|
|
Location: dullsville
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,241
|
06-12-2010, 10:00 PM
i didnt actually think adam would say yes!
i mean, being asked to read a wholly seperate thread of which he has been informed of the title, and then claiming said thread was only invented to send the reader to this thread, is even straining the fabric of the reality of the twilight zone adam is choosing to inhabit
its all gone a bit tony blair
|
Location: Tayside
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 680
|
06-12-2010, 10:41 PM
Originally Posted by Krusewalker 
i mean, being asked to read a wholly seperate thread of which he has been informed of the title, and then claiming said thread was only invented to send the reader to this thread, is even straining the fabric of the reality of the twilight zone adam is choosing to inhabit
its all gone a bit tony blair
I've just been to the "Comprehending Training Posts "
thread to see what all the fuss is about. I got directed back here!
Probably just as well....
|
|
Location: Lincolnshire
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,964
|
06-12-2010, 10:45 PM
Originally Posted by Adam Palmer
Did you notice we were talking about the learning theory? A reinforcer (reward) can ONLY follow either a negative punishment, positive punishment or a negative reinforcer, one of those MUST precede a reinforcer (reward)
Adam
On this theory of yours, then positive punishment could only follow negative reinforcement which, of course, is just illogical gibberish.
|
|
Location: Lincolnshire
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,964
|
06-12-2010, 10:46 PM
Originally Posted by Adam Palmer
It’s “cribbed” from B F Skinner.
Btw if I'm Denis how come he's lost about 20 yrs and gained about 4 stone?
Adam
)
|
|
Location: dullsville
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,241
|
07-12-2010, 07:35 AM
Originally Posted by MichaelM
Actually.....
I've just been to the "Comprehending Training Posts "
thread to see what all the fuss is about. I got directed back here!
Probably just as well....
i dont even have the luxury of being redirected, when i did a search, i just discovered my whole thread doesnt even exist anymore!
To a Mod:
Are you meant to PM someone as to when and why you delete their threads? I had no idea you had. Certainly dont understand why it would be? Or is their a technical problem?
Any chance i can access my old thread thru PM or something, so i can repost the original post onto this thread, to give adam a chance of reply?
thanks.
Hello adam:
the point still remains though, everyone except you has now told me they understood the point i made, it seems you are repeatedly choosing to interpret in any other way, so as to not deal with the truth of the contradication in the logic of your argument which i have pointed out to you.
|
Location: Dogsey and Worcestershire
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 49,483
|
07-12-2010, 10:23 AM
Originally Posted by Krusewalker
i
To a Mod:
Are you meant to PM someone as to when and why you delete their threads? I had no idea you had. Certainly dont understand why it would be? Or is their a technical problem?
Any chance i can access my old thread thru PM or something, so i can repost the original post onto this thread, to give adam a chance of reply?
thanks.
.
the thread wasn't deleted it is still there with a 'redirect' to this thread. If you look down the page in this section you will see it, it says...Here is your thread starting post which is now post number 522 in this thread..
http://www.dogsey.com/showthread.php...70#post2106970
|
|
Location: Dogsey and Worcestershire
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 49,483
|
07-12-2010, 10:35 AM
Originally Posted by Krusewalker
hello guys. I posted the post below on the ecollar thread to respond to adam's odd assertion that reward training (ie, the expectation of the reward not received until the behaviour has been performed) causes stress equal to ecollar training.
Aside from the obvious lack of logic or sense in that idea, i found a hole in adam's own argument itself.
Now i figured i had identified and explained that well in the post below, but adam responded with interpretations that had nothing to do with what i wrote and claimed my post wasnt understandable.
I figured that was convenient, but i have given it some thought, and to be fair, i thought i would check this out by starting a thread asking the question:
Does everyone else understand what i am getting at in my post quoted below?
(feel free to give your interpretation)
Adam
You take the line that the time the dog takes to get his treat is 'the suffering of stress'. And go on to say that is equal to the stress displayed by e collar training.
Now, if im excited and waiting for my dinner, true, it may raise my levels and be technically regarded as stress.
That relates to the sense of expectation, like santa at xmas.
But to say that is comparable to the stress i would receive from an electic shock and that i am 'suffering' is pushing the bounds of credibility somewhat.
It is a disingenuous argument.
However, let us assume your line is right and lets run with it.
You are saying that excitement over treats/toys masks the stress signs, which is why you see them on your e collar video but not in a treat training scenario (convenient get out clause their, btw ).
Then you own argument surely comes back to bite you?
If both experiences are unpleasant 'sufferings of stress' (my phrase) (btw, the implication is you are now admitting that the ecollar experience is an unpleasant suffering of stress), then if you scale it, surely the ecollar one is way worse?
As you say, the excitment (ie, positive joyous feelings associated with the expectation of getting food or play) is high enough to mask the stress signs the dog is really feeling.
Yet the ecollar one obviously cannot have a high enough level of joy/ pleasure/ excitement to motivate the dog to suppress his stress signs!
This means he cannot be overawed at the expectation of getting an electric zap!
Hence the irony of you own argument, which you are missing.
|
|
Location: dullsville
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,241
|
07-12-2010, 10:37 AM
Originally Posted by Minihaha
HI KW
the thread wasn't deleted it is still there with a 'redirect' to this thread. If you look down the page in this section you will see it, it says...It was merged by a Moderator because the topic related to a post in this existing thread.
Here is your thread starting post which is now post number 522 in this thread..
http://www.dogsey.com/showthread.php...70#post2106970
i did a search using the title of the thread, and i searched all the threads and posts made by me, and it never came up under each section.
thank you for alerting me to where my post went.
cheers
|
|
Location: dullsville
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,241
|
07-12-2010, 10:42 AM
Here is the post from the other thread where i explained your contradicting of yourself in more detail, for you to now read and reply to (everyone that read it understood what i was saying, btw
:
Originally Posted by Krusewalker
So as Adam asked me to explain again, here goes:
Adam says the dog feels stress as he has to wait to get his reward (toy, treat, play, whatever).
He has to do so because he has to perform the behaviour first.
Adam cited a recall as an occasion the dog feels stressed.
Adam says he is stressed all the way back to you, as he doesnt get his treat straight away.
Adam goes on to say that this stress is equal to the stress a dog feels from an ecollar.
(As a side note, it is interesting to point out that Adam now admits that dogs feel stress from ecollars. Im not to sure if he noticed that
)Anyway, we would then all ask Adam how come the reward traned dog looks happy when it is charging up to up to you on a recall, for example?
Adam states this is because the excitement..ie, the expectation of receiving the reward...masks the stress signs.
Adam would then say this is why you can see the stress signs when ecollar training, but not reward training.
I state that this is a convenient get out clause.
I also state, like everyone else, that this is clearly not logic, sense, or a basic understanding of emotion.
So i gave an analogy:
I might be gagging all night for santa to bring me a present.
That may technically be labelled stress, but it is clearly "good stress". As it is related to the joy and pleasure of expecting something nice.
Therefore it is 'stress' associated with nice warm feelings inside, which naturally isnt the same as the associated feelings of foreboding and fear i may feel knowing i am about to receive an electric shock!
And that IS all the 'argument' you really need to know!
However, here was the point of my post that Adam and others may have misunderstood:
I then went on to play devils' advocate, and said lets assume for a moment that adam's argument is right.
What i am saying is that adam's very own argument disproves his theory!
That is because thus:
a) the dog runs for the treat but does not 'show' the stress, as the 'feelings' of excitment/joy/pleasure of expecting something masks the 'feelings' of stress
b) the dog gets an ecollar stim (what we call electric shock), and does show the stress, as his dog jacca did in the video.
Now, and this is the biggeee:
If we assume that both dogs are feeling stressed, then surely the stress the "reward dog" feels is way lower than what the "ecollar dog" feels, otherwise the ecollar dog would be feeling enough happiness/excitement/expectation to also mask his stress signs!
Obviously he doesnt, as he is not happy with his expectation of an event as the reward dog is.
ie, he is not happy knowing an electric shock is due!
And therein layeth the irony of Adam's own argument, which he has missed.
Therefore, you dont need to rely on our argument stating why the expectation of someting good is not the 'suffering of stress' etc etc.
As adam has done the job for us!