Who is a Positive Trainer?

 Anne, let's define punishment correctly (like he does in his example), especially if we want people to use it correctly. A punisher is a stimulus change that decreases the future frequency of the behavior that precedes it.

griffinej5

 Anne, let's define punishment correctly (like he does in his example), especially if we want people to use it correctly. A punisher is a stimulus change that decreases the future frequency of the behavior that precedes it.

You are correct, which is why I posted the article. 

 Glad we could agree on that, though I probably could have said that a bit more nicely. I wasn't (and am still not) in my happy place

griffinej5

 Glad we could agree on that, though I probably could have said that a bit more nicely. I wasn't (and am still not) in my happy place

Heck, you've been here a long time, so you know I have my days, too. 

Yup... people, we really don't bite. It's safe to post here. We're even friendly sometimes.

 CHOMP

ron2

Yes, technically, a punishment is anything that has a tendency to lower the frequency of a behavior. I don't specifically see punishment in any form, be it collar pops or witholding a treat, as training. In fact, if I can coin a word, it might be "de-training" as it is meant to stop or decrease something. As opposed to something that is reward, which tends to become reinforced, or trained. That's why, IMHO, real training takes place in the reinforcement quadrants.

Also, Anne, you have mentioned it before but with reinforcement by reward in the right place and time, some undesirable behaviors can extinguish or self-terminate for lack of reward or strong enough reward. It is certainly more subtle and perhaps we are punishing, by extension, when we fail to, accidently or on purpose, reward undesirable behavior.

I am also mindful of the fact, unpopular as it may for some, that punishment to a subject is only punishment if the subject sees it as such and it will only decrease a behavior if the subject links the punishment with the behavior that is to be decreased.

So, it's possible that I didn't damage my relationship with Shadow when I used to scruff and pin him. Why? Because he was raised as a small pup by friends that would wrestle with him when they played. All that physically manhandling became a reinforcer. For him, such physical contact was play and something to be enjoyed. So, it wouldn't matter how butch and manly I felt, he didn't see it as a punishment, which would explain why he would continue to jump on people for a Husky hug. What stopped him from jumping on people? The command "off" totally reinforced with whatever treats were handy and later on, marked exactly at a point in time with a clicker.

I will swear on anyone's stack of scripture that Shadow is more afraid of a specific tone I can create in my voice than he is of any physical move I can make. So, yes, it may be a blow to one's self-esteem to realize that the subject decides what is rewarding or punishing. Such is life. Here's a tissue for those tears (in general). (sorry, couldn't resist just a smidge of sarcasm. Bad ron, bad ron ...)

yay, someone else posted. I'm going to do some practicing for future test questions and reply. Punishment doesn't teach anything, so of course, that's one of the potential problems. And of course, as you noted, that the punishment isn't really punishing.How many kids get repeatedly suspended, and how many prisoners come back within a few months? You can't really say for sure that it's punishment until you've got data that shows some measurable dimension of the behavior was decreased. The other little complication, which arises with reinforcers as well, is that what functions as a punisher in one situation may not do the same in a different situation.

Ron, I think from your second paragraph, what you mean is extinction. Do you mean no longer reinforcing something that was reinforced in the past?

Sounds like something right out of Steven Lindsay's mouth.

I recently went to a Steven Lindsay seminar. He really pushed the point that crates, leashes, and even backyard fences were punishers in that they suppressed behaviour. It was a nice little wake-up that did provoke some thought. He considers anything that is disappointing as an aversive. It's hard to talk to other trainers with his terms and definitions, though. I'm worried I will be misunderstood. What I felt Lindsay didn't emphasise nearly enough (although to give him credit, he did try) was that UNNECESSARY punishments were ethically wrong. But how do you judge what is a necessary use of aversives in training? More than what can be done you have to consider what is likely to be done. However true it might be that a positive method will work, what makes or breaks it is how skillfully and consistently it is applied. And that ultimately lies with the owners of the dog.

griffinej5

ron2

Also, Anne, you have mentioned it before but with reinforcement by reward in the right place and time, some undesirable behaviors can extinguish or self-terminate for lack of reward or strong enough reward. It is certainly more subtle and perhaps we are punishing, by extension, when we fail to, accidently or on purpose, reward undesirable behavior.

Ron, I think from your second paragraph, what you mean is extinction. Do you mean no longer reinforcing something that was reinforced in the past?

Yes, extinction is the term and the concept. I was describing the process behind that terminology.

corvus

Sounds like something right out of Steven Lindsay's mouth.

I recently went to a Steven Lindsay seminar. He really pushed the point that crates, leashes, and even backyard fences were punishers in that they suppressed behaviour. It was a nice little wake-up that did provoke some thought. He considers anything that is disappointing as an aversive. It's hard to talk to other trainers with his terms and definitions, though. I'm worried I will be misunderstood. What I felt Lindsay didn't emphasise nearly enough (although to give him credit, he did try) was that UNNECESSARY punishments were ethically wrong. But how do you judge what is a necessary use of aversives in training? More than what can be done you have to consider what is likely to be done. However true it might be that a positive method will work, what makes or breaks it is how skillfully and consistently it is applied. And that ultimately lies with the owners of the dog.

I can see that definition of an aversive, it's an ok simplification. It's anything that serves as P+ or R-.

Unnecessary punishments I think is the harder one to agree with. I mean, what constitutes that? Is any punishment unnecessary, or are there some that are justified? I would tend to think, given that the qualifier word of unnecessary is included, that there must be some acceptable uses of punishment. I think most of us would agree that certain uses of punishment are definitely wrong and unethical, but there are some people who would never agree that any punishment is ethical. I would have to assume that these people also think it's unethical to put a child in time out (and this one, even though I think there are ethical uses of punishment, I might be inclined to agree with in many cases). 

I'm not seeing how a crate is definitely punishment. If you used it like a time out box, yes, it is P-. My dog willingly walks into almost any crate he passes by. He'll walk in on his own and wait for release. I feel like my dog often times just needs a break when he's in class. He needs a few minutes in the crate to lay down with no demands,  and no chance of anyone getting in his face. I'm fairly sure that used in that situation, being sent to the crate is a reinforcer. The same can be said on a fenced backyard. If access to off leash running is contingent upon some other behaviors, like sitting and wait to be released, it can serve as a reinforcer for sitting and waiting. The blanket statement that X is a punisher or reinforcer I think is the one that is hard to claim.

griffinej5

corvus

Sounds like something right out of Steven Lindsay's mouth.

I recently went to a Steven Lindsay seminar. He really pushed the point that crates, leashes, and even backyard fences were punishers in that they suppressed behaviour. It was a nice little wake-up that did provoke some thought. He considers anything that is disappointing as an aversive. It's hard to talk to other trainers with his terms and definitions, though. I'm worried I will be misunderstood. What I felt Lindsay didn't emphasise nearly enough (although to give him credit, he did try) was that UNNECESSARY punishments were ethically wrong. But how do you judge what is a necessary use of aversives in training? More than what can be done you have to consider what is likely to be done. However true it might be that a positive method will work, what makes or breaks it is how skillfully and consistently it is applied. And that ultimately lies with the owners of the dog.

 

I can see that definition of an aversive, it's an ok simplification. It's anything that serves as P+ or R-.

Unnecessary punishments I think is the harder one to agree with. I mean, what constitutes that? Is any punishment unnecessary, or are there some that are justified? I would tend to think, given that the qualifier word of unnecessary is included, that there must be some acceptable uses of punishment. I think most of us would agree that certain uses of punishment are definitely wrong and unethical, but there are some people who would never agree that any punishment is ethical. I would have to assume that these people also think it's unethical to put a child in time out (and this one, even though I think there are ethical uses of punishment, I might be inclined to agree with in many cases). 

I'm not seeing how a crate is definitely punishment. If you used it like a time out box, yes, it is P-. My dog willingly walks into almost any crate he passes by. He'll walk in on his own and wait for release. I feel like my dog often times just needs a break when he's in class. He needs a few minutes in the crate to lay down with no demands,  and no chance of anyone getting in his face. I'm fairly sure that used in that situation, being sent to the crate is a reinforcer. The same can be said on a fenced backyard. If access to off leash running is contingent upon some other behaviors, like sitting and wait to be released, it can serve as a reinforcer for sitting and waiting. The blanket statement that X is a punisher or reinforcer I think is the one that is hard to claim.

I would agree.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder in this case, i.e., whether something is perceived as a punisher or a reinforcer is up to the dog.  If a dog finds a pat on the head reinforcing, then it is.  But, if, as with many dogs, he doesn't like it, then it's a punisher, no matter how you meant it.  

griffinej5

I can see that definition of an aversive, it's an ok simplification. It's anything that serves as P+ or R-.

I got the sense that it was a bit more than that. Lindsay is a bit on the anti-Behaviorism side and uses a different concept based on expectation and control. When a dog expects his behaviour to result in something and it does, he doesn't learn anything. If the result is better than he expected, he gets a happy surprise and that gets lodged real firm in his mind as something good to do. If the result is less than he expected he gets disappointed and is less likely to do that one again. 

griffinej5

I'm not seeing how a crate is definitely punishment. If you used it like a time out box, yes, it is P-. My dog willingly walks into almost any crate he passes by. He'll walk in on his own and wait for release. I feel like my dog often times just needs a break when he's in class. He needs a few minutes in the crate to lay down with no demands,  and no chance of anyone getting in his face. I'm fairly sure that used in that situation, being sent to the crate is a reinforcer. The same can be said on a fenced backyard. If access to off leash running is contingent upon some other behaviors, like sitting and wait to be released, it can serve as a reinforcer for sitting and waiting. The blanket statement that X is a punisher or reinforcer I think is the one that is hard to claim.

I think that is the exception. Lindsay's point was not that something is always a punishment, but that things we impose on our dogs on a daily basis can be punishing. The reason why was because the dog can't do what it wants to do while it is locked in a crate, on a leash, or in a fenced backyard. It can't run far and wide doing doggy things. My dogs happily trot from the yard to the car and from the car to the yard and so forth, but if I had no fences they wouldn't stay in my yard all the time. That's not to say I should pull my fences down and let my dogs roam like they want to. Just something to think about.

 He can be anti-behaviorism all he wants, it doesn't mean the principles aren't operating on him, his dogs, and everyone else he knows. Sort of a snide way of putting this I know, but I bet he takes a pay check. It makes little difference whether the reinforcer was the expected one or not. If you, the dog, whoever wanted it, you learn to repeat that action more in the future when you want that thing. If he gets something better than expected, he learns that the better than expected consequence is also available, and the action can be repeated and sometimes earn the better thing.