This is a work in progress – not finished yet.
If you only read one blog about dogs – make this the one. This blog is from an Aspergers thought process – I hope it makes sense. I’m going to tell you everything that you don’t know about the science of behaviour and all about the negatives of dog training. I’m going to explain what dog trainers are actually doing to owners. They have you in a Skinner box – and they are applying Negative Reinforcements just like what Skinner was doing in a lab. Dog owners – I’m sorry, but your positive reinforcement as a result is breaking my heart.
And the worst part? It’s not your fault – you are victims of what “dog training” has become. You are being lied to and extorted for money. All I ever see is “hire a trainer cause you can’t possibly do it on your own!”. That’s a lie – the reality is – once you understand the science? That’s understanding the underlying cause of your dogs behavior.
I liken dog training to a car that won’t start. Someone better start asking questions. Why isn’t the car starting? Could it be something simple like a fuse? Battery? Timing belt? When you understand the cause of why the car won’t start – you buy one part – done. There are many out there that throw parts at the car hoping to fix it – and that’s dog training.
Trainers learn what they learn – and most won’t deviate – and it’s all quadrants. I find it funny that the human animal needs to be trained to work with a fellow animal. I respect some trainers – they didn’t keep themselves in that little box. They opened their minds to other options – and for the trainers that spoke with me privately – many thank you’s for listening and changing. Other trainers are out there getting it done – training dogs – and they know to keep their nose out of the behavioural ring. Remember the behaviourist? Would you take your ill behaved child to a trainer? No, why are you taking your ill behaved dog to a trainer?
There inlies the problem. Trainers need to get out of the behavioural ring and get back to training dogs.
What you know as “dog training” IS the “Quadrants Of Dog Training” – but it’s not “Operant Conditioning”. Dog trainers claim it’s operant conditioning, but it’s not. I’m amazed at how many dog owners have never heard of the quadrants of dog training – but yet, try to use positive reinforcement. What you know as Positive Reinforcement is part of a 4 quadrant system – Positive and Negative Reinforcement, Positive and Negative Punishment – the quadrants. Balanced uses all 4 of the quadrants. PR/PP uses one.
Positive Reinforcement trainers pulled one quadrant out of that 4 quadrant system of abuse – and they call it the good one. Problem with that? You can’t have positive without negative.
So why the war in dog training? Why are trainers fighting with each other if it’s all part of the same system? Dog owners are at each others’ throats – they are so vested in one side or the other – and it breaks my heart. Can we stop calling this nonsense dog training? Cause it’s killing dogs by the millions.
Let’s get into why trainers – and google – blame B.F Skinner for all this Quadrant nonsense. All society knows of positive and negative reinforcement is reward and punish – that’s not Operant Conditioning – that’s abuse. Do that to a child and you’ll screw them up for life. No? But the dog is not a child? Read on my friend – we’re going to get into some real science.
Everyone is focused on what Skinner was doing in a lab. But focus needs to be on what he was doing in his human practice. Yes, Skinner held a PhD in Psychology – the very study of the mind and behaviour. He also held a human practice – that’s what people don’t realize. He worked with very aggressive children – but he didn’t train them to behave – nor was he applying things like treats or shock. I’m going to explain the fail in dog training. And why trainers blame Skinner.
Skinner performed experiments on animals in a lab – in order to understand US – the human animal. The human animal was the target of his research – not the dog. Animals took the pain and the BS so we didn’t have to. In order to understand Skinner – one needs to separate mind from body – treat them as 2 entities.
Skinner in actuality was creating behaviours – mostly artificial – something the animal wouldn’t ordinary. As an example, he turned pigeons into pathological gamblers using variable schedules of reward – in order to understand the mechanism that makes humans want to gamble. Variable schedules of reward – slot machines – slot jockeys.
You don’t get to choose how you behave, that’s reality. A smile is a behaviour – you smile for a reason. If you get angry – you get angry for a reason. If you get scared, you get scared for a reason. And your behaviours are are a result of these. There is a reason for every behaviour you exhibit – think about that. Your behaviours are your brains responses to an external stimulus – your behaviours are not an act of free will. The dog is no different. Now – think about how many dogs are behaviourally euthanised every year? Anyone that pushes BE doesn’t understand what a behaviour is in the first place – and it’s rampant. This needs to stop. Trainers should be ashamed of themselves for all this. But they all want to be different, they all want to be top followed on social media – and the sad reality is, they will tell you what it takes to get there. Followers equals money. Follow the money.
Skinner didn’t take away the mind, he didn’t care about the mind – he didn’t need it to shape an animals behaviours. Doesn’t matter if it’s a rat, a pigeon or a human – people need to understand this. Skinner was a dangerous man – he knew he could shape society into anything that he wanted by applying negative reinforcement. Your positive reinforcement is your actions to remove that negative reinforcement. Fight (aggression), flight (avoid) or make it not a big deal – indifferent. And let me tell you – I’m blown away at what society has become indifferent to.
What Skinner did do what put the onus on the animal to figure it out. So for example, as detailed in Behaviour of Organisms, he would shock a dog. He hooked up an electrode to a dogs tail – when he turned the power on – he was applying negative reinforcement. AKA punishment, removal of the dogs positive reinforcement – take away their calm state. The onus was on the dog to figure out what it took to stop the pain. And in this case, when the dog lifted the front left paw, Skinner turned the power off – the dog had to figure out the action. When he turned the power off – he called that a form of positive reinforcement – the removal of negative reinforcement. If he turns the power back on – the dog is going to learn to replicate pretty quick because of their positive reinforcement. How many dog trainers talk about replication – there it is – explained by science.
When Skinner removed Negative Reinforcement – he called it a form of Positive Reinforcement – the removal of negative reinforcement. When he applied Negative Reinforcement – he called that Punishment – the removal of Positive Reinforcement. Clear as mud? Lets go deeper.
A question. If Skinner called Negative Reinforcement “Punishment” – then why the Positive and Negative Punishment quadrants? Where did they come from?
Skinner openly opposed Punishment. In Ivan Balabanov’s own words – it wasn’t even a moral issue for Skinner – he openly opposed punishment.
He used it in a lab – but not in his human practice. He wasn’t applying anything. He put the onus on the child, the child had to choose. Child makes a good choice and behaves – there is a positive consequence. Child makes a bad choice to act out – child gets a negative consequence. It’s the positive and negative consequences of our choices that are the reinforcements that shape our behaviours. And that is called “Operant Conditioning”. The animal has to be making the choice and they learn right and wrong through the consequences of those choices.
– the very thing that you’re told not to do with your dog.
Now negative reinforcements are all around us. Positive Reinforcement isn’t always positive – contrary to what PR/PP trainers tell you. Negative Reinforcements aren’t always negative.