quote myself:
Sorry, I was rushing for dinner - of course I refer to negative punishment, not negative reinforcement, and I've now altered it - that was what we were originally discussing.

So please explain where is the negative punishment, in the scenario above?



Wys
x

What a shame you did not read my posts properly before commenting, no I did not say that and I have never mentioned any method, I have mentioned Skinners operant learning theory but that is not a method.

Hewey, you come across as a very young man to me, I am surpised thay you are unaware that (1) modern writers claim to use and promote Skinners 1938 learning theory,
"The techniques are based upon operant conditioning"

Ref
1. The use of shock collars and their impact on the welfare of dogs:
A review of the current literature
Emily Blackwell and Rachel Casey
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science
University of Bristol
2006
http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator...13325&mode=prd

There is no negative reinforcer and behaviour of not sitting under the same circumstances are weakened (punishment) & the sausage given in a similar situation strengthen sitting.


It is not a negtive reinforcer for the simple reason the method you described above is a negtive punishment, both punishments only suprss a behaviour. A negative reinforcement is not a punishment and strengthens behavious.

Nikie ~ I think I get where you're coming from I also agree about the "inadvertant myth throughout dog training that operant learning theory is just to do with dog training applied to dogs by humans". That somehow detracts from the fact that the dog is learning from its own responses to certain stimuli. If a behaviour weakens, then the action/behaviour that resulted in that stimulus is a punisher to that animal. If the behaviour doesn't weaken, then that stimulus is not perceived as a punisher. Similarly with reinforcers ~ the actions/behaviours that result in the reinforcers are strengthened ~ if they aren’t strengthened then they are not reinforcers.

Whilst it easy for dog trainers & dog owners to say we only use +ve reinforcement to train our dogs, we need to be careful about the theory behind what we are doing. There is a tendency to assume that just because we’ve got a pocket full of tasty treats to dole out when the dog does the wanted behaviour, that we are ONLY using +ve reinforcement. This is not necessarily the case because unless the wanted behaviour increases, then the dog is not being positively reinforced. And then there is the other side of the coin in that if treats are on offer & the dog knows that it has to do something to obtain the treat, then by withholding the treat, we are using –ve punishment.

As I’ve read it, (& please correct me if I'm wrong) I don’t think Nikie is commenting on the pros or cons of using +ve/-ve punishment or +ve/-ve reinforcement, just the theory behind operant conditioning as researched by B F Skinner. The moral or ethical reasons for using these different ways to cause behavioural responses to strengthen or weaken, is a totally different argument to the theory of how operant conditioning works ~ and it is that moral & ethical stance that is really being debated on this thread i.e. the use of ecollars.

And whilst operant conditioning is relevant to much of what animals learn ~ there are other forms of learning too, that tend to get overlooked, especially in the world of dog training. Classical conditioning, superstitious learning, observational learning & other forms of learning from non-rewarding events.

I don't subscribe to the "3 repetitions & the dog has learned" view. Perhaps Skinner found this to be true under controlled laboratory conditions where no other factors could possibly influence the outcomes of the experiments, using pigeons with their somewhat limited behavioural repertoire when compared to dogs ~ then this might hold true. But in the dog world, there are too many other influencing factors to be sure that the expected outcomes from operant conditioning alone are going to hold true.

BTW Nikie ~ you earlier quoted one of my posts & referred to my quote from the AVSAB site ~ that site was talking about the moral & ethical ways in which operant conditioning is applied in the world of dog training. It is not a site on the principles of Skinner’s laws of operant conditioning.

Yes, thats it, but, I am taking into acount the prolific misinterpretation of his theory and that fact that it applies to an animals response to any external stimuli, in humans this includes words and sentiments, very powerfull influencers of human behaviour and its those operant stimuli words which seem to be taking people a million miles away from the learning theory for animals, including their own species, man.

Ok, a theory over 70 years old .
This is not my subject but I have to say I would be surprised if they were not far more upto date theories published which would be rather more appropriate for the evidence based practice that you clearly aspire to.

I'm neither a man nor young
As I said this is not my subject but I am very surprised they do not have more recent theories or evidence to work with.

Maybe start a new thread as this is about e-collars essentially and to get side tracked by Skinners operant theory is putting aside the pain e-collars provide.
BTW thanks for the link Adam Palmer may do good reading it as they are willing to call it painful stimuli, to which he proclaims is not the case at all

Operant learning theory is directly relevant to all learning systems so obviously its relevant to e-collars treats or bramble bushes, Adam Palmer would do no good reading the R Casey & E Blackwell review, they did not understand the subject and ended up including 2 studies which did not even contain an e-collar, i.e. Schilder & E Schalke 07, neither of those had any e-collar used. Neither do e-collars and many, many other e-pulse items for use on humans operate by stimulating the pain nerve by passing an e-pulse at the pain nerve. You need to understand your dealing with modern digital advancements.

They actually target the sense nerve, not the pain nerve, the sense nerve is the most sensitive nerve in the body and that causes a pins and needles effect, if they are put far to high for long enough they would stimulate the c-fibres and that would cause a burning sensation if it were on for long enough, strange you don’t understand the subject you want to talk about, but then R Casey & E Blackwell included 2 studies which did not even contain an e-collar.

Maybe most important of all because the method has been mentioned and somewhat advocated is the least effective operant use highlighted as a method by Wysiwig, the negative punishment foundation method. Scientific studies show that to be 93% unsucsessfull for dogs in an exited drive state of stopping chasing etc, that’s a very dangerous application of operant indeed.