has failed, probably due to their own lack of understanding/ability to train. Hardly conducive to kind or effective training for the dog...

Also Adam, there is no actual "correct" way to use shock collars, as far as I am aware. Technologically, they are far now from the old "blast em" shock collars, but still they have that capacity at their top end, and are still used by "experts"in this manner, as pure positive punishment. Zap the dog! It still happens and experts cannot agree even amongst themselves. It was only recently that the horrible manufacturers even started to give any vague kind of instruction in their manuals - really, they have a huge responsibiilty and their negligence in this area is frankly appalling.

Wys
x

And that interests me greatly too Wysiwyg, they still have no uniform guide to the 'sensation given out' and the variety in e-collars are huge, some have 3, 5, 8, or 0 settings. They have limited warranties that claim no misuse of the collar counts, but no definition of misuse. I watched one u tube clip of a man using on on himself and after the 'lowest setting' you could hear and see his hesitation to go up the settings and this one had three by the end he was almost in tears

The application of an electric shock to someone or something else doesn`t hurt me at all.
This seems to be the basis for Adam`s reasoning. But he says it earns him money.
Let`s not kid ourselves these supporters of training with pain are hurting dogs for altruistic motives. They`re getting paid for quick fixes and they don`t care what distress they cause a defenceless creature on the way.
So if you don`t know much about training dogs ....... just blind them with pseudo-science and take the cheque.

Spot on Wys. There's a lot more to animal behaviour than OC & there's still a lot that we don't understand. To reduce all behaviours to simple OC principles can be highly dangerous. And anyway ~ as you've said, OC relies purely on observable behaviours & these are open to misinterpretation, human error & complete lack of understanding. Unless you know an animal very, very well & are extremely adept in observing everything that animal does, even the very subtle behaviours that are so easily missed, then relying on OC principles alone can be a very dangerous thing. Using ecollars with only OC principles is a good example of how things can go wrong ~ & who suffers? The poor animals we are supposed to be looking after & helping. And to top it, so called ecollar trainers have the nerve to charge money!

Cheers Wilbar


Agree. Totally!

Wys
x

To anyone still reading this thread...
congratulations.
And a point of fact.
Electric shocks hurt. No matter how much people who are making money out of hurting dogs try to tell you different.

There are better ways to train. Ways that will improve your knowledge and give you a happy, friendly dog - not a terrified one.

So far AP has recommended e collars, used spray collars and suggested various punishing and frankly dangerous methods for stopping a dog jumping on the table.

Seems a very confrontational person with dogs. Doesn't seem to be able to think laterally and wants quick results.

I am sure people will see through the talk.

Good post C n D

rune