Please – share this with dog trainers far and wide, tell them to come and talk to me – if they dare. Tell them to prove the “science” wrong. Here is your argument for throwing what you know as “dog training” AKA “The Quadrants Of Dog Training” in the garbage where they belong. Here is your science – prove it wrong. If you can’t – then prove trainers wrong.
Why do trainers keep blaming Skinner for the Quadrants Of Dog Training? Interesting quote on Operant Conditioning in Skinners’ book “About Behaviourism”. How Operant Conditioning can be used for non-scientific purposes.
When you “apply” Operant Conditioning to control the behaviour of another – it’s called exploitation. That’s the Quadrants Of Dog Training – which includes what you know as Positive Reinforcement.
A quote from Konrad’s book – the basis of the quadrants. If you want a PDF copy to read, drop an email address. Every dog owner should read this book.
The use of Compulsion and Inducements – Punishments and Rewards. Applying Punishments and Rewards to control behaviours – and Skinner would call this exploitation.
So, it begs the question – why do trainers blame Skinner for creating the quadrants of dog training? The man openly opposed Compulsion – punishment. And he wasn’t apply “inducements” or rewards the way you think.
When you hear trainers talk about how “discomfort” is a necessary part of dog training – it’s straight out of Konrads book.
How did Skinner define Operant Conditioning? From “About Behaviorism” – 1975. If you want a copy, drop an email address.
Operant Conditioning
A very different process, through which a person comes to deal effectively with a new environment, is operant conditioning. Many things in the environment, such as food and water, sexual contact, and escape from harm, are crucial for the survival of the individual and the species, and any behavior which produces them therefore has survival value.
Through the process of operant conditioning, behavior having this kind of consequence becomes more likely to occur. The behavior is said to be strengthened by its consequences, and for that reason the consequences themselves are called “reinforcers.” Thus, when a hungry organism exhibits behavior that produces food, the behavior is reinforced by that consequence and is therefore more likely to recur. Behavior that reduces a potentially damaging condition, such as an extreme of temperature, is reinforced by that consequence and therefore tends to recur on similar occasions. The process and its effects have given rise to a large number of mentalistic concepts, many of which will be examined in the following chapters.
The standard distinction between operant and reflex behavior is that one is voluntary and the other involuntary.
Operant behavior is felt to be under the control of the behaving person and has traditionally been attributed to an act of will. Reflex behavior, on the other hand, is not under comparable control and has even been attributed to invading wills, such as those of possessing spirits. Sneezing, hiccuping, and other reflex acts were once attributed to the Devil, from whom we still protect a friend who has sneezed by saying, “God bless you!” When no invader is assumed, the behavior is simply called automatic.