Kim_MacMillan
Posted : 11/21/2007 10:04:15 AM
For me it's not "science or spirituality". Both play equally important roles in my life with dogs.
I think the difference is that because we often have specific terminology for things, that we do objectify certain occurrences with a word, such as "reinforcement" or "bridging stimulus" or "instinctive drift", people think we are all walking Skinnerian's where we look at everything in the A-B-C context (Antecedent, behaviour, consequence), that we ourselves are almost robotic in what we do. And it couldn't be further from the truth.
Beyond teaching, beyond clickers, beyond any operant conditioning discussion, the most important thing to me is my relationship with my dogs. Relationship. Now THERE is a word you can't scientifically define. I am so in tune with animal emotions, and they are of so much importance to me, and I think I've mentioned that before. Emotions are one of those things that you really can't study very well scientifically. There is very little research done on emotion in animals (besides fear, that is. I think every animal has been through fear-based experiments over history). Even in humans there is very little research done, and a lot of it is ambiguous. Because emotion can't be "explicitily seen", a lot of scientists think we should not focus on that. I say "to hell with you", I'm going to focus on it anyhow. The same goes with meeting a dog's real needs, fulfilling what they need as a dog, and learning how to communicate WITH your dog, not just in the sense of teaching, but how to know when something is wrong, how to really KNOW your dog as you would know another person. The dance between you as you develop that relationship is nothing science can ever operationally define.
Heck, in a whole other post I talked about developing creativity within the dog. That's another area science doesn't tend to approach much. ;-)
When I talk about teaching a dog to sit, and what the quadrants of OC mean, in general it is usually that simple. And most people are doing exactly what I am putting words to, whether they have words for it or not. It's the same thing, I just use words to describe it. So the person who uses physical pressure to make the dog sit is using R-. The dog who is given a small cookie or pat when they sit is being R+. The dog that is collar popped for not sitting is P+. It doesn't mean we are looking at the dog as a little robotic beast with no emotions or other thoughts.
They're just words. It's no different than a veterinarian using complex terminology to describe the surgery they are going to perform, the steps they use to get there, and the process they will follow, and likely the exact outcome that will be expected, both short term and long term. That vet is still going to be in tune with his own feelings that day, his mood, energy level, the dog's age, personality, any existing health conditions that may affect the normal step-by-step procedure of the surgery. The vet still cuddles the dog, and gives it treats, talks to it, and sometimes even cries along with you when something goes wrong. They are as emotionally invested in it as anyone else. Despite the words they use, despite the recipe-style procedures they often follow, they still work with every animal on a unique, case-by-case basis looking at that animal's state and the animal as an individual. Not an object.
It would be a shame to think that simply because we use words like "antecedent" or "conditioned reinforcer" that people would assume we look at animals as objects or that we are somehow detached from them. For most of us it couldn't be farther from the opposite! And I certainly don't look at my teacher, my doctor, my dentist, or my psychologist (I don't have one by the way...this is an example *G*) that way, that they view me as an object. I don't know why using terms in relation to dogs is any different. Heck, I can and do use these terms in relations to my fellow HUMANS and how to change behaviour. That must really make me unemotional then.