Spinoff from Pop Psychology thread

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

Ron, will I do?

Only if it was a different Chuffy that posted the pregnancy countdown......

Could be an immaculate conception....now there's the ultimate mashup of science and religion.

Q1---Science---In my best Thomas Dolby voice.
Q2--Lean toward R+.

ORIGINAL: Chuffy
It LOOKS like, from reading other threads that the "more-scientific ppl" are more R+ - we relate better to things we can measure, analyse and quantify. And the "more touchy feely folks" are more social learning, more P+, more hands on, stuff that is simple, intuitive, based on observation, anecdotal evicdence, etc.

I interpret that to read: people who identify as more objective or rational emphasize R+. People who identify as more intuitive or creative lean more towards physical/social methods. With that I would agree. []

But, I'd add that scientists (objective or rational) and artists (intuitive or creative) are both seekers, and share much commonality in their complex practices:
*Hands-on experimentation (touchy feely)
*testing ideas (observation, experience)
*remaining open to the results of experimentation (go with the flow, it is what it is, anecdotal information)
*re-examining assumptions in the face of new information (change, growth, learning)

That's why they're hard to sort out! The major difference is objective verification via reproducibility.

[]

I think the "differences" aren't based in an appreciation of rigor or complexity, rather, it's the source of knowledge ... do you look inside or outside for the ultimate authority regarding your choices? I can practice the scientific method, or skip naked in an ecstatic ritual ... at the end of the day, will I know if my practices are valid because someone else says so, or because it just feels right? Both science and art seek deep truths, and require a high degree of personal integrity to find them. That requires a strong internal compass.

Rather than compare the objective and rational to the creative and intuitive, I'd compare the use of science or spirituality as a religion vs doing the actual practices of science or art.

And, I appreciate any effort at finding common ground; I've always suspected that most people's actual dog handling styles are more similar than discussions would lead us to suspect. []

r+, p-, p+, r-


+R means the dog does something the trainer request and get's reward

-P means the dog does something wrong and gets a punishment.


what are examples of -R and +P ? or is there such a thing in this jargon?

educate me


.:.

ORIGINAL: Chuffy



It LOOKS like, from reading other threads that the "more-scientific ppl" are more R+ - we relate better to things we can measure, analyse and quantify.  And the "more touchy feely folks" are more social learning, more P+, more hands on, stuff that is simple, intuitive, based on observation, anecdotal evicdence, etc.  I wanted to get everyone togther in one place for a show of hands to see if this is the case..... maybe create a little understanding and common ground....

 
 I think I am somewhat of a misfit not really fitting into either group completely. I am religious and do believe in God, I am theological in my religion and not at all touchy feely. I suppose on the training end I can consider myself somewhat touch feely, yet at the same times results are very important and I would not train in a manner that did not achieve results.
 
 In life I tend to be logical, blunt, and to the point (so not touchy feely) I analyze everything and yet do not consider myself scientific in nature. I do not seek answers in science.
 
 It is important to me to feel connected to my dogs and to try and understand them and why they behave as they do.

ORIGINAL: lostcoyote

r+, p-, p+, r-


+R means the dog does something the trainer request and get's reward

-P means the dog does something wrong and gets a punishment.


what are examples of -R and +P ? or is there such a thing in this jargon?

educate me


.:.

 
Can we define punishment in -P (I think it means different things to some of us)
 
 For instance if I request that the dog sit, and the dog does not is the touch upon the hindquarters to mold him into sit considered -P?
 
 If I request that the dog do something and he does not and I turn and ignore him is this -P?
 
 I think we all can agree that if one yanked the collar in a heel correction that would be punishment, but is any pressure on the collar or lead in a heel considered to be -P?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lostcoyote

r+, p-, p+, r-


+R means the dog does something the trainer request and get's reward

-P means the dog does something wrong and gets a punishment.


what are examples of -R and +P ? or is there such a thing in this jargon?

educate me

These are specific operant conditioning terms that have fixed meanings. This terminology is designed not to be subjective, and yes, there are examples!

The Logic:

A behavior is labelled + if it is doing or giving something.
A behavior is labelled - if it is withholding something.

It is Reinforcement if it's *increasing* the likelyhood of a behavior in the future.
It's Punishment if it's *decreasing* the likelyhood of a behavior in the future.

+R Positive Reinforcement. Doing/Giving something to increase the chances of a specific behavior happening again.

+R Examples: Dog barks, dog gets attention. Dog barks again (for more attention). Dog poops outside. Dog gets lavish praise and treats. Dog poops outside in the future.

+P Positive Punishment. Doing/Giving something to decrease the chances of a specific behavior happening again.

+P Examples: Dog growls, dog gets alpha roll. Dog less likely to growl in future. Dog pulls on leash, dog gets collar correction, dog less likely to pull on leash in the future.

-R Negative Reinforcement. Rarely used in a dog training environment. Witholding an aversive in order to increase the chances of a specific behavior happening again in the future.

-R Examples: Dog is in room with loud squealing sound. Dog sits, squealing sound goes away. Dog more likely to sit in the future. (See? Not so practical for everyday use)

-P Negative Punishment. Withholding something the dog wants in order to decrease the chances of a specific behavior happening in the future.

-P Examples: Dog jumps up on human, human walks away and shuts door behind dog. Dog less likely to jump up in the future. Dog doesn't come when called. Human goes and gets dog and puts dog on a leash. Dog less likely to blow off "come" in the future.

The Catch:

Any behavior you, the trainer give, is labelled +P or -P or whatever based not on your intentions, but on what it actually makes the dog do. Example: I can think that yelling "No!" at my dog when he barks is +P, when in fact it is +R, because he doesn't understand that he's being "yelled at," he just likes getting any attention.

The Logic:

A behavior is labelled + if it is doing or giving something.
A behavior is labelled - if it is withholding something.

okay, so we are referring to the dogs behavior, the humans behavior, or both?

example below:

-P Negative Punishment. Withholding something the dog wants in order to decrease the chances of a specific behavior happening in the future.

-P Examples: Dog jumps up on human, human walks away and shuts door behind dog. Dog less likely to jump up in the future. Dog doesn't come when called. Human goes and gets dog and puts dog on a leash. Dog less likely to blow off "come" in the future.

but the dog jumped so the dog did something(+).
and in this case, the (-) indicates behavior on part of the human.

+R Positive Reinforcement. Doing/Giving something to increase the chances of a specific behavior happening again.

+R Examples: Dog barks, dog gets attention. Dog barks again (for more attention). Dog poops outside. Dog gets lavish praise and treats. Dog poops outside in the future.

in this case, the dog did something (+) and the human also gave something (+) so both human and dog get a (+)


see my confusion here?
so do the + and - marks refer only to the dogs behavior or to the humans reaction to that behavior?

Coyote,

I started a new thread for you called "R+, R-, P+, P- explained":http://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=438334&mpage=1&key=񫀾
[]

I think that fisher's explanation is succinct and accurate.  Wonder why we don't see her here as much any more - great loss IMO.  Fisher - keep posting!!!!

Scientific and +R
 
I also think dogs benefit from the examples of other dogs. I read a study where the puppies of drug sniffing bitches that were allowed to observe mom had a much higher rate of success than those that did not. Makes sense to me. Cats that hunt have kittens that hunt.
 
I feel humans lose something in translation. How much depends on the human.
 
One person I greatly admire that some may consider "pop psychology" is Linda Tellington Jones. However, the foundation for T-Touch is based on a human physical therapy system that is just short of miraculous (I've observed sessions with brain injured people).

The + or - refer only to things being applied to or removed from the subject (ie, the dog).

ETA: I think that -R can be and is used a fair amount, though certainly not to as great an extent as the other three quadrants. The "ear pinch" method of forced retrieve is an example of -R. I also see a lot of people hauling their dogs around on choke chains at the park where the choker is not used to give a "collar correction" for pulling but is used instead as a negative reinforcer where they keep the leash and choker so tight that the only way to remove the discomfort for the dog is to walk very slowly at a very tight heel.

It is important to me to feel connected to my dogs and to try and understand them and why they behave as they do.

 
Me, too. That's why I value the science that shows that dogs are not wolves, do not act like wolves and, in fact, are rarely acting out of a need for dominance. Which is not to that they don't extend boundaries.
 
For example, the other day, getting Shadow's vaccs updated, he barked at the vet and he didn't want to sit still to get a shot that lasts one second. To another person, it might appear that he is "dominant" by not being still for the shot. The truth is, he is skiddish (breed trait) and a bit fearful. So, manhandling him, popping a collar, or assuming he's dominant will not solve the problem. The only way to solve the problem is to change the meaning of the scene. And that can only be done by rewards, where he learns to see the place and the vet as good things. Comfortable things. And by not viewing him as an alpha wolf deciding what he does or does not want to do, I can see what is his problem and go about fixing it. And the only way to fix it is by not physically dominating him or viewing it as a contest of wills.
 
So, I know what he is feeling and have science to thank for it. And, the people that publish this science are not devoid of emotion or the understanding of emotion in dogs. I have a thought there there will develope a specific psychology of dogs and it will be through science, so that at least a few things can be quantified.

ORIGINAL: ron2

To another person, it might appear that he is "dominant" by not being still for the shot. .

 
Vet's office + big needle + dog = dominance?, mmmmmm i could bet $1000 no even one single person would think thats the right ecuation

Espence, I *KNOW* some people who draw those sorts of conclusions IRL.
 
I think a better way to start this thread would have been "Do you think the more we value science, the more we value R+ ??"  This is what I am seeing here.

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

Espence, I *KNOW* some people who draw those sorts of conclusions IRL.

 
Then those persons should not have a dog, they will think that the dog is being dominant also if they used the clicker and the dog didnt sit