Why is it that someone on this board is attempting to simply impart the manner in which he interprets scientific theory, and he is slammed by a handful of others as being "esoteric", and having his posts closed???

 Quote:

Merriam Webster defines esoteric as:
1 a : designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone <a body of esoteric legal doctrine -- B. N. Cardozo> b : of or relating to knowledge that is restricted to a small group

That is exactly what Dennis is trying to avoid. He is going out of his way to be polite, and explain his own personal theory... At least this is how I see it.
Just because he thinks outside of your "box" does not make him wrong.. And as David Morris pointed out, there is nothing hardcore proveable in either side of this current argument..

For how many years were Freud's theories accepted??? are they still accepted??

To bring up another type of example, minus the science report:

When I get out of my truck, I am always getting a static shock (I know you know what I am talking about), for years now, I tap my fist on the doorframe before actually grasping the door to close is, somehow believe this will lessen the static discharge... I am even consciously aware of the action as I am performing it, but yet cannot stop.... this is a CC event.. I am conditioned, through repitition to do this:

US - electric shock
UR - pain reflex
CS - getting out of car
CR - fear of shock
Conditioned Behavior - tapping fist on doorframe

I do not think about doing this, therefore it is not soley a product of OC. Yes I probably "learned" this behavior (the tapping) through OC, but I am now carrying the behavior out due to CC. If anyting I am working under "superstition" because a few times my superstitious activity paid off, and was therefore variably rewarded.

Thinking *out of the box* is not the issue Matt. Clogging this board with endless post after post of theory (i.e. the Ivan thread a couple days ago)is not what Ed had in mind when he opened it up. It's not the ideas presented are a problem , it's the endless posts that drag on and on and keep repeating the same thing over and over...

If you or anyone else wants to quote some text on theory, how about posting links to articles or titles of books or take these circular arguments private instead of using LOTS of space on the board for this.

Again, a good debate or discussion is welcome and certainly helps us all to learn...just play nice.

As one of my dear friends pointed out, there are many great books out there for those of you who want to really dig into theory.

 Quote:

Originally posted by MattMoore:
... He is going out of his way to be polite, and explain his own personal theory...
Just because he thinks outside of your "box" does not make him wrong.. And as David Morris pointed out, there is nothing hardcore proveable in either side of this current argument..

OC and CC are not Dennis' "personal theory". And while learning THEORY is exactly that, theory, the definitions are NOT! Scientists have constructed theories of how they believe the learning process occurs, but the accepted definitions of terms used within that science of psychology are not editable to suit your own tastes. Dennis was misapplying the terms; and before you say that's not "provable", let me ask you if you would have a problem if I said I used positive reinforcement to teach my dog to hold the dumbbell because I pinched his ear until he took it? Doesn't fit the definition, does it? Am I wrong? Yes. No discussion. I don't get to change the definition of +R cuz I think it should include aversives, and Dennis doesn't get to redefine CC either.

No one said a single thing about Dennis being "wrong" in his belief that he can teach a dog to sit or whatever using his technique ("3-autocorrections and a freebie"). Whether he can or can't was never the topic.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Lee Baragona - Sch3FH2:
C and CC are not Dennis' "personal theory". And while learning THEORY is exactly that, theory, the definitions are NOT! Scientists have constructed theories of how they believe the learning process occurs, but the accepted definitions of terms used within that science of psychology are not editable to suit your own tastes.

I d fail to see how Dennis was editing the terms.. in fact he was restating the terms over and over again.. and you were agreeing with the bulk of his terms.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Lee Baragona - Sch3FH2:
Dennis was misapplying the terms;

I guess this is where I become lost. (not that it has never happened before <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ) It seems to me that he was simply trying to explain to the board the manner in which he sees two separate (yet highly pairable) learning theories together, in order to reach a dog training goal more rapidly.
BTW what he is explaining works, you have even seen it at work.... the dogs that have been taught the out with heavy electric.. they leap off of the sleeve, shaking their head in attempt to avoid the coming stim... but their behavior is CC to out, while taught through OC, it was enforces through CC.... I am pretty sure that is all Dennsi si trying to get across, if not.. then I am completely lost.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Lee Baragona - Sch3FH2: and before you say that's not "provable", let me ask you if you would have a problem if I said I used positive reinforcement to teach my dog to hold the dumbbell because I pinched his ear until he took it? Doesn't fit the definition, does it? Am I wrong? Yes. No discussion.

It is if you praised it after it took the dumbbell. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

 Quote:

Originally posted by Lee Baragona - Sch3FH2: I don't get to change the definition of +R cuz I think it should include aversives, and Dennis doesn't get to redefine CC either.

I still don't see where he was redefining Classical Conditioning, he was explaining how he pairs it with OC.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Lee Baragona - Sch3FH2: No one said a single thing about Dennis being "wrong" in his belief that he can teach a dog to sit or whatever using his technique ("3-autocorrections and a freebie"). Whether he can or can't was never the topic.

No it wasn't.. but things don't just mysteriously happen.. somehow there is a theory behind it all, right.. so it must have a name..

where I think the overall disconnect is is here:

In all "learning" OC plays a role. period... the Skinner box, while Classically Conditioning with regards to the tones and shocks... the animals were still learning operantly... so both can and oftentimes do, occur at the same time...

Have you ever been around a dog that was taught to heel through heavy compulsion?? they have a hard time not heeling.. why?? they are CC'ed to heel.. in fact when you try to get them to "go away" they get stressed.. why??? because they have learned through avoidance training (OC) that heeling is the only safe place.... but they were also CC'ed to feel stress when not performing any other specific task.. so they default to something safe.. Heeling

why is it so impossible for both to exist at the same time?

I guess what I am trying to say is that Learning occurs dues to OC.. but the reinforcement of the lesson learned is through CC

Originally posted by MattMoore:
but things don't just mysteriously happen.. somehow there is a theory behind it all, right.. so it must have a name.. It does and we named it for him a couple different times, I think. It's called escape and avoidance conditioning (negative reinforcment).

Originally posted by Lee Baragona - Sch3FH2:
Originally posted by MattMoore:
but things don't just mysteriously happen.. somehow there is a theory behind it all, right.. so it must have a name.. It does and we named it for him a couple different times, I think. It's called escape and avoidance conditioning (negative reinforcment). In thoery OC is and avodiance condtioning go hand in hand to a point. We can go on and on but I would say that all dog training falls under OC. Now some may demonstrate it poorly, but in thoery this is what they are aiming for.

Originally posted by Michael Taylor Rivers:
In thoery OC is and avodiance condtioning go hand in hand to a point. You lost me. Avoidance conditioning is a subset of OC, so of course they go hand in hand. ?

When you think about it, take the "way" Ivan trains. It is OC by his own admission, but there is the resemblance of avoidence condtioning. Granted not what most would call tradtional avoidence condtioning, but it is there, I think. IMO it is what each trainer use more heavly compulsion or motivation that will develope his/her style; but it it falls into OC to some sketch.