From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: behavior modification or dog training
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:48:40 GMT

r hardin writes:
> speech is required for a command.

I take it you're unacquainted with hand signals?

> Response to a command isn't behavior.  L respondere, to answer, to
> promise in return.

Behavior: movement of an organism with respect to itself or any
other useful frame of reference.  Philology is fun but defining
one's terms is more useful, particularly with technical terms.

> If the dog knows the down and the correction, then you're correcting
> the down when you give the down correction, even though he hasn't
> mastered everything about the down yet.  Ie., it isn't behavior yet,
> in your terms, which I want to refute anyway.

If you want to use technical terms, you'll find it more productive
to use them correctly.  We don't know what the dog "knows", we only
know what he does.  And what you do.  And when.  And whether
it increases, decreases, or doesn't affect the dog's behavior when
made contingent on it.

> Training heel, as Koehler does it, consists of trying to trip the dog
> up in various ways if he's out of position or not paying attention.
> Ie., very fast about-faces when he forges ahead, so he's caught up
> short when his slack runs out; slowing down and turning left and
> kneeing him in the neck; turning right if he's too far to the left
> and tightening the leash too quickly for him as you depart.
>
> You'll see of course all sorts of negative consequences for the foolish
> dog.  You'll see punishments.

No, mostly we see negative reinforcement.  Punishment decreases
behavior.  Here it appears you're mostly trying to increase it.

Of course it's aversive methods either way.  But again, if you want
to use technical terms, you'll find it more productive to use them
correctly.

> the only thing the choke collar has ever been used for is corrections,
> be it for heeling, sit, down, etc.  Yet she welcomes it! There's no
> way she ever understood corrections as punishment, WHY IS THAT???

Again, we don't know what she understood, we only know what she does,
and what history she's had when she did similar things in the past.
For instance, we can tell whether she approaches or avoids the collar.

We may infer from your account she approaches the collar.  Why?  As
with most anecdotal accounts, you omit relevant facts and history.

We don't know what environmental events the collar has predicted in
the past.  It would be hardly surprising, for instance, if the collar
has predicted going out, going for a walk, and/or getting attention.

And we don't know whether some of these events are reinforcers.  Again
it would be hardly surprising if some are positive reinforcers.  We
could discover which ones by making each contingent on another
behavior, having nothing to do with collars, and seeing if it
increases.

Classic behavior analysis.  Like most analysis, it needs facts to work
with.  (Kant had some ideas on this.)  Speculations about what the dog
understood are no substitute for reliable and relevant data.

-- Jon
--
Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com