I'm running a check to see if anyone has an interest in discussing the behavioral science behind training and behavior issues. If so, please make comments or ask questions and we can have a go at it. I have spent some time studying the subject, so maybe I have something to offer.

I know that some people 'take issue' with various aspects of operant or respondent conditioning, and we can talk about that, too!

I might be the only one here who is interested in this aspect of training/behavior, but what the heck...I'm just throwing a hook out and seeing if anyone cares to bite!

I'll bite. I think it would be interesting to discuss operant conditioning. Of course, I do not know what I do not know. Maybe you could start us off with an Operant Condition Primer (OC 101 <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> ) and the discussion would evolve from there?

Operant Conditioning. Hmmm. Where to start?
OK, I'll start by saying that behavior analysis takes a rigorously scientific approach to behavior. Because of this, we have had to shake off most of the pontificating and philosophizing which makes up much of the underpinnings of psychology and pretty much start all over again with the basic questions. Why do organisms do what they do? Why do they blink? Why do they scratch at the dirt?...and so on. This basic lab experimentation has revealed a couple of broad classes of behavioral issues. Operant and Respondent behavior.
Operant behavior is any behavior which happens due to the consequences which have followed it in the past. If scratching at the dirt has resulted in some tastey grubs, then we can expect to see more scratching at the dirt in the future (given similar conditions and food deprivation).
Operant Conditioning refers to the process where the environment and organism interact to such an extent that behaviors are shaped up in one way or another. Consequences are the important issue here for the conditioning process to be considered "operant".
Respondent behavior (and conditioning) are references to reflexive types of behavior..like blinking when a puff of air hits your eye....consequences have nothing to do with respondent aspects of behavior.
Operant conditioning is what trainers are attempting to achieve as they work with their chosen critter.
(respondent conditioning is useful for some issues,though... such as when working with reflexive problems: ex. fear of thunder, certain aggression issues)
Both respondent and operant behavior have one thing in common....they occur due to the organisms interaction with the environment....this interaction of organism with the environment is the basis of behavior analysis. BF Skinner is the fellow who first articulated this field in the form that we see today.

Kelton,
Before you get too far into this topic, have you actually trained and titled any dogs? I know you say you work with problem dogs with behavior issues, but that's not what I mean here - do you actually train dogs to a goal that has standards, like AKC Obedience or SchH?

Yes, it does make a difference to many of us. Theory is all well and good, but if the lecturer doesn't have practical, hands on experience, on the actual topic, it's just not as interesting.

No, I have never been to an AKC event either! In fact, I don't think I've ever watched more than 5 minutes of a dog show. I have made that clear before in this forum. It's just not my thing. I doubt I will ever take an interest in such things. Since my last dog past away, I have not acquired another dog...so I am currently dogless! How's that for full disclosure! Nevertheless, I have not suggested that competitions are my point of interest in any way at all. You'll have to chat with someone else if you want to talk about competition specifics.

Various issues involved in training IS my thing, and that is why I am here. Even though I have trained a Schutzhund II dog to allow the owners access to their own couch, I took no interest in the details of his title.

Anyway, if competitions is your criteria, then you can relieve yourself of bothering with me. I can honestly say that I have no interest in the specific details of competitions of any kind. The only question of concern for me is "what is it that your dog is doing, and what is it that you want the dog to do". (you can replace the word "dog" with most any other animal if needed). In this forum, I have already learned some clever procedures for evoking certain kinds of behavior with dogs...good stuff. I like that kind of information and hope to learn more. What I have to offer is a formal education in the underpinnings of behavioral science...some people like to dig a little deeper and those are the folks who will care about discussing the science. You might not be one of those folks.

Judging by your past posts to me regarding your claimed experiences with "behaviorists", corespondence courses, and this past post...I can see that your hackles are up. That's all well and good, but why not attack me from a specific issue that relates directly to the issue of the princples/procedures of behavioral science? Because it is here that I am claiming to have some level of skill and education. I know almost nothing of AKC or other forms of formalized behavior competitions and have never claimed such a thing.

I will say that I watched a Schutzhund training event where a dog took a nasty bite, and the trainer told the owner to "string the dog up" which, judging by the owner's quick actions appears to mean...hang your dog by the neck until he is almost unconscious (while the trainer observed). This was a titled dog. Although this technique may be effective...and it is certainly consistent with behavioral principles.... I don't think I would care to consult with this trainer even though he has doubtlessly been involved in multiple titled dogs.

I don't care to get bogged down in ethical issues, so I won't. I am attempting to point out that "a titled dog" may not be the perfect criteria for a behaviorist.

If you'd like to take issue with the subject that I am offering to discuss (behavioral science) in the original post. Fine. That's always cool, but you'll have to bring up something specific rather than veiled attempts at discrediting.

By the way, there is always a specific criteria in EVERY behavioral issue with which I work. Competitions do not have a monopoly on criteria! The specific criteria in my work is laid out in annoying detail.

Finally, as I have stated, I wish to discuss (debate or whatever) issues pertaining to behavioral science. I will talk of things I have learned and will have questions of my own because I have no doubts that I have things to learn....so I want to learn as well. I have had interesting conversations with elephant handlers with no training in behavioral studies and learned a lot, and would like to get similar dialogue with dog trainers.
No big deal.

Do behaviorists try to change the environment or change the animal in order to change the response?

Kelton,
No, my hackles are "not up". :rolleyes:
But I live in the real world where a lot of us have hands on training of difficult and not so difficult dogs on a daily basis. The "science", or for me, the "study" of dog training interests me greatly - and I study it with multiple seminars yearly. I pour over dog training books. I read several dog training related magazines monthly, and I have a fairly impressive video library of dog training tapes.

Your comment about the dog being choked out for the bite ( still not clear, was the owner bitten? ) and your reaction to it is very telling from our standpoint, by the way.

However, I still question just how much a Special Ed teacher ( I'm assuming that's you ) who works daily with autistic children ( a noble job,by the way, my hats off to you ) understands the art ( *art*..not science, there's a difference ) of dog training.

Medicine is still considered an art because it treats individuals. A cook book style of treatment doesn't work for all humans, because all humans differ somewhat - hence the medical "arts" as opposed to science.
Dogs, like people are still individuals. And within a set of individuals is a norm, but in groups, individuals always fall out of the norm, on both sides of a bell shaped curve..

That's my "problem", as you call it, with behavioral science - it comes too close to being a psuedo-science. It's not 100% , and when things are not 100%, they're not a science - they're an art.
And yes, the CBA/ certified behavioral analyst bothers me a bit also. You can take anybody with *any* type of 4 year degree( usually teachers or social workers, as I saw on the website ), have them attend some type of classes ( which can even be distance learning ), and then they "mentor" with someone whose already a CBA.
Sorry, sounds like a made up title to make folks feel better about themselves. If I had a child with behavioral problems, I'll stick with an MD who has a lot more options for treatment.

Now, if you can really prove that there is a totally reproducable, 100% reliable science behind training and behavior issues, I'll be a convert, believe me. But the only animal behaviorist that I thought actually deserved the title ( B.S. in zoology, MS. in something closely related ) who worked full time as a dolphin trainer told me once "Well, I can get them to perform the action 95% of the time, and with the size of their brains, that's as good as mankind is going to do in animal training." She was a brilliant trainer, and I have yet to see her proven wrong regarding animal training.

Hi Kelton:

I just want to chime in. For what it's worth I completely agree with Will's statements. I'm one of the people with whom dogs that have been completely mismanaged often have landed. A dog is not an experiment to test out theories on. To even approach a dog problem without a really sound basis in dog training is at best irresponsible. I'm sorry I'm not impressed by teaching a Schutzhund II to dog to give up the couch. I'd be alot more impressed if you could figure out away to even approach the poor abused Chow living in my mothers run right now. It's approximately 80 lbs. injured from a dog fight and broke the last owners arm when they tried to treat the injury. She's had it for 24 hrs and she's still trying to find a vet who will treat it chances are it will have to be put down. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a behaviorist is going to do alot at this point. Especially one who doesn't have huge amounts of experience with dogs. However, the previous owner kept telling my mother about the animal behaviorist advice they had been following regarding halties and attention training with food.

I'm sure your intentions are good. But experimenting with problem dogs is like playing with guns.

I'll try to answer questions (and accusations!) as best I can.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Lauren Woods:
Do behaviorists try to change the environment or change the animal in order to change the response?

Good question. All a behaviorist can do is manipulate environmental variables. If we get things correct, we will manipulate those environmental variables of which the behaviors are a function. After repeated exposure to the well chosen environmental variables, we hope to see some learning (relatively permanent changes in responses over time).
I'm not sure how one would go about "changing the animal" without performing some sort of surgery or perhaps prescribing a psychoactive chemical.
So yes, behaviorist are all about environmental manipulations. You'll find that we speak very little (or maybe not at all) about the dog's "mind" or "what he is thinking". This goes for human clients as well. We'll let psychologists theorize about that sort of thing for now.