# Half check round collar not permitted...



## cerigitts (Dec 11, 2012)

Well today the forms came back to register Kaiser for training classes, my parents have said on the forms that i'm not permitted to use a half check round leather collar ? and it says something about a flat lead too ?

No I use a half check collar so it's easier to put onto Kaiser, I never leave the collar on him in the house, only when doing lead work. The collar itself is 10" but will widen to 14" due to the half check chained portion, Kaiser's neck is 9", so even when the chain section is pulled in there's still room around his neck.

I don't understand why this collar can't be used ? it doesn't choke him, it fits perfectly, and whats the purpose of a flat lead rather than the round nylon rope one I have ?


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

I would assume because "half check" collars were designed originally for the use of 'checks', corrections. These are aversives and not in the ethos of positive dog training which may well be why your training club does not allow them.
I personally don't mind half checks so long as they are worn like a Martingale so that the check/chain bit is surplus and no physical corrections are used. Although I personally prefer using flat collars and harnesses for walking. But that's just me


----------



## cerigitts (Dec 11, 2012)

I've never used it to "check him though" plus once the half check is closed up it's the same fitting as a normal collar, but with his coat a flat collar is a right nuisance ! 

I'm going down the vets today & they organize the training, i'll show them the lead & collar I have and ask them if it's ok... just don't want to be wasting money on a collar if I don't have too.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

I use a half check because they can be fitted in a way that they're not too tight but will tighten enough that they're not likely to be slipped in a moment of excitement or panic. I have it a bit tighter than I'd have a normal collar when the chain bit is closed up but not tight enough to choke. It's never used to give a correction.

I can't see any reason for needing a flat leash though. Are you sure they don't just mean no chain leashes or flexis? That was the rule at the class I used to go to but they said a regular, flat leash.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

You can get a cheap collar if that's what they require. You can get them at the pound shop.


----------



## cerigitts (Dec 11, 2012)

I'll have a read when I get home now, something probably got lost in translation talking to my parents ! I know they said flexi's can't be used, I don't like them anyway !

Flat collars are horrible on him, his coat is heavy around his neck, so need a round leather collar, I have seen them without the half check, but i'll see what they say now when I take him down the vets.


----------



## BoredomBusters (Dec 8, 2011)

I don't like half checks in my classes either, but if someone insisted they didn't want to buy a second collar (which I'm not sure why about as if one needs a wash you've got a spare...) I'd agree as long as the lead was clipped to a static part, not the chain, and it couldn't slip off over the head if the dog reversed.

Probably by flat lead they mean not a chain or flexi lead, it's hard to know what to call them. I have an induction session so we go over all that before the dogs arrive.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

cerigitts said:


> Well today the forms came back to register Kaiser for training classes, my parents have said on the forms that i'm not permitted to use a half check round leather collar ? and it says something about a flat lead too ?
> 
> No I use a half check collar so it's easier to put onto Kaiser, I never leave the collar on him in the house, only when doing lead work. The collar itself is 10" but will widen to 14" due to the half check chained portion, Kaiser's neck is 9", so even when the chain section is pulled in there's still room around his neck.
> 
> I don't understand why this collar can't be used ? it doesn't choke him, it fits perfectly, and whats the purpose of a flat lead rather than the round nylon rope one I have ?


I used to have a samoyed and usually the reccomendations for those were a rolled leather collar so that it doesnt damage the ruff, as Kesshonds have a very similar coat and ruff one of those may be better for him perhaps?

Not necessarilly from here as you can get them from loads of places.
Rolled Leather Dog Collars | Equus Leather


----------



## sharloid (Apr 15, 2012)

BoredomBusters said:


> I don't like half checks in my classes eithe


Can I ask what your reason for not liking half checks is? 

When Broder went he wore a half check and Kindra wears a semi slip.


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

No half checks in our training school either  We use a collar and harness with a double ended training lead


----------



## Jenny Olley (Nov 2, 2007)

I take classes too and ask for no half checks, check chains, chain leads, flexi leads, slip leads, most people comply. 
If you want to stick to using your current equipment you may have to look elsewhere for classes.


----------



## Born to Boogie (Oct 1, 2010)

You could try an Alaskan Semi Slip collar. 
Make sure it's made from padded, soft material. Although it looks flat, it "rolls" into the fur it won't damage the coat, and is very gentle on the neck. Don't go for any ribbon decoration, keep it as soft and flexible as possible.
It's so hard to fit a buckle collar, correctly, on a dense coat. The danger is, Kaiser will be able to back out of it. The Alaskan is much more secure. If you explain your dilemma, with a secure fit, your trainer will hopefully be understanding
They're available on e bay and I've bought them from Indi-dog, on here.
As for the lead, I use the double ended training lead, in the same soft material.


----------



## BoredomBusters (Dec 8, 2011)

sharloid said:


> Can I ask what your reason for not liking half checks is?


Because I want people to avoid the temptation to 'check' the dog, if they're fitted loose I've seen dogs get paws stuck in them, and also I've seen dogs reverse out of them because owners leave them loose enough to slip over the head. Possibly all of those things would never happen, but it's just easier not to use them.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

cerigitts said:


> I've never used it to "check him though" plus once the half check is closed up it's the same fitting as a normal collar, but with his coat a flat collar is a right nuisance !
> 
> I'm going down the vets today & they organize the training, i'll show them the lead & collar I have and ask them if it's ok... just don't want to be wasting money on a collar if I don't have too.


I think the point is that they have to have the same rule for everyone. If they allow you to use your half check collar, they have to allow someone else who may not use it sensibly.

Mine wear half check collars for the simple reason that it was all I could get to fit them and it doesn't affect their fur, but they come off in the house. I don't want them getting caught on anything and I don't want them matting up their fur.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> These are aversives and not in the ethos of positive dog training which may well be why your training club does not allow them.


Aversives, 'ethos'? aversive learning is an inherent, crucial part of operant learning theory, operant theory is the supplement to Darwins evolution of the species, operant is the learning theory of the survival of the individual. The learning process of aversives is that they condition negative reinforced behaviour!

(1) In 1938 Skinner wrote humans learn through intellect, animals through their environment! (1) ref behaviour of organisms 1938.

Cant comment on the class but heres a live video clips of Skinners learned negative reinforced behaviour, reinforcers are misleadingly called "reward", the behaviours are all 'avoidance' behaviours. Two species plus hidden prey sometimes, the hidden prey behaviour is also negative reinforced behaviour, the prey are responding to the aversive dog.

B F Skinner - Negative Reinforced Behaviours




.


----------



## cerigitts (Dec 11, 2012)

Sled dog hotel said:


> I used to have a samoyed and usually the reccomendations for those were a rolled leather collar so that it doesnt damage the ruff, as Kesshonds have a very similar coat and ruff one of those may be better for him perhaps?
> 
> Not necessarilly from here as you can get them from loads of places.
> Rolled Leather Dog Collars | Equus Leather


In that link you sent I've already got the half check round leather collar, purely because it allows me to easily slip it off his neck, he's never got it on unless we are going for a walk.

The leather section fits his neck perfectly, it's a 10" diameter with an extra 4" allowed by the chain, his neck measures 9", so it never chokes him, and I could "check" him the same way with a normal fitting flat collar.

Anyway, I had a hunt & found an old flat type one with quick buckle that I had here that I can use just for the classes.


----------



## Dober (Jan 2, 2012)

Mine generally wear half checks, I prefer them because I have had buckles (metal and plastic) come undone before, and one of my dogs is a Houdini for slipping out of flat collars! Neither of mine pull when walking though.

No class I've ever been to has had an issue with it, and I go to positive training classes. If you explain why you use it, they might be ok. Worth asking.


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

SleepyBones said:


> Aversives, 'ethos'? aversive learning is an inherent, crucial part of operant learning theory, operant theory is the supplement to Darwins evolution of the species, operant is the learning theory of the survival of the individual. The learning process of aversives is that they condition negative reinforced behaviour!
> 
> (1) In 1938 Skinner wrote humans learn through intellect, animals through their environment! (1) ref behaviour of organisms 1938.
> 
> ...


I am fully aware of the details of Learning Theory. 
Yes both positive punishment and negative reinforcement work. The problem is the risk of "fall out"/undesirable side effects due to the use of such methods is not worth it for me. Namely the risk of the aversive stimuli (whether this is the deliverance or withdrawal of it) being associated with the presence of the handler rather than the behaviour. 
For someone who has excellent timing and weighed up the risks and benefits (absolutely ensured that all force-free, non-punitive routes have been exhausted, considered whether management/avoidance of triggers to avoid rehearsal is suitable and taken precautions to ensure that it will not be associated with the handler and cause the least amount of distress to the animal) then fair enough I suppose.

I shall be sticking to positive reinforcement, negative punishment, management and DS and CC when training my own and others' dogs because I want them to have a good relationship with me as their handler that is based on trust and not conflicted due to the use of aversive stimuli for the sake of a quick and easy solution.

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should!


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2013)

I tend to think people should be allowed - within reason - to use whatever tools and methods they choose. However, I also feel those choices should be educated ones. I'd simply ask the instructor. There may be a very good reason they're not allowed that you might not have considered, or the instructor may be happy to accommodate you based on your individual needs. You'll never know though unless you ask 


@Lemmsy, I suggest just ignore sleepybones. All he does is troll the forum for opportunities to post videos of his dog, who while quite lovely, is seriously lacking in the training and manners department. 
Nor does he seem to fully comprehend exactly how learning theory works, how the quadrants relate to each other, or how other non-cognitive processes work in tandem with cognitive ones, like emotions, drives, and instincts.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> Aversives, ethos? aversive learning is an inherent, crucial part of operant learning theory, operant theory is the supplement to Darwins evolution of the species, operant is the learning theory of the survival of the individual. The learning process of aversives is that they condition negative reinforced behaviour!
> 
> (1) In 1938 Skinner wrote humans learn through intellect, animals through their environment! (1) ref behaviour of organisms 1938.
> 
> ...


Here we go more APDT bashing as usual, good try there Dennis to sneak some in under the radar, especially as they are always made by yourself.


----------



## BoredomBusters (Dec 8, 2011)

Dober said:


> No class I've ever been to has had an issue with it, and I go to positive training classes..


 I knew 'positive' training was a myth.  Unless you mean positive punishment of course? The reason you have a collar on your dog may well be benign, but it's designed for positive punishment, so I can't see why any trainer who claims to be 'psotive reinforcement' would want one in their class.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

BoredomBusters said:


> I knew 'positive' training was a myth.  Unless you mean positive punishment of course? The reason you have a collar on your dog may well be benign, but it's designed for positive punishment, so I can't see why any trainer who claims to be 'psotive reinforcement' would want one in their class.


Not sure why not if it's not_ used_ for punishment; Kilo wears a half check in class, I just had to demonstrate that it wasn't small enough to be used to choke / check him. That said, if a trainer did tell me that one wasn't allowed in their class I'd put a flat collar on him for that class.


----------



## BoredomBusters (Dec 8, 2011)

Dogless said:


> Not sure why not if it's not_ used_ for punishment; Kilo wears a half check in class, I just had to demonstrate that it wasn't small enough to be used to choke / check him. That said, if a trainer did tell me that one wasn't allowed in their class I'd put a flat collar on him for that class.


well would they allow you to put a shock or spray collar on, if it wasn't used? If not why not? I can't see it's any different.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

BoredomBusters said:


> well would they allow you to put a shock or spray collar on, if it wasn't used? If not why not? I can't see it's any different.


I see it as very different; I justify my use of a half check style collar as Kilo can slip flat collars fairly readily unless they are adjusted tightly and high up on his neck at all times as he has a very broad neck that tapers up to an, in comparison, fairly small head. I see using a style of collar that can be worn comfortably and gives a little more safety to the dog as a positive thing. I see no reason of benefit to a dog and owner why a shock or spray collar would need to be worn, used or not. I do see the point you are making though.


----------



## nickmcmechan (Aug 1, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> Aversives, ethos? aversive learning is an inherent, crucial part of operant learning theory, operant theory is the supplement to Darwins evolution of the species, operant is the learning theory of the survival of the individual. The learning process of aversives is that they condition negative reinforced behaviour!
> 
> (1) In 1938 Skinner wrote humans learn through intellect, animals through their environment! (1) ref behaviour of organisms 1938.
> 
> ...


Skinner performed such experiments on Lab Rats under carefully controlled conditions. It's extremely difficult for most handlers / trainers to fulfil the conditions required for punitive techniques, and is best avoided.

To give another view, you have to live with yourself as we'll as your dogs. Aversive techniques work, but why use them when there's much kinder and often more effective techniques available.

I watched the video. Sorry, wasn't impressed, indeed found it quite boring.


----------



## BoredomBusters (Dec 8, 2011)

Sorry I didn't mean you were using it in a bad way, just from a trainer's point of view what equipment was being seen to be used in their class.

But thanks for your views.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

BoredomBusters said:


> Sorry I didn't mean you were using it in a bad way, just from a trainer's point of view what equipment was being seen to be used in their class.
> 
> But thanks for your views.


Yes, I do see your point. As said I did have to demonstrate that, when fully closed, the collar did not choke Kilo and that satisfied the trainer. If it hadn't I would use a flat collar for class - I'd understand the trainer's point of view too.


----------



## Dober (Jan 2, 2012)

BoredomBusters said:


> I knew 'positive' training was a myth.  Unless you mean positive punishment of course? The reason you have a collar on your dog may well be benign, but it's designed for positive punishment, so I can't see why any trainer who claims to be 'psotive reinforcement' would want one in their class.


Because I've never made it an issue by choking him?

My dog is great in class, dare I say the best at loose leash walking in that room. If the leash is constantly loose, I don't see how it matters what equipment is on the other end? Quite frankly, if I walked into the room, my dog walking perfectly by my side, not being yanked and cranked, and the intructor said 'You can't use that, full stop' I'd turn around and walk straight out again!

If someone is going to be cruel to their dogs, they don't need any special kind of equipment to do it. I've seen people pull and hold a dog up by a flat collar, and I see people check a dog all the time on a flat collar.


----------



## BoredomBusters (Dec 8, 2011)

Dober said:


> Because I've never made it an issue by choking him?
> 
> My dog is great in class, dare I say the best at loose leash walking in that room. If the leash is constantly loose, I don't see how it matters what equipment is on the other end? Quite frankly, if I walked into the room, my dog walking perfectly by my side, not being yanked and cranked, and the intructor said 'You can't use that, full stop' I'd turn around and walk straight out again!
> 
> If someone is going to be cruel to their dogs, they don't need any special kind of equipment to do it. I've seen people pull and hold a dog up by a flat collar, and I see people check a dog all the time on a flat collar.


Sorry I didn't mean for anyone to infer that I think any dog is not great at what they do, or that anyone is using a half check to check their dog. My point was that as a dog trainer, if another trainer was telling me they were positive trainers and I saw a half check on a dog in their class I might doubt their claims - and that's not what I'd want from anyone viewing my classes. I'd also not want other dog owners to see that equipment, think it's okay, then use one to check their dog. We also use some ttouch lead techniques that I think a half check would interfere with, which is another reason why I don't allow them in my class - although I do state for some breeds they may be acceptable because of the conformation of the dog. But that's just my view, and I appreciate not everyone has that view.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> It's extremely difficult for most handlers / trainers to fulfil the conditions required for punitive techniques, and is best avoided.


Obviously not as all trainers on here try to use negative punishment as a base of their training, punished behaviour just suppresses the behaviour, it does not reinforce behaviours.

Not sure what that paragraph of yours got to do with my vid though, the vid shows learned negative reinforced behaviours, no punishment behaviour in the vid except the 2 below.

There are 2 (maybe one more) punishments in it, thats the stick in the water and when she lost her footing in that channel, maybe the loss of footing due to looking at the crows had a learning effect but the stick would not have had a learning effect cause she did probably did not know the cause.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2013)

SleepyBones, have you met many dogs other than your own?
Negative reinforcement relies on a punisher - something the dog works to avoid. So yes, talking about punishers when you bring up negative reinforcement is perfectly applicable.

Do you know why they make rash-guard vests for hunting dogs? Because if the drive is strong enough, a hunting dog will not slow down going through brambles and sharper stuff. They'll barrel through and come out torn up on the other side. One of my own dogs spends most of the summer with his belly scared up from running around without a care for the damage the environment is doing to his body.

Sheep dogs have been known to continue working with serious injuries. Their drive is so strong and their pain tolerance so high. Environmental punishers did not work to lessen the behavior of herding.

How about these examples?

Fox terrier - quilled by porcupine. Returned to do it again, not once, not twice, but on SEVEN separate occasions. The last time he was quilled, he was so full of them you couldn't see his face. He was one big pincushion.
Punishment did not work to lessen the behavior of trying to kill porcupines.

Golden mix - hit by car. Recovers, returns to the same road, does the same thing and gets hit again. Recovers again and repeats the behavior AGAIN. 
Punishment did not work to lessen the behavior of car chasing.

Dalmatian - contained by an underground (electric) fence. Blows through the line if the prey is worth it. Does the behavior repeatedly, no matter what setting on the collar. 
Punishment did not work to lessen the behavior of leaving the yard. It did however work beautifully to prevent the dog returning to the yard, as blowing the line again to come home was not as worthwhile to her as chasing squirrels.

One of our own dogs - kicked in the face by a horse (at his former home), recovered, went on to do the behavior again and again. Ended up living with us where he did this while chasing something in the woods:








Ask me if it slowed him down. Hint: it didn't.

Another of our own dogs, shot for snacking on livestock (before we got him). Shot not once, but at least twice. So obviously the behavior continued.

Now, don't think I'm saying positive punishment done effectively doesn't work. Because clearly it does. If you have the exact right intensity for the behavior, your timing is perfect, and your reflexes that of a ninja's, if you can make sure the punishment happens every single time the behavior does, and you can make sure an alternate behavior is available, then yes, punish away.

As does negative reinforcement. However, in order for negative reinforcement to work, you have to introduce a punisher that the dog is willing to avoid. So go back to the above paragraph. Additionally, every time you apply that punisher, you diminish the power of that punisher (punishment callous) and you deplete your relationship with your dog (punishment is associated with the handler).
Reinforcers on the other hand, tend to gain value used right, and tend to enhance relationships.

Oh, and that dog in the picture above? We have gained control over his prey drive with *gasp* REINFORCERS. Reinforcers and behaviors that have been conditioned to hold more value than the chase. Cool huh?


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Negative reinforcement relies on a punisher - something the dog works to avoid.


Thats incorrect, punishers weaken a behaviour, reinforcers strengthen behaviours

Heres the basics.

*Positive reinforcement.*
A positive reinforcer strengthens any behavior that produces it:

E.G. Mass poisoner Dr Harold Shipman was informed his first victim had died. The homicide behaviour was positively reinforced and was believed by police to have recurred again at least 250 times.

Skinner 1974 wrote, Punishing contingencies are just the reverse of reinforcing.

Ref 'About Behaviourism'1974

*Negative Reinforcement:*
A negative reinforces strengthens when it reduces or terminates

E.G. A midwife delivers a newborn, the newborn does not breath immediately, the midwife feels uncomfortable and smacks the newborns bottom to make it cry & start to breath, the midwife removes her discomfort. The newborn soon feels the discomfort called hunger pains, the mother picks up the infant and starts to feed it, the newborn learns crying brings pleasure.
.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2013)

How would you use negative reinforcement to train a behavior in a dog without applying something unpleasant to the dog that you can remove when the behavior is performed, thus reinforcing the behavior?

BTW, slapping a newborn on the butt is a startle response and not related to consequential learning. Smacking a kid on the butt doesn't "teach" them to breathe.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Do you know why they make rash-guard vests for hunting dogs? Because if the drive is strong enough, a hunting dog will not slow down going through brambles and sharper stuff. They'll barrel through and come out torn up on the other side. One of my own dogs spends most of the summer with his belly scared up from running around without a care for the damage the environment is doing to his body.


Sorry, I cannot see the relevance to negative reinforcing stimuli or negative reinforced behaviour!?
.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> BTW, slapping a newborn on the butt is a startle response and not related to consequential learning.


You need to look at my quote again, I referred to the midwifes negative reinforced behaviour in the fragment you wrote above!.
.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2013)

SleepyBones said:


> Sorry, I cannot see the relevance to negative reinforcing stimuli or negative reinforced behaviour!?
> .


Never mind.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Fox terrier - quilled by porcupine. Returned to do it again, not once, not twice, but on SEVEN separate occasions.


Thats positive reinforced behaviour, not negative reinforced.

Below is what operant reinforcment means:

*Reinforcer:* When a bit of behavior has the kind of consequence called reinforcing, it is more likely to occur again. 
.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Now, don't think I'm saying positive punishment done effectively doesn't work


*To repeat *(again) - positive or negative punishments SUPPRESS behaviours, they do NOT generate behaviour, reinforcers generate behaviours.
.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Golden mix - hit by car. Recovers, returns to the same road, does the same thing and gets hit again. Recovers again and repeats the behavior AGAIN.
> 
> *Punishment* did not work to lessen the behavior of car chasing.


#

If the behaviour was not suppressed there was *no punishment.*

Same with most things you wrote.

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

Theres 3 dogs in one section of this video, one of them has positive and negative reinforced learning.

Modern Dog Training Methods - AD 1- AD 2013 - YouTube


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2013)

SleepyBones said:


> #
> 
> If the behaviour was not suppressed there was *no punishment.*
> 
> ...


Congratulations, that was my whole point.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to take my own advice and not engage in a conversation with you. 
You're clearly not interested in anything I have to say, just interested in arguing, so there's really no point in me saying anything. 
You're happy with your dog's training, so enjoy.


----------



## Howl (Apr 10, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Another of our own dogs, shot for snacking on livestock (before we got him). Shot not once, but at least twice. So obviously the behavior continued.


One of mine at some point someone has experienced beating and the use of either a spray collar or a spray bottle. I suspect for barking the result? She came to us, still barking but terrified of sprays. 
Another example of the same breed using a spray collar was the spray collar simply stopped working after awhile. Positive training will always work because they never get sick of praise or reward.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2013)

Howl said:


> One of mine at some point someone has experienced beating and the use of either a spray collar or a spray bottle. I suspect for barking the result? She came to us, still barking but terrified of sprays.
> Another example of the same breed using a spray collar was the spray collar simply stopped working after awhile. *Positive training will always work because they never get sick of praise or reward.*


Totally 

I use the example of feeding time. Our dogs get fed every day, twice a day, yet barring sickness or injury, they are always excited to eat. Our seniors at 14, 15, were just as excited to eat as they were at 4 and 5 years.

Same with taking out a leash or putting on shoes to signal a walk. Old dogs who have been walked every day of their lives continue to get excited about walking in to old age.
Reinforcements don't lose value.

Contrasted with punishers. I've known dogs who learn to pull through prong collars, no-pull harnesses, and head collars. Dogs who go deaf to "no" or other reprimands. They all developed what's called a "punishment callous". They get habituated to the stimulus and don't notice it anymore. 
This doesn't happen with reinforcement. Reinforcers gain value the more you use them. IF you use them as true reinforcers, not bribes... But that's a whole 'nother thread


----------



## BoredomBusters (Dec 8, 2011)

I was thinking the same thing, but am not articulate enough to want to poke my head above the parapet on this one alone! I learned that something is only a punishment if it DECREASES the behaviour. 

For dogs there is good (reinforcer), bad (punisher) and of no consequence. So although painful, if the brambles, electric fence etc did not stop the behaviour they were of no consequence to the dog. I'd be more likely to think that the adrenalin the dog felt at the chase kept them from feeling the pain immediately anyway.

ETA apologies I completely missed all of page 5.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> I learned that something is only a punishment if it DECREASES the behaviour.


Thats correct BB, it's any consequence which decreases any behaviour. In (1) 1974 Skinner wrote - "_Punishment is designed to remove behaviour from a repertoire. Punishing contingencies (predictors) are just the reverse of reinforcing_".

Reinforcers on the other hand are the operant stimuli which shape behaviours by strengthening & generating behaviours, there are two behavioural operant reinforcers, positive & negative. I am afraid I became a 'negative reinforcing' stimuli to Ouisi which strengthened her behaviour to withhold discourse with me, the non operant term is she boged off.

Ref
1. B F Skinner, p64, 1974, 'About Behaviourism'


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> So although painful, if the brambles, electric fence etc did not stop the behaviour they were of no consequence to the dog. I'd be more likely to think that the adrenalin the dog felt at the chase kept them from feeling the pain immediately anyway.


Yes, they were just neutral stimuli in the situation you describe.


----------

