# P- and R-, I think the dog training world has it wrong



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

By definition, punishment weakens behaviour, makes it *less* likely to happen in the future. Reinforcement strengthens behaviour and makes it *more* likely to happen in the future.

R- is something aversive that goes away when the animal displays the desired behaviour, thus making the behaviour more likely to happen again.

P- is removal of privileges when the animal does something undesirable, thus making the bad behaviour less likely to happen again. Currently, the dog training world also considers "withholding an expected reward" negative punishment.

If the dog is asked to sit, and does it slower or more crooked than normal, you withhold the reward because it wasn't good enough. Or if you're shaping a new behaviour and you've rewarded the same behaviour a few times, you then stop rewarding that behaviour in the hopes that the dog will offer more. 

It's these last things I think have been incorrectly categorised as P-.

The purpose of withholding the reward is for the behaviour to happen faster in the future, or with more intensity. So by definition, you must be reinforcing it. If you punish the behaviour, it will get weaker, not stronger.

But by withholding a treat for mediocre sits, you get faster, straighter sits. And by withholding a treat during shaping, you get more intensity, or more of the behaviour you want. 

I think withholding an expected reward should be classified as R-. The withholding of an expected reward is the mild aversive that goes away when the dog offers a stronger behaviour.

If you think of it as P-, you must say that you are punishing the mediocre behaviour in order to get a stronger behaviour. That barely even makes sense.

What do you think?


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

I don't see how withholding a treat is negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is the removal of something unpleasant in order to reinforce behavior. It is essentially the same as positive reinforcement except the "reward" is the removal of something.

A good example would be a parent who tells his child he or she does not have to do chores if they do well in school. 

The dog doesn't expect you to withhold the treat, therefore it can't be negative reinforcement. it is a punishment because you are withholding something that is expected.


----------



## aBlueDog (Feb 14, 2011)

But while you are with holding for mediocre sits your are still reinforcing the ones that meet your new criteria. I would continue to reinforce for movements to sit straighter, or slight increases in speed. You not looking for(or at least I don't) the exact behavior on the first go around. If I wanted a only one paw for a "shake" then I wouldn't accept when she gave me two paws but accept 1 there for lessing the 2 paw by rewarding the 1. Same goes with speed sits. I ignore the behavior I dont want and reward when she gives a straighter or faster sit. 

Although IMO to get the faster sit has to do more with the excitement level. Zoey and I do training games. Where we dart all around. At one spot we sit, at another down. By running to the spots I keep her drive up and am able to reward the quick response, which will then carry over(in time) in to everyday life.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

lil_fuzzy said:


> But by withholding a treat for mediocre sits, you get faster, straighter sits. And by withholding a treat during shaping, you get more intensity, or more of the behaviour you want.


Are you strengthening the straighter sits or weakening the mediocre sits?

It depends on how you look at it. It also depends on what's the consequence that followed the behavior and what the dog's expectation is.

If the dog's expectation is a reward of some kind (game, food, next step in the chain, go walking, whatever) and the dog loses it, that's negative punishment, by definition. You removed the opportunity for a reward, which is something the dog wanted. Taking away what a dog wants is negative and the behavior that triggered this response is (hopefully) punished. Negative punishment.

Negative reinforcement would be if the dog isn't necessarily expecting a reward, but wants one. So by leaving him in the state of wanting it, and you're refusing to give it, then he does something and you give it - that would be rewarding the behavior that occurred (reinforcement) by removing the state of wanting the reward (negative). Negative reinforcement.

However, the other question is - can negative reinforcement be applied this way? It comes down to what constitutes "discomfort" or "averse". If an "abstract" thing, such as a desire or drive being frustrated, can count for this, then I can see how negative reinforcement can be, and arguably is, being applied.

For example, Wally wants to retrieve the ball I threw. I don't let him until he's sitting in finish position correctly. When he does, I release him to get the ball. Is this -R? 

Wally retrieves the ball and charges back to me. I don't ask for the ball, so he drops it, which is incorrect. I turn away. Negative punishment, agreed?

Wally picks up the ball. I look at him. Positive reinforcement? (He has my attention?)

I still don't ask for the ball. I turn away (he's not sitting in front position). Negative punishment - because the next step in the chain is me asking for the ball so we can repeat the cycle for another throw. Or would you call that both? The initial response is -P, but the continued leaving him in that state is -R because he does want to keep playing and I'm frustrating that because is response still is not correct. 

He figures it out and sits in front position, still holding the ball. I look at him, cue give (positive reinforcement, he's one step closer to the next reward), and he gives it, causing me to cue "finish" (another step closer, +R).

Then the cycle repeats. If he's in finish position, then there's another throw, and so on.


Basically, I think they are intertwined, and I think a lot of the trap of operant conditioning is assuming only certain quadrants are in play at any one time. I think there's the initial response, and then what happens in duration as well. I think this is especially true of any shaping-type process. The initial response is negative punishment, because I'm removing that one opportunity for a reward in response to a behavior. The continued holding him in that state until he does another behavior, that would be arguably negative reinforcement. 

I don't think the dog training world has it wrong, per se, but I think the general view might be too narrow in scope of time, or how long the dog is affected (and on what levels he's affected like desire and drive and emotional state, while not "rational" [the dog doesn't choose his emotion - he just feels it], it still has an impact on the "event view" or context of the situation, which is rational [the dog can make a judgement on a context, and if she finds it pleasing or not].


Of course, the introduction of drive has other impacts, but it can explain why -R could be getting into the mix, but the dog is still excited, eager, and driven instead of the traditional view of -R dogs being forced into something they don't really want to do, they just do it because something even worse is happening to them.

Wally has barked at me many a times when I hold out on the next throw, round, whatever of a game. Is that an expression of frustration? A sort of "COME ON, DUDE! LET'S GO!", which could indicate -R is in play, but instead of expressed as "guess I better do it" it's like "hey, can't we play again?" 

And it could explain why shaping (or play) is a powerful learning tool. It allows you to bring yet another feedback type into things (-R) while also keeping his emotions high and drive engaged, which we know is a significant factor in learning. With his emotions high and drive eager, he's going to stay super focused, super intense, and probably enjoy himself or at least enjoy engaging in the satisfaction of that drive. 

Anyway, I'm rambling again so I'll stop.


----------



## OckhamzRazor (Aug 11, 2011)

> The purpose of withholding the reward is for the behaviour to happen faster in the future, or with more intensity. So by definition, you must be reinforcing it.


 This is not true, although I can see what you're trying to say... you're just using the wrong terminology saying it. 

Firstly even though you only listed Punishment and Reinforcement, there are actually 3 categories (at least). There's Punishment - the removal of something good / there's Positive Reinforcement - the addition of something good / and there's Negative Reinforcement - the removal of something bad.

Punishment and Negative Reinforcement usually get confused because we think of "Negative" (in Negative Reinforcement) as a connotation... it's easier to think about it like math, either addition or subtraction.

It's generally accepted that both Positive and Negative Reinforcement are better training methods because they both focus on making the trainee "happy" so to speak. You give a treat (positive reinforcement) or take away the itchy collar (negative reinforcement).


> A good example would be a parent who tells his child he or she does not have to do chores if they do well in school.


 This is a great example of negative reinforcement from herders which takes away something to make the person happy. Still "good" even though negative is in the title.

Obviously Punishment still tries to get your point accross (you use the term reinforces your point, but that just makes it more confusing) but it does so by making the subject unhappy, thus probably not nearly as effective. Hope that helps!


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

I can calculate the volume of a cylinder and convert most any units of measurement in my head, but I can never keep my Ps and Rs straight.

Regardless, withholding reward is considered punishment--by the dog. If you withhold attention for unacceptable behavior, you get less of it. At least with a Golden. The other situation is the same if we are talking about a dog not producing a behavior that he understands perfectly. "Sit" means only one thing. Doing anything else at the command is punished by withholding reward.

A clever dog will experiment to see how far out of spec he can get and still receive his reward. That's where you see things like a dog "sitting" with his butt 3/4 inch off the deck. It's kinda the same as a dog, who doesn't understand what's being asked of him, throwing random behaviors to see what gets him his treat.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

lil_fuzzy said:


> By definition, punishment weakens behaviour, makes it *less* likely to happen in the future. Reinforcement strengthens behaviour and makes it *more* likely to happen in the future.
> 
> R- is something aversive that goes away when the animal displays the desired behaviour, thus making the behaviour more likely to happen again.
> 
> ...


You are overthinking it. Consider the dog as a closed system. What is the natural state of the dog? No cookies. If cookies are not in the system, you cannot remove them (negative). If you are feeding the dog, and remove the cookies, that is negative reinforcement/punishment depending on the situation. If you reach down the dog's throat and remove the cookies out of his mouth, the is negative reinforcement/punishment depending on the situation. If there are no cookies in the dog-system and you continue to put no cookies in the dog-system, that is extinction.

Operant conditioning is the four quadrants AND EXTINCTION. Add something, remove something, do nothing.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

KBLover said:


> Negative reinforcement would be if the dog isn't necessarily expecting a reward, but wants one. So by leaving him in the state of wanting it, and you're refusing to give it, then he does something and you give it - that would be rewarding the behavior that occurred (reinforcement) by removing the state of wanting the reward (negative). Negative reinforcement.


This is what I'm saying. If the dog is expecting or wanting a reward, and you refuse to give it until he does what you want, then that is a mild aversive that goes away when the dog does what you want. 

I'm actually not sure if withholding for a mediocre sit would be R-, because you CAN say that you are punishing a crooked slow sit. But when shaping, and you've rewarded a head turn 5 times, but the 6th time the dog turns his head he gets nothing, then he's in a state of wondering where that treat went, so you get a more intense head turn. It MUST be reinforcement, because you got a stronger behaviour out of it. It doesn't matter what it is that caused the stronger behaviour, but by definition it must be a reinforcer.

I have also thought of P- as punishing the weak behaviour in order to get a stronger behaviour, but now that I think about it, it seems like a convoluted way of saying it. Punish a weak behaviour to get a stronger one? Isn't it easier to say you used a reinforcer to get a stronger behaviour? At least then it follows the definition of what reinforcement and punishment is.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

lil_fuzzy said:


> I'm actually not sure if withholding for a mediocre sit would be R-, because you CAN say that you are punishing a crooked slow sit. *But when shaping, and you've rewarded a head turn 5 times, but the 6th time the dog turns his head he gets nothing, then he's in a state of wondering where that treat went, so you get a more intense head turn.* It MUST be reinforcement, because you got a stronger behaviour out of it. It doesn't matter what it is that caused the stronger behaviour, but by definition it must be a reinforcer


You get stronger head turns because behavior is variable. I recommend you watch Bob Bailey's Fundamentals of Animal Training. I think it will clear a lot of things up for you. You don't need to make operant conditioning more complicated than it is. It's simple, but not easy. It's a _model_, and though it's a very effective and useful model, the dog is not thinking in terms of R+ and P-.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

I don't think it is either. It may occasionally have an element of extinction burst. But largely it is just part of the game. The dog is trying to figure out what will be positively reinforced.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

HerdersForMe said:


> I don't see how withholding a treat is negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is the removal of something unpleasant in order to reinforce behavior. It is essentially the same as positive reinforcement except the "reward" is the removal of something.
> 
> A good example would be a parent who tells his child he or she does not have to do chores if they do well in school.
> 
> The dog doesn't expect you to withhold the treat, therefore it can't be negative reinforcement. it is a punishment because you are withholding something that is expected.


So, if it is punishment, what behavior are you reducing?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

I think Operant conditioning is a very useful model. But it's never the ONLY system on the table. I'm a big believer in KISS (and it made me smile that someone participating in this headache-maker has the moniker of "Occams Razor") When one is working to get reinforcement, if they have to work harder, they are STILL working to get reinforcement. Variable or differential reinforcement makes behavior stronger and more durable. It's just a different schedule.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> I don't think it is either. It may occasionally have an element of extinction burst. But largely it is just part of the game. The dog is trying to figure out what will be positively reinforced.


One of the point that Bob Bailey makes in that DVD is that you don't raise criteria to something you aren't getting. In another thread I said increase in behavior comes from extinction. Pawz disagreed with me. I reviewed my resources (namely the Bob Bailey DVD, since I consider Bailey to be most technically proficient at the science of clicker training and operant conditioning) and I will concede the point. I maintain that extinction is in play, but is probably not the dominant force except in special circumstances. I think the answer lies in "behavior is variable."

Let's say you are shaping a dog to spin to the dog's left and are already getting head turns to the left. For reference, imagine looking down at the top of the dog. Dog's tail is at the origin with the spine along the positive X-axis.

Starting criteria: Head turns of 10* or greater.
When the dog is getting 8/10 trials clicked, increase criteria.

Because behavior is variable, you probably aren't getting head turns of exactly 10* every time. Through the first steps of shaping, head turns of less that 10* are pretty rare. Let's say that about 50% of the time you're getting head turns of 30* and 25% of the time you get head turns of 60* Depending on the dog, you could probably raise criteria to either 30* or 60* and get by; in my opinion 30* is the better choice because it's an easier jump. You are already getting it pretty often. 60* isn't being offered that often and you risk "dropping" the dog between the rungs of the criteria ladder. You could of course raise criteria to anything in between those two.

In most cases, 50% is my threshold. Gatsby can tolerate lower thresholds, he knows the game better but even as a new dog shaping just made a lot of sense to him and he's been very easy to shape. Marsh needs a much higher threshold. He is far from clicker savvy and gets worried and frustrated if he doesn't know what he's getting clicked for. In general, he does not respond to lack of clicking by trying harder, he wanders off. 

But if you've never gotten a 90* head turn, you shouldn't raise criteria to that because you don't have it. The dog is not offering it and you would need to rely on the dog making that mental jump in order to get something to click. And that runs the risk of dropping your rate of reinforcement and taking the dog out of the game since he doesn't know what you want anymore.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> I think Operant conditioning is a very useful model. But it's never the ONLY system on the table. I'm a big believer in KISS (and it made me smile that someone participating in this headache-maker has the moniker of "Occams Razor") When one is working to get reinforcement, if they have to work harder, they are STILL working to get reinforcement. Variable or differential reinforcement makes behavior stronger and more durable. It's just a different schedule.


One other model is Classical Conditioning (Pavlov is always on your shoulder - do I love Bailey mantras or what? I think the only one I haven't dropped recently is Training is a Mechanical Skill, which is odd because that one is my favorite  ), what are others that you are aware of?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

lil_fuzzy said:


> I'm actually not sure if withholding for a mediocre sit would be R-, because you CAN say that you are punishing a crooked slow sit. But when shaping, and you've rewarded a head turn 5 times, but the 6th time the dog turns his head he gets nothing, then he's in a state of wondering where that treat went, so you get a more intense head turn. It MUST be reinforcement, because you got a stronger behaviour out of it. It doesn't matter what it is that caused the stronger behaviour, but by definition it must be a reinforcer.


Actually, that's more likely because of extinction burst.

Head turning worked 5 times. Why isn't it working the 6th time? So he does it "harder". Then it worked again. So, now I must have to do it "like this" to get the reward. 

That doesn't fall under the quadrants, it falls under failed extinction. Except, during shaping, you're intentionally creating extinction in hopes of inducing new/harder behaviors, and intentionally screwing it up because you got the harder behavior. 

Though, I guess technically, it's also a part of VSR (Variable Schedule of Reinforcement). However, that doesn't necessarily mean it's negative reinforcement, unless extinction is considered an aversive condition - and it's not - it's considered extinction.



lil_fuzzy said:


> I have also thought of P- as punishing the weak behaviour in order to get a stronger behaviour, but now that I think about it, it seems like a convoluted way of saying it. Punish a weak behaviour to get a stronger one? Isn't it easier to say you used a reinforcer to get a stronger behaviour? At least then it follows the definition of what reinforcement and punishment is.


Well, it depends. Are you interested in easier to say, or what's really happening? It's easier to say "it's raining" instead of going about cold fronts or upper air cold pools or the formation of hurricanes like Irene. 

To me, what's happening is exactly that: -P on the weak/incorrect behavior, +R on the desired behavior.

It's like if I say "speak" and Wally and we're doing a round of "competitive training" (where either he eats the treat, or I do), and he does some pansy "bark", and I eat his bread ball, that's -P. If I do that three times, and then the fourth he barks REALLY LOUD and I mark and jackpot him, you could simply say "I rewarded the loud bark." The entirety of the process and what he went through was:

weak bark -> I eat his treat (-P)
weak bark -> I eat his treat (-P)
weak bark -> I eat his treat (-P)
LOUD bark -> he gets reward marker and 5 bread balls. (+R)


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> So, if it is punishment, what behavior are you reducing?


In the OP's example, you are trying to reduce the delay between the command and the actual sit. It's a bad example of when to use punishment but if you had to classify it, it would more likely be a punishment than negative reinforcement...


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

RaeganW said:


> One other model is Classical Conditioning (Pavlov is always on your shoulder - do I love Bailey mantras or what? I think the only one I haven't dropped recently is Training is a Mechanical Skill, which is odd because that one is my favorite  ), what are others that you are aware of?


I'm a big fan of "Baileyisms" too


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

HerdersForMe said:


> In the OP's example, you are trying to reduce the delay between the command and the actual sit. It's a bad example of when to use punishment but if you had to classify it, it would more likely be a punishment than negative reinforcement...


But see, I don't think you have to classify it as anything except the dog learning to work harder for reinforcement (and changing up the schedule of reinforcement to help that happen) If I am trying to work a Rubiks cube and keep getting colors I don't want in certain places, I'm not being punished, I'm learning to work through the problem through trial and error. I think looking at behavior in terms of operant conditioning is generally useful, as it breaks down how what we are doing works and why it works (if it works). But if we overanalyze it to the point where every step of the process needs to fall in a different quadrant, I think it becomes a "how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin" type exercise. I suppose some people like discussing that, but then it becomes more about theory than actual process and at a certain point becomes distracting and not useful.


----------



## OckhamzRazor (Aug 11, 2011)

> I'm actually not sure if withholding for a mediocre sit would be R-, because you CAN say that you are punishing a crooked slow sit. But when shaping, and you've rewarded a head turn 5 times, but the 6th time the dog turns his head he gets nothing, then he's in a state of wondering where that treat went, so you get a more intense head turn. It MUST be reinforcement, because you got a stronger behaviour out of it. It doesn't matter what it is that caused the stronger behaviour, but by definition it must be a reinforcer.


 lilfuzzy, this quote shows what the confusion still is... you left out the last and most important part of that story. You stop giving the dog a treat hoping to get a faster head turn. Dog is confused about not getting treat (rules of the game have changed) so he now tries other things to get treats again. When you get a faster head turn... you just end the story and say it was because of witholding treats. In reality you should be showering him with treats for the fast head turn! You left out the positive reinforcement that should have been given for faster head turn. Thus, again, punishment can never reinforce a behavior.

The witholding of treats was just signaling the beginning of a new game and new expectations. When the new desired result (FAST turn) happens, you still reward to reinforce. Make sense?


----------



## OckhamzRazor (Aug 11, 2011)

> In the OP's example, you are trying to reduce the delay between the command and the actual sit. It's a bad example of when to use punishment but if you had to classify it, it would more likely be a punishment than negative reinforcement...


 I think this is another source of confusion for the OP... and many others no doubt. It's a perspective thing.. you absolutely should not think about it like punishing a delay. It should be rewarding a quicker result. 

Also, pretend it's your very first attempt at teaching sit. You're holding a treat and you say "Sit!" Dog doesn't know what the hell you're talking about and maybe barks. You do not give the treat. THIS IS NOT PUNISHMENT. Your example of not giving a treat for a slow sit is not punishment. You just haven't rewarded the behavior that you're looking for yet just like if your dog barked instead of sat. If it was punishment your dog would be in a constant state of punishment except for the few minutes combined that they're being presented with a treat.

You keep saying sit, still holding the treat until he finally sits (random tries until he gets lucky) and then you shower praise and treats to reinforce behavior to command. Eventually you want a really fast sit. You're essentially just starting over again at square one teaching a new command. Not giving a treat immediately when he tries slow sit first is not punishment, just lack of reinforcement so far until he does what you're looking for.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

OckhamzRazor said:


> .
> 
> The witholding of treats was just signaling the beginning of a new game and new expectations. When the new desired result (FAST turn) happens, you still reward to reinforce. Make sense?


The last part of your post is dead on. Nicely put. The first time you change your expectations, the dog might totter on the brink of an extinction burst, but once the dog knows the game, it just becomes a hint to try bigger or faster or longer or something else. It's our job to provide enough information that the dog can figure it out. Since eventually I will be phasing out clicks and treats for behaviors which are on cue, I certainly don't want a lack of immediate reinforcement to be seen as "punishment"! That's why we change from a continuous schedule of reinforcement fairly early.


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> But see, I don't think you have to classify it as anything except the dog learning to work harder for reinforcement (and changing up the schedule of reinforcement to help that happen) If I am trying to work a Rubiks cube and keep getting colors I don't want in certain places, I'm not being punished, I'm learning to work through the problem through trial and error. I think looking at behavior in terms of operant conditioning is generally useful, as it breaks down how what we are doing works and why it works (if it works). But if we overanalyze it to the point where every step of the process needs to fall in a different quadrant, I think it becomes a "how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin" type exercise. I suppose some people like discussing that, but then it becomes more about theory than actual process and at a certain point becomes distracting and not useful.


I guess my main point was that withholding a treat would not be negative reinforcement at all. You're right I don't really think it falls into the punishment category all that well either, I do think it is a better match than saying it is negative reinforcement though.


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

OckhamzRazor said:


> I think this is another source of confusion for the OP... and many others no doubt. It's a perspective thing.. you absolutely should not think about it like punishing a delay. It should be rewarding a quicker result.
> 
> Also, pretend it's your very first attempt at teaching sit. You're holding a treat and you say "Sit!" Dog doesn't know what the hell you're talking about and maybe barks. You do not give the treat. THIS IS NOT PUNISHMENT. Your example of not giving a treat for a slow sit is not punishment. You just haven't rewarded the behavior that you're looking for yet just like if your dog barked instead of sat. If it was punishment your dog would be in a constant state of punishment except for the few minutes combined that they're being presented with a treat.
> 
> You keep saying sit, still holding the treat until he finally sits (random tries until he gets lucky) and then you shower praise and treats to reinforce behavior to command. Eventually you want a really fast sit. You're essentially just starting over again at square one teaching a new command. Not giving a treat immediately when he tries slow sit first is not punishment, just lack of reinforcement so far until he does what you're looking for.


This I definitely agree with.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> But see, I don't think you have to classify it as anything except the dog learning to work harder for reinforcement (and changing up the schedule of reinforcement to help that happen) If I am trying to work a Rubiks cube and keep getting colors I don't want in certain places, I'm not being punished, I'm learning to work through the problem through trial and error. I think looking at behavior in terms of operant conditioning is generally useful, as it breaks down how what we are doing works and why it works (if it works). But if we overanalyze it to the point where every step of the process needs to fall in a different quadrant, I think it becomes a "how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin" type exercise. I suppose some people like discussing that, but then it becomes more about theory than actual process and at a certain point becomes distracting and not useful.



I disagree that it no longer becomes useful.

The more I can break down my process, what it is, and how he (Wally) responds, the faster I can refine my own process, better interpret his reactions, and see what he reacts to better/worse and how to tweak it.

If I just lump it together as "rewarding the last thing", I'm ignoring the rest of the process. For me, that's not effective. Knowing why things work and why he's doing whatever is as important as "the final thing".

Much of the progress Wally and I have made in building our mutual communication has been because of breaking down each piece of the process, so I can better reach him.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KBLover said:


> I disagree that it no longer becomes useful.
> 
> The more I can break down my process, what it is, and how he (Wally) responds, the faster I can refine my own process, better interpret his reactions, and see what he reacts to better/worse and how to tweak it.
> 
> ...


Well, if that is what works for you it is what works for you. Because my dogs know the clicker game, the space between clicks is neither negative reinforcement or negative punishment. Since I can't take the clicker in the obedience ring, the rally ring or the freestyle ring, I'd be in deep trouble if it were. It's been my experience watching many dogs work through the process that if it actually gets to the point of being negative punishment or negative reinforcement, you probably have set your criteria too high.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, if that is what works for you it is what works for you. Because my dogs know the clicker game, the space between clicks is neither negative reinforcement or negative punishment. Since I can't take the clicker in the obedience ring, the rally ring or the freestyle ring, I'd be in deep trouble if it were. It's been my experience watching many dogs work through the process that if it actually gets to the point of being negative punishment or negative reinforcement, you probably have set your criteria too high.


Wally knows clickers/shaping/marers, but I'm talking more about my own refining the process as well as using stuff like this to further give more specific feedback and better"explanations" to him of the tasks. 

If the criteria is just set too high and he's become anxious/nervous, then positive reinforcement isn't too effective at that point either. So my understanding of things like this, often through discussions of this nature, becomes practical because it improves my ability to communicate and feedback him. 

As far as I know, it could be, to him, a similar feeling/thinking to him as when I do apply "real" negative punishment, so I don't dismiss the possibility, and since I do want to eep my shaping with him as rewarding as possible, I want to ensure I'm using as little of these other aspects that can push him into the nervous/anxious aspect.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

What is an "adversive" anyway, is it with holding something FROM the dog that he wants (food, toy, another ball throw etc). Example, im playing ball with Izze & she brings it back but not straight to me (meaning I wil have to walk to get it, which is not what I want. Im lazy... I want it dropped at my feet lol) so I tell her to bring ir closer, she takes it & starts chewing on it, so I turn & start walking away, so she brings it to me, BC she knows that I will end the game... & The fun if she doesn't lol.

So... Is this adversive?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> What is an "adversive" anyway, is it with holding something FROM the dog that he wants (food, toy, another ball throw etc). Example, im playing ball with Izze & she brings it back but not straight to me (meaning I wil have to walk to get it, which is not what I want. Im lazy... I want it dropped at my feet lol) so I tell her to bring ir closer, she takes it & starts chewing on it, so I turn & start walking away, so she brings it to me, BC she knows that I will end the game... & The fun if she doesn't lol.
> 
> So... Is this adversive?


I'm not sure what an adversive is either. An aversive is something the dog finds worth avoiding. What you describe would not be something worth avoiding. Instead you would be taking away the opportunity to continue the game in order to make keep-away less likely. That is called "Negative Punishment" Aversives are used in positive punishment and negative reinforcement.

Positive = add something
Negative = remove something
Reinforcement makes behavior likely to occur with greater frequency/intensity
Punishment makes behavior likely to occur with less frequency/intensity

You are taking away the fun (negative) to make dropping the ball away from you less likely (punishment)
and then you are adding the opportunity to play some more (positive) for bringing the ball to you (reinforcement) 

so, what you describe is an examply of negative punishment and positive reinforcement with no aversive. Clear as mud?


----------



## Lamora (Aug 16, 2011)

My question is: How do I do this with her favorite toy? she isnt all that "food" motivated. 

Just when should i with-hold her toy? and when should i give it to her? If she sits, but it isnt to my satifaction, i make her stay till i throw her toy, and hope that the next sit will be better. Probim is, she knows that sooner or later she will get her toy, no matter how long she takes to sit. I know im doing something wrong, just not sure WHAT!

anyway-- any ideas on this would be great!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Lamora said:


> My question is: How do I do this with her favorite toy? she isnt all that "food" motivated.
> 
> Just when should i with-hold her toy? and when should i give it to her? If she sits, but it isnt to my satifaction, i make her stay till i throw her toy, and hope that the next sit will be better. Probim is, she knows that sooner or later she will get her toy, no matter how long she takes to sit. I know im doing something wrong, just not sure WHAT!
> 
> anyway-- any ideas on this would be great!


You would not throw the toy until she sits to your satisfaction. When she sits you mark the behavior (word/click) and toss the toy. No sit, no toss. But be sure she understands what a sit to your satisfaction looks like. You can't expect the dog to do better than what she knows how to do, so you have to teach her what you want. I love working with a flirt pole/toy on a lunge whip. That way you can get the toy back quickly for another toss. Do not toss the toy until you have the sit. Toss the toy immediately after the sit. I don't understand how what you have been doing would be understandable to the dog. Reinforcement should be immediate.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Mine isn't food motivated either lol (Izze I mean) she will spit food out when in working mode, so I use the work AS the reward... Weird I know but it works for us.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Mine isn't food motivated either lol (Izze I mean) she will spit food out when in working mode, so I use the work AS the reward... Weird I know but it works for us.


Haha, it must be an ACD thing, Lady's reward is just to obey, she waits for me to give her another command that she can obey, its so weird, I have tried "cookie pushing" but she spits them out too!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Mine isn't food motivated either lol (Izze I mean) she will spit food out when in working mode, so I use the work AS the reward... Weird I know but it works for us.


Nothing weird about it. Most dogs have more than one reinforcer. And some reinforcers work better in some situations, some in others. Knowing what your dog will work for is important. In most situations Alice is all about the cookie, but she'd think I was insane if I called her away from the stock to give her a treat. In that situation food wouldn't work as reinforcement.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

Wow, so many good replies in here 

I have spent a lot of time thinking about it the last couple of days, and I also asked my instructor for the dog training course I am doing. He's a compulsion trainer, and he said:



> By definition it cannot be an R- in the context you have described above as R- is the removal of an aversive stimulus in order to strengthen the behaviour but you have withheld the expected reward, not removed an unwanted or aversive stimulus. By denying the expected reward you are in fact trying to strengthen a behaviour.


That is taken out of context, so he's actually disagreeing with me, but at the same time saying exactly what I was saying. Which is that withholding an expected reward is a mild aversive that the dog will work to avoid, and thus the behaviour is strengthened.

It's the end result that determines whether you used a punisher or reinforcer, and by definition, anything that makes a behaviour stronger is a reinforcer. So if I withhold an expected reward and as a direct result the dog offers a stronger behaviour, withholding must be a reinforcer, and the withholding is what goes away when the dog offers the stronger behaviour.

I stand by that, because the more I think about it the more sense it makes.

However, I have changed my mind about withholding for a slow crooked sit being an R-. I agree that in that situation it's a P-. The difference is that in shaping the dog has no idea what he's supposed to be doing, but when asked to sit the dog knows he's supposed to sit, and just didn't do it to the standard expected of him.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

This thread should be a sticky! .

Izze isn't food motivated about anything after simple obedience commands but anything beyond that & she will spit them out or outright not take them. I swear everything she does she takes very seriously, she is very drivy-job-y.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

lil_fuzzy said:


> Wow, so many good replies in here
> 
> That is taken out of context, so he's actually disagreeing with me, but at the same time saying exactly what I was saying. Which is that withholding an expected reward is a mild aversive that the dog will work to avoid, and thus the behaviour is strengthened.
> 
> ...


So you are basically saying that what you are adding to the situation (so you can then remove it) is actually withholding something? (my head swims, and I still think you are over-thinking it. All you are doing is using a differential schedule.)


----------



## armatis68 (Aug 20, 2011)

Positive reinforcement is equivalent to reward.
Punishment is just punishment. 
Negative reinforcement occurs when a behavior results in the elimination of a negative feeling. For example, if your dog hates being outside, letting him inside for some particular behavior (let's say sitting quietly) would be negative reinforcement. Allowing him to be inside is not a reward since the dog is regularly inside the house, and thus, is transitioning from an unfavorable situation to a _normal situation_. So I guess you can say that it's a return to normality, whereas a reward is an instance of heightened sensation precipitated by a desirable behavior.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

armatis68 said:


> Positive reinforcement is equivalent to reward.
> Punishment is just punishment.
> Negative reinforcement occurs when a behavior results in the elimination of a negative feeling. For example, if your dog hates being outside, letting him inside for some particular behavior (let's say sitting quietly) would be negative reinforcement. Allowing him to be inside is not a reward since the dog is regularly inside the house, and thus, is transitioning from an unfavorable situation to a _normal situation_. So I guess you can say that it's a return to normality, whereas a reward is an instance of heightened sensation precipitated by a desirable behavior.


Well, since my dog regularly gets to eat, and dinner is a normal situation, I guess that means I can't use food for reinforcement either?


----------



## armatis68 (Aug 20, 2011)

I would argue that dinner is not a normal situation since it induces a heightened response in the dog. Food is one of the oldest rewards in nature. Just like sex, which triggers which triggers dopamine (neurotransmitter responsible for pleasure). Regularity, I would define as lack of induced stimulation.


----------



## OckhamzRazor (Aug 11, 2011)

> So you are basically saying that what you are adding to the situation (so you can then remove it) is actually withholding something? (my head swims, and I still think you are over-thinking it. All you are doing is using a differential schedule.)


 I agree with pawzk9 here again too. There's still something not quite right with that line of thought.

Think about it this way, any type of conditioning (P+-, R+-) must be actively applied to the situation _after the behavior. _ So just standing there not giving a treat while waiting for a stronger sit/head turn is no type of conditioning at all because it is simply a lack of action. If there was a slow turn and you yelled, that's punishment. If there was a fast turn and you gave a treat that's R+, and if there's a fast turn and you take off the gentle leader that they hate so much that's R-. Either way you're doing *something* and it's after the fact.



> So if I withhold an expected reward and as a direct result the dog offers a stronger behaviour, withholding must be a reinforcer, and the withholding is what goes away when the dog offers the stronger behaviour.


Not giving a reward cannot possibly be reinforcement imho. It's actually just nothing until you perform some type of action upon the situation.


----------



## OckhamzRazor (Aug 11, 2011)

> It's the end result that determines whether you used a punisher or reinforcer, and by definition, anything that makes a behaviour stronger is a reinforcer.


This again is the crux of the misunderstanding i think. All types of conditioning shape behavior. So even punishment can *look* like it's reinforcing a behavior, when in fact is not actually. (very subtle, but definitely different)

For example you have 5 different doors. You want dog to go through door #2. Dog initially tries door #1 simply because it's closest (best random guess). You punish the dog afterward because it didn't do the desired result. So it knows NOT to do that, but still doesn't really know what you want him to do. So it again guesses door #2 and since that's what you wanted, you think that punishment has reinforced your desired behaviour. Also, you don't punish this time and again think that the lack of action has reinforced something.

All the while the dog still doesn't really understand (would you?) and ends up not being able to apply that to other like situations etc. This is why punishment is almost always a much less effective training method. You're not actually telling them what you want done, you're just telling them what you don't want done, one at a time. And since there are usually many options, it's can take a long time for the dog to stumble onto what you actually want.

Sometimes it happens quickly by luck and then people think (incorrectly) that they reinforced a behaviour.



> It's the end result that determines whether you used a punisher or reinforcer, and by definition, anything that makes a behaviour stronger is a reinforcer.


If I wanted you to row the boat faster I could scream "Row faster you maggot!" and then whip you on the back, and I bet you'd give me a stonger behavior but it's definitely not reinforcement.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

OckhamzRazor said:


> This again is the crux of the misunderstanding i think. All types of conditioning shape behavior. So even punishment can *look* like it's reinforcing a behavior, when in fact is not actually. (very subtle, but definitely different)
> 
> For example you have 5 different doors. You want dog to go through door #2. Dog initially tries door #1 simply because it's closest (best random guess). You punish the dog afterward because it didn't do the desired result. So it knows NOT to do that, but still doesn't really know what you want him to do. So it again guesses door #2 and since that's what you wanted, you think that punishment has reinforced your desired behaviour. Also, you don't punish this time and again think that the lack of action has reinforced something.
> 
> ...


I like your posts, and the way you think - but on the last statement, if you quit whipping me when I rowed faster it would be negative reinforcement.


----------



## HerdersForMe (Jul 26, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> I like your posts, and the way you think - but on the last statement, if you quit whipping me when I rowed faster it would be negative reinforcement.


What if you enjoy being whipped?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Pawzk9 said:


> I like your posts, and the way you think - but on the last statement, if you quit whipping me when I rowed faster it would be negative reinforcement.


+1 and...



HerdersForMe said:


> What if you enjoy being whipped?


If the punisher is whipping for lack of effort, and you enjoy being whipped, what kind of effort are you going to give? For you, lack of effort would be positively reinforced...at least until the whipper finds an alternate punisher to change the order of your behavior. 

That, and, keep your hobbies at home!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

HerdersForMe said:


> What if you enjoy being whipped?


Then you'd have to find something I found worth avoiding! LOL


----------



## OckhamzRazor (Aug 11, 2011)

> I like your posts, and the way you think - but on the last statement, if you quit whipping me when I rowed faster it would be negative reinforcement.


Ahhhh, good call. That's what I get for trying to be cute 



> If the punisher is whipping for lack of effort, and you enjoy being whipped, what kind of effort are you going to give? For you, lack of effort would be positively reinforced...at least until the whipper finds an alternate punisher to change the order of your behavior.


Also, is it just me or does this sound like something Captain Jack Sparrow would say! =p


----------



## katielou (Apr 29, 2010)

Can i just say how much i love this thread!

Nothing constructive to add most has already been said but this feels like the true spirit of this forum returning!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

OckhamzRazor said:


> Ahhhh, good call. That's what I get for trying to be cute
> 
> 
> Also, is it just me or does this sound like something Captain Jack Sparrow would say! =p


Too funny! I can visualize him saying that!


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

R+, R-, P+, P- are all parts of a whole. they are categories of reactions stimuli. Often individual learning experiences fall into more than one category.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

So can a schedule of reinforcement ever be part of a quadrant?


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

First, I think we all agree that there are some amazing trainers out there, for example: "Bob Bailey's Fundamentals of Animal Training." But, I agree dog trainers don't get it right... because no one agrees on the theory of dog training. The theorists are reviewing the original assumptions, because of dogs like Chaser the border collie that knows 1000 words. And, one reason for this review is because there was no money to research how dogs learn, until fairly recently, so everyone assumed that OP was the answer.... even though most dog owners observe that their dogs are thinking and problem solving animals.

So, another psychology to consider, typified in educational psychology is Cognitive Psychology, which is the basis for how our kids are taught in school. Behaviorism works, no doubt, even on people. But Cognitive Psychology may be the foundation for the next theory of dog training. So, when you see a dog generalize the concept of Left and Right, or use his ability to count up to five, consider that he may be thinking, when you use behaviorist methods ;-)


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

HerdersForMe said:


> What if you enjoy being whipped?


Then it's +R

Operant conditioning's #1 rule - it all depends on the operant's perspective. The trainer's job is to apply things to the operant that effectively uses that perspective.

That's why I try to look at everything from Wally's perspective. Mine is irrelevant. I'm not the operant.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> So can a schedule of reinforcement ever be part of a quadrant?


I consider it the application of a quadrant, often +R (sometimes you get the reward, sometimes you don't).

I know you hate the way I think, but I think what happens between those +R events is where it gets interesting.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

hanksimon said:


> So, another psychology to consider, typified in educational psychology is Cognitive Psychology, which is the basis for how our kids are taught in school. Behaviorism works, no doubt, even on people. But Cognitive Psychology may be the foundation for the next theory of dog training. So, when you see a dog generalize the concept of Left and Right, or use his ability to count up to five, consider that he may be thinking, when you use behaviorist methods ;-)


I'm always trying to understand how Wally is thinking and why he makes his decisions, not just applying feedback. I figure if I can tap into what he's thinking, and frame the task/steps more in line with the way his brain is interpreting the situation, the faster I can get things moving in the right direction.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KBLover said:


> I consider it the application of a quadrant, often +R (sometimes you get the reward, sometimes you don't).
> 
> I know you hate the way I think, but I think what happens between those +R events is where it gets interesting.


Umn. NO. I don't "hate" the way you think. Sometimes I agree with it, sometimes I don't. But I never hate a good conversation on learning theory, and often enjoy your personal insights. In this instance I'd tend to agree with you. And I think the quadrant being applied in what we are discussing is positive reinforcement, but not always on a fixed schedule. What happens is certainly interesting, but doesn't require a different quadrant to describe what is happening.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

hanksimon said:


> First, I think we all agree that there are some amazing trainers out there, for example: "Bob Bailey's Fundamentals of Animal Training." But, I agree dog trainers don't get it right... because no one agrees on the theory of dog training. The theorists are reviewing the original assumptions, because of dogs like Chaser the border collie that knows 1000 words. And, one reason for this review is because there was no money to research how dogs learn, until fairly recently, so everyone assumed that OP was the answer.... even though most dog owners observe that their dogs are thinking and problem solving animals.
> 
> So, another psychology to consider, typified in educational psychology is Cognitive Psychology, which is the basis for how our kids are taught in school. Behaviorism works, no doubt, even on people. But Cognitive Psychology may be the foundation for the next theory of dog training. So, when you see a dog generalize the concept of Left and Right, or use his ability to count up to five, consider that he may be thinking, when you use behaviorist methods ;-)


I always sort of figured the dogs are thinking quite a lot when I use operant conditioning. Their problem solving ability is quite amazing. Most of the stock dogs I've known over the years have the concept of left and right (or clockwise/counterclockwise) and I though Ken Ramirez's presentation on teaching dogs things such as bigger/smaller was pretty interesting. I'm not a pure scientist, but I've never considered shaping to be simply input/output but a creative dance of communication and intelligent choices. (Probably heresy, I know)


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

I think we use behaviorism because it works and because it was the easiest way available to us for communicating. I watch my dog 'think' and I encourage his independence ... but only from the perspective of a pet dog trainer. I imagine that working dog trainers - herders and some hunting dogs trainers use Cognitive methods, whether or not they care about the theory. I believe that SAR trainers and modern mlitary/police dog trainers must use cognitive methods to encourage independent, decision making.... Eventually the theorists will get funding to apply lessons from the classroom to observations and practice in the field.... and it'll trickle down to the pet owners.... I do use (observation of) Calming Signals to help fine tune training in my classes.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

hanksimon said:


> I think we use behaviorism because it works and because it was the easiest way available to us for communicating. I watch my dog 'think' and I encourage his independence ... but only from the perspective of a pet dog trainer. I imagine that working dog trainers - herders and some hunting dogs trainers use Cognitive methods, whether or not they care about the theory. I believe that SAR trainers and modern mlitary/police dog trainers must use cognitive methods to encourage independent, decision making.... Eventually the theorists will get funding to apply lessons from the classroom to observations and practice in the field.... and it'll trickle down to the pet owners.... I do use (observation of) Calming Signals to help fine tune training in my classes.



That's too bad it has to "trickle down" to us "just pet owners" because using just one system or theory is limiting and is missing data and possible applications. 

Behaviorism can't get me to get Wally to make the right decision in the first place, or help me learn more about how he thinks so the next task can be a much easier thing to grasp. It can, eventually, get him to understand the task, but I might be making it harder on him because nothing in operant conditioning shows me how/why he thought the wrong thing was right in his mind. 

If I knew why he thought the blue dog was a match to the white polar bear, maybe I can gain insight on teaching him object matching. Or if I could understand why he can find Dora on sight (i.e. sound off and of course he can't smell her) on TV, why can't he do it with a Dora image printed on a 4x6 card? 

Nothing in behaviorism gives me those answers, yet those answers could jumpstart our progress, which is why I'm interested. It could show insight to how his concepts are formed. When presented with a new task and new objects - what makes him try the first thing? When he has to "guess" the behavior I want during shaping games, what makes him pick the behavior he does first? Reward history? What if all are frequently rewarded? What makes him offer one behavior at an object first but not another? 

This is the stuff I want to get at, because to me, that would really be shaping his thought processes and getting an insight on how he learns and thinks giving me an even better way to set him up for success, instead of just thinking with my brain and my intentions, I'd be thinking with his and frame what I do accordingly.

Perhaps us "just pet owners" can utilize our own dogs and what they do to try to gain some insights. A collection of data can provide insight. Maybe patterns will emerge, things someone tries might have a different outcome with another dog, pointing to potential thought process differences, etc.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Same with horse training.... No one can agree there either. Its about one camp VS another really, not really about how dogs are effected by the training, weather or not they are traumatized or not BY the training, no method is bad, its the misunderstanding & ABUSE of methods that is the problem, IMHO not the method itself.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Same with horse training.... No one can agree there either. Its about one camp VS another really, not really about how dogs are effected by the training, weather or not they are traumatized or not BY the training, no method is bad, its the misunderstanding & ABUSE of methods that is the problem, IMHO not the method itself.


Some methods are better/clearer/more effective than others. (at least IMO)


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Excluding the crank & yank & other abusive methods of course, sorry forgot to mention that.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

@dogdragoness - I don't know horses, but I know lots of folks in the Metroplex will 'gentle' their horses, so it sounds lie there has been progress. Of course, maybe we should teach them math, like Clever Hans 

@KBLover - I'd like to see formal work on Calming Signals. In her workshops, Turid Rugaas is very careful about her observations, and was open-minded about different interpretations and observations. For example, I've observed that dogs seem to have different levels of tongue flick with different meanings. For example, put a dog in a sit-stay, then after a minute, look at him and tell him to sit, and he'll offer a small tongue-flick (because he doesn't understand what you want?)

From a Cognitive Psych. perspective, you teach a simple rule, then a more complex rule. With a dog, I'm not sure about matching, because we match visual shape, and they might first match similar smell, match, fell, or function. So, I imagine that first you teach what criteria 'match' means, so that first maybe teach that a blue dog only matches a blue dog, then any color of the same toy. With Dora, I imagine that she's moving on TV, but a picture is smaller and stationary.... besides, dogs need glasses . As far as shaping, I believe that dogs 'assign' emotional value to their behaviors -for example: Sit is OK/neutral, Down is not as fun, Speak may have some anxiety/excitement component. Your mileage will vary ... 

But I figured out that when I taught my dog to count by barking, I'd inadvertently made him a little frustrated to get him to bark, so he doesn't go a calm woof, woof, but a more excited bark bark. He will sit, but sometimes I think it is +P, because he has to stop doing something fun, and he doesn't like to rollover, b/c I think it hurts physically (pointed rather than flat back.)

However, I did unintentionally teach him a 'rule': "When I stop, especially if I look at him, then Sit." Not like a heel, but just a change. So if I go to a door and stop, he will sit. Or If I'm working at the computer, and he pesters me, if I stop, he will sit. But the point is that I can quickly teach him another cue - a new language, a new motion, a flashcard - and he'll learn to Sit from that cue, then I can phase out 'stopping.' Don't know if you can apply that to Wally, but I bet he has learned some general rules, also?


----------



## zsu2357 (Jun 27, 2009)

I'm going hit and miss on different threads here. Has anyone ever heard of something called "ThunderShirt"? supposed to keep your dog from barking at everything?
Kinda skeptical.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

hanksimon said:


> @KBLover - I'd like to see formal work on Calming Signals. In her workshops, Turid Rugaas is very careful about her observations, and was open-minded about different interpretations and observations. For example, I've observed that dogs seem to have different levels of tongue flick with different meanings. For example, put a dog in a sit-stay, then after a minute, look at him and tell him to sit, and he'll offer a small tongue-flick (because he doesn't understand what you want?)


Oh yeah, I'd love more on calming signals. Ever since I heard about them and started looking out for Wally using them, I definitely became enchanted by them. 

I've also noticed the differences in the same signal, like the tongue flick you mentioned. If I walk towards Wally, I'll get a quick one. If I look down at him while he's coming into finish position (like I stop while walking and look to see him get in position, he'll look up at me and yawn). 

Sometimes when he walks towards me, he'll do like head dipping. I look away and he charges at me. It's all so fascinating. It "helps" that Wally used to be very fearful and anxious - so he's often throwing "don't be mad!/please stay calm/that's making me nervous" type signals, giving me a chance to see a LOT of signals in action.

I've often wondered if signals "escalate". Is moving slowly a "stronger" signal than a look away? Why does Wally use a tongue flick so frequently? Is that something he's trying to tell me, or just a sign of his still somewhat insecure personality? 



hanksimon said:


> From a Cognitive Psych. perspective, you teach a simple rule, then a more complex rule. With a dog, I'm not sure about matching, because we match visual shape, and they might first match similar smell, match, fell, or function. So, I imagine that first you teach what criteria 'match' means, so that first maybe teach that a blue dog only matches a blue dog, then any color of the same toy. With Dora, I imagine that she's moving on TV, but a picture is smaller and stationary.... besides, dogs need glasses . As far as shaping, I believe that dogs 'assign' emotional value to their behaviors -for example: Sit is OK/neutral, Down is not as fun, Speak may have some anxiety/excitement component. Your mileage will vary ...


Heh yesh - I've been meaning to make bigger shapes to see if it matters for him. Maybe if I printed Dora on a whole sheet of paper (8" x 11") maybe then he'd see. I do try teaching the matching like you mentioned. Other than the obvious that I moved forward too fast, It does make me wonder...

With the shaping, he does bark during shaping, but it's usually lower down on the list, so often there might be a component of frustration, though sometimes highly excited as well. Usually when he lies down - he'll lie down first, then try to paw my foot (while lying down). 



hanksimon said:


> But I figured out that when I taught my dog to count by barking, I'd inadvertently made him a little frustrated to get him to bark, so he doesn't go a calm woof, woof, but a more excited bark bark. He will sit, but sometimes I think it is +P, because he has to stop doing something fun, and he doesn't like to rollover, b/c I think it hurts physically (pointed rather than flat back.)


Wally doesn't like to roll over either and it might be the same for him. His back is more "up-sloped" instead of flat as well. I haven't tried teaching him counting, but I did start with the reading. Right now, I'm introducing him to "Speak".  I don't know if he's getting it when he does this: He looks at the card and I say "Speak!" as soon as possible after, then he barks at me. I just wonder if he's actually looking at the card LOL so he can make the connection. I try to get him to bark _at the card_ and sometimes he does it. Either way, he gets a c/t. 

Of course, he wants to touch it first...I should have named one "Touch" then I could act like he knows how to read already LOL.




hanksimon said:


> However, I did unintentionally teach him a 'rule': "When I stop, especially if I look at him, then Sit." Not like a heel, but just a change. So if I go to a door and stop, he will sit. Or If I'm working at the computer, and he pesters me, if I stop, he will sit. But the point is that I can quickly teach him another cue - a new language, a new motion, a flashcard - and he'll learn to Sit from that cue, then I can phase out 'stopping.' Don't know if you can apply that to Wally, but I bet he has learned some general rules, also?



Yep, there's some of these rules. When I stop while walking, he has to get in finish position and sit. That's gotten generalized to a rule similar to what you describe, but when walking (even in the house - which is funny sometimes). The door one is a good example for Wally. I'm trying to get "open door = close it" as a rule too. 

Also trying to teach him locations around the outside of the house - like the porch or the gate. Also the mail boxes - guess that would fall under some rule-making too (landmarks/places have meanings).


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

zsu2357 said:


> I'm going hit and miss on different threads here. Has anyone ever heard of something called "ThunderShirt"? supposed to keep your dog from barking at everything?
> Kinda skeptical.


I've seen them have near miraculous results with some dogs in various situations. Some dogs they don't. Nice thing though. They are guaranteed. and if it doesn't work for your dog you can return it for a refund and they donate it to a rescue or shelter.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

hanksimon said:


> @dogdragoness - I don't know horses, but I know lots of folks in the Metroplex will 'gentle' their horses, so it sounds lie there has been progress. Of course, maybe we should teach them math, like Clever Hans
> 
> @KBLover - I'd like to see formal work on Calming Signals. In her workshops, Turid Rugaas is very careful about her observations, and was open-minded about different interpretations and observations. For example, I've observed that dogs seem to have different levels of tongue flick with different meanings. For example, put a dog in a sit-stay, then after a minute, look at him and tell him to sit, and he'll offer a small tongue-flick (because he doesn't understand what you want?)


I think gentling a horse is an old term, and is more about making a horse gentle than being gentle to the horse. There are some people bringing more humane methods to horse training, but a lot of the most popular methods aren't that far from Cesar Millan.

The thing about calming signals is that they can mean a number of things. At the workshop with Turid R that I attended, she had us do a little experiment - Lean over your dog. When I bent over Alice, she gave a tongue flick. Not because she was worried, but because it was social pressure. I don't agree with Brenda Aloff on everything, but one thing I do agree with is that a single signal is like a word. It means more if you take it in the context of a whole sentence. So, if a dog is offering a tongue flick, a whale eye, a tucked tail, tight lips, etc. that tells you more than looking at a single body part. 

As to cognitive psych and dogs. Interesting idea. Not exactly how it applies or how you measure it. I've found that using operant conditioning allows dogs to understand concepts, because it gives us a way to communicate concepts. I know Ken Ramirez has done considerable work on teaching dogs concepts like larger/smaller. And I'm pretty sure he did it with a clicker (presenation at Clicker Expo). Sometimes dogs do something totally outside what makes sense. Ray is a choreographer. In freestyle he frequently suggests ideas that make more sense in a routine than what I had planned. It's as if he understands the context. I'm not sure I understand how. But then I don't know everything about dogs. And recent research tends to indicated that there's a lot we can't explain about them.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Speaking of dogs thinking - was teaching a fun Treibball class today. Teaching little sheltie to go around an object and stop on the far side, facing owner. By the third rep, he was stopping and actually backing up into position if he came too far around.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Speaking of dogs thinking - was teaching a fun Treibball class today. Teaching little sheltie to go around an object and stop on the far side, facing owner. By the third rep, he was stopping and actually backing up into position if he came too far around.


That's awesome!

I need to get back into teaching this...*sigh* too many things to work on.

I need someone to make a training schedule for me LOL.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> I think gentling a horse is an old term, and is more about making a horse gentle than being gentle to the horse. There are some people bringing more humane methods to horse training, but a lot of the most popular methods aren't that far from Cesar Millan.


I think horse training is really fascinating, especially compared to dog training. 

A lot of it seems to be based on pressure/release (P+/R-) and sensitization and desensitization. Like, to teach a horse to be led by a halter, you put forward pressure on the lead rope until the horse gives into the pressure, and then you stop to reward the give in to pressure. And you repeat, until the horse goes forward with the slightest pressure. That's sensitizing to the pressure of the lead rope. Or putting a saddle blanket on the horse until he stops reacting to it, then you remove it to reward the stopped reaction. That's desensitization. 

I don't know a ton about horse training, so I've probably done a terrible job of explaining it, and since I lack an actual horse to experiment with that's a project that's rather on hold for the moment. Clicker training doesn't really seem to have taken off with horses, not the way it has with dogs. 

I suspect it has a lot to do with the horse being a prey animal instead of a predator.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

RaeganW said:


> I think horse training is really fascinating, especially compared to dog training.
> 
> A lot of it seems to be based on pressure/release (P+/R-) and sensitization and desensitization. Like, to teach a horse to be led by a halter, you put forward pressure on the lead rope until the horse gives into the pressure, and then you stop to reward the give in to pressure. And you repeat, until the horse goes forward with the slightest pressure. That's sensitizing to the pressure of the lead rope. Or putting a saddle blanket on the horse until he stops reacting to it, then you remove it to reward the stopped reaction. That's desensitization.
> 
> ...


I suspect your last sentence there is key. I don't know a lot about training horses (rode a bit as a child) and know that there are people doing some wonderful things with clicker training and horses. (this is kind of cool- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynPDdlnWFWw) I have a friend who is a positive dog trainer and also a horsewoman. I was asking her why if people can manage zoo animals with clicker training, why people still use so much R- with horses. Her response was that you are not trying to ride zoo animals. Good point. However, I still hear so many people making excuses for why you can't get reliable behavior from dogs with a clicker. And I know that's superstition. People tend to do the things they know how to do.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

You mean this natural horsemanship revolution? Its actually a new take on the way the native Americans used to break their horses... Everyone just put their own spin (& name) to it.

My fave is Clinton Anderson, I like how easy hr makes his methods to understand, anyone could watch his DVD or show, follow the steps & get results. Chris Cox is also another good one but he isn't as food of a teacher as Clinton IMHO.

Dont care for Pat Parelli tho, his methods are a little... Too close for comfort, they involve too much closeness with the horse, I like a method with distance IMO, distance = respect both of you & your space, & a horse is too big of an animal to not have respect of spaces.

Back to dogs... Lol, sorry for rambling... I have a nack for that . I want to teach Josefina to retrieve but she doesn't seem to understand the consept... Can anyone help me?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> . I want to teach Josefina to retrieve but she doesn't seem to understand the consept... Can anyone help me?


Teach her to target. When she expects to get clicked for bopping with her nose, wait and see if she'll make it bigger (use her teeth) and then click for that.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

http://www.shirleychong.com/keepers/retrieve.html


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

She knows touch & "take it" but when i can't get her to take it when i toss it away from her, she will run after it but she just looks at me with this excited... Blank stare when i attempt this .

Also, i know she will love Frisbee & such, any suggestions on that? Lol


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> She knows touch & "take it" but when i can't get her to take it when i toss it away from her, she will run after it but she just looks at me with this excited... Blank stare when i attempt this .
> 
> Also, i know she will love Frisbee & such, any suggestions on that? Lol


Perhaps you need to add distance in smaller increments.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

dogdragoness said:


> She knows touch & "take it" but when i can't get her to take it when i toss it away from her, she will run after it but she just looks at me with this excited... Blank stare when i attempt this .
> 
> Also, i know she will love Frisbee & such, any suggestions on that? Lol


Will she pick it up from the floor between your feet and hand it to you?


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

RaeganW said:


> Will she pick it up from the floor between your feet and hand it to you?


No lol, that's the obstacle we are trying to over come . She knows get it, take it, drop, touch etc... But I can't seem to get her to make the connection


----------

