# my older dog keeps trying to mount my puppy



## angelofthenorth5

hiya evryone 
I have a 7yr old greyhound/collie cross and a 5 month old springer pup both males. over the last few days the older dog keeps trying to hump the puppy, he has never done it before, i have had 2 other dogs before this pup and he never did it to them, i dont really know how to deal with it (but obviously i wont let him actually violate him ), should i just leave it and hope he just comes out of it and just pull him away or should i be telling him off or what :confused1: any advice wud be much appreciated


----------



## Rottiefan

What context is it occurring in? Humping is to do with over-arousal, and is primarily a sexual behaviour. But even in non-sexual contexts, it can surface, e.g. during play, or as a 'displacement' behaviour in stressful moments, such as if your dog is getting ready to go out on a walk or something. It is not, contrary to popular belief, a sign of 'dominance'. 

It could be that he is becoming a little over-aroused in particular contexts, or is playing. He may even be stressed out and re-directing it on the pup as a displacement behaviour. 

I would work on an 'Off' command (starting slowly with using food and toys, then beginning to use it in more distracting contexts, then in the mounting scenario) and identify the items he does it usually, so you can pre-empt any mounting and re-direct his attention. Don't scold him or anything; there's no need. He isn't doing anything wrong, and any scolding is largely ineffective for what we want to punish.


----------



## angelofthenorth5

hiya, thanks for the advice, sorry its took me so long to reply as i havent been on here, i think you are right as he seemed to do it when the pup wants to playfight, so probs just excited, he hasnt done it for a couple of days so probs nowt to be concerned about thanks again x


----------



## SleepyBones

> I would work on an 'Off' command


So would/do I, well "No" is mine. Apart from recalls & some other distance stuff I would say there would be no problem behaviours at all on any of the forums if people taught an effective "No" "Off" or equivilent.

It's no use teaching a human, pig or dog what _'to do'_ if you don't also teach them what _'not to do'_, I mean show a kid how to use a color pen on paper for the first time but if you don't also teach it not to draw on walls, clothes & mums bald patch you'll be liveing in rainbow cottage by morning with mum looking like clown.


----------



## Rottiefan

SleepyBones said:


> So would/do I, well "No" is mine. Apart from recalls & some other distance stuff I would say there would be no problem behaviours at all on any of the forums if people taught an effective "No" "Off" or equivilent.


The problem with 'No' is that everyone uses it for _everything_. If we want to tell a dog something, it needs to be specific. They don't generalise well; they learn by association. How are they supposed to know that "No" means both "Get off the couch" or "Don't pick that up" or "Don't jump on visitors" etc? And dogs' responses to "No" commands I often see are wrought with calming and appeasement behaviours, indicating they do not know _what_ to do, but just preempt punishment and look affiliative.



> It's no use teaching a human, pig or dog what _'to do'_ if you don't also teach them what _'not to do'_, I mean show a kid how to use a color pen on paper for the first time but if you don't also teach it not to draw on walls, clothes & mums bald patch you'll be liveing in rainbow cottage by morning with mum looking like clown.


It's impossible to teach every kid what not to do, so your argument is invalid. I haven't been taught NOT to do many things formally, but yet I still do not do many things considered anti-social and rude.


----------



## SleepyBones

> I haven't been taught NOT to do many things formally, but yet I still do not do many things considered anti-social and rude.


I see, quite a little cherube of the devine then!


----------



## Rottiefan

SleepyBones said:


> I see, quite a little cherube of the devine then!


Hardly, it's the simple fact that rewards are more powerful than punishment, and being brought up to be motivated to act appropriately. Punishing behaviours in dog training needs to be done when a behaviour is easily rewarded- e.g. pulling on lead: I prefer to motivate the dog to stay beside me, rather than just punish pulling, but there's times I'm going to have to stop/turn around to make the pulling less rewarding if it does occur. However, it is the actual motivation to stay on a loose lead (because they get rewarded for doing so) that is more important.

For the humping dog, you need to control interactions and preempt humping primarily by knowing what triggers it. But when it does happen, it's much better to have a command such as 'Off' or 'Dismount' even that clearly means "Reduce distance from stimulus you're near to", for which they get rewarding for- rewarded with praise, treats, toys, or functional rewards such as increasing or decreasing distance towards the other dog.


----------



## SleepyBones

> rewards are more powerful than punishment,


Your operant refs are fundamentaly flawed, first there are 2 punishments, positive & negative, your punishment terminolgy is normal terminology mixed with operant terms, confounding your comment.

In the operant sense there is not such thing as a reward, the operants are below, Skinner did not use the word reward, it is reinforcement.

Negative punishment
Positive Punishment
Negative Reinforcment
Positive Reinforcement

If you mean common things such as holding a treat to get the dog maybe do something then the treat is a punisher not a reward, as Skinner kept repeating 'reward is confusing' reinforcement is easier to understand.

You actually use a negative punishment base with others, negative punishments suppress behaviours & the animal works to avoid the punishment.

Refs
1. B F Skinner 1938, The Behaviour Of Organisms.
2. B F Skinner 1948, Waldren Two
2. B F Skinner 1971, About Behaviourism


----------



## Rottiefan

SleepyBones said:


> Your operant refs are fundamentaly flawed, first there are 2 punishments, positive & negative, your punishment terminolgy is normal terminology mixed with operant terms, confounding your comment.
> 
> In the operant sense there is not such thing as a reward, the operants are below, Skinner did not use the word reward, it is reinforcement.
> 
> Negative punishment
> Positive Punishment
> Negative Reinforcment
> Positive Reinforcement
> 
> If you mean common things such as holding a treat to get the dog maybe do something then the treat is a punisher not a reward, as Skinner kept repeating 'reward is confusing' reinforcement is easier to understand.
> 
> You actually use a negative punishment base with others, negative punishments suppress behaviours & the animal works to avoid the punishment.
> 
> Refs
> 1. B F Skinner 1938, The Behaviour Of Organisms.
> 2. B F Skinner 1948, Waldren Two
> 2. B F Skinner 1971, About Behaviourism


Rewards/reinforcements; the words are synonymous in today's world Sleepy. In order to reinforce, we have to reward; to reward is to reinforce. If I was writing a scientific article, I would use _reinforcement_ all the time.

So a dog that has been trained to walk on a loose lead is only avoiding punishment, is it? Or is it walking on a loose lead in aid of reinforcement?


----------



## SleepyBones

> Rewards/reinforcements; the words are synonymous in today's world Sleepy.


Operant learning theory is Skinners and Skinners alone, no one can change someone eleses theory because the alternative theory they use is not the same and could not be called 'the learning theory' which, globaly, always & only refers to Skinners theory.

Words are operant stimuli, an operant is any animals response to any stimuli, words are the most powerful of the frequent operant stimuli in the human experience and their use is used in all indoctrination systems, including sales of goods or services.

"_Frequent operant stimuli_", if you get fed lies or exaggerations for long enough & often enough you'll tend to believe the lie, = reinforcement schedual. That's the principle behind brainwashing & the respondent repeats the lie or exaggeration to others, especially if they isolate themselves in sub cultures of other indoctrinated human automators - religions, political forces & sales systems use words & pictures all the time.



> In order to reinforce, we have to reward; to reward is to reinforce.


That again is a fundamentally flawed interpretation of operant learning theory, in real terms, that is not operant learning theory, you got it wrong again.

A reinforcer stimulus is negative (withheld) until the behaviour happens that the trainer wants to happen, that is negative punishment and negative punishment is the base you use, but, then you try & persuade pet owners they are using a 'reward base' because the words sound 'nice' to them, sales talk in some peoples words, deliberate indoctrination in more formal venacular.

A treat is a punishment stimulus, the animal sees it but it is 'witheld', = negative punishment base, until it behaves in a way the trainer wants it to behave, BUT, it is an aversive negative punishment base & punishments suppress behaviours so the animal works in a way to avoid the punishments.

If the stimulus someone is holding trying to get the behaviour they want from the animal & the animal does not carry out the behaviour, because it is a punishment base, the person trying to teach them has to increase the punishment intensity, in the animals perception of the punishment. Once the negative punishment is intense/strong enough then the animal will perform the behaviour to avoid the aversive punishment = avoidance behaviour, the avoidance behaviour is then reinforced by the animal taking the stimulus the trainer is offering it and the undesired behaviour will weaken & tend not to repeat under similar circumstances.

That is operant learning theory Rottiefan


----------



## Rottiefan

SleepyBones said:


> Operant learning theory is Skinners and Skinners alone, no one can change someone eleses theory because the alternative theory they use is not the same and could not be called 'the learning theory' which, globaly, always & only refers to Skinners theory.


And yet you seem to misconstrue so many other theories on here, all the same? That's an interesting change of morals, isn't it?



> That again is a fundamentally flawed interpretation of operant learning theory, in real terms, that is not operant learning theory, you got it wrong again.
> 
> A reinforcer stimulus is negative (withheld) until the behaviour happens that the trainer wants to happen, that is negative punishment and negative punishment is the base you use, but, then you try & persuade pet owners they are using a reward base because the words sound nice to them, sales talk in some peoples words, deliberate indoctrination in more formal venacular.
> 
> A treat is a punishment stimulus, the animal sees it but it is witheld, = negative punishment base, until it behaves in a way the trainer wants it to behave, BUT, it is an aversive negative punishment base & punishments suppress behaviours so the animal works in a way to avoid the punishments.


I don't know what books or websites you have been reading on, but by my understanding, you've managed to make things even more complex than they should ever be.

Negative punishment is the _removal_ of a reinforcer, not simply withholding a reinforcer. By luring a dog into a sit, we are not punishing standing. However, by turning my back to a dog who jumps up, I am removing the reinforcement of attention (eye-contact most likely). You cannot negatively punish a behaviour by withholding a reinforcer. Operant conditioning is all about consequences- not 'what could be'.



> If the stimulus someone is holding trying to get the behaviour they want from the animal & the animal does not carry out the behaviour, because it is a punishment base, the person trying to teach them has to increase the punishment intensity, in the animals perception of the punishment. Once the negative punishment is intense/strong enough then the animal will perform the behaviour to avoid the aversive punishment = avoidance behaviour, the avoidance behaviour is then reinforced by the animal taking the stimulus the trainer is offering it and the undesired behaviour will weaken & tend not to repeat under similar circumstances.
> 
> That is operant learning theory Rottiefan


Well, that's no operant theory I have ever heard of. Like I said, operant conditioning is all about consequences- the dog does something, they get reinforced/rewarded or punished. Simply waiting for a response from a dog or any animal is not punishment. In shaping, we are not punishing a dog until the moment we reinforce the approximations of a desired behaviour- that's a completely convoluted way of looking at operant theory.

In reinforcement schedules, all the time we are not rewarding does not mean we are punishing. What about a fixed interval schedule, like feeding time? We are not punishing the animal in the time between reinforcements, but yet, that seems to be what you are saying. 

I would like to see your references for what you've written.


----------



## SleepyBones

> I would like to see your references for what you've written.


You need to go back to P1, you'll see some on my post yesterday, 06:14 PM.

I dont have time to answer this but theres not much to answer, reason, what you have written is not operant learning theory. Although there are scattered bits of it they are out of operant learning theory context and just seem to be added to some non operant thing which uses operant words, or just plain incorrect, mainly.



> By luring a dog into a sit, we are not punishing standing.


I'll just give a quick response as there is nothing to answer except that is 100% incorrect, you've lost operant theory completly with that one.

.


----------



## Rottiefan

SleepyBones said:


> You need to go back to P1, you'll see some on my post yesterday, 06:14 PM.
> 
> I dont have time to answer this but theres not much to answer, reason, what you have written is not operant learning theory. Although there are scattered bits of it they are out of operant learning theory context and just seem to be added to some non operant thing which uses operant words, or just plain incorrect, mainly.


Well, I hope you find time to answer it. Here's Skinner using 'reward' and 'reinforcement' to mean the same thing:
Operant conditioning - YouTube



> I'll just give a quick response as there is nothing to answer except that is 100% incorrect, you've lost operant theory completly with that one.
> 
> .


Okay, well I will look forward to your longer response- I'd love to read it :yesnod: You now need to prove that what I wrote is 100% incorrect. You need to prove that by luring a behaviour, we are punishing another behaviour. You also need to prove that not giving reinforcement is negative punishment- that is sloppy application of operant theory in my book.


----------

