The reason I asked is because the e-collar franchise school I visited, insists that their method is not avoidance (or maybe it was escape) training.
One of the problems with that school (of using the Ecollar) is that the founder knows little about dog training beyond how to force behavior from a dog. He knows nothing of drives and nothing about motivation aside from causing pain and teaching the dog how to avoid it. I have a great deal of evidence that points to the fact that he doesn't even like dogs. They're just a way for him to make money.
Many people will say that they're not using escape or avoidance training because they think it has some "bad" commutation. And it does to those who rely on common language when they read it. But this is learning theory that's based on science and as such the words should be read for what they are, jargon, the technical terminology of a special activity. It's much the same as when the word "punishment" is discussed in the context of Operant Conditioning.
Do you have any videos or DVDs demonstrating your method?
No. I'm not in the business of training dogs so I haven't felt the need to make one. I have some footage that shows me doing some of the work but I haven't gotten it ready for release.
At our neighborhood dog park today, an acquaintance whose dog is trained with the e-collar from that school, was recalling her dog. The dog stopped playing and recalled but very slowly, her whole demeanor changed in a second from one of playfulness to one of reluctance.
That's not atypical of what happens when methods from those folks are used.
But I guess it's better than not recalling at all.
I hate to see that. It tells me that the dog doesn't enjoy coming to the owner, something that the dog should favor over all other trained behaviors. It doesn't happen with my methods.
When I recalled my dog, he came to me more quickly and without any drop in playfulness.
When I recall my dogs they race in anticipating something good. That may be a treat, some play or (for my working dog) a search or a bite.
Doesn't your acquaintance see this in your dog? Doesn't she see the difference? Doesn't that tell her something about what she's doing?
Thus my ongoing experience in seeing the results of e-collars is either reluctant or unresponsive dogs, or responsive but stressed-out dogs.
If that's all I saw and I didn't know that there was another way, I'd be against Ecollars.
I'd be interested to see the results of your method of using e-collars if you have any DVDs for sale.
As I said, I don't have anything for you to see. If you'd like to talk to some people first-hand who use my methods take a look at my website under the heading "testimonials." Many of those people have given me permission to give out their contact information. Inquire privately and I'll give you the info.
But let's face it, even if I did have videos showing the work and the end product, some people would say that it was faked; that I'd used someone else's dogs trained with other methods.
Earlier I wrote:
Your definition of "things that bring pleasure to" dogs as "positive reinforcers" is incomplete. Negative reinforcement also brings pleasure to the dog.
Negative reinforcement brings relief which is not quite the same thing as pleasure because distress is also involved in feeling relief whereas in pure pleasure it is not.
While you may think that there's a difference, science does not. Distress only occurs if the punishment level is too much for that dog at that moment. When it's applied properly this doesn't happen.
Learning theory doesn't recognize a difference between "relief" and reinforcement. I think that it's a value judgment that you've placed on the situation because it has a nicer sound to it. As far as its effect on the behavior, they're the same.
Example: if you are suffocating, then finally being able to breathe is a relief because the distress is gone. Not the same as a pleasurable but stress-free sensation (such as inhaling a pleasant aroma when one is not suffocating).
"Suffocating" is way too aversive for any kind of training effect to occur. As soon as it occurs people (and other animals) panic and little if any, learning occurs when it's relieved.
To increase the "pleasure" gained from negative reinforcement, the aversive or distress must first be increased (e.g. the more you are suffocating, the more "pleasurable" breathing becomes).
First this is an extremely poor example because of the "aversive" you've chosen, suffocation. You're talking apples and oranges. Comparing suffocation with all its human perceptions of it to an estim is an inappropriate comparison.
Next, you talk about "increasing" the suffocation (comparing it to increasing the stim level) when it's not necessary. And it gives, as you've personally seen from the "other school" poor results.
Doesn't this mean then that negative reinforcement when executed with e-collars is, by definition, based on giving the dog minimal pleasure because it's the result of a mild aversive disappearing.
It seems to be enough. There isn't any faster method that I've found.
Does minimal pleasure always motivate the dog to obey a command instead of following a distraction
Can you give me an example? I'm not following your use of the term "minimal pleasure" in this context.
If not, then to increase the "reward" for the dog, the aversive must first be increased, at which point aren't we causing distress to the dog?
As you've seen with the results from the "other school" increasing the aversive has the opposite effect. If you cause pain to the dog training is no longer fun, no matter how much "relief" is provided. An animal that's in pain, the result of increasing the punishment too high, can't learn. He's too concerned with the pain. The punishment is too great and the reinforcement of having it stop isn't sufficient.
And in the world of positive-only methods, deliberately causing distress is considered inhumane, especially if done often or as a first rather than last resort.
What so-called positive methods consider to be inhumane is a personal judgment.
Earlier I wrote:
And your definition of "things that bring displeasure" to dogs as "positive punishers" is also incomplete. Negative punishment also brings displeasure.
Just as there is a difference between relief and pleasure
I think those differences don't exist except in semantics.
there is a difference between "displeasure" and "stress" for example feeling low-level stim versus feeling high-level stim.
This quickly becomes "if a little is good, more must be better" and it's rarely true.
Negative punishment causes feelings of displeasure, positive punishment causes feelings of stress.
Sorry but this simply isn't true as long as the punishment is at the appropriate level for that dog at that moment. This is a myth that the so-called positive people would have everyone believe. But those of use who use aversives know that it's just not true. "TOO MUCH" punishment causes stress.
Completely avoiding stress results in animals (including humans) who when faced with its inevitable appearance, can't handle it. Any learning involves stress, even if it's masked by someone who's constantly popping treats. The "so-called positive crowd" doesn't like to admit this, but it's true.
Earlier I wrote:
Actually a balanced combination of reinforcers and punishers used appropriately work best. As with most things in life, balance is works best.
I agree that balance is best. However the difference in opinion is what constitutes appropriate "balance" between reinforcers and punishers.
EXACTLY! This is a difference of opinion. I don't care what method or tool anyone uses. I've said this many times before. If it works for them, that great! I’m not here to convince anyone to drop what they're doing and have them embrace Ecollars. I'm here to supply accurate information in the face of opinion that's based on emotion and a lack of experience with modern use of the modern tool.
For years people have been given rather complete misinformation about Ecollars; so often that it's become accepted as gospel.
Most people who use positive-methods, including myself, do also at some point use positive punishment and negative reinforcement
Many won't admit to this. You may have seen those discussions on this forum.
but would prefer to limit their use to an occasional event. From this viewpoint the objection to using e-collars as the primary training tool is that this means we are using negative reinforcement often rather than just occasionally, which is not what positive-methods people deem is a proper "balance" for the psychological health of the animal.
Many "positive methods people" insist that they don't use punishment in
any way. They're wrong as I've shown repeatedly. In Ecollar training, the balance is equal. For every punishment there's a reinforcement. When the trainer adds copious amounts of praise, treats, petting etc. the balance shifts to whatever extent he wants it to. Since you say that you use punishment "just occasionally, can you tell me what percentage of reinforcement to punishment is acceptable?
I happen to think that it's the dog who determines this. Some dogs on some days don't need much reinforcement. Other dogs on other days, need lots.
As long as the thing it wants to avoid is humane, I think the training is humane. There's humane and there's inhumane. I don't think that one can be "more humane" than "humane." There's pregnant and there's not pregnant. Same thing.
I disagree.
OK we don't agree.
Can one thing be "more cruel" and another "less cruel"? For example withholding a treat from a dog versus beating a dog to death
The latter is over. The first lasts for the life of the dog. He learns that he can't trust the person who did this. Which is "less cruel?
As long as the punishment is humane, I think that the training is humane.
I agree. That, and if the punishment is effective enough that it doesn't need to be repeated often
.
If the punishment is too severe, and the dog is the sole judge of this; all sorts of unwanted things happen. Aggression can be one result. Fear another. That's why I advocate that one not go above the level where the dog first feels the stim.
Earlier Seddie wrote:
Why choose aversion unless or until at least you have given the dog a chance to respond without it?
And I responded.
Because it gives very good results very quickly.
If for a given behavior, positive methods work just as quickly and effectively, for example teaching a dog to sit in the house, then the use of aversives is unnecessary.
The problem is that "sitting in the house" is insufficient for just about any pet owner. You can have a perfect "sit in the house" but as soon as the distractions present outdoors occur, the training is out the window.
Along these lines, if there was no practical way to get the behavior other than to use aversives (for example crittering or snake avoidance) then the use of aversives is in fact necessary and thus humane if it doesn't also cause problems in the dog.
There are many "positive methods people" that say that even for these purposes aversives aren't acceptable. You may have also seen those discussion on this forum. There are even those who say that they wouldn't use an Ecollar if it would save the dog from being put to sleep!
Timing is even more important with so-called positive methods than with methods that use punishment. The novice will find this to be true very quickly.
Every book I've read and every other trainer I've talked to says the opposite though. And as a novice I didn't find this to be true either. (the books and other trainers confirmed my personal experiences, not the other way round)
The reason that clicker trainers use that tool is because it marks the "exact moment in time" (many of them say that using your voice here isn't precise enough). If you're a second too late or a second too early, the
wrong behavior is marked. The dog learns the wrong thing. However the scientists tell us that if the punishment follows the act by up to three seconds it's effective. The closer it is to the act, the faster learning occurs. But all that happens is one is a bit late, is that more repetitions are required.
Earlier I wrote:
Actually with most collars there are far more than five higher settings. But why would anyone want to use them if the lowest one gives such fast results? Similarly if someone using so-called positive methods thinks that one bit of food is good than many must be better. Soon a dog is suffering from being overweight and its attendant health problems. Nothing is foolproof.
If this happens, it is improper use of the tool isn't it (food in this case)
Yes but it doesn't stop those opposed to the Ecollar from bringing it up at ever turn, as if it was proper use. Turnabout is fair play. LOL
