Dennis, think of classical conditioning in this way - the unconditioned stimulus must be capable of eliciting the unconditioned response reliably. Your US of an 'autocorrection' (not sure what exactly you mean by that, but assuming it is a leash correction or perhaps a smack on the butt or even an ecollar stim?) could produce a variety of behaviors - from sitting, to dropping prone out of fear, to attempting to escape, to biting you in protest or fear, etc etc. There is not a reliable association between the autocorrection and the sit behavior. You as the trainer could forcibly place the dog into a sit each time in order to call it reliable, but the problem with that now your US has not elicited the response from the dog at all. YOU are performing the act for the dog. Same with teaching the down and suddenly stomping on the leash with your foot and forcing the dog down - true, he has no choice but neither has the US ELICITED the behavior from the dog.

Laura wrote: "If Ivan doesn't have a training "method" or "system", then why aren't all dog trainers equally successful?"

Because Ivan is applying the theory in a much more effective way than most trainers. And to say that all trainers are using OC isn't exactly accurate. Most trainers are not correctly using OC, thus the poor results.


I respect Ivan Balabanov for what he has achieved, he is a very good dog trainer. There are few others as good as he is in the US. But, I wouldn't necessarily call his application of OC his own original method. He has some good techniques, some of which may very well be his own creations, and a good feel for dog training.

If you want to call it the Ivan Balabanov Training Method then fine. Does he call it that?

 Quote:

Originally posted by Lee Baragona - Sch3FH2:
Dennis, think of classical conditioning in this way - the unconditioned stimulus must be capable of eliciting the unconditioned response reliably. Your US of an 'autocorrection' (not sure what exactly you mean by that, but assuming it is a leash correction or perhaps a smack on the butt or even an ecollar stim?) could produce a variety of behaviors - from sitting, to dropping prone out of fear, to attempting to escape, to biting you in protest or fear, etc etc. There is not a reliable association between the autocorrection and the sit behavior. You as the trainer could forcibly place the dog into a sit each time in order to call it reliable, but the problem with that now your US has not elicited the response from the dog at all. YOU are performing the act for the dog. Same with teaching the down and suddenly stomping on the leash with your foot and forcing the dog down - true, he has no choice but neither has the US ELICITED the behavior from the dog.

If we stop thinking about the resting, finished behavior and think about what caused a reaction (movement) you will see it more clear. The statement that "the problem with that now your US has not elicited the response from the dog at all." is not true.

The dog moved away when he felt the correction. This is a predictable reaction when the same cause, in this case, force of the correction, is applied in a consistent and motivational manner.

That is the definition of motivational correction. The dog cannot control it in any way because you are giving it. He can only react to it and does.

It is the predicable application that the dog will automatically react to ie, avoid.

Anyone thinks the motivational correction doesn't matter or effect the dog is like saying you can place your hand in a fire and not move it away. The dog is emotionally effected and moves because of the correction if it is motivational enough. He can't help himself, it something he feels it and knows he doesn't like it. He does have a physiological response that can be measured. With the most obvious reaction presented as movement.


There is always a reaction to a motivational, well timed, correction. This, as explained, causes the dog to move away and it is an unconditioned response.

Let's see make it more easy...

Taken from one of the website links or relinks above:
Classical

....addition to food induced salivation other reflexes commonly used include access to an opposite-sex conspecific in order to condition courtship behavior in birds, eye- blinks (or nictitating membrane closure in animals like rabbits) elicited by puffs of air directed at the eye, leg-withdrawal from electric shock ....

I will add movement from a correction E-Collar or collar jerk.

This is predicable as long as you are actually delivering a motivational correction and not some nagging no effect, correction. Which in that case, it is nothing; not OC or CC it is just ineffective and often counterproductive training.


Remember, those who are forgetting, we also reward the dog once he targets the correct position and may even use a marker such as click or GOOD to mark it.

Still, the dog is in motion (involuntarily) as the result of the correction to avoid it.

Like the shock on leg and move away... it is no different.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Dennis Hasley:

 Quote:

Still, the dog is in motion (involuntarily) as the result of the correction to avoid it.

Like the shock on leg and move away... it is no different.

It sounds like the term "involuntary" might be where you're getting confused. You're using it in the context of your post to mean the dog had no choice cuz you the handler forced him to comply. But "involuntary" responses in classical conditioning refer to responses OFFERED BY THE ANIMAL but which he cannot voluntarily control (at least not easily). examples are typically the eye blink to a puff of air - try tho one might, you can't make yourself keep the eye open. The blink is involuntary; however, it is performed BY THE ANIMAL. No one forces it on him. Same with an increase in heart rate from fear, or pulling away from shock to the fingers.

Your 'autocorrections' do not produce reliable unconditioned responses IAW the defintions of CC. You are utilizing escape and avoidance conditioning.

Dennis,

From this statement you clinch the case:

"Remember, those who are forgetting, we also reward the dog once he targets the correct position and may even use a marker such as click or GOOD to mark it.

Still, the dog is in motion (involuntarily) as the result of the correction to avoid it."

A perfect description of operant conditioning. The last part of the statement isn't correct, the SPECIFIC motion isn't involuntary, it is a specific choice to avoid the correction. If you walk out and put a leash on a totally untrained dog and do the same correction does the dog sit with no other direction? No, the sit response is the result of teaching the dog that the sit is the ONLY response that will avoid the correction. For this reason alone we are talking operant conditioning, not Pavlovian conditioning. If the exact same stimulus will elicit the exact same physical reaction on every member of a species with no training then it is classical. Classical conditioning is VERY narrow in definition, and has almost no use in dog training. Just figure that no matter how you do it, if you have to teach the behavior it is operant.

Richard,
Sorry I said that only so those reading would understand that dog training should be more then a correction to work. It is detached from the equation.

It is CC and later OC as I have mentioned.

I the original case and example I gave. It is not OC.

I have stated my case and not much more i can say about it.

CS = voice command
US = correction
UR = Dog reacts (Movement involuntarily)

This is the fine cut of the greater picture.

So the dog now avoiding the correction under the freebie has a window fo wining/learning. The dog thinks he can beat the correction when he hears the command and this created the opportunity to use OC methods to reinforce it.

The corrective phase is very small in most cases because it is efficient learning as long as you use a well timed motivational correction. Very soon the dog learns to move and win. (Freebie)He wins every time as long as he does it right and moves on command without hesitation.

Because the dog learns efficiently when 3 times and a freebie is applied correctly he does not in the end receive even half as much as those who correct their dogs over and over but using a variable or inconsistent application of the aversive. (correction)

Now if the dog moves to "beat" the command/correction, he wins. SO no 3 times again..nope just freebies until he does it wrong one time.


The key, here is not to do another set of 3 times when the dog gets it right on the freebie but to do only freebies until the dog doesn't move on the single command. Keep sessions short and successful.

So in essence the dog thinks he is beating the handers US to the punch. After you see the dog win and win and win it is a great time to introduce the OC methods of targeting exact correct behavior with an already learned reward marker. It is like fine tuning position and so on.

So the dog stays in optimum learning zone under 2 conditions.
1) he must move on one command only without hesitation
2) he continues to seek his reward for a good job.

Note:I teach the dog about eye focus and rewards long before he ever feels a leash and collar.

 Quote:

Originally posted by VanCamp Robert:
Because Ivan is applying the theory in a much more effective way than most trainers. And to say that all trainers are using OC isn't exactly accurate. Most trainers are not correctly using OC, thus the poor results.

If the dog learns anything at all from the trainer's attempts, it can still be OC. Even if it's poorly taught, or if the dog learns the wrong thing.

 Quote:

I respect Ivan Balabanov for what he has achieved, he is a very good dog trainer. There are few others as good as he is in the US. But, I wouldn't necessarily call his application of OC his own original method.

Just curious, how much of Ivan's dog training have you seen?

IMO, if one takes all of the myriad techniques, the way these techniques are meshed together, and the philosophy behind it all that an accomplished trainer of advanced sport dogs utilizes, that's his or her method. Looking at the whole enchilada, each of the accomplished SchH trainers is somewhat different from the others. In all likelihood, most of the nuts and bolts of each trainer's method, many of the specific techniques, are nothing new. For the most part, it's the way they are all integrated together that is unique to the top trainers, IMO. The top trainers have more than just a bag of OC tricks. Folks who get caught up in this or that specific technique can't see the forest for the trees.
JMO. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Laura

 Quote:

Originally posted by Laura Sanborn:

 Quote:

Originally posted by VanCamp Robert:
Because Ivan is applying the theory in a much more effective way than most trainers. And to say that all trainers are using OC isn't exactly accurate. Most trainers are not correctly using OC, thus the poor results.

If the dog learns anything at all from the trainer's attempts, it can still be OC. Even if it's poorly taught, or if the dog learns the wrong thing.

 Quote:

I respect Ivan Balabanov for what he has achieved, he is a very good dog trainer. There are few others as good as he is in the US. But, I wouldn't necessarily call his application of OC his own original method.

Just curious, how much of Ivan's dog training have you seen?

IMO, if one takes all of the myriad techniques, the way these techniques are meshed together, and the philosophy behind it all that an accomplished trainer of advanced sport dogs utilizes, that's his or her method. Looking at the whole enchilada, each of the accomplished SchH trainers is somewhat different from the others. In all likelihood, most of the nuts and bolts of each trainer's method, many of the specific techniques, are nothing new. For the most part, it's the way they are all integrated together that is unique to the top trainers, IMO. The top trainers have more than just a bag of OC tricks. Folks who get caught up in this or that specific technique can't see the forest for the trees.
JMO. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Laura

I would have to agree with this.