[QUOTE=RobD-BCactive;2502080]Interesting ramble? Is there a little buzz, from an easy explanation, that evades actually thinking objectively, or trying to understand something?

It shocks me, how little most ppl want to think about anything, and very many want snap judgements when they ask questions rather than a considered response. This applies particularly to "the suits" and management types, who want to be seen to be doing something so fall prey to slavish follwing fashions & trends, rather than actually analysing anything.[/QUOTE]

Now there is a statement

naughty Rob - there is no such thing as a "purely" positively [reinforcement] trained dog.
inevitably there will be some punishment, whether of a positive [added punisher] or negative [remove desired
item] nature, since even if WE do not punish, Nature or Life [call it what U will] sneaks in some, somewhere.

we can, however, try to eliminate as much as possible our own contributions of punishment, with applied punishment
[AKA positive-punishment, when we add undesirable things - like 'Ah-ah' or a hard-glance or clapped hands...]
at the top of the list, followed closely by negative-reinforcement - DEDUCT an aversive to increase a desired action.

by deliberately thinking in terms of 'what behavior do i want?', we can remove most pos-P & neg-R
rather readily - that leaves us with our preferred tools, positive-reinforcement [reward wanted actions,
which is the most frequent one - even a 12-YO dog likes to hear 'Good dog!' when s/he sits on cue, even tho they've
performed this behavior since they learnt it at 10-WO...], & negative-punishment [remove the desired thing,
which the dog would gladly work for, when s/he does something we do not want repeated].

if negative-punishment is being used frequently, we are not managing the dog well -
effective management makes wanted-actions easy, & unwanted actions impossible or doggone difficult.
goof-proofing the process makes life so much simpler for us and the dogs!

__________________
terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, TDF
*wolves R wolves, dogs R dogs, + primates R us.*
tmp, sept-2007

Quite right! What I meant of course was not R+ or positive-reinforcement but rewards based accepting the inevitability of P- and accidental P+.

Gone back and tried to improve the clarity of that sentence and try to avoid the ambiguity. Put a * to note the change from orginal, hope that's a good enough correction.

I did not say "purely positive reinforcement trained" but "purely positively-trained" intentionally, trying to indicate I was thinking of "active (deliberate) rewards based training eschewing P+/(R-)".

Have said this before, but I think R should be I(ncrease), and P should be D(iminish) as both reinforcment and punishment are misleading terms and confuse the hell out of far too many ppl.

Many have observed difficulty of understanding posts, so clearer less pedantic, less jargon ridden language ought to be desirable. As it stands, it is very frustrating, because even with care educated readers can "correct" a statement to fit their expectation, when a certain term was not used deliberately.

In short. Let's find a way to be less long winded!

__________________
For eager & reliable recall, be fun for the dog to come back to! Then often send them off right away to do what they wanted!
DT&B - Glossary of acronyms & jargon terms.
Encouraging good behaviours, whilst consistently avoiding practise of bad alternatives leads to extinction of the bad. So if dog sits 6/10 times it doesn't sit 4/10 times, encouraging with the right rewards (positively-reinforcing) enough for 9/10 times means it now fails to sit only 1/10 times, sit 10/10 means...

In the persuasion game, beware the backfire effect | MNN - Mother Nature Network

Experiential Learning

this is hefty learning-theory, but the graphics help a lot.

the basic take-home message is that the more sensory processes we involve, the more memorable the learning.
tell'em what U're gonna tell em; Then tell'em; then show'em;
then tell'em what U told them; then have the learner tell or show U what they grasped.

- talk about the idea/action - verbal
- show the result of the concept/process - visual: graphix, video, live...
- model the idea/ math operation / action[s] - demonstrate
- ask the student to attempt the action / process/ EXPLAIN the concept - mirror
- Coach, don't criticize early attempts: tweak it to help the learner.


accommodate or assimilate are 2 options when we find things don't fit our current model.
[faith, of course, is a 3rd option: ignore the evidence & believe in what U feel to be true, despite it.
"don't confuse me with the facts", IOW.]

accommodate has us building an extension like a Rube Goldberg machine to 'make' new-facts fit.
assimilate has us surround & absorb it, making the new-fact part of our comprehension -
which may mean discarding former ideas, processes, beliefs, assumptions, etc.

__________________
terry pride, APDT-Aus, apdt#1827, CVA, TDF
*wolves R wolves, dogs R dogs, + primates R us.*
tmp, sept-2007

I especially liked the link Rapture Ready: The Science of Self Delusion | Mother Jones from there!

It explains why despite clear explanation, that learning theory P is reduce liklihood of recurrence and is not interchangeable as the English word punishment he fails to admit the obvious conclusion from the quadrant that punishment intended to deter a behaviour is uncessary, as one can reinforce other alternate behaviours instead, so without any fluency the undesirable behaviour extinguishes.

Not hard to find examples of that either.

__________________
For eager & reliable recall, be fun for the dog to come back to! Then often send them off right away to do what they wanted!
DT&B - Glossary of acronyms & jargon terms.
Encouraging good behaviours, whilst consistently avoiding practise of bad alternatives leads to extinction of the bad. So if dog sits 6/10 times it doesn't sit 4/10 times, encouraging with the right rewards (positively-reinforcing) enough for 9/10 times means it now fails to sit only 1/10 times, sit 10/10 means...