The whole point of the original post was to demonstrate the lack of understanding some have on this board about what they are talking about. I have no problem with being wrong, I do have a problem with those who outright don't understand a behavior theroy at a glance and assume posts have not beinfit for others.

Hey it is your forum but if you want decent trainers to contribute with real world aplications that often won't be found in any book yet work, as I have done then censure of material is not a waste of space. Th PMs and emails about my post say more gain then don't from reading them.

CC and OC often go hand in hand in avoidence learning.

Feel free to Google educate yourselves on this if you want more reference and can't ajust to it. The fact I stand my ground is not to be right and seen as right it is give out the best advice I can based on my education and experience.


Novice behaviorist start by learning that operant and classical conditioning are two separate things.

Later, when researching, you will learn this is only true sometimes. We get confused because they can and do occur together and interact a bit.

Classical and Operant are working at the same time, one example given and true is you may be teaching a learnt behaviour such as heeling BUT conditioning your dog to hate it.

Good trainers will be able to pick both apart to gain the best benifit in their training.

Guess what?

Sorry Robert,

But I think that there is an important point here that needs to be made.

In order for any discussion to be held there needs to be a consistant definition of terms in use. Not everybody has to agree with the definition, but everybody has to use the terms the same way. Without that the discussion is about the definintion of the terms and it gets really confusing really quick.

In a discussion like this the terms are defined very specificly and very narrowly, it is the nature of the science. They have also been defined the same way for almost a hundred years. That gives a very stable platform for the discussion. If you try and re-define the terms the discussion can go no where because the definition becomes the discussion and that is useless.

There are many terms and definitions of terms used here, consistanly, that I don't agree with. But I have learned them and use them so that a discussion can progress. If I didn't you would see this problem in every single thread and nothing is accomplished. So it comes down to you can go along and get along, or fight the system. Fighting the system is a losing battle every time. If the goal is just to argue with no progress I doubt any thread will travel far.