Lee really I am not here to fight but to bring in some ideas that some might wish to adapt and think about.

It is not a bad description.

In another same way. (Forgive the tech speak)

Pavlov in the 1920s, where he trained dogs to associate a tone with a food-reward In this basic and early experiment, the dogs initially show weak or no response to a conditioned stimulus (CS, e.g. a tone), but a measurable unconditioned response (UR, e.g. saliva production) to a unconditioned stimulus (US, e.g. food).

Break out of this context and see how you could apply it in other ways I say and do.

In the course of the this “training”, the CS is repeatedly presented together with the US; eventually the subject forms an association between the US and the CS.

In a subsequent test-phase, the subject will show the conditioned response (CR, e.g. saliva production) to the CS alone, if such an association has been established (this is the key I think) AND memorized.

Again such "Pavlovian" conditioning is opposed to instrumental or "operant conditioning", where producing a CR controls the US.

The whole point is not if operant conditioning can produce results. I know it can and so I use it. One can perhaps see where this discussion and my post yesterday on obedience come together.

The battleline is the use of exclusive “no force” methods and if they can actually stop bad behaviors. The second thought I have; is if there is a better way then drive-force-drive. Or at least a modification of it like i suggest.

It is not a bad thing to look for better ways. No doubt having experience translates into many mistakes and learning from them I am not different sooo… I post here for some feedback and help in defining the thoughts I have.

Some hate this some like it and think it is helpful to converse on training. The block will remain so until it is carved up.

I am looking forward because I don’t want to reinvent anything I want to eliminate problems that in fact, do exist. Why do we would we not want to examine what is going on and find the causes and in doing so examine the method.

My main focus is to question the effects on positive rewards used to FULLY condition the dog only to later resort to a correction in the form of a (jerk on the leash) for the same thing you once only rewarded the dog for.

Not to mention the need for discipline in the dog to stop potential problems from happing because of our presence. This is called “overshadowing” and it DOES have a carry over ‘inhibiting’ effect within the dog’s life though no direct “exact” learning has taken place.

Dennis, no one wants to fight, but you say you are conversant in learning theory, and then you repeatedly misstate information and use terms inappropriately. It really hurts your arguments. Most of us would probably agree with you if you had stuck to the premise that there are times when it is useful to utilize -R and +P in conjunction with +R, but when you go advocating it in 6 mos. old pups and you insist that +R alone simply can't work, a lot of us aren't going to go along with you. When you train dogs for money, and the client gives you 3 wks to get it done, +R alone ain't gonna cut it usually. But most of us are training our own dogs, either pets or competition dogs, and +R can take you a hell of a long way. And the research has covered extensively what happens if you train a behavior using +R only, and then later introduce -R or +P. It is the IDEAL sequence of events.

Hell of a long way. Well said. . .

And attempting to compare reflexive vs emitted behavior as the same type of training demonstrates a severe lack of understanding on the subject. The 2 things are not related at all. Another example of mis-statments and lack of understanding of Operant conditioning is this:

"As I have stated:
While rewarding the dog for a desired behavior will increase the chance of the behavior reoccurring it does nothing to decrease the undesirable behaviors from occurring. The same goes with detracting the reward."

This is just factually wrong. This is easily demonstrated in any basic book on the subject. Yes you can influence the dog with reward or punishment, neither nor even both is not a fool proof path to sucess. Improperly applied any training method will fail. As I noted before modification of behavior with punishment requires the punisher to be present, that is not the case with a positive reward. It can and will continue to be effective even if it is not readily apparent.

Perhaps in your buisness the attitude of "my way or the highway" is very effective. This isn't your buisness, you are not the T.D. here. If you want to lecture write a book, teach a class, but don't presume to come here and expect that the rest of the world will agree with you. Perhaps you may even be as sucessful as Ms Boothe. I think she may have a several million unit head start on you, but you could catch and surpass her.

Believe it or not, several of the people here have some fairly sound backgrounds in training in multiple areas. As authoritative as you sound, I really doubt that you are end all/be all in training. So far I haven't been terribly impressed, but others may be. Perhaps you could stop trying to "educate" us and just participate? If you have a question ask it, if you have an opinion state it (preferably in less that 100 words), If you want to lecture, take it some place else where it can be appreciated.

I know there is a long way around to good obedience. You perhaps assume dogs trained in such a way lack a quality the long road dogs do such as exact position and good working attitude then you are mistaken.

I n fact the dogs not truly conditioned to a command by reward only but only molded so they know what is it you want (in general) will withstand a lot more then the dogs cranked on but their owners who have spent 6 months or more conditioning something so simple a sit down and stay there.

I know people would rather not think about something contrary to the way they train. Yet how many (honestly) have seen dogs trained by a motivator only to find it was not getting them close to their objective after many months of conditioning with rewards only?

More how many then see a huge drop in working drive and attribute it to the compulsion they are doing and not share some of the responsibility toward the prior method and their breaking the rules they not only established but truly conditioned,

The associability of classical stimuli that bear no relation to the behavior of the animal is of an intermediate value, as is operant behavior alone. Stimuli that are controlled by operant behavior accrue associative strength most easily. If several stimuli are available as potential predictors, again the question arises which CS-US associations are formed?

It these terms are not misused just not used or misunderstood. Granted I should have not been lazy with OC and though I established the “positive” only not only in title I should have known to continue to clarify it here.

If you want to continue to reward and withhold rewards alone to train and believe you have controlling influence over the dogs other interest then great. If you wonder why you see a once happy working dog compete because suddenly you “needed” extra control on your dog you now have a reference.

Is it such a terrible think to understand if you truly condition the dog they will want to remain and work under the rules you established. If you change it after a long period you have accomplished what? Answer: A dog that can handle it or does not handle it well.

However if you focused on molding the behavior and then make the command a solid one by compulsion then (because the dog learned in a systematic way with predictability in your method you can not only maintain drive but you can build it.

Dennis,

perhaps you should re-read this and then take it to heart:

"I know people would rather not think about something contrary to the way they train."

It is exactly what you are doing.

There is more than one way to train. People that have used positive only have put SchH titles as well as obedience titles on dogs. Deny it all you want, it doesn't make you right. Training is as dependant on the temperament of the trainer as it is of the dog. The result is that people need to use WHAT WORKS FOR THEM. What works for you may not work for me. What works for me may not work for you. To degrade an entire training philosophy based on the idea that YOU don't believe in it, or that YOU can't make it work does a huge disservice to those that can and do make it work. It also does a diservice to those that COULD make it work. Options for training need to be presented and many have equal merit. Combinations of methods will often work better than sticking to any one method.

The idea is for the dog and trainer to be sucessful. This isn't a your way or the highway situation. It isn't BURGER KING, you can't just have it your way. You hold strong beliefs, that is fine. Others hold equally strong beliefs on the other side. THe fact that YOU don't agree with them doesn't make their belief any less valid. Or are you trying to tell us that you have never had a training failure? If you know it all why are there other methods that work for other people?

You have said you aren't looking for a fight, then why try and start one? You said that you don't see much value in just attempting to bully people in to a certain belief, and yet you do it. I don't need to be lectured. I get what I want out of my dogs. I use the combinations of methods that have been sucessful for ME. I can and do provide suggestions for people that may help. I make it a point to gain as full an understanding of a method as possible and learn to describe it so a person could try it and maybe it will work for them. Even if it doesn't work for me.

This still isn't your personal forum. There are many people that post here that are as qualified, maybe more qualified than what you are. Perhaps you could listen more and talk less. You might learn something and not irritate the world?

Again, I do not disagree the proper operant training can title dogs. This is and is not the issue here now nor was it ever.

Again, I do use operant methods as I have stated and in fact posted with developing eye contact.

The question is... Can the dog's behavior be controlled by positive ONLY operant methods better then use of corrections to obtain the control? Not later but before the dog has a truly conditioned response to a command. When I say truly I am saying a nearly permanent conditioned response. Not a molding phase where the dog is still learning the command. Once again because the dog can associate the reward the molding phase goes relatively smooth. Now what do most people do? I say they continue to work with rewards and rely on correction “only” if they need it.

Fine I say but the quality of the down and the constancy of the command and the satisfaction of your results is determinative of the individual owner/trainer. If you are looking for one command only and a solid stay in position you can if you want do a long run you can or you can place some controls in your dog by way of consequences it wishes to avoid for not obeying.

The use of aversives is at some point required for the average dog IF the owner is not willing to make excuses for their sometimes poor behaviors…”My dog has never don’t that before…” and worse.

So what beats my mind is this: Should I say ok folks some dogs are just bad examples of a good dogs because of (fill in blank here……….) or should I as a professional be open and more willing to learn then submit to status quo because it is status quo? If I see problems I like to ask some questions about it and try to find the answers to them. Sometimes this means changing my ideas. Certainly if I believed the whole control behavior and never say no to your dog philosophy worked as well I would be at the front door. The thing veterinarians and other trainers get to see and hear what is going on in the masses and not being worte up in the books.

I outlined my thoughts to obedience before just I posted this post for a reason. Some may look at it and try it. Why would I want that? Because it works and works well with more dogs, faster, and without adversely affecting the dog’s working attitude. It is not a guess here.

Is this blasphemous on a dog discussion forum to post some dog training idea without prior approval? I guess. The thing is, what I have said is not about me but about another view. Will any of you who don’t like it change your minds to it? I don’t’ think so but then again I did not post it for the unwilling.

I have already ventured into positive only operant training (how could you not) I did it when Steve White and Karen where working together. I liked how it taught people to for once reward their dog correctly and about timing. I was amazed some how well a dog seemed to take to the lessons also. I already knew about operant conditioning and timing but I took what was useful and discussed at length with Steve about the use of clicker vs. voice. In the end, I agreed to his thought on it and trained a few dogs both ways to test if he was right. I found no significant difference in the dog understanding but allowed the clicker helps people be on time with the delivery of the reward (timing). His more ‘ambient’ argument also has some merits yet again not a significant difference (as far as success) to use the clicker over a vocalized word.

So I was very happy with the wave before it became a wave and still kept my eye on the people who failed and thought about why. This lead to many ideas and concerns about not working enough not conditioning correctly and it also opened up the book for conditions people could not and can control by reward alone in many dogs.

Reject this experience if you want.

Think of about any behavior problem the dog is keen to and likes and try to disrupt it/stop it and prevent it from happing again with rewards and without aversives in place…enough said

OK I give up.