This is a placeholder text
Group text
by gagsd4 on 05 September 2013 - 20:09
You never really run out of rewards... the dog always wants something.... walk forward, bite the bad guy, or get a biscuit (obviously simplified).
Remember: Positive= addition of something
Negative= removal of something
Punishment means behavior lessens
Reinforcement means behavior recurs
Remember: Positive= addition of something
Negative= removal of something
Punishment means behavior lessens
Reinforcement means behavior recurs
by vk4gsd on 05 September 2013 - 20:09
that would be choice AND ETHICS. incidentally you are starting to worry me with yr talk of aversives for whatever lab experiments you do, is there any kind of approval system overseeing this? a committee? how is the committee made up?
by beetree on 05 September 2013 - 20:09
I don't know the official terms, but all positive training with rewards will result in a dog who only works for rewards. When they are gone.... so is the undivided attention.
To condition a dog to obey without the reward, one needs to withhold it on occassion, to keep them guessing so to speak.
The other quadrants I am sure, have to do with proofing a behaviour, something the all positives seem to lack, IMHO... as soon as the food is gone. I think!
Thanks gagsd4 for being specific in the quadrants. That was informative.
To condition a dog to obey without the reward, one needs to withhold it on occassion, to keep them guessing so to speak.
The other quadrants I am sure, have to do with proofing a behaviour, something the all positives seem to lack, IMHO... as soon as the food is gone. I think!
Thanks gagsd4 for being specific in the quadrants. That was informative.
by vk4gsd on 05 September 2013 - 20:09
bee i think you are missing the point of the word conditioning, if the dog was sufficiently conditioned properly using random schedule rewards then in it's mind it has no choice but to repeat the behavior - something to do with pavlov. distractions done properly is part of the conditioning. i don't know what i am talking about.
by momosgarage on 05 September 2013 - 21:09
I've had some time to think about the OP's training observations and this situation is more of a secondary or conditioned stimuli, per classical conditioning, NOT operant conditioning.
@vk4gsd Learning Operant Conditioning in college is not all "high level" as you think with "experiments" etc. Yes, those things do exist, but just to give you a simple example, most schools with animal behavior programs require students to train a chicken, rat or even a goldfish in their one of their courses in the first semester of animal behavior/ethology classes. Its very common, I would argue near 100% standard practice in such programs.
by beetree on 05 September 2013 - 21:09
AHEM....".....using random scheduled rewards", key phrase. Not what you were describing with a non-ball drive dog re: conditioning. Please, don't make it up as you go along.
by YogieBear on 05 September 2013 - 21:09
MoMo - I dont agree with this mythology..........I personally feel that positive reinforcement works. Dogs are conditioned for a certain task.......repetitive conditioning with positive reinforcement = a learned task with happy results........motivation works for man as well as beast.........negative reinforcement makes for a unhappy worker.............as well as a rebellious child......just my opinion - some of these comments are well over my head.............it really isnt that hard.....
Yogie
Yogie
by beetree on 05 September 2013 - 21:09
Not hard, but it is not that BLACK and WHITE, Yogi Bear. That's why you hear people say, "OMG! He's never done that before!" Let me guess... you don't have kids? It won't matter to me if I'm wrong about that.... but .... I guess.....
by vk4gsd on 05 September 2013 - 21:09
whoops, double post, carry on.
by beetree on 05 September 2013 - 21:09
What double post? I call it avoidance.... carry on.... Operant One
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
