# Steve White's 8 Rules For Punishment



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

An why it should be avoided by most people.

Police dog trainer and tracking dog trainer extraordinaire Steve White has a list that must be met for punishment to be acceptable and effective. I think that the list, in this form, was first presented in the 2008 Clicker Expo. The items on the list itself are not new and have been known for a long time.

*1. The punishment must be something the animal dislikes and something the animal does not expect.

2. The punishment must suppress behavior. (This is, in fact, the very definition of something that is a punisher.) If something is being used for punishment, but it does not suppress behavior, it's ineffective and often just plain abuse.

3. The punishment must be of the perfect intensity. Too much and there will be negative fallout. You'll end up hurting your relationship with the animal and loosing more than just that behavior. Too little and the punishment will only serve to desensitize the animal and build resistance.

4. The punishment must happen immediately after the behavior it is to be associated with. Otherwise, a clear enough association between the wrong behavior and the punishment will not be made.

5. The punishment must be associated with the behavior, but not with the trainer. Otherwise, the trainer becomes part of the punishment and the animal starts fearing and disliking the trainer.

6. The punishment must happen every time the behavior occurs. If punishment does not happen every time the behavior occurs, the behavior gets put on a variable schedule of reinforcement. Depending on the behavior and how often the punishment actually occurs, the animal could decide that performing the behavior was worth the risk of getting punished.

7. There must be an alternative for the animal.

8. Punishment must never be used to the extent that punishment outweighs positive reinforcement (from the animal's perspective, not yours!)*​
I would have separated 1 into a) and b) or maybe into 2 separate points for greater emphasis. The short and long of it is that if you can't meet all 8 criteria then you shouldn't be using punishment.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

All 8 of those are incorrect in the context of animal learning & the learning theory, "punshment", in the way he's used it, means anything at all or nothing.

There are 2 'punishments' in operant learning theory, he has not mentioned either of them.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Why are they incorrect? Those rules apply to both negative and positive punishment as far as I can tell.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> All 8 of those are incorrect in the context of animal learning & the learning theory, "punshment", in the way he's used it, means anything at all or nothing.
> 
> There are 2 'punishments' in operant learning theory, he has not mentioned either of them.


Let's compare: 1) A guy with 30 years of experience and who has turned out countless of working police dogs and tracking dogs, or 2) some clown who has added nothing of value to this forum and has a HO for the APBC

Pretty easy choice.

Or those of us who actually know about this, don't have to judge on the merit of the claimants, we know you are wrong.


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

What's HO for the APBC?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Corinthian said:


> ...Steve White has a list that must be met for punishment to be acceptable & effective.
> I think the list, in this form, was first presented in the 2008 Clicker-Expo.
> The items on the list itself are not new, & have been known for a long time.
> 
> ...


i think Steve's list of the *Mandatory Minimum for Humane Use of Punishment* says it all, & clearly, too.

EX, if we use collar-tugs to correct a pulling dog, but use them in a repeated, low-level, nagging fashion, 
the dog will become accustomed to the sensation & ignore them utterly; they become HABITUATED.

we have greatly-increased the dog's tolerance of collar-corrections, & must INCREASE THE FORCE 
to effectively 'punish', I-E, to stop the dog pulling; at some point, the tugs become so forceful that 
we risk injuring the dog's neck via whiplash, vertebral subluxation, or possibly bruising & inflammation - 
OR like the dog in a recent *trainer cruelty case,* the dog's eyes will suffer from ruptured capillaries, 
& the bloodshot sclerae, retinae, & eyelids, prove the violence which the dog endured in the name 
of "training".


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

Do you know sometimes, it sounds very much like raising children!

I'm gonna get my clicker out and see if I can bring out positive attributes of my 18 month old baby girl, just need to get lots of chopped up fruit and veg to act as treats


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

NicoleW said:


> Do you know sometimes, it sounds very much like raising children!
> 
> I'm gonna get my clicker out and see if I can bring out positive attributes of my 18 month old baby girl, just need to get lots of chopped up fruit and veg to act as treats


Hey, don't knock it, I know someone who clicker trained her infant! She used broken up Cadbury's buttons as a reward though. Apparently taught her to lie still to have her nappy changed instead of wriggling around, to sit down quietly when told and for some speech.


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

RIGHT! That's my plan, I'll post up videos and progress shortly. buttons might be a better idea to give her


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

NicoleW said:


> buttons might be a better idea to give her


chocolate buttons, LOL - if they are shirt buttons or summat, she might eat em.


see UTube for TAG TEACH - there's a classic video teaching a toddler to enjoy saline-spray 
up his sore, stuffy nose. :thumbup1: highly recommended.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

NicoleW said:


> Do you know sometimes, it sounds very much like raising children!
> 
> I'm gonna get my clicker out and see if I can bring out positive attributes of my 18 month old baby girl, just need to get lots of chopped up fruit and veg to act as treats


My sister taught her baby to sign using such a method, she no longer uses it but when the baby was preverbal she could sign for _apples, banana, etc, pick up, more, water/milk._ Actually she knew so many ASL words that I could only follow her half the time.

In many ways it parallels dog, in that you are communicating with a preverbal entity, yet they can still tell you what they want. The ability to communicate is in itself rewarding.

Signing With Your Baby


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Why are they incorrect? Those rules apply to both negative and positive punishment as far as I can tell.


Hi Sarah,
The one 'clear' thing I understand & 'is legible as operant' & which is correct is that an operant "_punishment_" "_must suppress behaviour_".

In my reference above I only highlighted the only 2 possible 'punishments', as you say 'negative' & 'positive'.

Taking those 2 as examples, the paper excludes those 2 crucial operant terms & what they mean, which is very important when citing Skinners operant punishment behaviour because they are the consequences of opposite behaviours;

1.	_negative punishment_ is a consequence of 'notperforming an operant behaviour'

2.	_positive punishment_ is a consequence of 'performing an operant behaviour'.

Obviously the fact the two different behaviours cause opposite consequences any paper claiming to be a explanation to operant meanings, in this case 'operant punishment' must state such crucial information,

The paper as it is written simply uses the word punishment throughout, written that way it is just the every day, normal, lay use & meaning of 'punishment' which means anything the individual wants to mean to any individual using it or quoting it.

Those are just 2 of the simpler examples/illustrations. Anyway going back to what I originally said;

Before I can answer properly, Can explain what you actually understand by that paper?

By that I mean (as examples), do you understand the paper to mean someone applying punishments of some kind to any animal (inc school teachers)? Or maybe do you understand it to mean the animal is causing the punishments to itself.

If you can explain what you understand by the paper in the way its written I can answer better, thanks.

.


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

I am a Childminder and I use Makaton with the kids in my care which is really helpful  

LFL - LOVE that video


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

incorrect description of terms & mis-use thereof - 


> Originally posted by *Sleepy-Brains *-
> *Emphasis added thru-out: CAPS, bold, U & color - *
> 
> _"the *PAPER* excludes... 2 crucial ...terms & what they mean,
> ...


A - it's not a PAPER, as in a scholarly paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, nor an article; 
it's simply a usable summary in ordinary language, intended for USE - not as a scholarly reference, 
& specifically meant for use by *trainers*, altho there is no reason that APOs cannot use it as well - 
the original audience was trainers, whether professional or hobby or deeply-interested amateurs.

B - Master-trainer White did not *"cite"* Skinner - he used the term 'punishment' as a synonym 
for _positive punishment_, the common colloquial usage in conversation: to scold a child, ground a teen, 
jerk the dog's collar, & so forth. It's not rocket-surgery.  Anyone who thinks smacking a child's bottom is 
an acceptable form of 'discipline' will have zero difficulty comprehending the sort of *punishment* White 
refers to, in this table of rules.

C - i can only PRESUME that by "opposite behaviors", the 'opposite' part is PERFORMING or NOT performing. 
this is not true.

D - neg-P is used as a consequence for AN UN-WANTED BEHAVIOR, not for "not doing" something. 
neg-P is the *deduction* [negative, as in math] *of a desired consequence, or removal 
of the opportunity for reward.* It takes-away something the learner would gladly work to earn.

pos-P, the application of an aversive, is also consequent to AN UN-WANTED BEHAVIOR.

E - we cannot train for NON-behaviors; "not doing" is not a training goal.

to elaborate:
The Dead-Dog Test is a highly-useful screen for which behaviors are genuine goal-behaviors, that anyone 
can train - _*If a dead-dog can perform the behavior, it is by definition not a behavior.*_ 
EXs: "Not barking", "Not jumping-up", "Not fence-fighting", & similar behavior voids are dead-dog behaviors: 
they are impossible to train, as we are not training *a desired alternative behavior as a goal.* 
IOW we know what we do not want; WHAT DO WE WANT in its place? That is what we can train.

if we teach a dog '*hush*' on cue vs bark, *Sit to be greeted* vs jump-up, & *Come to the back-door* 
when the neighbor's dog barks or enters the adjoining yard, those are apropos goal-behaviors: 
a dead-dog cannot perform any of the three.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

Here is a video with Steve White explaining further the 8 Rules

Steve White on the 8 rules of Punishment - YouTube



> A - it's not a PAPER, as in a scholarly paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, nor an article;
> it's simply a usable summary in ordinary language, intended for USE - not as a scholarly reference,
> & specifically meant for use by trainers, altho there is no reason that APOs cannot use it as well -
> the original audience was trainers, whether professional or hobby or deeply-interested amateurs.


You'd think that would be pretty obvious. In fact I said as much in the OP.



> I think that the list, in this form, was first presented in the 2008 Clicker Expo.


Leave it up to SB, not to read and mindlessly criticize.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Cori
> it's simply a usable summary in ordinary language, intended for USE





> *Cori cites, Steve White*
> Steve White quotes Skinners operant.
> *2.* _The punishment must suppress behavior. (This is, in fact, the very definition of something that is a punisher.) If something is being used for punishment, but it does not suppress behavior, it's ineffective and often just plain abuse._


In 1938 B F Skinner, founder of operant learning theory, modern behaviourism & main reference source of operant conditioning defined the negative & positive punisher behaviour as _'anything which weakens a behaviour and tends to make it not repeat_'. _Punishment works by suppressing a behaviour._

In 1971 & numerous other papers over the decades B F Skinner stated - "_Punishment is used to suppress behavior."_

Posters Icon of operant, Steve White
_Sometimes it's ineffective and often just plain abuse._

Wholy incorrect, B F Skinner defines negative or positive punishment as "_anything which weakens a behaviour_".... THAT IS ALL POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE PUNISHMENT BEHAVIOUR MEANS!!

In 1992 Phd in human pyschology Dr Roger Mugford stated; 
"_Punishments
Animals do not behave as they do simply in order to obtain rewards; they also try to avoid certain situations or outcomes. Psychologists refer to the latter as 'negative reinforcers', while the rest of humanity calls them punishments. In fact, punishment is not such a good term, since it has moral connotations associated with criminality and wrongdoing. In dog training, it is best to set aside such thoughts and just focus upon what is practical"_

Refs
1. Steve White, 2011 _citation by Corinthian_.
2. B F Skinner, 1938, _The Behaviour Of Organisms_.
3. B F Skinner, 1971, _About Behaviourism._
4. Dr Roger Mugford, 1992, _Never Say No_.

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> C
> Leave it up to SB, not to read and mindlessly criticize.


:thumbup1:

...........................


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

so if we use an AVERSIVE, & the behavior CONTINUES, 
& we CONTINUE TO APPLY THE AVERSIVE: 
- it's not decreasing the behavior, which persists; ergo it's not an effective punisher. 
- the learner continues to be stressed or distressed by the aversive, which must be unpleasant; 
it's an aversive. Continued use of an INEFFECTIVE PUNISHER / aversive constitutes deliberate stress, 
& may well meet the definition of abuse, depending upon the specific aversive & the effect on the learner.

an effective punisher should *stop* the behavior within 1 to 3 applications.

Trisha McConnell remarked on a study: 
a trainer conducted a class with choke-chains on all dogs; every handler dutifully jerked or tugged the leash, 
each time a dog forged or lagged, or was out of heel-position. 
3-weeks later, again the NUMBER of collar-corrections per dog was counted; neither frequency nor number 
per dog had changed - the data was precisely the same: the dogs had not learned, behavior was unchanged, 
& the punisher [collar-jerks] was obviously ineffective... yet it continued.

at the very least, such nagging is aggravating; i'd expect it to lower the dog's reactive threshold, 
if nothing else, making the dog more-likely to react to another dog who got too close, made eye-contact 
for a few extra seconds, or other normally petty events that would not be expected to trigger a reaction.
it's also a non-stop habituation, making the dog LESS responsive to the leash & ultimately, the handler.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

Congrats for not reading for comprehension and for totally ignoring context. .


----------



## itsmikey (Oct 19, 2011)

I like checklists like the original post! Accurate, concise and understandable even to people with no background with dogs! 
It's probably worth mentioning that What are the Implications of Using Training Techniques Which Induce Fear or Pain in Dogs? goes into slightly more detail if anyone hasn't seen that before.

FTR, I consider OC as a trivially simplistic theory useful for someone who doesn't have a clue, but it is very limited as it is a 'black box' theory, i.e. all it says is if the input is this, the expected output is that. It offers no insight into the details of how or how something works, why some things work better, or why there might be exceptions or complexities when you get outside of very basic examples.

Knowledge gained in this century tends to have more substance to it, especially now we have tools that let scientists remotely see how the brain works at the individual neuron level - and even though I vaguely understand the physics, I still find this an absolutely amazing feat of engineering, like something out of star trek.

----
ps the latest knowledge on how cars work is:
Foot more on accelerator - speed up more
Foot less on accelerator - speed up less
Foot more on break - slows down more
Foot less on break - slows down less
I just can't understand why it takes so long to train to be a mechanic when it's so simple


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

itsmikey said:


> Knowledge gained in this century tends to have more substance to it, especially now we have tools that let scientists remotely see how the brain works at the individual neuron level - and even though I vaguely understand the physics, I still find this an absolutely amazing feat of engineering, like something out of star trek.


If you like that check out a breakthrough from HHMI investigators, it is called Bessel beam plane illumination microscopy. Light and heat kills cells. Using this method you can actually see processes happening in a living cell.

HHMI News: New Microscope Produces Dazzling 3D Movies of Live Cells


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> so if we use an AVERSIVE, & the behavior CONTINUES, & we CONTINUE TO APPLY THE AVERSIVE: - it's not decreasing the behavior, which persists; ergo it's not an effective punisher.


Its not an aversive if it _doesnt do_ it is only an aversive if it _does do_. Just so you dont keep getting mixed up, aversives are reinforcers not punishers, reinforcers strengthen behaviours, punisher's weaken behaviours, again two opposites.

Aversive is another Skinnerian operant learning theory word & concept, the corresponding behaviours are avoidence behaviours, in 1971 Skinner wrote  _"Aversive stimuli are the stimuli which function as reinforcers when they are reduced or terminated, reinforcers strengthen behaviours."_

Learned operant avoidance behaviours e.gs, we learn not to buy shoes to small to avoid discomfort (avoidance behaviour), we learn not to jump red lights through fear of causing a crash (avoidance behaviour), we learn to wear appropriate climatic clothing to avoid potential discomfort of prevailing weather (avoidance behaviour).

A daily, common, human avoidance behaviour is what we call _'pleasure seeking'_ behaviour, we avoid resteraunts which we have learned are uncomfortable, we avoid booking holidays in hotels we find wanting, we avoid cimema genre we find boring, all & more fall under what we call 'pleasure seeking', which is, learned _'avoidance behaviour'_.

Dogs Learned & Unlearned Behavioural Responses To Physical Aversive Stimuli - YouTube

Ref
B F Skinner, 1971, About Behaviourism.

.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

Another example of SB's inability to understand what he copy/pastes.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

it is still possible to be *aversive* & be ineffective as a *punisher -*

aversives are unpleasant & given other options, the individual will choose to AVOID them. 
however, if the BENEFIT [the consequence] of enduring the aversive is more-powerful than the aversive, 
the individual will persist in behaviors that include the aversive.

EXAMPLES: 
- *barking:* in many highly-vocal, reactive breeds, barking is SELF-rewarding. 
a #%*@!-collar on a Beagle, MinPin, Chi, a classic Terrierrrrrist [Westie, Cairn, JRT, etc], may be AVERSIVE - 
but it's often ineffective as a 'punisher' to STOP the barking, until the stimulus is so intense, that the dog 
may yelp when it's applied - meaning that the dog's involuntary reaction of pain IS PUNISHED - effectively 
or ineffectively, either way IMO it constitutes abuse.

- an 'underground' or 'invisible' fence may work, SO LONG AS there is nothing intensely-alluring 
outside the fence - like another dog, a game-animal or varmint to chase, a bicyclist to bark-at & chase, etc. 
Yet the dog, having willingly charged thru the fence to get _OUT_ is not willing to charge _IN._ 
the 'reward' for breaching the perimeter is very-high & the dog accepts it; the 'reward' for going home is low, 
& the punisher that failed in one direction, is effective in the other.

-


----------



## cjelome (Dec 5, 2011)

If punishment does not happen every time the behavior occurs, the behavior gets put on a variable schedule of reinforcement. Depending on the behavior and how often the punishment actually occurs, the animal could decide that performing the behavior was worth the risk of getting punished.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> it is still possible to be aversive & be ineffective as a punisher -


A punisher is a behaviour of any animal, if any animal behaves in any way that the consequence of its' own behaviour weakens that behaviour and makes it tend not to repeat then the behaviour is a positive or negative punishment behaviour.

All pet owners on this site asking for training help are recomended to try to teach their dogs a negative punishment occures if its' behaviour does not comply to what they want.

Ref

B F Skinner 'Behaviour Of Organisms'.

.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Handbook of Applied Behavior Analysis - Google Books Result
books.google.com/books?isbn=1609184688...

Wayne W. Fisher, Cathleen C. Piazza, Henry S. Roane - 2011 - Business & Economics - 544 pages
_"Thus, enlarging the magnitude of an *ineffective punisher* may have limited clinical utility, 
and may even promote resistance to punishment (e.g., Cohen, 1968; ... " _

[PDF] 
431 
ON THE STATUS OF KNOWLEDGE FOR USING PUNISHMENT: IMPLICATIONS ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1284409/.../12555918.pdfFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by DC Lerman - 2002 - Cited by 69 - Related articles
_"...of the *ineffective punisher* is not recommended, as discussed above (see Reinforcement Magnitude).

Stimulus Generalization. The transfer of treatment ..."_

Reward Based Training --Giving & Taking Rewards | Go Dog Training ...
blogs.dogtime.com/.../reward-based-training-giving-and-taking-rewa... 
Oct 29, 2008  
_"IF this were true, then the equipment or method being used would be an *ineffective punisher*. 
Because ineffective punishers don't work, they ..."_

Pit Bull Talk  
View topic - Wailing, Warbling, Screaming Pigeon
Pit Bull Talk • View topic - Wailing, Warbling, Screaming Pigeon
6 posts - 5 authors - Last post: Jan 19
_"An *ineffective punisher* will suppress behavior for a time, but won't stop it completely. 
Too much is a bad thing, but too little doesn't ..."_


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

I think if you need to use punishment you have already failed. Because training is about teaching a dog what you want him to do. If you haven`t done that well enough, it`s you that needs the sanction, not the dog.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

Re Post 27, L4L quoted 4 refs.

SB
Non of those 4 refs are refs to either negative or positive operant punishers.

An operant punisher (either) is a behaviour of the animal subjecting itself, by its own behaviour, to either punisher.

E.G. I want to cross the road, I stop at the kerb, I look right then left, then right again, if the road is clear I then cross the road.

The above is negative punishment behaviour.

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> I think if you need to use punishment you have already failed. Because training is about teaching a dog what you want him to do.


Every recommendation I've seen on this board in a training context has been to apply a negative punisher to teach the dog.

That said, Im allways interested in learning how people overcome the impossible, which is inherant in your statement above, so tell me, how do you reinforce a behaviour before it occures? that is what you seem to be trying to say.

.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Is Steve White the ex Gladiator? If so, then I've heard from several sources he's not someone you'd want to take your dog to for training.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Is Steve White the ex Gladiator? If so, then I've heard from several sources he's not someone you'd want to take your dog to for training.


No idea SL, I think he's one of L4Ls' pin ups.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2011)

Hi there,

as many of you will know I do not pose as an expert on dog behaviour being a novice pet owner, but I do know something about human psychology and behaviour.

When did Piaget become a leading authority on how to train dogs? I really don't wish to be a pain but I honestly believe that dogs and humans have different learning systems.

gavs


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> I honestly believe that dogs and humans have different learning systems.


Is Piaget somone L4L mentioned?...anyway above.

The confusion by some that you have probably read on here maybe other things is because the recent commercial market has conditioned & manipulated pet owners by using classicaly conditioned words for commercial promotion of their dog training buisnesses, so thats the only reason why it gets confusing.

But, relating that back your supposition, no, there is no confusion outside the commercial sector. Skinner was quite clear about different learning systems way back to his 1938 'The Behaviour Of Organisms', after first defining the operants he said, can't remember word for word but the meaning is clear cut and the wording was more or less - 'humans learn through intellect anaimals learn through the environmental stimuli, but, as infants humans also learn through enviroment, they fall and learn to balance properly' -

So Skinners operant theory is not confused, its really only with commercial dog trainers that operant gets misused as a manipulation tool, most pet owners think 'reward' is equated with kindness, they don't even realize that their dog gets killed by another dog then the other dog is rewarding itself.

Skinner was that a reinforcer is "anything" which strengthens a behaviour, with his lab animals he used hunger & food in his lab experiments, but he says one 1951 paper he says use food "_because its easier_", he emphasises throughout that paper on animal learning that the dog MUST be kept hungry for food to be used as a reinforcer.

Also, Im still waiting for Claire to explain how she reinforces a behaviour before it happens.

Ref
B F Skinner, 1951, How Animals Learn.

.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

Actually both mammals respond in the same predictable ways to stimuli. In fact we find pretty much the same responses and behavioral adaptations to punishment and rewards. We would expect behavioral continuity; one of the predictions of evolutionary theory.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

from Classics in the History of Psychology -- Breland & Breland (1961)



> THE MISBEHAVIOR OF ORGANISMS
> Keller Breland & Marian Breland (1961)
> Animal Behavior Enterprises, Hot Springs, Arkansas
> First published in *'American Psychologist'*, issue 16, pages 681-684.
> ...


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

> I really don't wish to be a pain but I honestly believe that dogs and humans have different learning systems.


Of course human behaviour and dog behaviour are very different; and their natural ways of learning are not identical. For example, primates including humans learn an awful lot by observation and imitation whereas most other species (inc dogs) learn relatively little this way.

However, the basic principles of learning work on every species capable of learning. Behaviours that get a good response are repeated, behaviours that do not get a good response are extinguished. This is simply a basic survival mechanism - it is vital for finding food and shelter, getting a mate, avoiding injury, etc.
And indeed the use of aversives poses risks for all of them too - aversives can indeed punish a behaviour causing it to be reduced or extinguished, but they can also cause "fallout" which affects other behaviours, or the animal may become habituated, etc.

You only have to look a the widespread use of marker training (such as clicker training) to see this happening in practice. This method has been used to train / teach everything from goldfish, rabbits and chickens, through the usual training species - dogs and horses - up to the most intelligent species such as primates, marine mammals, and people (from special needs kids to top athletes).

We can also see plenty of similarities between canine and human responses to training in every day life - kids whose parents give in to whining keep whining just as surely as dogs whose owners give in to begging keep begging. Both children and dogs may shy away from a raised hand if they are used to being slapped. Both can become withdrawn as a result of excessive punishment. Both respond positively to praise and rewards, but both learn very quickly how to take advantage of bribes.

For such different species with very different natural behaviours our learning systems are remarkably alike.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Colette said:


> Of course human behaviour & dog behaviour [differ]; & their natural ways of learning are not identical.
> 
> For example, primates - including *humans - learn a... lot by observation & imitation, whereas most other species
> (including dogs) learn relatively little* this way.


not to hijack the topic, but dogs, even as pups, learn quite a lot via observation & mimicry, among them 
to greet another dog appropriately, object-play, to solicit play or attention, to warn-off a rough or rude dog, 
to terminate an interaction, & more.

gundog-trainers in the USA have used the *'gang-line'* to teach young hunters or retrievers for decades: 
the young dogs are each on their own short chain, connected to a long staked chain, unable to fight or entangle, 
but long-enuf to lie down, stand, & walk or jump-about; they WATCH the older dogs work, they WATCH 
their peers train, & they learn: marking a hit bird, honor a point, & so on.

obviously, such latent learning is later reinforced heavily when they are each trained solo. 
simply watching doesn't do the whole job; it does, however, plant the seed & get it growing.

Another example, LEARNED IN MINUTES: 
in a shelter, *give a treat - just one - to the first dog to STOP barking.* 
Test how long it takes all of the dogs in a row, who can SEE each-other, to learn the new criterion: 
"the faster i shut-up, the faster i am rewarded."

this is one of the simplest & fastest ways to get a 'quiet kennel'. 
new dogs learn quickly from those who arrived before they did, & mimic the behavior: see a human? 
Shut-up!  & wait for the goodie. :yesnod:


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> However, the basic principles of learning work on every species capable of learning. Behaviours that get a good response are repeated, behaviours that do not get a good response are extinguished. This is simply a basic survival mechanism - it is vital for finding food and shelter, getting a mate, avoiding injury, etc.


Absolutely right, learned avoidance of things which can damage them is the essential of good health & survival to reproduce the species.

Dogs Learned & Unlearned Behavioural Responses To Physical Aversive Stimuli - YouTube

.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

You keep referring to this youtube idiot, the poor guy doesn't even understand what his dogs are doing or what it motivating them. I think you both have demonstrated to be equally unreliable and ideologically biased. 

The evolutionary cost of being bitten to learn something is dangerous is far too high. Most animals simply learn avoidance from others even if they have never experienced a negative event.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> The evolutionary cost of being bitten to learn something is dangerous is far too high. Most animals simply learn avoidance from others even if they have never experienced a negative event


Yes, the other animals being bitten in this case learned avoidance by moving the animal out of the way, they had learned from others thats the way to avoid the reward biteing animal.

Reward biteing behaviour
http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-training-behaviour/207979-cant-believe.html

Seems to be the common learned way
Sarah Muncke - Chiltern Rescue
Trained For Life | Articles on Dog Behaviour

Cordoba University Study On Territorial Reward Aggression On 717 dogs.
News from University of Cordoba - A University of Cordoba study proves that dogs are aggressive if badly trained

.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> Yes, the other animals being bitten in this case learned avoidance by moving the animal out of the way, they had learned from others thats the way to avoid the reward biteing animal.


As so often you are completely off the mark and good job as distorting the truth. And you really gotta quit it with the narcissistic self-love. Referring to yourself to demonstrate you are right is pathetic.

Pérez-Guisado has been generally criticized and citation trackers find no other papers citing his work. The conclusion he comes to is simply not supported by his evidence.



> The evolutionary cost of being bitten to learn something is dangerous is far too high. Most animals simply learn avoidance from others even if they have never experienced a negative event


Remains true and explains the value of fear sensitive periods in development.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> The evolutionary cost of being bitten to learn something is dangerous is far too high. Most animals simply learn avoidance from others even if they have never experienced a negative event
> Remains true and explains the value of fear sensitive periods in development.


And others get bitten and then use avoidance behaviours to stop the biting, as outlined below.

Brackenhwv
_I'm her 4th home in a year, she just turned 1 in Oct, previous owners didn't have time, no training at all, kept in crate at least 70 0/0 of time. came with a bite history , supposed to have bitten 3 family members and D/A_

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-training-behaviour/207979-cant-believe.html

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Pérez-Guisado has been generally criticized and citation trackers find no other papers citing his work. The conclusion he comes to is simply not supported by his evidence.


That sounds on a minor level compared to Bristol Uni criticisms on their…well, publicity stunt.
2. Bristol University, Quack Dog Dominance Study, Charlatan's Dr Rachel Casey Dr John Bradshaw - YouTube

Although their publicity stunt did make them an international P1 Google smash it!...they wanted fame and they sure got it!
dogs dr john bradshaw dr rachel casey - Google Search

I heard theres some more films coming in second quarter of new year by the way.
.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

More nonsensical replies. Your response is irrelevant since it has nothing to do with what I've stated.


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> Every recommendation I've seen on this board in a training context has been to apply a negative punisher to teach the dog.
> 
> That said, Im allways interested in learning how people overcome the impossible, which is inherant in your statement above, so tell me, how do you reinforce a behaviour before it occures? that is what you seem to be trying to say.
> 
> .


I don`t know, love. I don`t charge people to train dogs. I just own 4 happy and well behaved dogs and have 40+ years of doing so. I have learned from my dogs and don`t take a lot of notice of jargon because it generally disguises a basic lack of undererstanding. 
You see, the trouble with using these phrases (part of my degree covered semiotics you see) is that, like Humpty Dumpty said, the words mean `what I want them to mean`. Language is flexible and depends on context. So what you mean by punishment and what I mean by it is (I suspect) very very different. 
But to put it simply: if a dog is displaying behaviour you don`t want, train an alternative behaviour. 
So if the dog jumps up at people, you train a Sit and reward when he meets people. Not hard is it? 
I think the difference between those who punish and those who don`t is that those who don`t `punish` understand that dogs do not have a Moral Code. Therefore they do not `do wrong`, they display unwanted (by us) behaviour. Once you get past the anthropomorphism and respect them as animals, training gets easier.

BTW (OT sorry) I`m fascinated by the way you have 2 distinct posting styles. One style is grammatical and the other isn`t. Are there two of you?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Is Steve White the ex Gladiator?


i've no idea who the Ex-Gladiator is... Sorry. 

_*Steve White*_ in the dog-training world is a Master Trainer certified by the Washington State-Police, 
& a retired cop who is full-time running seminars on teaching dogs via rewards, including tactical-k9s 
[cop-k9s who chase perps & take them down, tracking & trailing k9s, detection-dogs for contraband, 
military-k9s for perimeter-patrol & protection, etc].

he is well-known, widely admired, & has a world-wide reputation for excellent training; 
foreign police-forces often invite him to teach & demonstrate.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> That sounds on a minor level compared to Bristol Uni criticisms on theirwell, publicity stunt.
> 2. Bristol University, Quack Dog Dominance Study, Charlatan's Dr Rachel Casey Dr John Bradshaw - YouTube


Takes a small mind to compare criticisms made in peer reviewed journals to some clown with a beef making a video. Once again SB, you find a new low on that barrel.


----------



## Jonesey (Dec 30, 2010)

Well this has been a good read.  I'm almost glad SB is still posting. I always learn something new and interesting from all the positive trainers here that I believe in when SB attempts an argument.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

I always learn something new and interesting from all the


> positive trainers here


Can you make your terminology clear, all the 'advice' I have seen dished up here is recommending 'negative punishment' applications, so what do you mean by 'positive' trainers?

Also, I was told when I came here that there were around 50 commercial trainers here, I have only seen 2 declare their commercial interests but you have also highlighted "trainers", unless otherwise specified I assume you mean self employed commercial trainers who have not declared their commercial conflicts of interests, can you name them because clearly, based on what you wrote, you know who at least some of them are, if you don't mean 'commercial' self employed trainers, out for a quid or 3, then specify what exactly you mean by trainers, thanks.
.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> specify what exactly you mean by trainers,
> .


anyone who can train.... ie. not you.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> anyone who can train.... ie. not you.


Well yesss...I just bumble along in my own little way trying my little best

Multiple Recalls From Chases, Different Species An Emergency & An Aggressive Incident. - YouTube

.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

The same clown again. It's interesting that the uploader also has crummy spelling skills. It is labeled as "Self explanatry". Birds of a feather and all that...


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

> *...commercial*_... interests..._


how dreadful!  shocking, doncha know, just appalling what the TRADESpeople get up to, 
have they no shame?!... It's to be presumed not, the moneygrubbing greedy slavering lot they are. :nonod:

of course, presumably *=> *_I* <=*_ am counted among them, since i'm a trainer?  
and i've made GOBS of cash off the folks here, haven't i?

*what a bloody crock of pure bovine effluent.*  Anne, myself, Cori, Carolyn-H, & others 
have posted umpteen-bazillion posts of helpful *facts,* including books recommended, journal articles, 
science announcements, tips, links to websites, videos, extensive how-to posts, Anne's blog-posts with 
detailed protocols, B-Mod protocols from such global-lights as DVM-behaviorists Yin & Overall...

and this jokester has the sheer effrontery to accuse us of profit-mongering? :001_huh:

i've yet to see a USEFUL post from that source; i've seen hundreds, indeed thousands, from 'trainers' 
over the past 2-years - for which they haven't gotten a tuppence, BTW. :thumbdown: whatta maroon.


----------

