# Does punishment actually work?



## hamtaroplanet (Aug 22, 2008)

12. How Punishment Works - YouTube

Hello, I just want to share an educational video that looks into whether punishment is able to stop problem behaviors.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

I have not watched the video but it is a fact that punishment works, when applied correctly.


----------



## hamtaroplanet (Aug 22, 2008)

Watch the video, it might change the way you think.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

No it will not as I said it is not an opinion, it is a fact, you cannot train ANY living thing without using punishment of some kind.


----------



## hamtaroplanet (Aug 22, 2008)

Look, there is no point in arguing if you have not even watched the video.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

I am not arguing, I am stating a fact, that it is impossible to train any animal without using punishment of some sort.

Watching a video will not change this fact.

I have just spent a weekend with Dr Roger Abrantes an evolutionary biologist, and he is of the same opinion. As are millions of others. 

In fact I will personally pay anyone £1k if they can demonstrate how they can train any animal with the use of no punishment, it cannot be done.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

I cant watch the video coz I dont have sound on my pooter.
But...of course punishment works, silly billy!!!
If my dogs werent punished (by being put onto the floor) everytime they growled on my lap Id have 3 nightmare, viscious, yappy, ratdogs not the gorgeous little furkids I have now!!


----------



## hamtaroplanet (Aug 22, 2008)

Give the video a chance, watch it, and if you still have something to discuss or argue, let's talk, this is what an open forum is for.


----------



## Manoy Moneelil (Sep 1, 2011)

*Impossible to hear sound track.*

Waste of time trying to view the clip - should be removed from YouTube due to technical failure regardless of whether the information is correct or otherwise.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Give the video a chance, watch it, and if you still have something to discuss or argue, let's talk, this is what an open forum is for.


I did not watch the video.

I think your lack of defining what punishment means in animal learning needs defining. Its' B F Skinners operant learning theory, there are 2 punishers, postive & negative, they both weaken any behaviour.

Whats lacking in the way you wrote it is the fact that either punishment ( positive or negative) is something the animal preceives as being caused by its own behaviour, so punishment a consequence of what I, you & Uncle Tom Cobbly & all cause to ourselves.

There is a modern study on both negative & positive punishments applied to dogs, it involved 2 positive punishments & one negative punishment, negative punishment is the method in use by most on this board (treat training).

The results were-
1. Positive punishment method a) 92.9% effective.

2. Positive punishment method b) 76% effective.

3. Negative punishment method d) 7.1% classed as ineffective.

Link to study below:

_Comparisons Of Stress and Learning Effects of Three Differrent Training Methods in Dogs_, 2009. 
E. Schalke, Y. Salgirli, I. Otte. Institute Of Animal Behaviour, Hanover,

Elsevier

.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

I watched the video. I still believe that punishment definitely does work if it is applied correctly. 

Oh and the video is about positive punishment, not about punishment as a whole.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

I don't think that anyone doubts that punishment can work. We can train dogs or children to do things through punishment, and looking at purely the results, it can be difficult to demonstrate to people that punishment is not always an advisable form of training. 

I do not like using punishment because 1) I find reinforcing behaviours speeds up learning dramatically 2) punishing behaviours creates a more stressful environment for a dog/person/insert-organism-here and 3) it is much less fun for me!

I think we can train using no punishment, but the extent to what we can train is limited. I could train many behaviours with a clicker using shaping methods, and only positive reinforcement. However, could I train walking on a loose-lead with a dog who has been an industrial puller for 5 years without any punishment at all? Probably not. However, that is not to say I would use positive punishment. I may still use shaping and capturing methods, using positive reinforcement, but there will most likely be a time where I have to turn around and go in another direction, stop and ignore the dog etc. But to me these are still just management techniques. I will use them if I want a behaviour to stop being reinforcing to a dog (like if I take a few steps too far and the dog rushes ahead near an approaching tree- my fault for doing so) but I won't set out to train a dog to walk nicely on a lead purely through using these negative punishment techniques. 

I think punishment works, but positive reinforcement is the real teacher. Positive punishment can be dangerous business in real life settings and have adverse effects, whilst negative punishment needs to repeated a lot usually to have a desired effect, all the while a dog's norepinephrine levels are increasing and thus making the dog more aroused and likely to have an adverse reaction.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

hamtaroplanet said:


> 12. How Punishment Works - YouTube
> 
> Hello, I just want to share an educational video that looks into whether punishment is able to stop problem behaviors.


I haven't seen the video.
You'd have to define punishment because none of my dogs have ever been ''Punished'' in the accepted sense of the word. If however, knowing that they've earned my dissaproval is classed as punishment then yes, you could say I've used punishment. I've trained a succession of top class gun dogs over the years and a firm word has been the only form of chastisement they've known and I've ever had to use.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

springerpete said:


> I haven't seen the video.
> You'd have to define punishment because none of my dogs have ever been ''Punished'' in the accepted sense of the word. If however, knowing that they've earned my dissaproval is classed as punishment then yes, you could say I've used punishment. I've trained a succession of top class gun dogs over the years and a firm word has been the only form of chastisement they've known and I've ever had to use.


Punishment is easy to define however most people do not use the scientific definition of punishment; therein lies the problem.

We ALL use positive punishments and negative punishments when training, it is the DEGREE to which they are used as well as the interpretation which is an issue.

Added to this you get the extremists in each camp.

There is a middle ground.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

hamtaroplanet said:


> 12. How Punishment Works - YouTube
> 
> ...an educational video [exploring] whether punishment is able to stop problem behaviors.


from the description under the clip:

_"Uploaded by *flybybutterflies* on Dec 14, 2011

Is punishment a functionally feasible method of causing change in behavior? 
In this video, we will explore some of the functional limits with using punishment 
as a tool to effect behavioral-change, & what these implications mean. _

FlyByButterflies is among my favorite 'teachers' on UTube! 
she's helpful, uses simple language as much as possible without being sloppy with terms, 
& is a great instructor for beginning-students. :thumbup:

she stipulates within the 1st 2-minutes that she's discussing Pos-P: ADDING an aversive stim, 
to reduce the frequency of an unwanted behavior. This is the conversational AKA conventional term, 'punish' - 
scold a child, smack the jumping dog, shout angrily at a dog who's taking food from a counter, etc.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Must admit I thought it quite a good video too. Like a friendly, factual lecture at a college. I had no problem hearing it either. What I particularly liked was that the video presented the facts and asked the students to think about it, rather than ranting on in an opinionated manner. It was quite sweet.


----------



## hamtaroplanet (Aug 22, 2008)

The sound in the video actually works, and the discussion is about positive punishment, "adding an aversive stimulus to the environment".


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> and the discussion is about positive punishment, "adding an aversive stimulus to the environment".


Thats not the way to describe an a positive punishment, it's misleading & operant is not misleading.

A positive punishment is when any animals own behaviour adds any outcome which the animal perceives as an aversive outcome consequence of its own behaviour e.g. steping on to the road _without looking and getting hit by cyclist_, tends to weaken the behaviour of _not looking when crossing the road_ = avoidence behaviour.

.


----------



## hamtaroplanet (Aug 22, 2008)

You might want to check scholarly articles or psychology books. Going by your definition, if a baby cries loudly and the mother slaps him across the face, that is not considered as a punishment? (The baby's behavior of crying is not asking for slapping to be added.)


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> Thats not the way to describe an a positive punishment, it's misleading & operant is not misleading.
> 
> A positive punishment is when any animals own behaviour adds any outcome which the animal perceives as an aversive outcome consequence of its own behaviour e.g. steping on to the road _without looking and getting hit by cyclist_, tends to weaken the behaviour of _not looking when crossing the road_ = avoidence behaviour.
> 
> .


Your description is the most misleading thing I've ever read. It's inapplicable in real life settings and raises many cognitive and theoretical issues besides.

Please Sleepy B, can you provide a proper reference to these quotes? I don't mean a book title and year of publish, I mean a _page reference _which we can all see and check out for ourselves. That is a proper reference.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

SB I think you need to review your current interpretation of punishment.

I have referenced Roger Abrantes simply because I am currently working on SMAF.

The SMAF Project

Open SMAF manual and look at Page 3

A punisher is everything that decreases the frequency and/or intensity of a behavior when presented or removed simultaneously or immediately after that behavior takes place. (Punishment is the withdrawal of a positive reinforcer or the presentation of a negative reinforcer.)
8.1. Example: Whenever I remove !treat because the dog doesnt show the behavior I want, I am (negatively) punishing it.

9. A positive punisher is everything that decreases the frequency and/or intensity of a behavior when presented simultaneously or immediately after that behavior takes place.
(Positive punishment is the presentation of a negative reinforcer.)
9.1. Example: Whenever I present ?leash because the dog doesnt show the behavior I want, I am (positively) punishing it.

10. A negative punisher is everything that decreases the frequency and/or intensity of a behavior when removed simultaneously or immediately after that behavior takes place.
(Negative punishment is the withdrawal of a positive reinforcer.).


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> You might want to check scholarly articles or psychology books. Going by your definition, if a baby cries loudly and the mother slaps him across the face, that is not considered as a punishment? (The baby's behavior of crying is not asking for slapping to be added.)


What you wrote above is the normal everyday language subjective use the word "punishment".

Previously, you used the scientific technical term from B F Skinners operant theory, "positive punishment", I responed to that, below is what I wrote, where do you think its flawed?

A positive punishment is when any animals own behaviour adds any outcome which the animal perceives as an aversive outcome consequence of its own behaviour e.g. steping on to the road without looking and getting hit by cyclist, tends to weaken the behaviour of not looking when crossing the road = avoidence behaviour.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Your description is the most misleading thing I've ever read. It's inapplicable in real life settings and raises many cognitive and theoretical issues besides.


You need to make it clear exactly what you don't understand because the above statement omits whats misleading & why & especially why its inapplicable in real life settings.

It's written in operant learning theory terms which is supposed to be the subject of this post.

To save you flickin back a page, below is my description of an operant learning situation, what do you think is flawed with it? NO vageries please, its not a vague example.

A positive punishment is when any animals own behaviour  adds any outcome which the animal perceives as an aversive outcome consequence of its own behaviour e.g. stepping on to the road without looking and getting hit by cyclist,  tends to weaken  the behaviour of not looking when crossing the road = avoidence behaviour.

.


----------



## hamtaroplanet (Aug 22, 2008)

Just look at the example that I've given you, how is it possible for a baby's or any animal's own behavior cause a punishment??? It's like you are saying that the behavior ITSELF brings about the punishment. That is not true because punishment is often given to the animal and sometimes, punishment can even occur without the animal doing anything wrong, think - child abuse, children get punished without anything wrong in their behavior. So you are saying that child abusers are not punishing their children just because it does not fit in with your definition? A definition must work for all conditions for it to be a good scientific definition.

In the video, the definition which is stated which is found in textbooks of Psychology is that positive punishment is "adding an aversive stimulus to the environment that causes a decrease in behavior." I left out the second part in my previous quote but that is the full definition of what positive punishment is. 

Just watch the video, I think it is great to have an open discussion but I think that we must have a common ground from which to work on.


----------



## Sammy123 (Nov 9, 2010)

Ok, Ive read so many times about positive/negative reinforcement and punishment and everybody on here is just too advanced for me. I train my Bella using clicker and sausages but when she does something wrong I make this Aaaa annoying voice to let her know, what she does is wrong. So is this a positive or negative punishment? I never shout or hit/pinch, I only use that annoying Aaaaaaaaa, which sounds like a bad boat horn. Be simple explaining please.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Just look at the example that I've given you, how is it possible for a baby's or any animal's own behavior cause a punishment???


I SAID - _A positive punishment is when any animals own behaviour adds any outcome which the animal perceives as an aversive outcome as a consequence of its own behaviour_ THAT is what positive punishment means.

Negative punishment is when any animals own behaviour withdraws or witholds something it wants e.g. you need to go to the shop to buy something you want, instead you watch TV, so your 'watch TV behaviour' has withdrawn/witheld the reward of the the thing you wanted, next time 'not going' to the shop maybe weakened & you go, in which case an operant response has occured.

The above are operant learning theory examples. What your talking about is nothing to do with operant learning theory, punishments do.

Maybe you should have retitled your post abuse or something else.



> It's like you are saying that the behavior ITSELF brings about the punishment.


Yes, I thought that was obvious, if I don't pay me credit card & they stop my credit that's a positive punishment for the behaviour of _'not paying off my credit card,_ & it's my own behaviour which got my credit stopped, that might weaken my getting into debt behaviour.

ITS ALL VERY SIMPLE!

.
.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Ok, I've read so many times about positive/negative reinforcement and punishment and everybody on here is just too advanced for me. I train my Bella using clicker and sausages but when she does something wrong I make this Aaaa annoying voice to let her know, what she does is wrong. So is this a positive or negative punishment? I never shout or hit/pinch, I only use that annoying Aaaaaaaaa, which sounds like a bad boat horn. Be simple explaining please.


Oh don't worry about, in human psychology they dont get all this confusion, its been well understood since 1938, in any case Skinners theory was discredited & rejected by human psychotherapists by 1939, it completly exlcudes the animals pyscholgy, Skinner said that could never be understood.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Sammy123 said:


> Ok, Ive read so many times about positive/negative reinforcement and punishment and everybody on here is just too advanced for me. I train my Bella using clicker and sausages but when she does something wrong I make this Aaaa annoying voice to let her know, what she does is wrong. So is this a positive or negative punishment? I never shout or hit/pinch, I only use that annoying Aaaaaaaaa, which sounds like a bad boat horn. Be simple explaining please.


This is positive punishment, as the sound is an aversive stimulus which your dog will want to avoid. Positive punishment simply means adding something to the environment (not positive= happy) after a behaviour that is going to decrease the behaviour in the future. Negative punishment means you are taking away something the dog finds reinforcing (e.g. a toy, your attention if the dog jumps up etc) after a specific behaviour so that the dog will not perform that behaviour as much in the future.

As in the video, I agree that using positive punishment is not ideal because it can seriously increase the stress levels of an animal. Your case is minor, but people who use stronger aversive punishments such as metal collars, or physical slaps and kicks, can have worse affects as the dog both works to avoid this behaviour and could associate you with these bad things. This, clearly, does little for the relationship between dog and owner. I can almost immediately tell a dog who gets positively punished by their owner from a dog who doesn't, by watching their body language.

Instead of punishing a behaviour because we deem it wrong, I find it much more sensible to view the 'wrong' behaviour as a fault on behalf of the trainer. Given that dogs most probably don't posses the ability to self-reflect or intentionally engage in behaviours that we deem morally wrong or inappropriate, we have to assume that they just didn't know what to do in the situation they were punished in, and acted out of self-rewarding behaviour. Take a deep breath, look at what you'd like the dog to do instead, and take a step back in training to make this more explicit to the dog. A dog who is constantly positively punished for behaviours that they don't know are 'wrong' lack confidence, will be more stressed and unwilling to engage in interactions with you, most likely. I'm not saying this is your case, only making a general assumption on what I have seen time and time again. In the extreme cases, dogs can bite at these times, termed 'owner-directed aggression', after a simple breach of space by someone or delivery of a command in some cases. These cases are not to do with dominance or anything such like, but with learned consequences of interactions.

Sorry, I went off in a tangent


----------



## Sammy123 (Nov 9, 2010)

Rottiefan said:


> This is positive punishment, as the sound is an aversive stimulus which your dog will want to avoid. Positive punishment simply means adding something to the environment (not positive= happy) after a behaviour that is going to decrease the behaviour in the future. Negative punishment means you are taking away something the dog finds reinforcing (e.g. a toy, your attention if the dog jumps up etc) after a specific behaviour so that the dog will not perform that behaviour as much in the future.
> 
> As in the video, I agree that using positive punishment is not ideal because it can seriously increase the stress levels of an animal. *Your case is minor, but people who use stronger aversive punishments such as metal collars, or physical slaps and kicks, can have worse affects as the dog both works to avoid this behaviour and could associate you with these bad things.* This, clearly, does little for the relationship between dog and owner. I can almost immediately tell a dog who gets positively punished by their owner from a dog who doesn't, by watching their body language.
> 
> ...


Thanks.  But are you saying that both minor corrections and horrible corrections such as shock collars, all fall into the same category, positive punishment?

With Bella, Aaaa aaaa really works, but we've been using it since she was 8 weeks. We would use it when she chewed on the shoes, climbed on the sofa and did all other unpleasant things which she doesn't do now...I am now using it when I tell her to wait at the door and she is about to brake the command. I say aaa aaa and she goes strait back to where she was.  She knows exactly what she did wrong.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Sammy123 said:


> Thanks.  But are you saying that both minor corrections and horrible corrections such as shock collars, all fall into the same category, positive punishment?
> 
> With Bella, Aaaa aaaa really works, but we've been using it since she was 8 weeks. We would use it when she chewed on the shoes, climbed on the sofa and did all other unpleasant things which she doesn't do now...I am now using it when I tell her to wait at the door and she is about to brake the command. I say aaa aaa and she goes strait back to where she was.  She knows exactly what she did wrong.


What you're using is still positive punishment technically, but no, I don't equate a metal collar correction with saying 'Ah ah' in practise. What you have is a no-reward marker, a marker that the dog has been conditioned to associate with not receiving the desired reward, and thus will try something else. Since you've been using this since young, and are not intimidating the dog in anyway, it probably serves quite well in training and I know many people who use them.

I personally don't use them, as I think that it is just as clear to not reward an undesirable behaviour and reset the dog in the position I want them. I can then, the next time around, reward a little more quickly or 'reduce my criteria' as it is known. For example, whereas if your dog breaks a stay, you say 'Ah ah' and the dogs sits again, I will say 'Sit' again (on a mat or something, somewhere that the dog knows to sit) and reduce the amount of time she has to stay in that position before she gets rewarded. But it comes down to personal preference a lot of the time, and this is just the quickest and most efficient way I have used to teach stays. In fact, I rather teach a release command when possible instead of a specific 'Stay' command.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Sammy123 said:


> Ok, Ive read so many times about positive/negative reinforcement and punishment and everybody on here is just too advanced for me. I train my Bella using clicker and sausages but when she does something wrong I make this Aaaa annoying voice to let her know, what she does is wrong. So is this a positive or negative punishment? I never shout or hit/pinch, I only use that annoying Aaaaaaaaa, which sounds like a bad boat horn. Be simple explaining please.


That is positive punishment, your post demonstrates my point exactly so thank you. It is not about whether or not you punish, it is the DEGREE to which you punish.

So whether you use an electric collar or a verbal sound, it is still a punisher to a dog.

It is the DOG that decides what is punishing not the owner so what is punishing for one can be reinforcing for another eg water spray.

A body posture or tone of voice can be a positive punishment.

A NRM is very hard for most people to do. Your Aaaaaaa which sounds like a bad boat horn will not be a NRM as a NRM should be a neutral sound which conveys neither positive punishment nor positive reinforcer.

Also NRMs need to be carefully used, in the majority of cases that I see they are used too frequently which means you have not sufficiently reinforced what you want otherwise the dog would not be making many mistakes.

Also the tone of voice used demonstrates to the dog that it is NOT a NRM and then you risk the dog shutting down.

Also you have to remember that dogs are amoral, they do NOT know "they have done wrong" as they do not understand the concept of right or wrong in an ethical context.

They do what works.

Also a reward is not the same as a reinforcer. A reinforcer is something that makes the behaviour more likely to happen, a reward does not necessarily achieve this. 

I have seen plenty of people who use a clicker and sausages to train dogs and plenty of positive punishment unfortunately.

As I always say, it is impossible to train any living creature without any form of punishment.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

smokeybear said:


> As I always say, it is impossible to train any living creature without any form of punishment.


Can you elaborate on this? I'm pretty sure that I can train, and so can many others, specific behaviours without any punishment at all. For example, shaping a 'Place' of 'Go To Mat' behaviour. Flop the mat on the floor and sit on it, click for the dog's interest/approach/standing/sit etc., on the mat. Increase to standing on, standing off but near and standing further away from the mat, all the whilst rewarding for the dog coming onto the mat. Include verbal cue just before the the dog does the already taught behaviour. And so on...

I am confused at where you would think there would be any punishment in this routine?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

> Originally posted by *Sleepy-Brains*
> 
> A positive punishment is when any animals own behaviour adds any outcome
> which the animal perceives as an aversive outcome [consequent to] its own behaviour
> ...


If animals only 'learned' by being hit by vehicles, most wouldn't survive long-enuf to breed.
being struck by a car, a motorcycle, or indeed even a bicycle, can be quickly fatal - or slowly fatal, 
as crippling injuries or simply being too slow to evade a predator, seek food, water or shelter, 
generally end an animal's life.

A - an aversive can be ADDED by the environs consequent to a behavior, 
or merely COINCIDENT to a behavior: coincident aversives are not causally related, 
but can result in superstitious behavior, nonetheless.

B - an aversive can be added as a *consequence* by a person: owner, handler, trainer, groomer, 
vet, vet-tech, dog-walker, whomever - *after an UNwanted behavior, in an effort to stop that behavior 
being repeated in the future.*

the latter version is the one used in OC definitions - the subject OPERATES on the environs, 
producing a CONSEQUENCE delivered by the person, or designed by the person. 
['design' would include such variants as an automatic feeder, etc.]


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> A positive punishment is when any animals own behaviour  adds any outcome which the animal perceives as an aversive outcome consequence of its own behaviour e.g. stepping on to the road without looking and getting hit by cyclist,  tends to weaken  the behaviour of not looking when crossing the road = avoidence behaviour.
> 
> .




Another backwards inane reply.

I'm walking (my own behavior) and I turn my ankle (aversive), it is an aversive outcome of walking. Now I perceive this aversive outcome as a consequence of walking. In SB backwards Bizarro world I am being punished for walking.

If I had been sitting it wouldn't have happened. I am still walking.

My dogs know this too. Once the cold really hits, under the right conditions the water will freeze on their pads, (aversive) and under SB scheme it should stop them from ever walking in the ice and snow. They too are still walking.



> A positive punishment is when any animals own behaviour adds any outcome which the animal perceives as an aversive outcome [consequent to] its own behaviour e.g., stepping [sic] onto the road without looking & getting hit by [a] cyclist, tends to weaken the behaviour of not looking when crossing the road = avoidence behaviour.


No only is this definition wrong but it also show how little SB understands about animals. SB is making the false assumption that the dog will associate "not looking" with the aversive event. It's far more likely to associate it with a smell, sound, the car or the road. Sidman already showed that this a problem with punishment. While it may change A behaviour, it won't necessarily change the behavior of not crossing without checking (even assuming the dog knew this was the problem which to me seems unlikely). It can also change some totally unrelated behavior and make it afraid of any approaching object.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Rottiefan said:


> What you're using is still positive punishment technically, but no, I don't equate a metal collar correction with saying 'Ah ah' in practise. What you have is a no-reward marker, a marker that the dog has been conditioned to associate with not receiving the desired reward, and thus will try something else. Since you've been using this since young, and are not intimidating the dog in anyway, it probably serves quite well in training and I know many people who use them.
> 
> I personally don't use them, as I think that it is just as clear to not reward an undesirable behaviour and reset the dog in the position I want them. I can then, the next time around, reward a little more quickly or 'reduce my criteria' as it is known. For example, whereas if your dog breaks a stay, you say 'Ah ah' and the dogs sits again, I will say 'Sit' again (on a mat or something, somewhere that the dog knows to sit) and reduce the amount of time she has to stay in that position before she gets rewarded. But it comes down to personal preference a lot of the time, and this is just the quickest and most efficient way I have used to teach stays. In fact, I rather teach a release command when possible instead of a specific 'Stay' command.


The example you have used here of a dog breaking its stay - I think the usual way is to say nothing corrective (or punishment) and put the dog back in the sit. So I dont find this a very good example. For other things the same person will use a correction by tone of voice or use of lead or whatever. And the dog will learn very quickly. I was thinking about this when something was said on another thread about teaching leave - I dont teach leave, I just tell my dogs to leave in a tone of voice that makes it clear they are to stop what they are doing. Call it punishment if you like, but I call it making it clear what is wanted.

It would be really nice if a couple of the posters on here would stop sounding like a scientific text book and talk plain english that all the forum members will understand.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Rottiefan said:


> Can you elaborate on this? I'm pretty sure that I can train, and so can many others, specific behaviours without any punishment at all. For example, shaping a 'Place' of 'Go To Mat' behaviour. Flop the mat on the floor and sit on it, click for the dog's interest/approach/standing/sit etc., on the mat. Increase to standing on, standing off but near and standing further away from the mat, all the whilst rewarding for the dog coming onto the mat. Include verbal cue just before the the dog does the already taught behaviour. And so on...
> 
> I am confused at where you would think there would be any punishment in this routine?


I am a very experienced and advanced clicker trainer, it is however impossible to train consistent reliable behaviours with NO negative punishers ie by removing something the dog wants which may be toy, me, food etc.

I have also trained with some of the top clicker trainers in the UK and from abroad, and all of us, without exception, use negative punishment.

But if you can train without using negative punishment, I will pay to come on your seminar.
And so I am sure would others, like me, at the top of the tree in their respective sports and ticket winners.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

When Roxy tried to chase a swan & was attacked by it. She also tried to chase the cats a couple oftimes when she first came to live with us & was swiped by them; twice & cried when they got her. She now doesn't chase the cats or any swans. She seems to have learnt that she may get hurt doing this. 

This seems to have been a very quick process in her stopping a behaviour towards these animals. Yet I have not had the same success trying to teach her not to chase other types of animals by rewarding her good behaviour & not using a punishment. It seems that (for her), this type of behaviour (chasing) is being more effectively curbed by having a consequence


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> When Roxy tried to chase a swan [she] was attacked by [the bird].
> She also tried to chase the cats a couple of times when she first came to live with us, & was swiped by them;
> twice, [she] cried when they [scratched] her. She now doesn't chase the cats or any swans.
> She seems to have learnt that she may get hurt doing this.
> ...


'consequences' can be enjoyable, neutral, or unpleasant - 
all 3 are consequences, but the first we WANT, the 2nd we don't care, & the 3rd we DON'T want.

she learned directly from the swan who attacked her, & the cats who retaliated. 
what other animals does she chase? Squirrels, rabbits, songbirds, deer, sheep or other livestock?...

what sort of dog is Roxy? a herding-breed or herding-mix? 
i ask because they are the most-likely dogs to ADORE chasing - anything & everything! - in an effort 
to control the movements of others: kids on a soccer-pitch, a beach-ball rolled by the wind, anything 
that moves can entice them to chase... fallen leaves, shadows if the dog is confined & excessively bored, 
& so on; it can become truly obsessive behavior, as in a BC who wears a 10-inch deep track by the fence, 
running beside the 6-ft privacy fence CHASING unseen people on bikes, passing dogs on leashes, etc - 
all by sound... the dog is frustrated by the physical barrier, but the sound of passersby elicits chasing, 
even tho the targets are invisible. :nonod: Very sad, but i've seen this.

a SQUIRREL is not going to attack a dog; nor will a rabbit, a songbird, or a sheep. 
*if YOU punish the dog for chasing such animals, it won't be the ANIMAL that she learns to fear, 
as in the case of swans & cats; it could very-well be YOU she learns to fear & avoid, in that case.*

that's the risk when using aversives as a consequence, in an effort to reduce or stop un-wanted behaviors: 
Fallout is an ever-present possibility, & the type of fallout [the behavioral result] often can't be predicted.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Blitz said:


> The example you have used here of a dog breaking its stay - I think the usual way is to say nothing corrective (or punishment) and put the dog back in the sit. So I dont find this a very good example. For other things the same person will use a correction by tone of voice or use of lead or whatever. And the dog will learn very quickly. I was thinking about this when something was said on another thread about teaching leave - I dont teach leave, I just tell my dogs to leave in a tone of voice that makes it clear they are to stop what they are doing. Call it punishment if you like, but I call it making it clear what is wanted.
> 
> It would be really nice if a couple of the posters on here would stop sounding like a scientific text book and talk plain english that all the forum members will understand.


I think majoirty of forum members are turned off by these continous scientific arguments that prevail the forum. It is always the same peeps arguing the same point of view and it is repetitious, nay boring to say the least. IMO.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Blitz said:


> It would be really nice if a couple of the posters on here would stop sounding like a scientific text book
> & talk plain english, that all the forum members will understand.


it was Sleepy-Brains who insisted upon dragging in behavioral-science terms, BY defining one incorrectly. 
ignoring that wrong-info means a beginner will be either confused or misinformed; neither is a good thing.

did U watch the video, per the link in the OP? It uses minimal science-speak, whilst being admirably clear 
& comprehensible.

for anyone who wants definitions, there's Rob's handy glossary, too - 
Glossary - Explanation of Abbreviations, Acronyms and Jargon - Pet Forums Community

much of the time, we can use conversational English - but sometimes technical terms are unavoidable, 
if we want to be accurate.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> click for the dog's interest/approach/standing/sit etc., on the mat. Increase to standing on, standing off but near and standing further away from the mat, all the whilst *rewarding for the dog coming onto the mat*.


Thats negative punishment based training method & an easy to understand example of negative punishment based training.

If the dog does not do what the trainer wants the behaviour of _'not doing what the trainer wants'_ is negatively punished i.e. the trainer witholds something the dog wants untill it gets on the mat, _'getting onto the mat'_ is avoidance behaviour, the dog is performing a behaviour which avoids the negative punishment, its called escape training, it escapes a consequence it does not want i.e. not getting something it wants.



> I am confused at where you would think there would be any punishment in this routine?


Above.

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> When Roxy tried to chase a swan & was attacked by it. She also tried to chase the cats a couple oftimes when she first came to live with us & was swiped by them; twice & cried when they got her. She now doesn't chase the cats or any swans. She seems to have learnt that she may get hurt doing this.
> This seems to have been a very quick process in her stopping a behaviour towards these animals


Yes, she learned the consequence of her behaviour had unwanted consequences i.e. positive punishment consequences, no healthy animal _tends to repeat_ a behaviour which they have learned has a positive punishment consequence.

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Yet I have not had the same success trying to teach her not to chase other types of animals by rewarding her good behaviour & not using a punishment. It seems that (for her), this type of behaviour (chasing) is being more effectively curbed by having a consequence


What you call rewarding (should be reinforced) was actually a _'negative punishment'_, the behaviour of her 'not doing what you wanted her to do' was not reinforced (rewarded), you _witheld_ what you call a 'reward' untill she complied with what you wanted.

'Negative punishment' consequence behaviour is the behaviour of '_not_' doing something in a certain way.

'Positive punishment' consequence behaviour is the behaviour of '_doing'_ something in a certain way.

They both have the same outcome = _a behaviour is weakened and tends not to repeat_.

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

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


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Corrie
> I'm walking (my own behavior) and I turn my ankle (aversive), it is an aversive outcome of walking. Now I perceive this aversive outcome as a consequence of walking. In SB backwards Bizarro world I am being punished for walking.
> If I had been sitting it wouldn't have happened. I am still walking.


An average individual would have been normally walking, probably covering many thousands of miles & hundreds of thousands of individual steps over a 20 year period & and no twisted ankle aversive occurs then the twisted ankle once in every 20 years would not be generalized to walking behaviour, human would probably think of it as an accident.

If an individual twists their ankle once in every three steps of normal walking then they would probably perceive a twisted ankle was a positive punishment consequence of walking, then they would probably avoid walking behaviours by using a wheelchair, many years ago.

There are unfortunate individuals who have congenital or accident caused conditions who do experience aversive consequences if they walk, or try to walk & who do have to spend their lives sitting in a wheelchair or others who need walking aids in a society which has totally inadequate provision for their special needs. I find your example unfortunate, ill considered & silly.

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Corri
> My dogs know this too. Once the cold really hits, under the right conditions the water will freeze on their pads, (aversive) and under SB scheme it should stop them from ever walking in the ice and snow. They too are still walking.


What you describe (no behavioural change) is not 'positive punishment' behaviour. What I repeatedly wrote is that a _'positive punisher' _ _'weakens a behaviour'_.

The way you wrote is that no behaviour change occures in the weather conditions you describe so, obviously, no positive punishment has occured, to repeat again, a positive punisher DOES weaken any behaviour, you report NO weakened behaviour so no _'positive punished' _behaviour presents itself.

In contrast, as the weather starts to get cooler into cold as the summer months turn to autumn & winter the majority of dogs behaviours present increased activity levels, including increased speeds of walking, trotting & an oncreae in tunning activity.

Those increases are NOT _'positive punished'_ behaviours, as Corri seems to suppose. The increases in behavioural activity levels we see in the winter months with most dogs are 'negative reinforced' behaviours.

_'Negative reinforcers' _ 'strengthen' & shape behaviours, _'positive punishments'_ weaken behaviours by suppressing the behaviour.

.


----------



## itsmikey (Oct 19, 2011)

wrt rewarding for the dog coming onto the mat...



SleepyBones said:


> If the dog does not do what the trainer wants the behaviour of _'not doing what the trainer wants'_ is negatively punished i.e. the trainer witholds something the dog wants untill it gets on the mat, _'getting onto the mat'_ is avoidance behaviour, the dog is performing a behaviour which avoids the negative punishment, its called escape training, it escapes a consequence it does not want i.e. not getting something it wants.
> .


I'm not a dog trainer, so I admit to not having a great deal depth of knowledge of this subject, but even I see a flaw in your logic.

SB, I suggest your find a good book on basic dog (not 50 year old pigeons) training that explains how to do reward based training properly... that may be why you can't get it to work and use 'stimulation' instead.

If I was LURING with a treat, the dog would know a treat was coming and be salivating, and I could (almost) follow your double negative logic sentences. (Indeed, instead of floating I will try not negatively not sinking next times I go swimming.)

If I reward (without holding a treat out first) and the treat appears instantly at the dogs feet out of the blue if a desired behaviour occurs, how can the dog be avoiding the avoidance of not negatively having a treat that it is not expecting?

I hope that explains it in a way that you can not negatively follow. 

BTW, could you explain whether your way of thinking means you think that Skinner was wrong and positive reinforcement doesn't truely exist as a OC quadrant?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Hence the dog being rewarded for stepping on the mat was not punished, as the act of walking on the floor instead of the mat was not weakened and the dog still spends most of his life on anything other than the mat.

If the dog has no idea there is a treat or click forthcoming and approaches the mat out of curiosity, but is then rewarded for it, the behaviour of stepping onto the mat to cue can be even more strongly reinforced for the dog, than if he was lured onto it.

Many people would teach a puppy to sit by watching him at play and then when he sits of his own accord, saying 'sit' and giving him a reward. It's a form of shaping without luring that many people call 'free-shaping'.

The animal does not feel punished in any way and no behaviour is weakened. Behaviour can be weakened by other methods than punishment too, but by rewarding alternative and incompatible behaviours. The animal doesn't need to even know there is a treat, let alone removing it. So the animal doesn't feel punished for the undesirable behaviour, hence it's not punishment.

The majority of reward based dog trainers use reward as the mainstay of their training, rarely if ever use positive punishment, but may use negative punishment. With horses negative and positive reinforcement is used more often than either punishments, as horses don't really desire your company or treats or toys in the same way that dogs might and have different expectations and memory processes.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Elles said:


> Hence the dog being rewarded for stepping on the mat was not punished, as the act of walking on the floor instead of the mat was not weakened and the dog still spends most of his life on anything other than the mat.
> 
> If the dog has no idea there is a treat or click forthcoming and approaches the mat out of curiosity, but is then rewarded for it, the behaviour of stepping onto the mat to cue can be even more strongly reinforced for the dog, than if he was lured onto it.
> 
> ...


Reward based training does not necessarily = operant conditioning or positive reinforcement.

I am certainly struggling to understand the following statement and its logic?

_If the dog has no idea there is a treat or click forthcoming and approaches the mat out of curiosity, but is then rewarded for it, the behaviour of stepping onto the mat to cue can be even more strongly reinforced for the dog, than if he was lured onto it_

As for the statement _With horses negative and positive reinforcement is used more often than either punishments_ we need to remember that for a negative reinforcer to work, a positive punishment must have been used first.

Ie the use of hands and heels and then their removal.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> I am certainly struggling to understand the following statement and its logic?


Some clicker trainers believe that what they call free-shaping is more effective than luring. I offered it as food for thought, not as a fact. 



> need to remember that for a negative reinforcer to work, a positive punishment must have been used first.


You are then calling 'positive punishment' what I've been taught is called an aversive. Something the animal would prefer to move away from and it is then either removed by the operator (the animal appears to be about to move, so the aversive is removed and the animal rewarded) or by the animal (the animal moves away from it) and he is then rewarded.

This could be something like a light touch of the hand and/or a body position that encourages the horse to move, rather than something he would view as punishing I think.

I'm thinking it could be like a dog walking to heel wouldn't walk so close if the handler was leaning towards them. I would say that the handler's body position could be an aversive that the dog was avoiding and self rewarding by being further away? The dog would feel punished if he was pulled in closer regardless, but otherwise I'm not sure there's a positive punishment involved?

As I said, I'm learning myself and posters such as SB are further muddying what should be clear water imo.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> Reward based training does not necessarily = operant conditioning or positive reinforcement.


Forgot this. This was relating to SB saying that what I would call reward based and easy enough for someone looking for a trainer to understand, is actually punishment based. I don't agree and was offering the idea that the dog might actually offer behaviour based on curiosity, or natural behaviours so they wouldn't be withholding or removing something the dog wants and punishing him every time they train him. :frown2:

If I read that a trainer is a punishment based trainer, I would be thinking that the trainer is looking for behaviours to punish, rather than the reward based trainers who I would view as trainers looking for behaviours to reward. :thumbup1:

I would agree that doling out rewards isn't necessarily conditioning.

YMMV


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> I think majoirty of forum members are turned off by these continous scientific arguments that prevail the forum. It is always the same peeps arguing the same point of view and it is repetitious, nay boring to say the least. IMO.


I would agree and don't usually get involved, but this particular thread is about Positive Punishment and conditioning generally and not a specific looking for advice thread. So I think this thread is fine to get all sciency, argumentative, repetitious and boring and hopefully free up more simple replies for specific questions.


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

I haven`t read this thread but yes, punishment works. Kicking, hitting, frightening, giving electric shocks, beating and all sorts of other actions will make an animal do what you want. 
But is this the way you want to do it? 
And for the Scientists: yes, `positive` punishment works (see above). But personally I like my dogs to work for me because it`s fun. If I want a robot, I`ll buy one.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> Thats negative punishment based training method & an easy to understand example of negative punishment based training.
> 
> If the dog does not do what the trainer wants the behaviour of _'not doing what the trainer wants'_ is negatively punished i.e. the trainer witholds something the dog wants untill it gets on the mat, _'getting onto the mat'_ is avoidance behaviour, the dog is performing a behaviour which avoids the negative punishment, its called escape training, it escapes a consequence it does not want i.e. not getting something it wants.
> 
> ...


Poor SB, still confused. Frankly I'm tired of explaining such a basic thing to you. Either you simply lack the intelligence to understand and/or you are being a negative nelly just to disrupt a discussion you don't like. I lean towards the and/or option.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> What you call rewarding (should be reinforced) was actually a _'negative punishment'_, the behaviour of her 'not doing what you wanted her to do' was not reinforced (rewarded), you _witheld_ what you call a 'reward' untill she complied with what you wanted.


NO. He's wrong again. Ignore everything he posts.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> What you describe (no behavioural change) is not 'positive punishment' behaviour. What I repeatedly wrote is that a 'positive punisher' 'weakens a behaviour'.


No only does SB lack the intelligence to understand easy definitions, he has never had a dog. If he had a dog, he'd know that the dogs start limping and in a few steps stop walking, as they try to "kick" off and shake off the ice from their paws.

The rest of us recognized this as a behavioral change.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

Elles said:


> I would agree and don't usually get involved, but this particular thread is about Positive Punishment and conditioning generally and not a specific looking for advice thread. So I think this thread is fine to get all sciency, argumentative, repetitious and boring and hopefully free up more simple replies for specific questions.


We wouldn't keep bringing this up if SleepyHead didn't insist in lying to people with his own twisted definitions and a completely corrupted take on OC.

Whether you look at lay websites (clickertraining, Dr. Ps, wiki) or scholarly textbooks, there is agreement in the definitions and the practical examples.

It's just one deluded member who thinks he knows better than the rest of the world, but to make sure people aren't deceived by his ignorance his posts must be addressed.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

Punishment 'works' - this is adaptive. Animals that did not reduce behaviour that resulted in painful, harmful, dangerous consequences would soon be seriously injured and killed - hence natural selection selecting for animals capable of learning (i.e. changing behaviour in response to environmental conditions).

Applying punishers in teaching scenarios must be done carefully as it can come with fallout - the side effects to applying aversives. 

Positive reinforcement requires negative punishment and negative reinforcement requires positive punishment. 

If a behaviour is increasing something is reinforcing it and if a behaviour is decreasing something is punishing it.

Understanding quadrants is not difficult but discussing them here sure is


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

> Positive reinforcement requires negative punishment and negative reinforcement requires positive punishment.


Articles: The Magic of Shaping by Pamela Dennison at Positive Motivation Dog Training!

I think this article was written in 2005, I too thought punishment isn't always required and it is possible to train some behaviours without it.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Elles
> Hence the dog being rewarded for stepping on the mat was not punished, as the act of walking on the floor instead of the mat was not weakened and the dog still spends most of his life on anything other than the mat


.

The animal is never reinforced when it does something, attempts are made to reinforce a behaviour to try and get the behaviour to repeat (_unless you can explain how any animal repeats being an animal_).

Your completly incorrect when you state, _"was not punished"_, the animals _'reward behaviour'_ was to investigate, probably by scenting, a salient sound source. Unless the animal performed the behaviour of walking to the sound source to scent explore it, the reward of scent exploration was witheld = 'negative punishment'.

Operant conditioning is about behaviours & how the behaviours are strengthened or weakend, operant is not about the animal generaly. Your statement is irrelevant to operant learning theory quote > "_Hence the dog being rewarded for stepping on the mat_"

Human analogy.
Subject is walking in a strange moorland area, subject sees a monument about a mile away. Subjects curiosity is aroused & subject 'wants' to sight explore it close up (reward potential) to see if they can understand/find out what it signifies.

Immediate access & ability to explore all sides of the monument (reward) is witheld i.e. 'negativly punished' unless subject 'performes walking behaviour to get to the monument, the subject starts 'walking to monument behaviour' to satisfy (reward) their curiosity.

Subject arrives at monument & finds out that nothing is written on monument & no explantory symbols are carved into it, subjects curiosity is not satisfied & the behaviour of walking to unknown, distant, moorland monuments is weakened & may not repeat often or at all.

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Elles
> If the dog has no idea there is a treat or click forthcoming and approaches the mat out of curiosity,


Satisfying curisoity is a very powerfull behaviour, thats why man went to the moon & explores far beyond that.

In the dogs case, the initial major salient to trigger 'curiosity' is the 'click sound' & the dogs vision would be on where the dog thought the sound came from, there are numerous other variables, maybe the mat but that would probably be at the bottom edge of vision depending on where the dog thought the sound was coming from.

Regardless of all the variables, the dog needs to satisy its curiosity, that is its' motive, the satisfaction reward/feeling is witheld unless the dog behaves in a way to satisfy that arrosed curiosity, the only way possible is that the dog performs 'walking behaviours', maybe giving the unexpected treat and the association of stepping on the mat at the same time, if repeated, the dog would learn the click meant get on the mat to get a treat, BUT, unless it behaved in a way to get the treat the treat is witheld.

Thats negative punishment.

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

All that said -

Well, fair play to you & others like you, if you can get a few idiots to pay you for all that _'reward training/behavioural treatment'_ nonsence...well, they deserve to get ripped off, if they don't fall for your stuff they'll only fall for something else & spend elsewhere.

At the end of the day it's not people like you who are the fools, your quite smart operators, the fools are of the same make up as the one below, how on earth anyone is so stupid as to repeat the same mistake over & over again defies belief of the average person, the fun part below is that he is now going to classes which he calls "excellent" & here he is asking for help on an anonymous membership internet forum.....you & your other mates on here must meet some real oddball suckers Elles, but as I said, they're the fools not you and others like you.

2 years training classes and no results.
_My first trainer's rate was £150 for 2 hours, the second one was £300 for several sessions, third was £160 for two hours and the fourth was £80 for one hour..The classes I go to are one of a kind and are excellent and only cost £20 per class but aren't in London so it involves a two hour car journey there and two hours back once a week so once you've factored petrol in it's actually quite a lot.

_http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-training-behaviour/179338-remote-spray-collar-advice-2.html

.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

Yes, sleepyhead. Underlining and bolding the text will magically makes these lies come true.

There comes a point where a simpleton must realize that if everyone disagrees with him, the very likelihood is because he is wrong.

The dog is doing something - stepping on the mat - and being reinforced. No more needs to be said about the contorted view SB has on this matter.



SleepyBones said:


> .The animal is never reinforced when it does something, attempts are made to reinforce a behaviour to try and get the behaviour to repeat (unless you can explain how any animal repeats being an animal).





> Your completly incorrect when you state, "was not punished", the animals 'reward behaviour' was to investigate,


Seeking is a response to a set of internal changes and not rewarding. In fact, foraging behavior is for the most part non-rewarding specially for predators. Not only do predators spend their time looking for things and not finding them but when they do find them most of the chases end in failure.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

Now Sleepy's nonsense is not only wrong, he is venturing outside his own flawed understanding of behaviorism. "Satisifying" curiosity is an example of what is often called extraordinary knowledge and totally irrelevant and untestable.

So not negative punishment and SB is wrong again.


----------



## Samanta (Dec 17, 2011)

Yes it does! But you have to know what you doing and what reason. animals need to know boundaries same as people, kids. Slap on the ass never harmed anyone.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Blitz said:


> The example you have used here of a dog breaking its stay - I think the usual way is to say nothing corrective (or punishment) and put the dog back in the sit. So I dont find this a very good example. For other things the same person will use a correction by tone of voice or use of lead or whatever. And the dog will learn very quickly. I was thinking about this when something was said on another thread about teaching leave - I dont teach leave, I just tell my dogs to leave in a tone of voice that makes it clear they are to stop what they are doing. Call it punishment if you like, but I call it making it clear what is wanted.
> 
> It would be really nice if a couple of the posters on here would stop sounding like a scientific text book and talk plain english that all the forum members will understand.


1) The effects of positive punishment (sorry, is that too scientific for you?) are widely known, you can't equate re-placing a dog (which many would argue is punishment at all) with correcting with a lead jerk. You train in your own way, I know many that do. But when I see someone say 'Leave it' to their dog, and their dog lowers their body, flattens their ears, tenses their facial muscles and relinquishes its tail, then I don't like it. On the other hand, if I say 'Leave it' and the dog looks to me and sits calmly, then I do.

I don't know where in my post I was sounding like a scientific textbook for you. The only jargon I used, like 'reducing criteria' and 'no reward marker', I explained for the person I was posting to. This is a 'training and behaviour' section, and since training and behaviour comes under applied ethology, I would argue that using scientific terms and talking about the science behind learning theory is more than welcome here.



smokeybear said:


> I am a very experienced and advanced clicker trainer, it is however impossible to train consistent reliable behaviours with NO negative punishers ie by removing something the dog wants which may be toy, me, food etc.
> 
> I have also trained with some of the top clicker trainers in the UK and from abroad, and all of us, without exception, use negative punishment.
> 
> ...


Eh? I never said I don't use punishment, but I was making the point that we can train behaviours without using punishment. My example is there for you to comment on, please try again. :skep:



grandad said:


> I think majoirty of forum members are turned off by these continous scientific arguments that prevail the forum. It is always the same peeps arguing the same point of view and it is repetitious, nay boring to say the least. IMO.


Again, this is a 'Behaviour and Training' part of the forum. Applied ethology encompasses the training and behaviour of our dogs. And since this thread is specifically about learning theory, then I don't see the issue.

Many people here use 'science' as a bad word. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you can slate it though. Fear of the unknown can really limit arguments. The "continuous scientific arguments that prevail the forum" are few and thin between, IMO, and few people take them as a point of further information and learning, but rather criticise the dreaded world of 'science' (shock horror  without even investigating it for themselves.

I'm not saying we all need to speak scientifically, only that people shouldn't worry if a scientific argument arises, or someone uses information from science to back up or refute an argument. And if you do worry, then you need to express those views maturely, rather than damning the whole field of science because you don't understand it.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Samanta said:


> Yes it does! But you have to know what you doing and what reason. animals need to know boundaries same as people, kids. Slap on the ass never harmed anyone.


Flippant remarks like that can lead some people to think its ok to start slapping their 9 stone rottie entire male and then wonder why he went for them!! :mad5: And even as a pup, you have to be careful re any sort of physical punishment like hitting/slapping.

This is precisely why I restrain from giving training advice and such on forums coz words can be so mis-interpreted sometimes and also I like to see and meet the dog myself before commenting. Also, I am not a qualified trainer!

Many people on here are knowledgable about training and obedience and such like and I have many a time read good advice from folks on here. :thumbup1:


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2011)

Hi all, my first post here 

Most pet owners, even very dedicated ones, are not interested in the ins and outs of behavior. They just want a happy, well-behaved pet. While I believe dog trainers do need to fully comprehend how behavioral science works, I don't think one does oneself any favors by getting all technical with someone who just want their beloved dog to come when called and stop jumping up on visitors. I think there is a way to get valuable information across without getting bogged down in technicalities. 
Generally all Joe dog-owner need to understand it that rewarded behaviors will continue and punished behaviors will diminish. The dog determines the reward or punishment - always.

That said, I'm a behavior nerd, so I appreciated the video posted and the points she was making. And I enjoy talking to others who are as interested in the finer details of dog training as I am. 

Does punishment "work"? Of course it does. Nor did the video lecture ever imply it didn't. What the video did was bring up some important factors to be aware of if you choose to use punishment as a way of modifying behavior. I have found that in most cases, punishment (P+) it is not as effective as other methods (namely R+) in creating reliable, long term solutions to common behavioral problems.

My issues with punishment, based on my personal experience, are as follows:
1. Humans are very poor judges of motivation. Often what we presume to be punishing to a dog is anything but. Witness the bored puppy in the crate whining for attention, owner rushes in the the room to yell "shaddup". Puppy just gained excitement and attention from whining. What the owner thought was punishing was actually rewarding to the dog. 
2. Punishment is rewarding to the punisher. Go back to the whining puppy. Bursting in to the room and yelling will likely make the whining stop temporarily. The human is then rewarded for her outburst because it made the annoying whining stop. This owner is now more likely to try startling and intimidating tactics when dealing with this dog. Which leads to...
3. Habituation. The more exposure the dog has to startle tactics, the less the dog will startle. Desensitization 101 if you will. Which in turn leads the human to...
4. Escalation of punishment. When the dog habituates to the punishment or develops what's called a "punishment callus", the owner (who remember has been rewarded for punishing), will then escalate the punishment. Browse through any horse tack or dog equipment catalogue and you will get a clear idea of how creative we humans have become with ways of escalating punishment. Which begs the question, where does one draw the line? 
5. Punishment is no more powerful when it comes to effecting behavior than rewards, in fact the opposite is often true. Rewarded behaviors are stronger than punished behaviors are weak. How many of us have seen a dog grit his teeth and blow through an underground fence line because the reward of chasing the squirrel on the other side has a stronger pull than the shock the dog knows is coming? 
6. Punishment is really hard to execute correctly (the main point of the video). In order for punishment to work, the behavior has to be punished each and every time, with perfect timing. Preferably unexpectedly (once you punish more than once it becomes expected). I don't know about anyone else, but I lead a normal life with normal distractions, and I can pretty much guarantee I cannot catch my dogs misbehaving every time, never mind timing an appropriate punishment for each behavior. However, I am really good at rewarding behavior I like and since I'm a clicker trainer, my dogs also understand reward markers so I can even buy myself extra time by simply saying "yes". Even better, rewarded behaviors only get stronger if you don't reward them every time (variable reinforcement schedule). 

So does P+ "work", sure. But IME R+ works much better


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> All that said -
> 
> Well, fair play to you & others like you, if you can get a few idiots to pay you for all that _'reward training/behavioural treatment'_ nonsence...well, they deserve to get ripped off, if they don't fall for your stuff they'll only fall for something else & spend elsewhere.
> 
> ...


Do you realise that you keep citing that one post in your entire posting on this forum, when a member took you seriously? Are you so smug about that one response that you treasure it in your favourites folder?

Give over! It was from a new member who hadn't got a clue and had bought a wretched spray collar, for God's sake, something not many would want to use.


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2011)

SleepyBones said:


> Thats negative punishment.


"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Corinthian said:


> NO. He's wrong again. Ignore everything he posts.


I do try, but sometimes it is so amusing, I just can't help myself. I freely admit that all these terms make my head spin and I can never remember which is which. I just get on with doing what I have always done with great success. But still, I think I understand them better than Sloppy Brains.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Quoted - SB, _Thats negative punishment._





> "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."


I used two words, can you clarify & describe what you think I mean by _'negative punishment' _'cause your statement is quite vague.

I did not watch the vid link 'cause we're full of shoppers & tourists here right now & my vodafone is running slow, anyway, was the vid a Skinner vid? if so I'll download it from somewhere else.

Heres 2 definate examples of _negative punishment_ in a dog training context & a third ninteenth century example which was 'probably', but inconclusively, taught by negative punishment, as are most dogs on this forum.

Negative Punishment Training Examples.

E.g. 1.
21st Century _negative punishment_ based conditioning.
Pre-Recall Whistle Reinforcement Conditioning - Dog Training - YouTube

E.g. 2. 1950's Teddy Boys _Negative Punishment_ Training, 19th century beggar dog _negative punishment_ training probabilty.
Exposing The 'Modern',. Commercial, DogTraining Myth As A Lie - YouTube
.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2011)

SleepyBones said:


> I used two words, can you clarify & describe what you think I mean by _'negative punishment' _'cause your statement is quite vague.
> 
> I did not watch the vid link 'cause we're full of shoppers & tourists here right now & my vodafone is running slow, anyway, was the vid a Skinner vid? if so I'll download it from somewhere else.
> 
> ...


In the first video you posted I got four minutes in and never once was there any mention of negative punishment, just that the guy (is that you?) was going to create a positive association with the whistle. Except he said he was going to "positively condition" the dog to the whistle, which in behavioral science terms makes no sense. There is no "positive conditioning" that I'm aware of. There is classical conditioning and operant conditioning. What the first video is doing is attempting to classically condition the dog to associate whistle with rewards. Though, FWIW, that is not the best way to turn the whistle in to a predictor of a reward. In order for the sound of the whistle to PREDICT a reward, it has to happen BEFORE the reward, not DURING the reward. 
Though I do very much agree with making yourself interesting to the dog, especially with a breed such as a doberman who were bred to be biddable and in-tune to their handlers.

The second video again shows no negative punishment. It shows luring. Luring with food has probably been around since the days of the cave men luring the wolf closer to the fire. Of course luring isn't new. Neither is luring negative punishment. Can you explain how you made that leap?

Luring is simply... well, luring. It works well for puppies and food driven dogs, but you often run in to problems with luring as it quickly becomes a bribe (after two or three trials) and many dogs decide the tidbit isn't worth performing the behavior.

Negative punishment in behavioral science terms means removing (negative) something the dog wants in order to decrease the frequency of a behavior (punishment). Since the dog is always the one who decides what is punishing and what is rewarding, you would have to observe the behavior of the dog to determine if what you are doing is punishing or rewarding. If the dog continues to come when whistled, then the whistle is rewarding to the dog, if not, the dog would not come. Pretty simple really.

PS - if you go to post #68, it might clarify my stance more. That post didn't show up initially as it was my first and had to be moderated.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2011)

SleepyBones said:


> Satisfying curisoity is a very powerfull behaviour, thats why man went to the moon & explores far beyond that.
> 
> In the dogs case, the initial major salient to trigger 'curiosity' is the 'click sound' & the dogs vision would be on where the dog thought the sound came from, there are numerous other variables, maybe the mat but that would probably be at the bottom edge of vision depending on where the dog thought the sound was coming from.
> 
> ...


Again, to clarify. YOU don't get to decide what is punishment, the dog does. More specifically, the dog's behavior determines what is punishing and what is rewarding.

Punishment = decreases frequency of a behavior.
Reinforcement = increases frequency of a behavior.
Positive = something added.
Negative = something removed.

Negative punishment means something is removed to decrease the frequency of a behavior. If the behavior persists, then what the trainer is doing is NOT punishing regardless of how you might feel about it.

Example: Rowdy dog jumps on great Aunt Thelma. Aunt Thelma screams at the dog and smacks him across the muzzle. Rowdy dog thinks this is a great game and continues to jump now with even more zest. The screaming and smacking is rewarding to Rowdy dog as the behavior continues and intensifies.

Now Aunt Thelma listens to her friendly neighborhood dog trainer and ignores Rowdy dog the next time he jumps on her. She turns her back and walks away. After a brief extinction burst, Rowdy dog ceases to jump. Since he is no longer jumping, we conclude that the act of ignoring the dog is punishing to the dog. Since ignoring involved removing attention, we call it negative punishment.

Withholding a reward is not negative punishment. To an operant dog, it is a NRM (non reward marker) operant dogs might find it frustrating (which actually builds behavior), but not punishing, if it were, the behavior would cease, not continue.

Now, sure. If you dangle the lunchmeat in front of the dog's nose, then quickly take it away, yes that "could" be negative punishment (as determined by the dog, not you). However, its not withholding a REWARD, its withholding a BRIBE, and bribing as we all know is not effective training anyway.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

Originaly.



> SB wrote:
> Thats negative punishment.





> Ouesi replied
> "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."





> SB asked
> I used two words, can you clarify & describe what you think I mean by 'negative punishment' 'cause your statement is quite vague


Instead replying to my simple 23 word question you, (Ousei), wrote a 279 post avoiding my question.

Please answer my question, which was - 
_"I used two words, can you clarify & describe what you think I mean by 'negative punishment'? 'cause your statement is quite vague"._

.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

*Withholding a reward is not negative punishment. To an operant dog, it is a NRM (non reward marker) operant dogs might find it frustrating (which actually builds behavior), but not punishing, if it were, the behavior would cease, not continue.*

True IMO. Reward a dog everytime when training a new command, go to a variable schedule and then eventually the reward is removed completely. 
You may reward periodically when the dog carries out the command perfectly, but once learned you wouldn't reward every time. The dog would never see this as negative, especially when you praise the dog. 
In most cases when you go to a varialbe schedule you get better results.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2011)

SleepyBones said:


> Originaly.
> 
> Instead replying to my simple 23 word question you, (Ousei), wrote a 279 post avoiding my question.
> 
> ...


How rude. I was simply trying to have a conversation, not sure what you're trying to do ::shrug::

In answer to your question. No, I can't clarify and describe what I think you mean by negative punishment because YOU don't know what you mean 

You gave me two examples. One of a guy talking a lot about things he clearly doesn't understand, not much animal behavior in that example. And another example of two pictures of dogs being lured and a bunch of anti-modern training text mumbo jumbo. Are you saying luring = negative reinforcement? Maybe if you defined the term you keep using (incorrectly) perhaps we have somewhere to go with this.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Again, to clarify. YOU don't get to decide what is punishment, the dog does. More specifically, the dog's behavior determines what is punishing and what is rewarding.
> 
> Punishment = decreases frequency of a behavior.
> Reinforcement = increases frequency of a behavior.
> ...


You really need to go back through this and MANY other posts which make those points clear, the things you wrote above are all over this forum. I did not read any further.



> PS - if you go to post #68, it might clarify my stance more. That post didn't show up initially as it was my first and had to be moderated.


Glad to hear someones got the patience to read your posts through.

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Withholding a reward is not negative punishment.


Who actually wrote that? & is there a wider context to what they wrote?

.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2011)

SleepyBones said:


> Who actually wrote that? & is there a wider context to what they wrote?
> 
> .


I wrote that. The context is in my posts that you feel too superior to read. 
The context is in my dogs who perform more behaviors than a simple recall.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> In answer to your question. No, I can't clarify and describe what I think you mean by negative punishment


Thank you, that does explain why avoided the above answer when I first asked it.



> because YOU don't know what you mean


Can you please clarify what you think it is I do not know?

.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2011)

SleepyBones said:


> Thank you, that does explain why avoided the above answer when I first asked it.
> 
> Can you please clarify what you think it is I do not know?
> 
> .


Oh dear, this could go on for a while.

In order for me to clarify what you are saying, you would have to actually say something. So far you have presented videos of examples of negative punishment which I have already explained how they don't apply.
You also gave an example of withholding a reward. Again I explained and grandad elaborated (thank you sir) why withholding a reward is not punishing to a dog.

Perhaps if you could agree or disagree with the following statement it would give us a place to start:

*Negative punishment = reducing the frequency of a behavior (punishment) by removing something (negative).*

Do you agree or disagree with the bolded?


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Oh dear, this could go on for a while.
> 
> In order for me to clarify what you are saying, you would have to actually say something. So far you have presented videos of examples of negative punishment which I have already explained how they don't apply.
> You also gave an example of withholding a reward. Again I explained and grandad elaborated (thank you sir) why withholding a reward is not punishing to a dog.
> ...


You need to go back and read whats gone before, your just repeating old stuff from this post & numerous others on here (said for the second and final time) instead of coming in the last page & taking the post back to an earlier point of days ago.

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-trai...unishment-actually-work-3.html#post1061662224

.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2011)

SleepyBones said:


> You need to go back and read whats gone before, your just repeating old stuff from this post & numerous others on here (said for the second and final time) instead of coming in the last page & taking the post back to an earlier point of days ago.
> 
> http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-trai...unishment-actually-work-3.html#post1061662224
> 
> .


Okay, but your post (#26) is incorrect in terms of learning theory. Learning theory is an established science, with established terms and definitions. You don't get to make it up as you go. It makes it impossible to have any sort or coherent discussion. It would be like trying to have a conversation about tea where you think tea means cement and I think tea is a plant leaf that you add to hot water and drink. We would each think the other is nuts. (Sound familiar?) 


SleepyBones said:


> Negative punishment is when any animals own behaviour withdraws or witholds something it wants e.g. you need to go to the shop to buy something you want, instead you watch TV, so your 'watch TV behaviour' has withdrawn/witheld the reward of the the thing you wanted, next time 'not going' to the shop maybe weakened & you go, in which case an operant response has occured.
> 
> The above are operant learning theory examples.
> .
> .


Again, your terminology is inaccurate. There is no "operant learning theory". There is learning theory which encompasses operant conditioning and classical conditioning among many other elements. 
Operant conditioning is a type of learning that forms an association between a behavior and a consequence. By definition a consequence is separate from the animal's behavior. The behavior causes a consequence, the consequence cannot be the behavior in this type of learning.

Instinctual behaviors, self reinforcing behaviors and the like might be what you're talking about, but that has nothing to do with operant conditioning with is where the term negative punishment applies.

Again do you agree or disagree with the bolded statement?
*Negative punishment = reducing the frequency of a behavior (punishment) by removing something (negative).*


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Ouesi, you might as well save your brain cells. I know I've, and many others on here, have lost quite a few responding to Sleepy Brains. SB is, without a doubt, the best person in avoiding and alienating questions. When he asks a question, we answer. In reply, he tells us we are wrong and need to go back and read B F Skinner's work (which we all have mostly), work that he references in a manner that wouldn't stand up to GCSE level.

Funnily enough, he is the first to criticise particular dog training and behaviour courses for being at supposedly 'inadequate' levels, usually A-level or above, yet his writing style wouldn't be good enough for a GCSE answer. 

In operant terms, we are only positively rewarding his behaviour (or perhaps we are negatively punishing it, as SB seems to think so?) and thus, we should just ignore him.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2011)

Thanks for the heads up Rottiefan 
I tend to be an eternal optimist and I can't help but hope that maybe something someone writes on this thread will "click" with SleepyBones, or if not him, then maybe some lurker who is reading out of curiosity about punishment. 
I found this forum googling Steve White's 8 rules of punishment, I'm sure I'm not the only one doing a search on Steve  I figure its helpful to someone if there is good information out there along with the rest...

If SleepyBones is the guy in the video, then he has a lovely dog and has done some good things with her. Perhaps if he opened his mind to some of those "modern" techniques he might be able to achieve even more. I noticed in the video that the dog ran off after the bag of treats that he threw. Using "modern" training, my dogs a) don't run off after distractions unless I release them to, and b) when I release them to go get something, they get it and come right back - that is relationship centered training. I never saw the pretty dobie girl come back. She was off seeking her own interests instead of rushing back to see what fun thing her handler was going to have her do next. 

I guess when your dogs get to the point that they don't disengage from you, "come" is not that impressive anymore


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Here we go again, an argument that cant be resolved, because no one can quantify what amounts to punishment. Is a harsh voice punishment because that's all I ever use on my dogs ????I dont regard it as 'Punishment' just a way of showing my disapproval.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2011)

springerpete said:


> Here we go again, an argument that cant be resolved, because no one can quantify what amounts to punishment. Is a harsh voice punishment because that's all I ever use on my dogs ????I dont regard it as 'Punishment' just a way of showing my disapproval.


But when it comes to dog training, (well, really, any behavior) punishment has been quantified. It is anything that decreases the frequency of a behavior. If what you are doing decreases the behavior then it is punishment. Punishment in behavioral science terms doesn't mean something evil or nasty, it simply means something that makes a behavior less likely to be repeated. By this definition, in my household a smack on the rump is a reward and turning my head and looking away is a punishment.

And I agree, that IS the crux of the issue with these discussions. We are not all speaking of punishment in the same way. That's the difficulty we're having with SleepyBones, he's coming up with his own definition for things and that makes for a very muddled conversation for sure!


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

ouesi said:


> But when it comes to dog training, (well, really, any behavior) punishment has been quantified. It is anything that decreases the frequency of a behavior. If what you are doing decreases the behavior then it is punishment. Punishment in behavioral science terms doesn't mean something evil or nasty, it simply means something that makes a behavior less likely to be repeated. By this definition, in my household a smack on the rump is a reward and turning my head and looking away is a punishment.
> 
> And I agree, that IS the crux of the issue with these discussions. We are not all speaking of punishment in the same way. That's the difficulty we're having with SleepyBones, he's coming up with his own definition for things and that makes for a very muddled conversation for sure!


Maybe I have been fortunate with the breeds I have chosen, but I have always found a simple but forceful no, accompanied by a hand up, Like in the cowboy films "how", stops them doing almost anything I don't want them to do. Now I only need the hand signal.

Is that what you would call punishment? It is not my idea of the definition of the word, just simple everyday manners.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> Maybe I have been fortunate with the breeds I have chosen, but I have always found a simple but forceful no, accompanied by a hand up, Like in the cowboy films "how", stops them doing almost anything I don't want them to do. Now I only need the hand signal.
> 
> Is that what you would call punishment? It is not my idea of the definition of the word, just simple everyday manners.


In operant terms, yes 

As Ouesi wrote above, punishment has a scientific definition, which is anything that decreases the likelihood of a behaviour occurring in the future. It does not have the emotionally loaded meaning proposed in standard English. It is without emotion, and just purely relates to the facts. This is why it is only punishment if it decreases the behaviour, not if we only think it will.

All those writing that "My dog does X behaviour even if I punish him" are not in fact punishing at all, in operant theory terms, as if they were, the behaviour would decrease.

Your hand signal and 'No' the first times round most probably startled the dog, making them break a behaviour mid-swing. This has been a punisher (a positive punisher in fact) on the particular behaviour, and the hand signal has been conditioned as a cue for stopping what they are doing, or more accurately most likely, doing X behaviour that 'stops' the punishment, e.g. when the dog sees the hand signal, they will do a particular behaviour that they associate with not being punished, e.g. a sit. This is, I suppose, negative reinforcement, as they are being reinforced (by you not carrying on punishing them, or keeping your hand signal up) for doing another behaviour, instead of the (inappropriate) one they were doing before.

I hope that makes sense!


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Rottiefan said:


> In operant terms, yes
> 
> As Ouesi wrote above, punishment has a scientific definition, which is anything that decreases the likelihood of a behaviour occurring in the future. It does not have the emotionally loaded meaning proposed in standard English. It is without emotion, and just purely relates to the facts. This is why it is only punishment if it decreases the behaviour, not if we only think it will.
> 
> ...


I don't like to think of it like, so will just carry on without thinking! It works for me. I think (there I go again) one can overthink anything if one tries hard enough!


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> E.g. 1. and E.g. 2.


SleepyHead's attempt to drive traffic to his youtube channel. In which the same lies he tells here are done in video form.

If this troll really had a legitimate and scientifically valid criticism he would find some legitimate publication willing to carry his views. Of course the fact that he can't even get his head around a simple definition is getting in the way of SB becoming the world famous trainer he thinks he should be.

It is also part of his dishonesty, by pointing to an outside source, SB is trying to give the appearance that his views have support. Those that don't know that this is his channel might be fooled into believing him.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> Maybe I have been fortunate with the breeds I have chosen, but I have always found a simple but forceful no, accompanied by a hand up, Like in the cowboy films "how", stops them doing almost anything I don't want them to do. Now I only need the hand signal.
> 
> Is that what you would call punishment? It is not my idea of the definition of the word, just simple everyday manners.


Yes, it is punishment. Because your actions made the dog's behavior decrease. Like Rottiefan explained, in terms of operant conditioning that is exactly what punishment is.

The problem with the term "punishment" is that it is for most people an emotionally laden word. But if you remove the emotions from the word and go by the scientific definition, you actually can have a useful discussion about how to effectively alter behavior in any animal - even those of the human variety 

The thing about punishment (in addition to what has already been mentioned via the video in the first post), is that it is not a very effective way to teach behavior. Punishment simply tells the dog what NOT to do, it doesn't give the dog any information about what TO do. Which isn't a very complete lesson is it? I can do several thing that will tell a dog to not jump, some only mildly unpleasant, some downright nasty, OR I can teach the dog to sit and reward him for doing so. If the "sit" is reliable enough, the jumping takes care of itself. You can't sit and jump up on someone at the same time.

I'm not one to say "never use punishment", but I do think a) we tend to be a bit in love with the notion and use it far more than necessary and b) there is no need whatsoever for punishment to be painful or frightening to the dog. 
If you develop a strong bond with your dog, control his resources and opportunities for self-reinforcement, and understand his motivations, then you will find less need to punish and require less intensity if you do.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

Neither are correct or incorrect, they are both incorrect because Skinner himself did not coin the phrases, it was US humans psychologists & academics who coined the phrase 'learning theory', Skinner did accept it but neither is common use, if in use at all, with human psychologists, therapists or commonly used in courses on psychology.

The term in common use amongst professionals in psychology is 'operant conditioning', it's sometimes referred to as 'operant theory', even then only the only reason to isolate such terms is to define specifically what they are referring to,

Canine behaviourists are not, as some people are led to believe, experts in operant conditioning or operant theory, they use it in controled lab conditions where the environment is controled & restricted by the humans, but, outside the lab they're all written theory, although 'familiar' (garden) or 'quiet, predictable, familiar environments are reasonably controled and reasonably predictable

I use 'operant learning theory' because it identifies what I am talking about. It's pointless and leads to endless, in fact never ending, quite pointless, distracting, points scoring about semantics & distracts from the subject if its simply termed as 'learning theory'.

In the vid below I use the term 'conditioning', that was sufficant, there was no need to go into 'classical or secondary conditioning' because the subject was method, the subject was not 'classical conditioning', I'm suprised you did not realize that.

So for the sake of semantics, the whistle noise was at one time a neutral UCS (uncondioned stimulus), in the video the dog is being 'classicaly conditioned' to the whistle noise (CS, the noise becomes a conditioned stimulus), as a secondary reinforcer.

Heres some more usless information on classical conditioned stimuli, every word, in every language, is a classicaly conditioned stimulus.

_'Classical conditiong' of whistle noise
_Pre-Recall Whistle Reinforcement Conditioning - Dog Training - YouTube

_Two dogs, Two Recalls, with 2 different classicaly conditioned noises_.
Dogs Recall, Emotional Comparisons Of Dogs Response To Owners, 2 Different Training Reinforcers - YouTube

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Operant conditioning is a type of learning that forms an association between a behavior and a consequence. By definition a consequence is separate from the animal's behavior. The behavior causes a consequence, the consequence cannot be the behavior in this type of learning.


Yes, I don't remember reading anywhere on here anyone conflictiong with any of that, can you paste whatever quote you mean & paste a link to where the above is supposed to be relevant?
.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Instinctual behaviors, self reinforcing behaviors and the like might be what you're talking about, but that has nothing to do with operant conditioning with is where the term negative punishment applies.


You need to quote & link whatever it is you think I said so I understand your post in that context.
.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Again do you agree or disagree with the bolded statement?
> *Negative punishment = reducing the frequency of a behavior (punishment) by removing something (negative).*


I don't agree with the way its written, the way it is written is ambiguous & confusing, 'operant learning theory' is not amgiuous or confusing.

Negative punishment = the behaviour of any animal is weakened as a consequence of its own behaviour & tends not to repeat.

Human example:
Subject has pre-booked the 10am train from Euston to Glasgow. Subject _chooses to have an xtra coffee behaviour_ at home knowing they are taking a chance on getting to Euston on time, subject arrives at Euston 10:03am and finds out the train has left for Glasgow. Subject bursts into tears & swears they will tend not to repeat that _extra coffee at home behaviour._
.

.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

As usual YOU are wrong.



SleepyBones said:


> Neither are correct or incorrect, they are both incorrect because Skinner himself did not coin the phrases,


Who coined the phrase is irrelevant. A historical survey of scientific terms shows that they evolve to stay in touch with progress. Those that don't are dropped.

You are out of touch and have been left behind. Your "definitions" were never right, appealing to history won't make them right.



> it was US humans psychologists & academics who coined the phrase 'learning theory', Skinner did accept it but neither is common use, if in use at all, with human psychologists, therapists or commonly used in courses on psychology.


 *The ignorance really drips from your posts*. A search of the term " learning theory" just in the title yields 500+ papers. Expanding that to "learning theory" in the abstract yields over 6000 papers.

An Amazon search give and equally rich bounty.



> In the vid below I use the term 'conditioning', .


Spouting the same nonsense in video form that you spout here wont make it true.

Hey look. Sleepy is telling us the same lies. But now he's doing it on video form, so now it must be true:frown2::nono:



> the whistle noise was at one time a neutral UCS (uncondioned stimulus), in the video the dog is being 'classicaly conditioned' to the whistle noise (CS, the noise becomes a conditioned stimulus), as a secondary reinforcer.


This should explain it to you in 30 seconds.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> Negative punishment = the behaviour of any animal is weakened as a consequence of its own behaviour & tends not to repeat.


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2011)

> ouesi said:
> 
> 
> > Operant conditioning is a type of learning that forms an association between a behavior and a consequence. By definition a consequence is separate from the animal's behavior. The behavior causes a consequence, the consequence cannot be the behavior in this type of learning.
> ...


There is no link. This is my knowledge of learning theory and a bazillion other texts that explain what operant conditioning is.

You (sleepybones) are conflicting with my statement above when you come up with definitions like this:


SleepyBones said:


> Negative punishment = the behaviour of any animal is weakened as a consequence of its own behaviour & tends not to repeat.


The animal's behavior cannot be the consequence, that would NOT be operant conditioning. It could fall under self-reinforcing behaviors and other behaviors, but an animal's behavior being the consequence is the exact opposite if you will of what OPERANT conditioning is.

At this point I have to ask you, are you genuinely trying to learn anything here, or are you just wanting to argue? I totally get the appeal of a good argument, its just not my cup of tea, especially on-line.

You have a lovely dog with a nice recall. But in all honesty, if I were looking for a dog trainer I wouldn't give you a second look. You mish-mash terminology, your dog has one demo (recall) without even a front/finish, and you have no titles or ribbons to say that your training stands up against the stress of competition. Come is child's play for what I expect of my dogs and what I have rehabilitated.

I'm sorry, but "come" is not the ultimate litmus test of good training. It is a one step behavior that is pretty natural to a bonded dog anyway. I know plenty of dogs with great recall who have relatively clueless owners. 
Can your interpretation of learning theory teach a dog complex behaviors? Like go get that particular object (not the others around it), pick it up a certain way, come back to me with it, sit and hold it until I tell you to release and return to heel ready for the next activity?

Teaching complex, multi-step behaviors is where you will find you really do have to have a firm grasp on how dogs learn and what motivates them. You will most definitely learn where your gaps in understanding are. And reading your posts shows me there are definite gaps in your understanding of learning theory.

As corinthian said, it doesn't matter who coined the terms, what matters in order to have a coherent discussion is that we all understand the definitions of the terms as *current* convention defines them. Take for example the word "molest". It doesn't matter that it _used_ to mean simply to bother someone or what you wish it to mean. Nowadays if you say someone is molesting you, you will get that person arrested. Current conventional definitions matter. 
This:


SleepyBones said:


> I use 'operant learning theory' because it identifies what I am talking about. It's pointless and leads to endless, in fact never ending, quite pointless, distracting, points scoring about semantics & distracts from the subject if its simply termed as 'learning theory'.


Makes absolutely no sense and truly is distracting and pointless.

And no, the term "conditioning" is not sufficient if you're going to go about "correcting" everyone else's terminology. Do you know the difference between classical and operant conditioning? Do you know that if you are wanting the whistle to be a conditioned reinforcer, there has to be a gap between the noise of the whistle and the presentation of the reinforcer? Not both at the same time? 
As I've already explained, you way (incorrect) is working for you now because the one behavior you have taught is a simple one that most dogs are prone to do anyway. If you use that technique with more complex tasks you will quickly find the faults in the method.

Finally, I don't know of any top trainer/behavioralist who is working with dogs in a lab. That's just silly. The goal is always for the dog to be able to function as well under low distractions as high distractions. That's just good training and proofing. Just because the beginning stages of learning take place in a controlled setting doesn't mean the dog won't be proofed under distractions.
Now, if you're trying to train new behavior in a high distraction environment that tells me you don't understand the importance of engagement and focus when it comes to training dogs. Honestly, watching your numerous recall videos shows me that you (sleepybones) don't understand engagement and focus. (No, those are not learning theory terms, they are dog training terms.)


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2011)

Just to add:


> Definition of NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT
> 
> : psychological reinforcement by *removal of an unpleasant stimulus* when a desired response occurs


Negative reinforcement - Medical Definition and More from Merriam-Webster
(Bolded = my emphasis)
Note the dog's behavior does not remove the unpleasant stimulus.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Originally Posted by ouesi
> Operant conditioning is a type of learning that forms an association between a behavior and a consequence. By definition a consequence is separate from the animal's behavior. The behavior causes a consequence, the consequence cannot be the behavior in this type of learning.





> Originally Posted by SleepyBones
> Yes, I don't remember reading anywhere on here anyone conflictiong with any of that, can you paste whatever quote you mean & paste a link to where the above is supposed to be relevant?





> Ouesie
> There is no link. This is my knowledge of learning theory and a bazillion other texts that explain what operant conditioning is.
> 
> You (sleepybones) are conflicting with my statement above when you come up with definitions like this:





> Posted by SleepyBones
> Negative punishment = the behaviour of any animal is weakened as a consequence of its own behaviour & tends not to repeat.





> Ouesie
> The animal's behavior cannot be the consequence, that would NOT be operant conditioning. It could fall under self-reinforcing behaviors and other behaviors, but an animal's behavior being the consequence is the exact opposite if you will of what OPERANT conditioning is.


That's just dabbling with semantics & time wasting, unless of course you can copy & paste the quote where I said an animals behaviour is the consequence.

Reply in kind:
There is no consequence if a behaviour does not occur.

If a behaviour occurs and the animals perception of _the consequence of that behaviour_ (= caused by the behaviour) is a negative punishment then the behaviour causing the punishment consequence will weaken and tend not to repeat.

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> And no, the term "conditioning" is not sufficient if you're going to go about "correcting" everyone else's terminology.
> 
> Do you know the difference between classical and operant conditioning?


Do you know the difference between 'on topic' & 'off topic'? classical conditioning is off this topic which if you read the title is about "punishment", which is a part of operant theory.

B F Skinners Operant learning theory means, learning occures as a consequence of an animals own behaviour causing a punishment or reinforcer consequence.

If its behaviour causes a decrease in a behaviour which tends not to repeat that is what, in operant terminolgy, 'punishment' means. If the animals own behaviour causes a consequence which strengthens the behviour and that behaviour tends to repeat then the behaviour is said to have been reinforced (strengthened).

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Do you know that if you are wanting the whistle to be a conditioned reinforcer, there has to be a gap between the noise of the whistle and the presentation of the reinforcer? Not both at the same time?


I don't understand where or why that question arose, please identify any ref on this post your refering to!

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> As corinthian said, it doesn't matter who coined the terms, what matters in order to have a coherent discussion is that we all understand the definitions of the terms as current convention defines them.


Operant learning theory is B F Skinners theory, not _'Corinthians theory'_, Corinthian shows no sign that he or she understands Skinners theory, as a consequence he or she is probably stressed out & frustrated by trying to understand these posts. Anyway, I have given the correct interpretation above so he or she can understand it & help prevent he or she pill popping to relieve he or shes' tension.

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> *ouesi quote:*
> 
> Definition of NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT
> 
> ...


Even when it's written down for you have either no understanding of an operant behaviour, or maybe it is deliberate and your trying to mislead pet owners. Your persistant, incorrect, definitions of operant are the total opposite of the real operant meanings.

B F Skinners 'Negative' is a behaviour which witholds/withdraws something. In the case of the 'negative reinforcer', the negative behaviour witholds any level of discomfort, in humans this can be psychological, you withold going to a particular film genre because you find that genre boring, it's uncomfortable having to sit through something boring so the behaviour of 'not going' to watch films of that genre has been reinforced/strengthened.

Below - Video demonstration of negative reinforced behaviour, the strengthened activity levels are keeping off (witholding/removing) the winter cold on a short haired dog which has no undercoat. The bird noise when it goes dark is a barn owl.

Negative Reinforcement Behaviours. Activity Behavioural Levels Removing 'Feeling Cold' - YouTube

*1.*
_Negative reinforcement occurs when a behavior is reinforced by removal of a stimulus._
http://www.intropsych.com/ch05_conditionin...nforcement.html

*2.*
_Negative reinforcement occurs when something already present is removed (taken away) as a result of a person's behaviour, creating a favourable outcome for that person. Basically, when a behaviour leads to the removal of an unpleasant stimulus, negative reinforcement is occuring._
http://www.educateautism.com/behavioural-p...nforcement.html

.


----------



## Rottsmum (Aug 26, 2011)

Why don't you two just go out and walk your dogs????:hand:


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

hamtaroplanet said:


> Give the video a chance, watch it, and if you still have something to discuss or argue, let's talk, this is what an open forum is for.


Hi Dennis. 
I don`t need to be told what to do by a stranger on the Internet, love. I use my own methods which work just fine. I also teach young people. I`ve never used punishment because it isn`t necessary if you know what you`re doing. 
Grandmother / eggs.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> I`ve never used punishment because it isn`t necessary if you know what you`re doing


Then you do not know what either operants punishment means, you cannot reinforce any behaviour until it occures, you certainly use negative punishment, especially with pups.

I just hope your not misleading whoever your training by telling them you use 'reward based' methods, thats impossible.

Negative punishment technique.
Exposing The &#39;Modern&#39;,. Commercial, DogTraining Myth As A Lie - YouTube

.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> Then you do not know what either operants punishment means, you cannot reinforce any behaviour until it occures, you certainly use negative punishment, especially with pups.
> 
> I just hope your not misleading whoever your training by telling them you use 'reward based' methods, thats impossible.
> 
> ...


I suppose by punishment you mean things like picking puppy up and taking him outside when he starts to toilet on the floor, or keeping your hand still when he nips till he gets bored, or body blocking the dog from leaping out the front door.

That is the only sort of correction I have ever used and I would not call it punishment in any sense, merely guiding the dog into what you want from him.

So, on that basis, I too have never used any sort of punishment. It is unnecessary.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> I suppose by punishment you mean things like picking puppy up and taking him outside when he starts to toilet on the floor, or keeping your hand still when he nips till he gets bored, or body blocking the dog from leaping out the front door.
> 
> That is the only sort of correction I have ever used and I would not call it punishment in any sense, merely guiding the dog into what you want from him.
> 
> So, on that basis, I too have never used any sort of punishment. It is unnecessary.


But Sleepy is talking about the scientific term of punishment here, and on that basis, all dog training is going to involve punishment somewhere, it's impossible. As soon as you stop giving a pup attention, this is punishing the behaviour of nipping, jumping up, barking etc, in theory at least. In reality, there are many factors that could not make it a punishment, such as the dog not associating your actions with its behaviour, or the dog not caring about you moving away, or even the dog being reinforced by your actions.

So, for once, I have to agree with Sleepy here!


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

sleepybones said:


> ..................


*New Year.... Same Old Garbage.* really S.O.S. but we're too polite for that on this board.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> Operant learning theory is B F Skinners theory, not _'Corinthians theory'_, Corinthian shows no sign that he or she understands Skinners theory, as a consequence he or she is probably stressed out & frustrated by trying to understand these posts. Anyway, I have given the correct interpretation above so he or she can understand it & help prevent he or she pill popping to relieve he or shes' tension.
> 
> .


You are an idiot.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> B F Skinners Operant learning theory


.... is 50 years out of date and only some as massively ignorant as you would insist on bringing up. What's worse is that completely butcher his ideas and have no clue as to what his work really meant.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> Even when it's written down for you have either no understanding of an operant behaviour, or maybe it is deliberate and your trying to mislead pet owners. Your persistant, incorrect, definitions of operant are the total opposite of the real operant meanings.


You are like those deluded fools that can read a simple statement and impart whatever meaning you want. Listen you idiot. You are wrong. Everyone has explained it to you. The sources you cite, refute you stupid assertions and if it wasn't for your psychotic need to impose your meaning on everything you read, you'd come to realize that. Stop wasting our time.

PS. *No one cares about your crappy videos*. Do you realize how stupid you look by citing yourself in video for to support the garbage you are peddling here?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

> Originally Posted by *hamtaroplanet*
> 
> Give the [OP] video a chance, watch it,
> & if you [want] to discuss... let's talk, this is what an open forum is for.





ClaireandDaisy said:


> Hi *Dennis*.


the OP is not 'Dennis' - i don't KNOW who the OP is, but i know doggone well, that all the videos 
that i've watched which were made by *FlyByButterflies* on UTube have been educational, 
helpful, & explain the how and why of training very well.

Not one video by *FlyByButterflies* has advocated pos-P AKA P+ AKA applied-aversives, 
of all that i've watched; to the contrary, they've explained that applied-punishment & aversives 
are bad ideas, & should be avoided.


ClaireandDaisy said:


> I don`t need to be told what to do by a stranger on the Internet, love.


i don't think this was addressed to U personally - 
but how do U expect to 'discuss' a video that U have not watched? 


ClaireandDaisy said:


> I've never used punishment because it isn`t necessary if you know what you're doing.


then U should be delighted with the video cited in the OP. :thumbsup:


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I like this flybybutterflies video (same person as linked by the OP)

[youtube_browser]HoEoINlAYhA[/youtube_browser]

So cute and I doubt the hamster was taught with positive punishment.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2012)

Oh my. Just had a good laugh catching up on this thread. Sorry I didnt get back to it sooner, I was off at a dog show over the weekend proving my and my dogs abilities.










Im sorry if I missed it sleepybones, what have you accomplished with your dog again? You talk a lot, but does what you talk about actually apply to more than your dog? Can you teach anything other than a recall to one dog? As we say in America, put up or shut up


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Im sorry if I missed it sleepybones, what have you accomplished with your dog again? You talk a lot, but does what you talk about actually apply to more than your dog? Can you teach anything other than a recall to one dog? As we say in America, put up or shut up


You should stop disrupting posts by posting repeated, entirely, off topic topics just because you don't understand the topic you disrupt on, show some consideration to other posters who do understand the topic - Ive transfered your post to the link below.

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-trai...ing-needs-ouie-post-topic.html#post1061715270

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> SLion
> But Sleepy is talking about the scientific term of punishment here, and on that basis, all dog training is going to involve punishment somewhere, it's impossible.


Well thanks, now we're finaly getting somewhere. So why have pet dog owners (specificaly in society) become so paranoid about the words? and why do you think a profesional Phd educator, (Dr Rachel Casey) would give this definitation & the long term consequences of punishment?

Are you aware that the most common use of operant in humans is to condition words for indoctrination & brainwashing purposes?

Skinner wrote - "_This human species is distinguished by the fact that its vocal responses can be easily conditioned as operants. There are many kinds of verbal operants because the behavior must be reinforced only through the mediation of other people_."

ref
A Brief Survey Of Operant Behaviour - B F Skinner 1973.

.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> You should stop disrupting posts by posting repeated, entirely, off topic topics just because you don't understand the topic you disrupt on, show some consideration to other posters who do understand the topic - Ive transfered your post to the link below.
> 
> http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-trai...ing-needs-ouie-post-topic.html#post1061715270
> 
> .


To transfer something means to move it, not copy it somewhere else. You do not have the power to transfer anybody else's post.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Oh my. Just had a good laugh catching up on this thread. Sorry I didn't get back to it sooner, I was off at a dog show over the weekend proving my and my dog's abilities.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice dog. Good picture. I'm a strong believer in letting qualified people judging your work. Whether it's the judges at a competition or in my profession peer review. [ADDENDUM] What breed?

Sleepy may be the greatest dog trainer on his youtube channel, but I wouldn't let my dog anywhere near him.
Throw Them SleepyBones and gamble with your dog


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

SleepyBones said:


> You should stop disrupting posts by posting repeated, entirely, off topic topics just because you don't understand the topic you disrupt on, show some consideration to other posters who do understand the topic - Ive transfered your post to the link below.
> 
> http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-trai...ing-needs-ouie-post-topic.html#post1061715270
> 
> .


I have removed this thread, if ouesi wishes to make a thread that is fine as its her post....Jill


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2012)

Corinthian said:


> Nice dog. Good picture. I'm a strong believer in letting qualified people judging your work. Whether it's the judges at a competition or in my profession peer review. [ADDENDUM] What breed?


Thanks  And I agree about being evaluated by an independent party!

That dog is a mutt. AKC allows altered mixed breeds to compete as "all american dogs" and that's what Bates is registered as. We believe he has a lot of boxer in him but what he really is who knows. He's a pretty big boy (I'm 5'9"), though in a house with danes, he's one of our "little" dogs 

What that picture doesn't convey is that Bates was a foundling pup, found literally under a woodpile half dead of starvation. His first home nursed him to health only to be repayed by him killing their chickens - at which point we got him. He was a bit of a handful to say the least. 
This is a rescue dog, with issues, his 4th time total in a competition ring, focused and engaged, performing reliably under distractions.

This is significant to this thread as Bates is trained withOUT "corrections" (P+), the original topic of this thread. We don't use P+ in teaching or proofing behaviors for the exact reasons highlighted in the video. 
A missed cue is dealt with on a case by case basis. I'm not the best handler (I suck actually) and generally its simply a question of me making sure I'm clear with my hand signals (down, stay and stand look a lot alike for example). Other times it might be an issue of engagement/motivation that needs to be addressed (outside of OC).

Its also significant to this thread as this dog has been taught with reinforcement, something some do not believe to be possible or maybe simply do not understand. 
If being rewarded (with food) for maintaining heel position and focus were not reinforcing to the dog the behavior would not continue, and certainly would not have the reliability that is evident in the picture.



SleepyBones said:


> You should stop disrupting posts by posting repeated, entirely, off topic topics just because you don't understand the topic you disrupt on, show some consideration to other posters who do understand the topic - Ive transfered your post to the link below.


Riiiight... I'm the one being disruptive and lacking in understanding. Oy...


canuckjill said:


> I have removed this thread, if ouesi wishes to make a thread that is fine as its her post....Jill


Thank you


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

ouesi said:


> That dog is a mutt. AKC allows altered mixed breeds to compete as "all american dogs" & that's what
> Bates is registered as. We believe he has a lot of boxer in him but what he really is, who knows.
> He's a pretty big boy (I'm 5'9"), though in a house with danes, he's one of our "little" dogs


at a guess, my first thought is Dane x Lab - definitely Dane, he's so leggy & has a deep, narrow chest.

the ears strongly resemble most of the [Lab x Dane] dogs i've met, over the years.
handsome boy! 


ouesi said:


> What that picture doesn't convey is that Bates was a foundling pup, found literally under a woodpile,
> half-dead of starvation. His first home nursed him to health only to be repaid by him killing their chickens -
> at which point we got him. He was a bit of a handful to say the least. This is a rescue dog, with issues,
> his 4th-time... in a competition ring, focused & engaged, performing reliably under distractions.


Yow!  rough start; he's done very well, & U've done even-better by him. :thumbup:


ouesi said:


> This is significant to this thread as Bates is trained withOUT "corrections" (P+), the original topic...
> We don't use P+ in teaching or proofing behaviors for the exact reasons highlighted in the video.
> 
> A missed cue is dealt with on a case by case basis. I'm not the best handler (I suck actually) & generally it's
> ...


i salaam before U - sensai! :001_tt1: my admiration is profound.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2012)

leashedForLife said:


> handsome boy!


Aw shucks, thanks! I think so... 



leashedForLife said:


> i salaam before U - sensai! :001_tt1: my admiration is profound.


LOL! Actually, I've been trying to figure out why your name is familiar to me, and I believe you are FB friends with my trainer - Sue Conklin? She's the true sensei of this operation


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

ouesi said:


> ...your name is familiar... I believe you're FB-friends with my trainer -
> Sue Conklin? She's the true sensei of this operation.


that could be! :001_smile: let me check - there are 4 or 5 'Sues', :lol: ...

YES, i am! 4 'Sue's & 1 Susan, & Ms Conklin is among them.  
i'll be sure to tell her what a wonderful job all 3 of U have done.


----------

