Patricia McConnell Re-Homes One of Her Dogs

Hi Ron,

I've been looking over some of the recent posts, and most of what's being said seems to me to be part of a loop of things that have already been gone over before, numerous times. The only thing I think really merits my contribution is Poodleowned's suggestion that the best dog trainers are poets at heart.

I think that's brilliant, and quite true. And I think it's because poets have an ability to feel the inner vibrations of things -- whether it's the moonlight falling on fresh snow, the way sunlight dances across a mountain stream, or the way the fog rolls into city streets in the early morning, or the empty feeling of being alone in a room you once shared with someone you loved, etc, etc.  And what I think really good dog trainers do, whether they know it or not, is tune into a dogs' inner vibrations and feel what the dog is feeling.

That said, I do want to address one or two issues.

ron2

LCK is saying that the model of OC, wherein a creature seeks reward and avoids punishment, is wrong. Primarily because he says so in order to present his own theory.

I never said that the Skinnerian model was wrong, or if I did, I did so a while back. In terms of the current discussion what I'm saying is that it's flawed; it has holes in it. And I'm not saying this in order to present my own theory. I'm saying it because many years ago (18 years, in fact), after having carefully studied the +R approach by reading Pryor, William Campbell, and half a dozen books by B. F. Skinner, and plunging myself wholly and completely into its precepts with all the dogs I worked with, I began to notice that there were certain times when the principles didn't work they way they should have. There were also times when I observed certain behaviors in dogs, and certain types of learning, that couldn't be explained by the behavioral science model. (Temple Grandin believes it only works about 50% of the time.) As a result I began looking for an alternative theory that made sense to me, and that worked closer to 100% of the time

If you feel that learning theory satisfies all your needs as an owner and trainer, fine. I have no problem with that. What does seem problematic is the idea that it's "the science of how animals learn." It's not. It's a model, and it has holes in it.

ron2

Then, he presents a study showing dopamine present in both rewarding and non-rewarding situations and feels that supports the contention that dogs do not learn by the process in OC of reward, they learn by noting differences. But I think that theory lacks an explanation of why the learning takes place, the motivation.

It wasn't just one study. There's a whole series of them. And the motivation for learning is very clear. Dopamine is not a reward for learning new behaviors, per se; it's what reinforces our attentiveness to salient changes in the environment. Remember, it's not just released when we eat and have sex or snort cocaine, but also when we drink something noxious or get badly hurt. So dopamine is what tells us, "Remember to do this (eat, have sex, get high), and remember not to do that (drink sour milk or get punched in the face.";).

Off to write some poetry now...

LCK

Lee,

I have to agree with you and a whole lot of other folks who's works I've read that Skinner's OC behaviorism theory has it's flaws. A simple google search of "Skinner behaviorism flaws" will bring up a lot of interesting discussions. I also agree that flaws aside, his work has merit. The problems arise when Skinner is taken as an absolute definition of everything, rather than as simply one piece of a much larger puzzle.

Well, LCK, you may have to elucidate what are the flaws in learning theory. You say it has flaws. Angelique, a died-in-the-wool supporter of Cesar Milan, says it has flaws, even though Cesar is using OC every single day and just calls it "energy." Fine. Okay ... what are the flaws? Or was it simply not analyzed deep enough to see what the reward or punishment was? I know a lot of this hubris comes from a religious objection to giving dogs treats or rewards to get their motivation. The lengths of travels and energy expended to avoid giving a piece of dripping meat is astounding, at times.

You mention the debate has become circular. I think that is because your viewpoint, as yet, is not totally convincing. That's why we keep hitting the same points. To whit, the dopamine thingy. While you think it throws doubt or shows a flaw on OC, I don't yet understand how the learning takes place unless one assumes a human-like ability to learn for the sake of learning, with no connection to survival. Which just doesn't make sense.

Or has the debate become circular because you have yet to win over any number of us with your rhetoric. For that is what it is. Well done, I would say, in questioning how learning is happening if dopamine is present in both rewarding and non-rewarding events. Nor do I defend OC in spite of that news. Yet, your alternate explanation, which can adequately explain the dopamine thingy, does not answer the questions I have asked. So was it precious Freud that connected dopamine to pleasure? I can't remember and he might not either, as the cocaine addled his brain. Yeah, he as that deep, dark secret. He was a fan of the white powder. That seems to be missing from your use of Freud. Am I tossing in a red herring? Or can the abuse of cocaine affect one's reasoning abilities?

Granted, some of the simpler aspects of OC, such as clicker training may tend to focus on food treats, as they are easy to use and have excellent results for a huge majority of professional and amateur trainers, and has been documented for decades (and I don't think you have diminished in the slightest Pryor's work) but that doesn't mean that other examples of dogs learning in absence of food treats is totally divorced from the OC principles. Granted, that statement might sound rhetorical, too, but it would be up to you to prove that OC is not happening and why it is not happening and then how did the dog learn to modify behavior from encounters with the environment.

It sounds like I am spending a lot of energy defending OC. I am not. I simply do not see your theory as having enough evidence or logic to supplant it or replace or, as yet, clarify it. And you might be tempted to say (just for the sake of my own straw boss) "Well, great, Ron, but you're just an electrician, not a degreed psychologist or an author published in a (pop psychology, non peer-reviewed) magazine." And you would be right. In which case, you might have problems like mine trying to press your theories here, amongst the rest of us non-psychology professionals, with the exception of Anne, who actually has a degree, with honors, in psychology, a list of creds after her name that include certified dog trainer, CGC evaluator, and over 40 years experience with dogs, good and bad. She just couldn't possibly know anything because she supports OC. Perish the thought.

Notice I said that your articles are not peer-reviewed. It seems as if you just write a new one and it's posted. Is it peer-reviewed? Do other scientists (most of them have master degrees in psychology with decades of specialization in animal behavior) review your submissions for clarifications, corrections, and rebuttals? If not, it is not peer-reviewed and is, at best, a well-written opinion but may not count as solid psychological research. I'm not saying that to be mean. I just have some awareness of the validity of scientific publication of theories, especially of the peer-review process and I learned this through following the CO2 global warming brouhaha. (By the way, CO2 is not a pollutant and doesn't warm diddly squat, but that's another thread, sometime.)

The dopamine study may have very well proved that the compound is present regardless of learning or reward or punishment but I don't see how it has poked a hole in OC. Maybe I am just dense.

Lee Charles Kelley

ve been looking over some of the recent posts, and most of what's being said seems to me to be part of a loop of things that have already been gone over before, numerous times. The only thing I think really merits my contribution is Poodleowned's suggestion that the best dog trainers are poets at heart.

I think that's brilliant, and quite true. And I think it's because poets have an ability to feel the inner vibrations of things -- whether it's the moonlight falling on fresh snow, the way sunlight dances across a mountain stream, or the way the fog rolls into city streets in the early morning, or the empty feeling of being alone in a room you once shared with someone you loved, etc, etc.  And what I think really good dog trainers do, whether they know it or not, is tune into a dogs' inner vibrations and feel what the dog is feeling.

I am entirely more pragamtic. It is a theme of literature and art that the best artists are tortured souls. In my experience , the background of distress sharpens ones observation skills, to see things in a somewhat different light.

IN my own case, i probably veer towards the savant when it comes to working with tracking dogs. I can probably tell you what the dog will do next after seeing it for a short period of time. Like a lot of intuitive skills, it is based on observation understanding and experience.

I have very firm beliefs on dog to human communication. We just don't get body language and we ignore smells that tell them our state. There are chemicals associated with bonding, feel good chemicals.. There are also chemicals associated with fear, pure naked fear for example. Nothing too flash but pretty easy to test and prove oh and counter condition if neccesary :)

I can probably tell you what the dog will do next after seeing it for a short period of time. Like a lot of intuitive skills, it is based on observation understanding and experience.

 Indeed. 

There are chemicals associated with bonding, feel good chemicals.. There are also chemicals associated with fear, pure naked fear for example.  Nothing too flash but pretty easy to test and prove oh and counter condition if necessary :)

Indeed. 

For LCK to explain canine behavior by merely tracking the underlying material processes is so naive as to be dismissed with quizzically furrowed brow.  Do we learn to drive a race car by studying auto mechanics?  How to design a website by poking 0s and 1s in the motherboard registers? Certainly, understanding underlying technology and science may improve one's  performance in any field, but it is more common to treat the two arenas separately.  This kinda' explains why there are departments at universities.

The whole fallacy of an 'energy model' of a dog (or a fellow human mammal) is to ignore the layers of complexity provided by evolution.  Complexities that emerge from the evolutionary advance are not identical with their supporting substrata.

Burl

How to design a website by poking 0s and 1s in the motherboard registers? Certainly, understanding underlying technology and science may improve one's  performance in any field, but it is more common to treat the two arenas separately.  This kinda' explains why there are departments at universities.

Well that is what i meant by abstraction. In computer science, we use abstraction so that we are not forever going down to the nuts and bolts. We use functions so that we may abstract at a higher level and be more productive. Imagine if computer languages had not been invented and we did everything at the 1 0 level BTW we call digital engineers the  1 0 boys and girls here :) IN joke i know....

We also bump into convergence. If it works in nature it may work for us in man made stuff. So we have genetic algoritihms to solve optimisation problems. We use reinforcement schedules to teach machines. I mean the guts of behavourism is so bad that it even works on machines!!!! The reverse can also be true. May be just may be if it works in a machine/computer and seems optimum is that how nature does it? does it illuminate anything at all?

If you want to look at some of this, google the IEEE.org web site.