>>>>It seems almost seems like a "parting shot" and you should know, as a behaviorist, what type of response it would elicit.<<<<

Thanks for pointing that out! I thought the "eeeasy boy" might be interpreted as being naughty, but...OK. I thought I was being rather polite while attempting make a reference to the odd turn of events.

Alright, listed below are some of the most common terms used in behavioral science....maybe this will evoke some specific responses or indicate the kind of subject matter that is studied in the field.

respondent &operant conditioning, establishing operations, various forms of discriminative stimuli, various schedules of reinforcement and the response patterns that can be expected, extinction, extinction bursts, pos/neg reinforcement & punishment, stimulus change decrement and generalization, behavior maintenance, escape/avoidance behavior.

How does this relate to dog training? Well it does in the sense that everyone who has successfully trained a dog has either knowingly or unwittingly engaged in manipulations that have involved many of these things in complex ways. These are just the formal labels for things that relate to the responses of organisms. The more complex issues that relate to these topics are probably unnecessary for the successful training of an animal, but maybe they are in some cases.

A behaviorist believes that all behavior is due to the interaction of genetic capacity, environmental -learning- history, and current environment.

I have responded at length, but it would be very cool if we could maybe discuss something specific about the science itself.

Demonstrate how being a behavioralist in the sense that you treat people or other critters is a science? I'm a bit baffled by that concept since I don't treat dog training nor claim it to be science as I understand the working definition of doing science. Dog training is more of a craft really.

Kevin, that's an interesting question. I might be a bit clumsy in trying to explain, but I'll try. Here it goes (deep breath):

Science is a method of finding something out in a systematic way. In a behavioral science, one would attempt to use basic science in determining the phenomenon of behavior and the factors affecting it. Astronomers, Chemist, and physiologists use the same scientific method. The ultimate goal of a science is to not just describe an event, not just to predict an event, but to also be able to control then event. To be able to make it "happen" and then "not happen" at will. The control of one's chosen subject matter demonstrates that you might just be on to something!

If you are able to get your dog to sit when you give a signal, you are controlling your phenomenon through the use of some sort of chosen conditioning procedure. If you then decide to counter-condition that response such that the dog doesn't ever sit when you give the signal...that demonstrates further mastery of the control relations important for this response. Reconditioning your signal such that the response will occur then gives an better demonstration of your control over that particular response under those specific conditions. That you have fully grasped the important functional relations between that 'sit' and the environmental stimuli responsible for that response in that specific set of conditions. Behaviorist do this sort of "do it" "un-do it" and then "do it" procedures quite a bit.....with even more repetitions.....it's tedious, but it is the only way we can fully flesh out the important environmental variables from the extraneous variables. Other forms of science (maybe all of them) do the same thing for the same reasons.

Also, science is a way of removing oneself from cultural biases, folk lore, "common sense", all in an attempt to articulate a phenomenon more clearly.

My grandpa had this trick. He would sit in a chair in his back yard. Two ducks would then come to his feet. He would then display one of two colors he painted on chips of wood. If the color was red, the ducks would go to the red bucket 10' away. If it was green, they would go to the green bucket. It's a cool trick and he achieved it without a lick of education in behavioral science.
Did he know that siting in his chair was a discriminitive stimulus for 'approaching the chair'? Did he know that 'sitting in the chair' was a transitive conditioned establishing operation evoking the observing response related to "looking toward his hands" and altering the reinforcing effectiveness of colored wood chips? Did he know that the wood chips both reinforced that observing response and served as a conditioned establishing operation for the correct colored bucket and also as discriminitive stimuli for the availability of reinforcement for the approach of the bucket? Did he even know that his food pellets were primary reinforcers for that chain of responses?

Well, he didn't know that stuff. It doesn't matter. But a lesson from a behavioral scientist could have assisted him in speeding the progress of his training regime. And it doesn't matter a lick about the behaviorist's knowlege of ducks.

Apples fall from trees, and people know this, but they know VERY little about the phenomenon known as gravity. Still, they use gravity, fulcrum, leverage and so on to their advantage without any knowlege of physics. I think we all agree that physics is important, though, because it has brought to light many things that weren't so obvious.

My grandfather may have been able to save a great deal of time if he had known about differential outcome effects as he trained his ducks. This effect was the result of studies in the experimental analysis of behavior. What his ducks were doing was something called "match-to-sample"...more specifically "simultanious match to sample". Those wood chips were the 'sample stimuli' and the buckets were 'comparison stimuli'.

This 'match to sample' phenomenon is not "duck specific"...although he did it with ducks. It is a demonstration of behavior which many other organisms can be taught to perform (not all).

Reinforcing a dog for giving a full grip on the sleeve is not a "dog only" phenomenon. We could teach a rat to bite something with a similar grip and reinforce the rat for doing so. Of course, we would have to reinforce the rat with the kind of reinforcer that this rat likes...and we can assume it will be rather different than the type of thing that the dog would like. That sort of issue is determined by the genetic capacity of that species to be reinforced by something. Nevertheless, it would be through a contingent application of reinforcement (or punishment) that we would achieve our desired outcome.

Rats, dogs, people, etc. all respond in VERY similar ways to the exact same schedules of reinforcement. Intermittent schedules of reinforcement result in the same response traits both in the rates of response and resistance to extinction. This is neat stuff and can be useful in training dogs (or your spouse). I have read at least a couple of dog training books which articulate these schedules quite nicely...and you can be sure that these books profited from the results of behavioral science.

Science is a craft, too. The developement of an experimental design is a craft. Crafts have to be learned. Any field of science (or any other thing) has to be learned...we aren't born with it! A chemist has to learn about chemistry to develop his craft. So I agree, dog training is a craft, too. Not so sure that labels such as 'craft' or 'science' are too terribly important...and it's easy to get too involved in the semantics of it.

Oh come on guys?

Learning theory models have been built on top of piles and piles of scientific research. A huge amount of scientific research AND practical application.

As far as I'm concerned it is set in freaking stone. OC/IC, CC/RC, etc. . .chizel it on a piece of marble and hang it on your walls, cuz it works.


Dog training isn't a science, but good dog trainers certainly are following the model. . .whether they know it or not.

Kelton,

I think that was an excellant demonstration of behavior modification. As a trainer for a police agency, I have taught a principles of conditioning model for years, demonstrating to new handlers the actual science of dog training. The model Sd - R =Rf where the Sd is the stimulus discriminitive, the R is response and the Rf is reinforcement. Having taught it for years, I've also encountered the cognitive dissonance associated with anything different from more seasoned dog handlers. I think your discussion starter is very interesting, I just hope it doesn't turn into a pissing contest. Oh well, time marches on.

Mr. Van Camp:

I've missed your posting as of late, good to see you back on the board.


DFrost

For what its worth my objection isn't based on studying principles of behavior modification. It's Kelton's desire to apply them to dogs in a professional capacity, when he apparently has had very little personal experience with dogs. I might be old fashioned, but this seems important to me. It also, as I said before seems like a dangerous scenario to try work with "problem" dogs when you don't know much about them. If Kelton had years of experience with different breeds. Had at least titled one dog in anything. Had worked with dogs in some capacity in his life. I might be more receptive. But I have a really hard time getting past the idea that he's out there with minimal experience, some education, hopefully at least a solid understanding of some principals, and charging people to solve their dogs problem behaviors.

On a final note: Kelton do you feel yourself qualified to assess a dogs temperment? I hope for your and the owners sake you can answer yes.

Kelton didn't say he didn't have experience with dogs, he said he had never titled any.

But I don't care either way, experience training dogs or not, the principles still apply and I am very interested in this subject and would like to hear more. I don't have any questions at the moment, but am reading this thread with much interest but would like to see more about behavioral science and less questioning about Kelton's qualifications. Who cares? If you don't like it, don't read it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> That's what we all do anyway, isn't it?

molly wrote: "But I have a really hard time getting past the idea that he's out there with minimal experience, some education, hopefully at least a solid understanding of some principals, and charging people to solve their dogs problem behaviors".......
can't you say the same thing about the majority of "professional" dog trainers? and what is the standard to judge a dog trainer's experience and qualifications?

Hi Scott,
You have a point. At this point in my life, I have the luxury of knowing the backgrounds and results of the people I ask for advice when I have sticky problems. And I think that the lack of standards for dog trainers is a HUGE problem. Unqualified trainers often help dogs to become unmanageable and dangerous in ways that are truly tragic for both the owners and the dogs.

Elisabeth I truly think its important to have a sound understanding of these concepts when you work with any animal. And I'm sorry if I'm getting in the way.

I have spent most of my life from childhood on being exposed to the results of people trying to own or breed dogs that they shouldn't and then trying to get help from people that are not able to give them appropriate advice. The result is that dogs get put down, people get injured (sometimes horrible injured) and dog laws become tighter and tighter. Ultimately, its the dogs that we love that suffer. If Kelton has more qualifications with dogs than he's stated, I apologize. Or if he didn't take it upon himself to offer his services for a fee to people having problems with their dogs.

Again I apologize for the disruption, but I think that there is a responsibility of people in the dog world to not only learn, but also to protect dogs. Backyard breeders are usually frowned on. Shouldn't inexperienced trainers also be frowned on? Maybe that would be the first step towards higher standards.

I can agree with that, Molly. I don't think that someone should just wake up one day, decide they're a dog trainer, and go to work! I train dogs professionally. In order to get my qualifications, I attended Triple Crown Academy, this was after working with and training several dogs of my own over the course of about 8-10 years. Even after those years of working with dogs and completing TCA's program, I still feel inadequate to conquer some clients problems. I can take the dog and fix it most times, but I feel very unsure about advising them because often they are not strong enough handlers to get the job done and can get hurt. Unfortunately in my area there are not many options for this situation.

But as pertaining to the discussion, training qualifications or not, the behavioral principles should still apply. We aren't discussing how to work with dangerous dogs, but rather both simple and complex behavioral principles and how these can and do apply to dog training.

I would very much enjoy hearing more about the behavior rather than mechanics. I can teach dogs to do a lot of things, but if a greater understanding of why the mechanics work will help me to become a better trainer, then I want to learn this. I have read several books on the subject of behavior and how a dog's mind supposedly works, but books just don't do a subject justice, especially since they get so technical that I, for one, remember very little of what I've read <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> . They are a start, but far from complete. I was hoping this topic would kind of fill in holes.