sorry, i still have to disagree with the terminology. e-collar in conjunction with a bite or any reward, still does not make the e-collar +R. the bite/reward is the +R, not the e-collar.

Ever felt an ecollar on a very low level? You can barely feel it. So let's say I have a ball crazy, I mean obesessive dog and everytime I rewarded him the stim preceeded it as a conditioned reinforcer would. Do you not think that when I start marking his behavior with the very light stim that the likelyhood of the behavior would increase? Shoot, some sensitive dogs are afraid of the clicker sound initially until they're desensitized and counterconditioned to it. Why couldn't a dog see the stim as a CONDITIONED reinforcer?

Although, in the case of Bart Bellon. I don't think that's what's really happening.

i'm not saying that it can't work. i'm just saying the terminology is incorrect. there is no reason why the dog couldn't make the "association." but, the e-collar in and of itself is not the +R.

It is actually +R in the example I mentioned. I think what you're trying to say is that it could never be an UNCONDITIONAL reinforcer. Which I agree with. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

i think this conversation has taken a gravel road. chris, if you want to open another thread in regards to e-collar +R, i suppose we could debate it further and explore advantages or disadvantages. that is if anyone else would be interested in it.
getting back to the original post on this thread.... i did post a link a few days ago that may help stephanie's argument.
http://www.cobankopegi.com/prong.html
this is a study done in germany and gives conclusive results on the use of prong collars.

 Quote:

Originally posted by VanCamp Robert:
-F- them.

I agree!!

 Quote:

Matt, how exactly does that work? What is the argument that he uses to prove it is +R?

Removing an aversive increases behavior as well.

I'm curious?

Basically, like Chris said, he spends alot of time and reps building a Classically Conditioned pairing between behaviors and a light stim....

take for example the send out (ring style, not SchH).. at first, he taps the dog on the rear with his foot, along with "go-out"... after months, he begins to use a tail-collar and gives an "e-tap" along with the foot tap, along with the command... then fades the foot, so that there is a CC paired voice and e-collar command.

There is no unwanted behavior, so you cannot say that the stim is punishment, because you are not decreasing any behavior.. you are simpy increasing the likelihood of the wanted behavior, in this instance a send-out.

It is not -R becuase he is using the nick, and is stops immediately, even from the beginning
No if you laid on the stim, and only released it when the dog did the "send out", then it would be -R.. but in his training system there is no use of constant stims (other than for hard, clear +P)

So his basic argument is that the stim is not shown to the dog in a way that would construe it as punishment... In a way, like the way athletes will slap each other, or bang knuckles, head butt, etc... out of context, it would seem like punishment, but in the correct context it is rewarding..
You don't know me.. so if I walked up to you and punched you in the shoulder, you would probably punch back.... but if we were friends, it could be considered a type of greeting..

make sense?

of course it is arguable.. but I buy it.

I have not considered using the stim as a conditioned reinforcer, but I have used the page as a conditioned reinforcer.

Interesting stuff, but I guess we should take it to another thread.


There isn't any point to argue with the 100% positive clicker cultists.

Oh, gee, I have had this conversation so often ... actually managed to shut a couple of them up -- just can't remember how <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I use a combination of the slip/prong with clicker in UD training for my dog. If I used only a clicker she will do it maybe once .... or twice. Then she will just mosie on over to something more interesting. That is where she gets the wake up call that this is not a "if I feeeeeeel like it game".

I also used the prong with the TTouch harness .... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Maybe explain to them how food can be +P when the dog is too stressed to want to eat?

How about this: I would ask those who "do not use positive punishment" and only use "positive reinforcement", if they have ever stood on a dog's leash and ignored said dog when this dog craved attention? And only gave attention to said dog when dog was quiet and not jumping?

This is positive punishment. Positive because dog jumps up and is restricted in its movement. Punishment because you are not giving what the dog desires. It is not ONLY positive reinforcement because you gave food when the dog was quiet.

Again, what about when a dog does not want the food it is being offered? The food would then serve as a +P when presented and a -R when removed - I've seen that happen with people as they keep presenting the food and the dog starts running away from them, owner chasing shoving food in their face -- it would be funny if it wasn't.

Or, how about making the dog only get food when it does what we want? When the dog does not get the food, it is negative punishment until the dog does what you want, then said dog gets positive reinforcement.

(Actually the example I gave has all four: positive and negative punishment
and reinforcement....
+P dog corrected when jumping
-P dog does not get attention it craves
-R correction is gone when dog stops jumping
+R dog gets attention and reward when quiet)