Patricia McConnell Re-Homes One of Her Dogs

ron2

I'm beginning to see some of your reasoning, LCK. And, touche'. Even though the decades of research viewing things as punishment and reward show what appears to be a clear link, one can simply say, "is that really so?" However, that question does not serve as a instance of falsifying the behaviorist approach using that terminology. Sabe? I draw a parallel to that with the "difference" between Newton and Einstein.

 So, swapping tension and release for reward doesn't make it so.

[I'm not swapping it, I don't think; I'm just explaining it from a different angle. -LCK]

But I don't think the dopamine is the key to the learning, per se. Changes in environment can be brought about by the subject, such as the rat that learns to press a lever to get a treat. He changed his environment. His action brought him food, a reward that leads to survival. I'm not sure there is any animal that seeks pain or does not seek reward and I realize you could say that I am stuck with this terminology. Then again, the most obvious explanation is usually the closest to reality. When you hear hoofbeats, you expect horses, not zebras. 9 times out of 10, it was horses.

Nor am I trying to defend reward and punishment terminology. But I would not abandon it simply because a new word comes a long. Also, I'm not so sure that your theory offers a new paradigm. I still see to many parallels to reward/punishment, in which case, we may be simply bandying about with semantics.

Hi, Ron,

A lot of food for thought, as always.

Here the main points I would make in response.

1) While Newtonian physics does hold within the 3 dimensions of Space, Einstein felt that Newton's theories weren't able to account for the electromagnetic field, something Newton had no information on when he developed the principles of classical mechanics. Einstein's theories provided more information, and included a 4th dimension of Time. So Einstein's work -- the special theory of relativity, the general theory of relativity, the discovery of photons and quantum mechanics -- involved a major paradigm shift.

2) Whether Freud's view of the pleasure principle (i.e., that behavior is mostly about finding a temporary release from the daily tension and stress of being a living organism) supersedes, or contravenes Thorndike's and Skinner's work, is on a different plane than the difference between Aristotle and Newton, or between Newton and Einstein. Obviously Freud preceded Skinner, but it seems to me that what was lost when Skinner tried to remove the "voodoo" (meaning anything relating to the inner self) of Freudian ideas from psychology, it's pretty clear that he took us a little too far down that sterile, non-emotional path. As PoodleOwner (I think) pointed out, by isolating behaviors from the environment, the behavioral science movement may have been missing out on some important parts of the puzzle.

Randy Gallistel (one of the neuroscientists who are arguing against The Law of Cause-and-Effect in animal learning) has said that his goal is to deconstruct operant conditioning. That said, I'm pretty sure he has no problem with the principles of classical conditioning. (And I agree.)

As for Kevin Behan's energy theory (or my version of it, which is more weighted toward the Freudian dynamic), time will tell. In actual fact, Kevin doesn't really have a theory, per se; he has a group of interconnected hypotheses, which are in need of being subjected to rigorous scientific study, critical thinking, peer review, etc., etc., etc. I only know that most of his techniques work amazingly well (at least for me).

As for me, my interests lie in opening up the dog training field by introducing concepts from emergence theory, complexity theory, the principles of molecular evolution, embodied embedded cognition, etc.

My purpose in writing my original articles on the "flaws" inherent to the Skinnerian paradigm (starting last fall) was to poke holes in the idea that it's "the science of how animals learn," as if that were as true as the idea that the sky is blue (which it's not, by the way), and to poke at some of its major proponents in dogdom. 

Thanks to something SpiritDogs said here, my purpose has shifted toward a more all-inclusive approach. After all, most (if not all) dog trainers want the same basic thing (or I would hope they do), which is to ensure that more dogs are able to live happy, stress-free lives.

Cesar Millan believes that dogs see him as their "pack leader," which makes sense to a lot of people. What I see him doing is acting like a predator: even if wolves did have pack leaders in the sense that Millan believes they do, there's a huge piece missing from his theory, which is that humans walk upright and dogs and wolves tend to walk around on all fours. We're vertical, they're horizontal. So even if dogs were able to think conceptually, or to believe that X represents Y, not X2, on a purely visceral and emotional level, they know the difference between a dog trainer and a dog.

So how do we educate people that Millan is wrong, at least on theory?

Attacking him by saying "we have science on our side" doesn't work, partially because the science really isn't there, 100%.

Meanwhile Dunbar, Dodman, McConnell and others still believe that dogs form hierarchies. Dunbar's reputation as a scientist is founded on that idea; he spent 10 years studying the formation of hierarchies in domesticated dogs, something that's still mentioned in his bio. But now, instead of saying, "You know I may have been wrong about that," he veers off topic by comparing the genetic relationship between dogs and wolves to that of humans and chimps. Yes, the numbers are similar (though Dan Povinelli has pointed out that we don't share the same % of DNA, we share the same % of nucleitide sequence: "New research has shown that rough similarity in our nucleotide sequences obscures the fact that the same genes may have dramatically different activity levels in the two species. So even where humans and chimpanzees share genes in common, it turns out that there are what can only be described as major differences in gene expression.";) Then there's the fact that humans walk upright, we invent things like airplanes, build cities, write novels, teach ourselves to play guitar, etc. There's no corollary there with dogs and wolves. Dogs have morphed physically quite a bit, but cognitively? The only major difference is that dogs seem to be able to hijack our brains.

So my goal is to not only educate people about the myth of the pack leader, but to also educate them about some of the myths inherent to the belief that behavioral science has all the answers. So I'm not throwing out behavioral science entirely (though that may have seemed to be the case), I'm just saying, "Hey, you know, this stuff is not set in stone. It's got flaws in it, just as the alpha theory does."

Hopefully we can share ideas without attacking one another (something I've been guilty of a lot). We can't share ideas if our starting point is "this is the only true, scientific way to train dogs." That would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Dog training is as much about the trainer's personality as it is about science. It's more of an art. This is something I discovered after I started taking on students; each one has developed their own unique way of interpreting what I've taught them.

Anyway, that's how I see it,

LCK

Gallistel trying to "de-construct" operant conditioning? Interesting. I wonder what the motivation behind that is?

And thank you for a well-thought-out reply. And, to some extent, you may be right that what we use in operant conditioning is more for us. Operant conditioning, though you may disagree with me, results in humans treating dogs better and with more understanding. And I'm willing to wager that, in the majority of cases, it produces better training results than acting like a predator or high executioner.

But to truly deconstruct it requires more than a theory about dopamine levels, which I think is a red herring, in the end. That is, I'm not sure it's going to affect any theory, to much of any level.

And I think I mistated earlier. Yes, Einstein expressed differently than Newton but EM behavior is not antithetical to Newton's work, either. It just wasn't covered by Newton at the time. In fact, according to Einstein, what led him to develope his theories of the Michelson-Morely Experiment. Up until that experiment, the standard accepted theory was there was an aether, a sub-space stuff against which matter and energy would experience effects, something like friction. Of course, this wasn't support by an experiments in vacuum and later, objects in freefall. Anyway, the experiment was to shine two beams of light, in the direction of earth's rotation and one in the opposite direction. If there was an aether, there would a velocity difference. Mind you, this was done with mirrors and lines of intereference on white paper. The results were null or inconclusive. There was no detectable aether.

Einstein had no way to test this so he came up with "thought experiments." Just thinking about it, which beat the heck out of going to class when he was enrolled at Polytechnische Institute. (Yes, his attendance was deplorable.) And to describe what his thoughts were, he turned to the equations of dutch physicist Lorentz and another scientist named Fitzgerald, both of whom beileved in an aether, Michelson-Morely notwithstanding. In essence, his Special Theory and it's off-shoot, General Theory of relativity, re-establish the theory of the aether, which Einstein, himself, said did not exist.

Newton's explanation was incomplete but accurate enough and Einstein's explanation didn't really help.

Anyway, I'm not seeing where the dopamine reference or even stress-relief is explaining the problem with McConnell's dog being re-homed. The simpler explanation is that dogs have personalities and don't always get along with everyone or every situation. Maybe not fully supported but an easier explanation, especially as the dog seems to be doing better in his new home.

Is there a feeling or gist that operant conditioning conquers all and can make a dog like a situation it didn't like before? Well, in some cases, that is true. In other cases, allowing the dog to re-home is not a failure of OC anymore than it would be a failure of NDT to do the same thing, simply calling it by another name.

 HI Ron2

I was about to type out  a reply, and in essence you did  a much better  job and made many of my statements redundant.

I need to clarify something here. While i accept some of the newer theories around, i still do an awful lot of operant and classical conditioning. I always have a clicker on me, and food and toys. 

Where dopamine levels come in for me is that we think that when dogs (and humans) play that  the very pleasurable dopamine levels rise, and that we think that it is a great leaning state and a great reward. On my anedoctal evidence, i think it is true for many of the dogs that i get to deal with. It means that dogs are more open to Instruemental Learning to sort of quote Panksepp. There is no conflict, just a deeper understanding of how to go about it. For me that meant being open to pre charging dogs, getting them in to a good learing state before hand.

And just as working in prey drive doesn't necessarily reduce tension, nor is tension always a bad thing. As I have noted, some dogs from hard-working breeds ramp up their response. For example, does anyone really think that barking back and charging back on a German Shepherd is going to make that dog calm down? Anyone that does, go ahead and do that and tell me what your results are. What has not been covered by LCK, as yet, is how training that is useful to human life has occured. For example, the police dog bites a suspect and holds. The suspect tugs, which is reward to a K-9. Even though that is not the reward. The dog will release upon the command of his specific handler. Why? Because it's the most rewarding thing in the world.

See, OC explains how and why you can do that with a dog. NDT, so far, as presented by proponents such as Behan, Kelley, et al, hasn't really addressed how their system of explanation covers the reasons a dog works with humans to human-oriented results. A trained K-9 will run at a suspect who is firing a gun, as opposed to an untrained dog who may not like the loud noise and run away from the suspect.

So, for example, NDT might offer a likely explanation, differing in semantics, mainly, of why a dog might keep going back to a particular building (to get scraps from a restaurant) but it's not explaining, at least in a way that I can understand, why a dog will listen to and follow a human through specific commands and behaviors. This is more easily explained by OC.

ron2

And just as working in prey drive doesn't necessarily reduce tension, nor is tension always a bad thing. As I have noted, some dogs from hard-working breeds ramp up their response. For example, does anyone really think that barking back and charging back on a German Shepherd is going to make that dog calm down? Anyone that does, go ahead and do that and tell me what your results are. What has not been covered by LCK, as yet, is how training that is useful to human life has occured. For example, the police dog bites a suspect and holds. The suspect tugs, which is reward to a K-9. Even though that is not the reward. The dog will release upon the command of his specific handler. Why? Because it's the most rewarding thing in the world.

See, OC explains how and why you can do that with a dog. NDT, so far, as presented by proponents such as Behan, Kelley, et al, hasn't really addressed how their system of explanation covers the reasons a dog works with humans to human-oriented results. A trained K-9 will run at a suspect who is firing a gun, as opposed to an untrained dog who may not like the loud noise and run away from the suspect.

So, for example, NDT might offer a likely explanation, differing in semantics, mainly, of why a dog might keep going back to a particular building (to get scraps from a restaurant) but it's not explaining, at least in a way that I can understand, why a dog will listen to and follow a human through specific commands and behaviors. This is more easily explained by OC.

I again think that you are making some very strong points. Despite (or becuase of?)  having poodles, i probably train most like a modern positive Shutzhund trainer . I am very interested in Shutzhnd and hope to get a sutiable dog for my next doggy challenge. OC has a lot going for it. What i do know is that a dog trained in OC with some tools to control and use it's various drives is a wonderful dog to be around and a delight to see in action.

My favourite dog sport of all is Tracking. I don't track for my dogs, my dogs learn where the track is and what to do with various diferent scenarios. They use some natural drives and learn this powerful thing, that good things happen when the right behaviour is selected. It is a combination of OC and drives.

What i did learn from Panksepp is why even my very food crazy lab would leave food on a track. Panksepp calls it seeking and is an interesting and helpful concept.  So for some dogs, the motivation and reward is new things happening I don't always get primo tracking dogs in my group. They often come with a lot of baggage. but most often this concept works.

I know that you have noticed my use of phrases like "i think" and maybe. None of us really know, we can only work with good evidence and learn from the past.

poodleOwned

What i did learn from Panksepp is why even my very food crazy lab would leave food on a track. Panksepp calls it seeking and is an interesting and helpful concept.  So for some dogs, the motivation and reward is new things happening I don't always get primo tracking dogs in my group. They often come with a lot of baggage. but most often this concept works.

I know that you have noticed my use of phrases like "i think" and maybe. None of us really know, we can only work with good evidence and learn from the past.

I know you are right, poodleOwner; you (and Panksepp) confirm what A. N. Whitehead says about all cosmological change, especially w/r living subjects - dogs no less than us - that each of us is directed at living, living better, and living well in a process of creative advance towards novelty.

Sorry, that just came out!

poodleOwned

Where dopamine levels come in for me is that we think that when dogs (and humans) play that  the very pleasurable dopamine levels rise, and that we think that it is a great leaning state and a great reward. On my anedoctal evidence, i think it is true for many of the dogs that i get to deal with. It means that dogs are more open to Instruemental Learning to sort of quote Panksepp. There is no conflict, just a deeper understanding of how to go about it. For me that meant being open to pre charging dogs, getting them in to a good learing state before hand.

Hi, PoodleOwned,

I like the way you put that: "Pre-charging dogs."

Max Von Stephanitz, who more or less invented the idea of obedience training for pet dogs, said "Before we teach a dog to obey, we must first teach him how to play." Granted, this was Germany in the latter part of the 19th Century, and the early part of the 20th, so some of his views on training were quite severe (like Konrad Lorenz, Von Stephanitz always carried a "training stick";), but his techniques were developed before dog training became infected by the alpha theory.

LCK

 Here's my latest article for PsychologyToday.com: "The Unified Dog Theory II: Using Pattern Recognition in Training."

LCK

Interestingly enough, LCK, in the part II part, you mention OCD-like behaviors. Are those also dopamine linked and reinforced? That is, is the dog reinforced by a natural job that needs no external reinforcement by means of treat or toy? And would that be a simplistic description of the gist of NDT? That the real training occurs intrinsically?

I think, at the surface, at least, there are differences between household pet dogs and true working dogs. Again, I would mention my favorite breed, Siberian Husky. A true working Sibe might not sleep inside a house for the first 8 or 9 years of his life. In a big kennel on a racing team, the dogs sleep outside, tethered to a zip line or in a kennel. They get plenty of attention, eat better than the humans do, and get constant vet care. And are exercised every day. But much of their training is in harness with the other dogs showing them the ropes, literally and figuratively. And a lead dog is not always boss among the dogs. A lead dog listens to the musher more often. Yet, the lead dog has to be independent enough to counteract a mushing command if he or she senses danger ahead. What do Sibes do for the pure joy that seems independent of treats or structured OC? They run fast and pull hard in the worst conditions on Earth on very little food. But even this has to do with breeding. Only the dogs that could do this got to breed. Others did not. It was purpose-specific breeding without attention to dog club aesthetics. It was not until the 20th century that breeders started worrying about comformation and, as of consequence, there have been problems. There was an american line of Sibes in which the dogs were going blind by age 3.

What makes a good sled dog is often what does not make a good housepet. Yet, a retired sled dog can adapt and be relatively happy in a house and still go outside to pee because they have always peed outside. It's one of the "laws of the universe." You pee outside.

The Dogo de Argentino is a primarily a mix of pit bull terrier and mastiff and was created as a baiting dog for hunting wild boar and other wild big game. They were bred to chase prey and latch on with a bite and hold the bite until the handler/hunter comes and releases them. And once locked on prey, they ignore all else. But still, at some point in time, they must release or they are no good as a hunting dog. Therefore, there is yet another rewarding reason to release.

When I say reward, it doesn't always have to be a food reward. But food is a primary resource leading to survival. And what leads to survival is what is rewarding. It can be used to direct behaviors that are not always desired by the subject but are necessary. For example, I don't always feel like working but working gets me a paycheck to buy food and other things and keep on living for other things I do enjoy. There are some things I like to do for which I am not paid. It may be intrinsic but it is enjoyable to me, even if that means dopamine release. For example, I like to sing. I don't get paid for it. So, why do it? Why does the sun shine? And I realize that you are seeking the answer to why we do something for which we don't receive any external reward? Though, I must admit, I enjoy compliments when I do sing.

Perhaps that is a better understanding for me of your direction, though I hope to see it more crystallized into something concrete. And, while we do things that are satisfying to us without compensation, we do other things specifically for compensation that create a good environment for what else we want ( a little premack principle going on.)

 ron2, your comments remind me of a recent study as to how the more menial and rote human work is, the more effective money becomes as a reward to improve productivity.  But the more interesting and autonomous are the job requirements, the less effective is money as a performance booster - in this case, increasing the interest levels and decreasing external supervision/control proves to be the key incentiviser.

My hunch is the same is true of pooches.

Hi LCK

I need to make a couple of comments here. A lot of Neurochemicals work in a weird way. It is very hard to just get rid of a chemical like Dopamine, so we need to also look for chemicals that have an inhibatory effect on Dopamine, that is chemicals that swamp dopamine. All these levels are really hard to measure, you can take mouth swabs or blood tests, but that enemy of ours, time gets in the way of truely knowing quite what is happening. Hence the presence of dopamine doens't neccesarily provide a conclusive case for or against many of our arguements, just a pathway to having some idea.

 The second point is on pattern recognition. Pattern recognition  occurs at several different levels and can be an inbuilt response (that noise means i am about to die) or a learned response ( that smell is good for me, i have learnt that). There are many many reasons why a dog may give a false positive, but OC training is pretty relaible for scent. What happens is that we ask for too wide a repotoire and hence slow the dog down, (and humans too) or that the picture is a little confusing or that the dog just needs a litle more practice.A good reference for reducing the complexity of what we are asking for is L. Lit who also wrote a little book called cognitive Canine.

I have certainly built up impressive response ratios in my own dogs. My older dog has never taken a decoy track.When she is not on cortisone, she never gets the articles wrong in UD. Again when not on cortisone she is capable of tracking one person through a moderately busy shopping mall. Pretty much on OC.

My younger dog has never taken a decoy track either. In fact there are several ways of avoiding this. If you are wise you make the main track highly rewarding. If you want conficlt, just let tracking be a so so and then the huting / decoy traack seems more and more interesting.

There is some great research out of Auburn and usually watch what they are doing, but i have never got quite that sense that you suggest in your article. I  reference several of their articles in a little guide to tracking that i have developed. Could you be  a bit more speciifc as to the article ?

poodleOwned

I need to make a couple of comments here. A lot of Neurochemicals work in a weird way. It is very hard to just get rid of a chemical like Dopamine, so we need to also look for chemicals that have an inhibatory effect on Dopamine, that is chemicals that swamp dopamine.

There are many many reasons why a dog may give a false positive, but OC training is pretty relaible for scent.

There is some great research out of Auburn and usually watch what they are doing, but i have never got quite that sense that you suggest in your article. I  reference several of their articles in a little guide to tracking that i have developed. Could you be  a bit more speciifc as to the article ?

Hi PoodleOwned,

Thanks for giving me some insights into your dogs' experiences. That's very helpful.

You make a good point about neurochemicals and their interactions. I could be wrong, but I think the research was set up with that in mind. In most cases the researchers were measuring the activity of dopamine neurons in real time. I have no way of knowing whether serotonin or norepinephrine amped up or dampered its effects after the neurons fired initially.

As for your statement that "OC training is pretty reliable for scent," I would ask, is it really operant conditioning you're using, or is it classical? I think I mentioned somewhere that I've been told that some pretty serious academic behavioral scientists are now saying there's virtually no difference. And, unlike Randy Gallistel et al, these are people who side with operant conditioning, not classical (Gallistel's position is that classical conditioning is real but operant conditioning is an artificial construct).

Here's a link to the NY TImes article I quoted from (the one where Dr. Myers says dogs will lie to get a reward).

LCK

ron2

Interestingly enough, LCK, in the part II part, you mention OCD-like behaviors. Are those also dopamine linked and reinforced? That is, is the dog reinforced by a natural job that needs no external reinforcement by means of treat or toy? And would that be a simplistic description of the gist of NDT? That the real training occurs intrinsically?

Hi Ron,

I've yet to do any serious research on the relationship between OCD and dopamine, but it seems like a good bet that the two are linked, esp. with compulsions based on the need to change things in the environment when they seem "out of place" with a preferred pattern.

ron2

I think, at the surface, at least, there are differences between household pet dogs and true working dogs.

I don't think it's a surface level. It's a matter of temperament and breeding. There are certain dogs and certain breeds that aren't cut out for the rigors of herding, police work, etc. I think what's interesting about Kevin Behan's work is that he was able to get some dogs that others in his field felt were washouts and bring them up to the same level as the top working dogs in whatever field he was training for. A lot of it was adapted from some principles he learned from some old German herding masters. Some of it he came up with on his own.

ron2

When I say reward, it doesn't always have to be a food reward. But food is a primary resource leading to survival. And what leads to survival is what is rewarding.

I think it works the other way around. I think recognizing (and repeat successful) patterns in the environment is what's rewarding. If that leads us to enjoy eating, fine. If it leads us to overeat, not so good.

As I said in the second article, "We've also learned that dopamine isn't released only when something pleasurable happens to us, it's also released when something bad happens. Yes, eating a good meal or falling in love releases dopamine, but it's also released when we drink something noxious or get punched in the nose. It's as if Nature is telling us, "Remember to do this!" (keep eating, keep having sex) and "Remember not to do that!" (don't keep drinking sour milk, don't keep getting punched in the nose)."

So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

ron2

It may be intrinsic but it is enjoyable to me, even if that means dopamine release. For example, I like to sing. I don't get paid for it. So, why do it? Why does the sun shine? And I realize that you are seeking the answer to why we do something for which we don't receive any external reward? Though, I must admit, I enjoy compliments when I do sing.

Paul Simon said recently that when he's writing a song, and looking for the perfect word or the perfect chord, and then he finds it, he almost always gets a buzz. (I think he said it was an endorphin buzz, but it's probably from dopamine.) He said he has to be aware of this, so that he knows when to quit writing, because the song is already finished and he's now just trying to get "high." (My words, not his.)

So music is enjoyable -- for those who write, play and sing, and for those who just listen -- because of its patterns. It's also based on the principles of tension and release. The composer sets up a repeating pattern, then presents us with variations on that pattern, then sets up a conflicting pattern (in songs it's usually the bridge), then brings everything to some kind of resolution. Poetry and drama operate on the same basic principles.

The same thing is true for most jokes. There's the premise (the pattern), the set-up (which repeats the pattern), and the punchline (which is in conflict with what we thought the pattern was, yet is still satisfying because it iterates the pattern, only from an unexpected pov, etc). The shock and surprise of hearing something that at first doesn't seem to fit the pattern, but really does, is the main element of what makes us laugh.

Anyway that's how I see it,

LCK

Lee Charles Kelley

As for your statement that "OC training is pretty reliable for scent," I would ask, is it really operant conditioning you're using, or is it classical? I think I mentioned somewhere that I've been told that some pretty serious academic behavioral scientists are now saying there's virtually no difference. And, unlike Randy Gallistel et al, these are people who side with operant conditioning, not classical (Gallistel's position is that classical conditioning is real but operant conditioning is an artificial construct

I do agree that the boundary line can be a bit rubbery. Personally i draw the line at whether the dog has to be active or passive to get a reward . If we go back to Pavlov then the dog really had no choice about what was going to happen.

For example i feed my dog in a very accurate heel position , it is classical 

When my dog sits , i may reward it, this is generally operant.. but it can be classical

When my dog heels i may put a hand full of food in front of it's mouth .. this is possibly classical but one could argue

As far as he article in the NY times, this is nothing new.We have known for age about handler bias on many things, there are a few references. I guess that when we talk about "Clever Hans" we are talking about handler bias in an experiment.

I think that it is an issue with many legal IDs but you are  outside my comfort zone now.

We also know that dogs will indicate false  (or not perform a task correctly ) if the reward ratio is beyond their training. Many Scent dogs are trained for toys as against food. Some would say cynically so that many of the handlers don't forget the reward!!! I don't believe that food / toys changes the correct response ratio that much. Believe you me, i would sooner train with food for this exercise. You really need the arousal level to be down a bit and food will do that for many dogs.

To give you some idea, my dog is required to indicate three articles in the ring. Routinely, i will ask for up to 12 ids before a reward in training. Then sometimes 2... 

No it is not.  Sometimes doctors elect to amputate to save a life.  Are they failing?   ...Or, do we need even more science so maybe we might save the next limb and the next life?  I've NEVER seen an example of behavior science failing.  I've only seen it needing to advance...