The behaviour interpretation thread

FourIsCompany

If you do something 3 times or 50 times without ANY decrease in the behavior, it's not punishment because punishment requires a decrease in behavior

Agreed. I found a few more sources.

http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/behsys/operant.html

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/skinner.html

They don't state a specific limit but they don't imply a limitless application, either. That is, the aversive either causes a reduction in the likelihood of repetition or it does not. What might or might not be subtle is how much the behavior is reduced. Just as a reinforcer either resulted in an increase of repitition or likelihood of repetition, or it did not.

I realize I could quote a page full of sources that will state, based on the implications of Skinner's work, that the applied stimuli must show immediate results to be qualified and quantified. But that might not reduce your view that a limit was placed on number of applications in order to steer people away from using corrections or punishment. I think the limits were more self-implied by the scientific process. And that would just be my opinion.

I go and bask in the wine country catching threatened gliders for a few days and a fascinating discussion breaks out in my absence!

I'm a little tired and brain dead right now, so I'll get back to this thread later, but I just wanted to comment on the nagging philosophy. I think whether nagging is a good tactic or not depends. Personally, I'm finding I quite like the nagging because I don't want the behaviour in question to never occur, or I don't have an incompatible behaviour I can train instead, or I just want to set up a habit, and I don't think it has a very big impact on the relationship. I'm annoying to my animals sometimes, but that's fair because they're annoying to me sometimes. I don't expect us all to be into each other at all times. If they want something from me they nag me until I do it and if I want something from them I'll nag them until they do it. But what I like about nagging is that there's no have to. If I don't want to cave into the nagging, I don't have to, and I know they'll ignore my nagging if what they're doing is very rewarding, and that tells me some pretty valuable information about them and their drive to continue this behaviour. If they're ignoring my nagging, I figure this is a behaviour they need an outlet for and I can find a suitable outlet for it that doesn't need my nagging and we're all happy.

If I wanted a behaviour to stop, I can use nagging combined with a rewarding alternative behaviour to make the undesirable behaviour a high cost one and the desired a high benefit one. However, if it was something I didn't want to mess around with, I would probably do something else, although I might use nagging as well.

With Kit being a very difficult animal to train without freaking out, I've found nagging to be a very valuable tool. However, it works both ways and he nags me quite a lot as well. But hey, it's cool to be communicating with each other, even if a lot of it is in nags. When it comes down to it, I don't often come across behaviours I want to stop immediately forever. I like letting the animals tell me what they want. If that happens to be to chew on my carpet, then at least I know what they want and I can then set about providing a suitable alternative. 

corvus

I go and bask in the wine country catching threatened gliders for a few days and a fascinating discussion breaks out in my absence!

That sounds pretty fascinating to me!

corvus

I'm annoying to my animals sometimes, but that's fair because they're annoying to me sometimes. I don't expect us all to be into each other at all times. If they want something from me they nag me until I do it and if I want something from them I'll nag them until they do it.

I have to agree with this. I know it's a popular position that dogs can't understand certain things, but I honestly believe that my dogs understand when I'm asking (and they have the opportunity to make an intelligent choice) or when "I mean business". The other day, Jaia jumped the "wait" and left the yard without my releasing them. I said, "You get back in here right now"! with NO uncertainty and he slithered back in and sat down. LOL He didn't know what the words mean. That's not a command. But he knew exactly what was expected and that this wasn't a time for him to be making the choices. 

I nag sometimes, too. And they know when I'm giving them the choice and usually take full advantage.
 

I was hunting around for Leonberger beach party video (which I still haven't found!) and came across this fun one of Penny on an off leash walk in a new place. Are dogs capable of being downright cheeky just for fun?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP2ONi-r5Zw 

The other day, Jaia jumped the "wait" and left the yard without my releasing them. I said, "You get back in here right now"! with NO uncertainty and he slithered back in and sat down

This is the perfect example of why I prefer reinforcement to punishment.  What did your dog learn from this except that you are very unpleasant when he goes out of the yard? (All he heard was your voice in an "I mean business" tone - and, no, it is not a command)  I'm not convinced that he learned that he should "wait", or that he "knew he was wrong".  He simply heard "angry human" and the slithering was an appeasement gesture.  How much more effective it would have been if you silently went and got him, returned him to the spot where you issued the first "wait" command, and released him once he remained in position sufficiently long.  You missed the perfect opportunity to simply repeat an exercise and reward the dog for finally getting it right.  Too bad.

spiritdogs, I'm afraid you don't give me or my dog enough credit. That's nothing new...  What Jaia learned from this is that even if he breaks the wait, he's going to have to come back (on his own) and do it all over again, so he might as well just do it right the first time. I was neither unpleasant nor angry. These are words you brought into the story. Maybe that's the way you would have been. Not me.

I know you're not convinced. Fortunately, I don't need you to be.

How much more effective it would have been if you silently went and got him, returned him to the spot where you issued the first "wait" command, and released him once he remained in position sufficiently long.

I strongly disagree! I don't believe in dragging my dogs around. If I want them to do something, I tell them to do it, I don't "go get them" when they know perfectly well what I mean. This way, he had to decide to do it on his own, not be led back under my control. HE had the control and made the choice. Good boy!

spiritdogs

You missed the perfect opportunity to simply repeat an exercise and reward the dog for finally getting it right. 

Not at all. In fact, that's exactly what happened. He repeated the exercise and was rewarded for doing it right. Himself. He hasn't repeated the infraction since. His wait is stronger than ever.

Tell you what. When you come here and meet my dogs and do some exercises with them, then you'll be in a position to make more accurate judgments about them, what they can learn and how they view me. Until then, you're just working from dubious assumptions and erroneous guesses.

spiritdogs

He simply heard "angry human" and the slithering was an appeasement gesture.  How much more effective it would have been if you silently went and got him, returned him to the spot where you issued the first "wait" command, and released him once he remained in position sufficiently long.

I do the same as Carla does.....I speak to my dog in a calm manner and repeat the exercise........what does the dog learn from having the owner come after him and being put back in his spot? That certainly doesn't sound "Hands Off" to me.....I prefer having my dog come to me and then when he does well he will get praised......

snownose

That certainly doesn't sound "Hands Off" to me

Agreed, that is sooooooooooooooooo hands ON 

Even Kit knows the means business tone, and he has a limited grasp of vocalisations. I guess the most vocalised he gets is a grunt or sniff. He has no issue with it, but he's a hare and bases all his vocal-related predictions on what happens to him afterwards. Hence, he is also unbothered by Penny snarling at him because she's never hurt or frightened him right after!

When I first met Jill, she was a brat because my little brother was supposed to have trained her and he didn't, so she did what she pleased. She'd dance around out of reach when she was being called and try to tease the caller into games of keep away. The only thing that changed her mind about how fun her obnoxious behaviour was was the means business tone. And Penny will test everyone who comes into her life by cheerfully ignoring anything they ask her to do. The only ones she'll work for are the ones that bring out the means business tone when she's cheerfully ignoring them.

I honestly think the means business tone is a valuable tool. It signals your commitment to getting what you want. Pyry, to use yet another example, will fart around endlessly if you're just asking or thinking about bribing, or even trying to coax with excited tones, but if you go out and tell him in no uncertain tones "Pyry, get yourself over her right now", he hangs his head, scuffs his feet and plods on over right away, albeit at the pace of a snail. The way I see it, the body language that comes with the means business tone does a good job of signalling to an animal that you intend to get what you've asked for if it takes you all day, and usually they weren't that committed to disobeying or doing whatever alternative they had in mind.

It's not something I'd want to abuse, though. Use it a lot and I reckon it would lose a lot of its power. I reserve the means business tone for moments when someone is being particularly and deliberately difficult, or we're in a potentially dangerous situation.  

spiritdogs

The other day, Jaia jumped the "wait" and left the yard without my releasing them. I said, "You get back in here right now"! with NO uncertainty and he slithered back in and sat down

This is the perfect example of why I prefer reinforcement to punishment.  What did your dog learn from this except that you are very unpleasant when he goes out of the yard? (All he heard was your voice in an "I mean business" tone - and, no, it is not a command)  I'm not convinced that he learned that he should "wait", or that he "knew he was wrong".  He simply heard "angry human" and the slithering was an appeasement gesture.  How much more effective it would have been if you silently went and got him, returned him to the spot where you issued the first "wait" command, and released him once he remained in position sufficiently long.  You missed the perfect opportunity to simply repeat an exercise and reward the dog for finally getting it right.  Too bad.

Spiritdogs, the advise and interpretation is wrong, as I see it.  The advise is perfect for a dog that is in formal obedience training.  For some trainers I know, they can only visualize situations in a formal classroom setting and offer solutions based on that, a limitation in my opinion.  Going and getting the dog and then repeating the exercise is exactly what should be done when first teaching within a formal rigid training session.  But formal obedience training has a beginning and an end and then the dog graduates.    As I interpret Carla's situation, her "I mean business" voice is just a variation of the "COME" command and it worked beautifully.  This is what happens when the dog graduates and starts living and learning in real world sitaution, expanding on their understanding and communication and performing based on the relationship.  Carla should be very proud of the strength of the COME command and its seems to me that affection was the driver for the human and the dog.  There was no punishment there.

corvus

It's not something I'd want to abuse, though. Use it a lot and I reckon it would lose a lot of its power.

I cannot agree more with this! Thank you for bringing up this point. Most of my verbal communication with the dogs is very sweet, light, happy and full of praise. The means business tone is only effective if it's used sparingly. Otherwise, it becomes the norm and meaningless.

DPU

Going and getting the dog and then repeating the exercise is exactly what should be done when first teaching within a formal rigid training session.

Again, I completely agree! If Jaia didn't know what was expected of him, if he was a puppy in training, it would have been useless to speak to him in that tone. But he knew exactly what was expected (he's done it a hundred times) and he decided to test the limits. He's an 18-month-old, male GSD with a "What's in it for me?" 'tude. I know it's hard for some to believe, but I know who I'm dealing with and I know what I'm doing (for the most part - LOL).

DPU

Carla should be very proud of the strength of the COME command and its seems to me that affection was the driver for the human and the dog. 

Aw... Thank you, DPU. I am proud of my dogs and I'm totally thankful for the bond I have with each one of them. They are amazing!

DPU

There was no punishment there.

Absolutely not. I'm not sure why the word "punishment" was even brought up in spiritdog's response...  

DPU

spiritdogs

The other day, Jaia jumped the "wait" and left the yard without my releasing them. I said, "You get back in here right now"! with NO uncertainty and he slithered back in and sat down

This is the perfect example of why I prefer reinforcement to punishment.  What did your dog learn from this except that you are very unpleasant when he goes out of the yard? (All he heard was your voice in an "I mean business" tone - and, no, it is not a command)  I'm not convinced that he learned that he should "wait", or that he "knew he was wrong".  He simply heard "angry human" and the slithering was an appeasement gesture.  How much more effective it would have been if you silently went and got him, returned him to the spot where you issued the first "wait" command, and released him once he remained in position sufficiently long.  You missed the perfect opportunity to simply repeat an exercise and reward the dog for finally getting it right.  Too bad.

Spiritdogs, the advise and interpretation is wrong, as I see it.  The advise is perfect for a dog that is in formal obedience training.  For some trainers I know, they can only visualize situations in a formal classroom setting and offer solutions based on that, a limitation in my opinion.  Going and getting the dog and then repeating the exercise is exactly what should be done when first teaching within a formal rigid training session.  But formal obedience training has a beginning and an end and then the dog graduates.    As I interpret Carla's situation, her "I mean business" voice is just a variation of the "COME" command and it worked beautifully.  This is what happens when the dog graduates and starts living and learning in real world sitaution, expanding on their understanding and communication and performing based on the relationship.  Carla should be very proud of the strength of the COME command and its seems to me that affection was the driver for the human and the dog.  There was no punishment there.

You took the words out of my mouth DPU.  I was thinking the same thing; this is not a dog in training.  River seldom does not turn and come immediately but there are times that he maybe focused on something I use a soft "River come" assuming he will always come and it doesn’t get his attention.  So what do I do?  The next time I mean it, "RIVER COME"!  and head over heels he comes abounding.  Even if it meant changing my tone to be a bit more certain - I am not yelling and screaming and I didn't assume 4IC was either? 

I wouldn't say SD is wrong but I can imagine that we all view a sound differently, even from ourselves.

In my video, when you hear me say "heel", it may sound forceful or "I mean business". But that's not my intent. Nor am I trying to sound "butch" for the audience. I use that tone and volume because that is what he responds to. It might sound gruff. In that same vein, when Carla "means business" it might simply be a better tone for Jaia to hear and not that he was ignoring her before, though I am not precluding that he might be playful and has Carla well trained. He can make her speak the way he wants her to speak by simply waiting it out. That is, while Carla "feels" that she means business, it may simply mean that Jaia hears her better that way, whether or not he reads her emotional or mental state from the tone and timbre she has chosen.

As for browbeating, that would imply that dogs have cognitive process, understand English and the subtles of inflection, etc. We have a another thread where someone states that can't be so. Sorry, I couldn't resist being cheeky.

ron2

I wouldn't say SD is wrong but I can imagine that we all view a sound differently, even from ourselves.

...I use that tone and volume because that is what he responds to.

I don't understand at all, which is it?  Use a variation of the COME command or start basic obedience class all over again?  I am quite confused by the purpose and intent of your post.

ron2

In that same vein, when Carla "means business" it might simply be a better tone for Jaia to hear and not that he was ignoring her before

He was ignoring what I said. He was standing outside the gate, having "escaped" (while everyone was still sitting and waiting for the release), facing me, looking right at me.

And to clear up any interpretations of tone, I made an audio recording that we can all listen to. At first, I call Jaia as I always do. While making the recording, he came running in, so there's a pause to acknowledge him (if you turn it up, you may be able to hear what I say) and once he lies down beside me here, I turned in the other direction and used my "I mean business" tone, to the best of my recollection, exactly as I did that day.

Enjoy.

Carla means business