Zak George keeps pushing this “scientific consensus”. Well, lets debunk that “scientific consensus” shall we?
One paragraph from one of B.F. Skinners’ books decimates AVSAB as a whole. And explains why they are only referred to as the “scientific consensus” that Zak George pushes. If I can debunk AVSAB itself – what’s your response?
What is a consensus? A general agreement. So scientific consensus is a general agreement on science. If you can get enough birds together that are willing to chirp the same tune – there is your “scientific consensus” – it’s a science by vote. Why don’t they just call it “science”? Cause it’s not science – it’s a misrepresentation of the science. When you understand why they misrepresent science? There is a reason for it – and that reason is money.
The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior is wrong on their statement of what Negative Reinforcement and Positive Reinforcement is – and I will use the very man that they blame for this incorrect definition – B.F Skinner. Once you understand what a behavior is – then you realize that behavioral euthanasia is not an option. But yet, these vets are willing to euthanize dogs for bad behaviors. Why? Always ask why – that leads to cause, diagnosis, understanding.
If you can get through this jumbled mess – look at their definition of Negative and Positive Reinforcement. I’m not going to do the entire blog. Understand as you read this – they use words like adding and subtracting – but that’s the very crux of why they are wrong. This is all Skinner box from the 1940’s and it’s a misrepresentation of what the Skinner box really is.
https://avsab.org/negative-reinforcement-and-body-handling-routines/
This is direct quote from B.F Skinners book “About Behaviorism” on Negative Reinforcement and punishment. This one paragraph decimates the “scientific consensus”.
Punishment is easily confused with negative reinforcement, sometimes called “aversive control.” The same stimuli are used, and negative reinforcement might be defined as the punishment of not behaving, but punishment is designed to remove behavior from a repertoire, whereas negative reinforcement generates behavior.
Skinner goes on to use the example of spanking a child for bad behaviors – that’s “applying” Negative Reinforcement – AKA punishment – and it’s not effective. It’s only temporarily effective. This is why you need to need to keep using treats – cause treats are a punishment. This is why you have to keep punishing the dog through crank and yank on a prong. This is why you have to keep punishing the dog with an e-collar. Cause punishment is temporarily effective at best. Why?
Because “Fight And Flight” when it comes to aggression or reactivity is simply a cortisol response. A very natural response to something the animal is unsure of in the environment. Make sense?
Lets get into some of this article and see if we can understand why what they are saying is incorrect.
“Negative reinforcement is defined as the behavior-environment contingency (or dependent relationship) in which a response produces the removal, reduction, or postponement of a stimulus and this in turn causes the response to be maintained or to increase in frequency across time.”
That is a very confusing statement that can be taken two ways. What is the response? Is it the trainers response that produces the removal, reduction, or postponement of a stimulus? Or is it being used in the correct way – that the animals response of fight and flight is the animals Positive Reinforcement to remove the negative stimulus?
As an example of that – when I approach the gate of a dogs back yard – I AM a negative reinforcement – I am a huge force. The dog doesn’t want me there – so the “fight” (aggression) and flight (avoidance) is trying to remove me – the negative stimulus in the environment. This is a cortisol response – casn’t be “trained”. There is no such thing as “force free”. I am the natural Negative Reinforcement in the environment – my very presence is creating a behavior in the dog – they go fight or flight – that is their Positive Reinforcement – trying to remove the negative. See how it works?
When that makes sense to you, everything will change. I’m not applying or removing anything – the dog is trying to. I’m not adding or subtracting anything – the dog is trying to do that… The onus should be on the dog – not the trainer.
Now, back to AVSAB and this jumbled mess.
In the casual literature of pet behavior and otherwise, I have often encountered the misuse of the term “negative reinforcement.” People most often confuse negative reinforcement with punishment.
This sentence in that paragraph is straight out of Skinners’ book “About Behaviorism” by the way – someone read his book and still got it wrong. People most often confuse negative reinforcement with punishment – I posted the quote from Skinners’ book.
This is because we colloquially use “negative” to refer to something bad.
Colloquially means in the language of ordinary or familiar conversation. There is nothing informal about Skinner and his science. It’s pretty cut and dry – so why do they do this?
Yet in his original development of the terms positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment, B.F. Skinner was referring to the additive and subtractive meanings of positive and negative, not their hedonic value.
First of all, I have never read the terms “Positive Punishment” or “Negative Punishment” in any of Skinners’ works. If I’m wrong, someone please send me the literature. Skinner literally defined Punishment as the application (adding) of Negative Reinforcement – AKA – the removal of Positive Reinforcement. And he knew that Punishment wasn’t effect – it was only temporarily effective. Why? Why do the Positive And Negative Punishment quadrants exist in the first place? They don’t.
There would only be 2 quadrants – negative and positive reinforcement. Why this confusion?
With positive reinforcement, we ADD a stimulus following a response and that response increases in frequency over time.
No. Wrong. This is complete misunderstanding of Positive Reinforcement is – it’s a purposeful misrepresentation of Positive Reinforcement. This is the crux of dog training. Adding and subtracting things – behaviorism isn’t a math equation. They want to add artificial reinforcements like treats – and add artificial punishment – and that’s something that Skinner would be against.
There is no such thing as a “Positive Reinforcement” trainer – Positive Reinforcement isn’t a technique or a method – and it’s surely not something you pull out of a bag. Treats are nothing more than an “Primary Inducement”. What is an inducement? A thing that persuades or influences someone to do something. And that ladies and gentlemen is not something that Skinner would push as science.
This is a complete lack of understanding of what “Positive Reinforcement” is. Your Positive Reinforcements are the things that motivate you, what do you want in your life? The good things? All those positive consequences that you desire. Problem is – Positive Reinforcement has to be looked at from the animals point of view. But your positive reinforcement is also the actions you take to remove the “negative” in your life. This is where “fight or flight” comes in – that’s your Positive Reinforcement as well – the removal of Negative Reinforcements.
With negative reinforcement, we SUBTRACT a stimulus (remove it) following a response, and the response increases over time.
This is completely backwards. When an animal is unsure of something – cortisol rises. If you meet something new in the environment that you’re unsure of – your cortisol levels rise. One of the side effects of this is the hair standing on the back of your neck or on your arms and such – that’s your body preparing to up the cortisol loads and make you fight or flight. That’s your positive reinforcement – remove the scary thing or run away from it – so you can get back to Positive Reinforcement – your state of calm.
Now, in order for the removal of a stimulus to function as a reinforcer, we might assume that the stimulus is aversive to the organism. The same stimulus whose removal might reinforce a response can be presumed to punish a response on which its presentation is dependent. Whew – easily confusing, right?!
Of course it’s confusing – AVSAB is confusing all these definitions. I can’t even make heads or tails of all this. The removal of a stimulus – when a dog is showing aggression – they are trying to remove the negative stimulus – that is the dogs Positive Reinforcement. What are they trying to say here? Someone help me out?
What is a behavior? It’s your body’s response to something in the environment. Again – in the case of “fight” (aggression) or “flight” (avoidance) – it’s a cortisol response. Why are they trying to reward and punish a cortisol response?
Now – ask yourself a question. If AVSAB got the definition of Negative Reinforcement wrong – how can the other “quadrants” be correct?
See how a play on words leads to confusion?