8 rules for using aversives

[pitbullpony]

When it is a fact of life. To paraphrase; don't throw out the aversives with the bath water.

Very interesting topic.

Aversive stimuli are those environmental events which, under normal circumstances, an organism would move away from, or avoid. Painful electric shock, being out in the cold, etc., would all be examples of aversive stimuli. A couple of cautions need to be kept in mind here. First, the extent to which a particular environmental event will function as an aversive stimulus is conditional in that it depends to some extent on the organism's past history. For example, while a piece chocolate cake may seem like a good example of an appetitive stimulus for most people, it could be considered aversive for someone who got violently ill after eating some chocolate cake (taste aversion learning). Also, the magnitude of the stimulus is a factor in the degree to which an environmental event will function as an aversive stimulus. Music played at a moderate level may be appetitive, but played at 120 dB is aversive.

As well;
It is common to hear people say that they only use "positive reinforcement" techniques when they train. However, it’s unlikely that this training technique is the only one used. Negative reinforcement and punishment, when used properly, also are effective tools. For example, keepers often "walk" an animal into the barn, i.e., uses the animal’s flight distance to encourage the animal to move away from the keeper (and into the barn). This is an example of using negative reinforcement. The animal is moving away from a mildly aversive stimulus (keeper entering within the animal’s flight space) and increasing the rate of responding (entering the barn).

By the aforementioned definition;
Aversive: Causing avoidance of a thing, situation, or behavior by using an unpleasant; frightening, startling or painful stimulus.

I'm sure aversives come in handy when the stove is hot, the hot water is hot, the iron is hot and the, nevermind I think you get the picture. Here's one to try; 2 year old child doesn't want to put on socks/boots but wants to go outside; could punish/correct by time-outs, forcing child to put on socks/boots or simply let child out in controlled area to discover; golly gee; my feet got awfully cold; there is an aversion to cold feet; thus child now puts on boots/socks when it is indicated that snow is outside; same with mitts, hat, coat.

Where is the problem with aversives there? It worked; there was no "handler" inflicted harm and the student learned an excellent lesson.

Same methodology has taught many animals, many decent lessons in life. For instance; guess how my puppy learned to not poke the horse in the butt; or follow too close; or that horses don't like to be chased. Yup, she was put in a situation where she could be corrected by a suitable horse in a suitable situation. In fact both animals learned a valuable lesson; the dog to keep her distance or run alongside w/o pressuring the horse with predatory signals; and the horse learned that if you give chase the predator will back down and an offer to kick now is as good as the actual kick to communicate displeasure. Dogs don't "reward" other dogs; they create a situation of aversion; for instance; annoying dogs who pester their elders; there is no re-direction; there is no reward; there is simply; wham/bam, thank you, yes ma'am; I'll go over here and play and stop bugging you. Same for horses that don't understand space preferences of their pasture companions; there is no re-direction, no reward; but simply aversion; cause Wilma kicks or bites when Fred encroaches on her personal space.

I prefer to think that Mother Nature (or whomeverelse you currently believe in) has a pretty decent method of teaching necessary skills and we can often pattern our teaching methods after her/him/them/they. Keep in mind what happens to birds who don't "fear" when the nasty cat starts prowling around them - supper.

I don't have a problem with any method of training as long as it is applied in a fair manner (to the animal) and that specific animal gets it; and can use it to their best ability, and their handler or owner or whatever is happy with that performance. If the preferred method doesn't work; don't get a bigger stick or carrot; pick up some spurs or a celery and see if that works for you! In fact I intend to create some responses and train some commands in my aloof dog that will enhance her responses in the show ring. She is slow and I would like to speed her up; which clicker training certainly helps with. And by the way; my clicker efforts are likely to include aversive techniques - for food rewards; she must be hungry (an unpleasant), and for play rewards; she must be unstimulated/crated for a period (an unpleasant). This is a low drive, independent animal. Kinda like a cat.

Three very important concepts;
humans generally suck at reading their animals or any animals really; we really should take the TIME to develop a relationship and see/hear/feel precisely when the animal responds, just take time to observe your animals.

stop using words/ideas/ to 'box' information up in a tidy format; animals are too intricate to 'box' as are most natural things.

we are not "naturally" part of an animals world; they are genetically imprinted to eat and have sex (play may or may not be another drive and may be linked to their "eating skills" (to survive and continue the species) - where we fit in those two categories I do not know -- so I would consider that anything I am asking that dog, cat, horse to do is involving some sort of aversive situation - something I am asking the dog/cat/horse to do that is not involved with eating or sex (their ultimate reward).

For that matter, neutering animals takes away a fundamental drive; very aversive. J/K.

[Doberluv]

I'm sorry, but I just can't relate to that at all. We obviously view dogs very differently. I know, not only from vast amounts of research, but from working with and having dogs for a very long time, being saturated with them, observing and studying them.....that there is a WHOLE LOT MORE to them than just eating and sex. And what I know about dogs, I also know that using harsh aversives to train them is not necessary or natural in their life with humans.

Oh, and among other things, I also heartily disagree with this statement:

we are not "naturally" part of an animals world;

We may not be a natural part of most animals' world. But, we are very much a NATURAL part of the domestic dogs' world. They are hardwired to be a part of homosapiens' life and world.

[Rubylove]

Not naturally part of animals' world? What rubbish! We are animals, nothing but - just a more evolved species.

If you apply the principals of training dogs to training children, or in your work dealings, or with your family, you'll be remarkably surprised at how well they translate and how well they work.

We may not be a part of the natural world anymore, with our advances and our technology and our pollution and our exploitation, but to say we are not (and were not) `naturally' a part of animals' world is to say that we are not human. Homo sapiens is a species just like canis lupus or felis catus or eqqus caballus or phascolarctos cinereus. Just because we evolved more in some ways, doesn't mean we're superior in all ways.

Dogs, and all other living creatures (including ants, flies, moths etc) are far more complex and advanced than many people give them credit for. In fact, they are far more advanced in MANY ways than their relatively clumsy and unsophisticated human counterparts, and to assign them only the very basest of instinctive behaviour is ignorant and arrogant in the extreme.

[Whisper]

Originally Posted by Doberluv

I'm sorry, but I just can't relate to that at all. We obviously view dogs very differently. I know, not only from vast amounts of research, but from working with and having dogs for a very long time, being saturated with them, observing and studying them.....that there is a WHOLE LOT MORE to them than just eating and sex. And what I know about dogs, I also know that using harsh aversives to train them is not necessary or natural in their life with humans.

Oh, and among other things, I also heartily disagree with this statement:


We may not be a natural part of most animals' world. But, we are very much a NATURAL part of the domestic dogs' world. They are hardwired to be a part of homosapiens' life and world.

Originally Posted by Rubylove

Not naturally part of animals' world? What rubbish! We are animals, nothing but - just a more evolved species.

If you apply the principals of training dogs to training children, or in your work dealings, or with your family, you'll be remarkably surprised at how well they translate and how well they work.

We may not be a part of the natural world anymore, with our advances and our technology and our pollution and our exploitation, but to say we are not (and were not) `naturally' a part of animals' world is to say that we are not human. Homo sapiens is a species just like canis lupus or felis catus or eqqus caballus or phascolarctos cinereus. Just because we evolved more in some ways, doesn't mean we're superior in all ways.

Dogs, and all other living creatures (including ants, flies, moths etc) are far more complex and advanced than many people give them credit for. In fact, they are far more advanced in MANY ways than their relatively clumsy and unsophisticated human counterparts, and to assign them only the very basest of instinctive behaviour is ignorant and arrogant in the extreme.

I agree with both of you. . .very well said.

[Doberluv]

(missed your post there Momof2pups) woops.


I agree. We are animals too. The thing about domestic dogs is that they evolved the way they did strictly BECAUSE of living near humans. They would not be the way they are had they not evolved with humans. There are many interesting facets about dogs where they understand human social signals that even Chimps, one of two of our closest primate relatives don't understand and certainly, wolves do not either. This uncanny ability to operate via some of our social communications, has been confirmed to have been brought about during the domestication process. This social cognitive ability to understand human social signals has been shown to be innate, not learned. There may have been a convergence in evolution with us and our evolution. Anyhow, this is too long to type. You'll have to wait for my book to come out. LOL.

The point is, there is nothing unnatural about dogs living with humans. What's unnatural though, are people who think that it is necessary to use harsh aversives, extreme dominance on dogs and people who think that dogs think in the extreme complex way we do and in terms of our sense of logic, values, morals etc. Then the poor dogs get the real short end of the stick.

[Groch]

Doberluv, you are absolutely right about the unique relationship between humans and dogs and that this relationship is for a large part due to our ability to communicate. Domesticated dogs are fantastically successful creatures (as opposed to their much cleverer wolf cousins) because of this relationship.

Malcolm Gladwell described this communication in an article called What the dog Saw

The anthropologist Brian Hare has done experiments with dogs where he puts a piece of food under one of two cups, placed several feet apart. The dog has no idea which of the cups holds the prize. Then Hare points at the right cup, taps on it, looks directly at it. What happens? The dog goes to the right cup virtually every time. Yet when Hare did the same experiment with chimpanzees—an animal that shares 98.6 per cent of our genes—the chimps couldn't get it right. A dog will look at you for help, and a chimp won't.

"Primates are very good at using the cues of the same species," Hare explained. But they are not good at using human cues when you are trying to coöperate with them. They don't get it: 'Why would you ever tell me where the food is?' The key specialization of dogs, though, is that dogs pay attention to humans, when humans are doing something very human, which is sharing information about something that someone else might actually want. "Dogs aren't smarter than chimps; they just have a different attitude toward people. "Dogs are really interested in humans," Hare went on. " Interested to the point of obsession. To a dog, you are a giant walking tennis ball."

But this is also why I disagree with a point you made earlier when I questioned whether correction was the same as aversion. You said," Collar snaps are an aversive. The dog stops doing something to avoid pain or discomfort, physical or mental. If there wasn't any pain, the collar snaps would be ineffective.

I do not agree. Dogs will obey corrections from a calm assertive leader without requiring pain. They will follow a quick collar correction because through years of social evolution dogs who recognize a pack leaders direction have been successful in the evolutionary chain. They will follow a short collar snap or a "shsst" sound from an assertive leader not because they are fearful of being injured, but because they social beings and are hard wired to do so.

[Rubylove]

Yes, but associating a collar-snap with their pack-leader's direction is a little ambiguous, wouldn't you say? Firstly, they have to believe you are the pack leader and be habit-formed to follow your cues.

Secondly, a collar-snap is an ambivalent, random action that could be associated with a number of things, because whilst walking or even moving a dog is able to jerk it's own collar and so it's hard to differentiate.

I have never, ever seen a collar snap be successful in the hands of an owner trying to learn how to correct their dog. It's too vague, and has to be very specifically done to create a unique sensation/association with the dog.

I have, on a large number of occasions, seen a sharp `AHH' from the owner get a dog's attention and sink in much more readily. And in a positive sense, a clicker used to mark a desired behaviour. These are finite noises not usually heard by a dog. A collar snap could happen anytime and is too wishy-washy a signal and a waste of time trying to mark an undesirable behaviour.

How many times have you seen a dog straining and choking itself on it's choke chain? Clearly, the message is not sinking in, and yet people continue to believe that it will, just creating a sense of discomfort and mistrust in their dogs. Collars, leashes and halters should never be negatively associated for dogs, it's just a bad idea.

Collar snaps, I believe, were also not used traditionally by alpha wolves or dogs in pack situations. So it's not valid to apply that kind of evolutionary logic to a human/domestic dog situation. It's a whole different ballgame.

[Doberluv]

But I don't agree that they're true pack animals. So, that pack leader doesn't work on me. That argument, I must let you have with someone else. LOL. *elbow jab, slap on the back, belly laugh* (Ok? just so you know I'm not being gruff.) Yes, I do agree that dogs need someone to guide them, but as far as emulating a true pack life with us, I do not agree. But I've written so many posts to that effect that I won't bore you again. The thing is, that teaching dogs by means of avoidance IMO is not as effective or as logical as using scientific learning theory. Trying to emulate something that we can not know enough about is skipping leaps of logic. We do know that learning theory works on dogs and works beautifully. Equating domestic dogs to their wolf ancestors is inaccurate and unparsimonious. Domestic dogs are more directly evolved from solitary village dogs who were pretty much strictly scavengers, too small to waste energy travelling and hunting. They were not pack animals. So, comparing our domestic dogs to wolf pack behavior is illogical IMO.

They are social and have instincts left over from wolves. But that does not equate with a need to use collar corrections or dominance. They can still learn to operate in a social group (our families) and learn whatever we want to teach them without those means. Working in order to avoid an aversive is well documented to be very detrimental to dogs. I'm not talking about telling dogs what to do. I'm talking about harsh punishment and IMO, collar pops are not only not necessary to get your point across, but they are unpleasant. I can see it on dogs trained that way. It's written all over their bodies and faces.

When you use a collar snap, there is pain or discomfort and then it is loosened. The removal of the discomfort must happen at exactly the moment that the dog is giving a correct response. There is punishment, then removal of the punishment. Very confusing, especially when ill delivered, which is very common. Often the dog gets punished, just as he was thinking of giving the correct response, so he gets punished for trying. Punishment like that is a very dangerous game. At least with clicker training, if you mess up your timing, there is no real psychological damage....very easy to go back and fix. Another thing...plain and simple: what is fair about punishment like that when the dog has no concept of "right and wrong?" If a dog doesn't do something correct, it's not his fault. Why should he get punished? It's the owner's fault for not giving the dog enough reinforcement for correct responses. Some people just have this sense of entitlement....that their dogs "should" obey because they're the "pack leader." (whether they've been taught or not) This is part of the attitude I get from CM.

I see by your use of "calm assertive leader," that you are a Cesar Milan follower. To each his own. But there is NO way I'll ever, ever agree with what he is doing. NEVER. And I have good, solid experts in the field of animal behavioral science to back up my contentions.

As far as Brian Hare. I am very familiar with his work and these findings. And there's a whole lot more. It's part of what my work is about.

[whatszmatter]

Originally Posted by Doberluv

I'm sorry, but I just can't relate to that at all. We obviously view dogs very differently. I know, not only from vast amounts of research, but from working with and having dogs for a very long time, being saturated with them, observing and studying them.....that there is a WHOLE LOT MORE to them than just eating and sex. And what I know about dogs, I also know that using harsh aversives to train them is not necessary or natural in their life with humans.

.

Odd for someone to be so educated and immersed in a subject for their whole lives, yet only come away with half a picture. Don't be fooled, there's more out there, you're not the only one to train a dog, and in fact I can't say I've ever really heard any amazing stories that your dogs can do better and happier and more lively and think more and etc, etc etc, than anybody else's dogs.

Your mantra used to be that dogs ONLY DID WHAT PLEASED THEM, you always said thay, there was nothing more, nothing less, they can't think, they can't reason, they just see things in safe or unsafe. Sounds whole lot like a comment about eating and sex. Makes them out to be pretty simple, yet when someone makes a pretty simple comment, Dogs are suddenly so much more complex.

Dogs are hardwired to read and react to humans, but a correction to a dog means nothing??? How do you figure?? I'm sorry to break it to you, but pretty harsh methods have been the method of choice for thousands of years, i'm pretty sure they have it figured out.

Because you can copy excerpts from Ray coppinger about the evolution of dogs, which he'll admit that book and his theory has more than a few holes in it, and you accept it as truth doesn't make it so, it doesn't make eveything else bunk either.

you don't want to accept "pack leader" fine, but when you come home and the dogs have their ears back and tails wagging and licks are just a flying, that's all ritualistic behavior ingrained in their brains thru thousands of years of how a sub canine will great the PACK LEADER. That's just one teeny tiny example, there's thousands more. Ignoring facts doesn't make them go away.

[pitbullpony]

When Doberluv changes her mind.

Doberluv; why did you choose to ignore the parts of my post that show that aversion is a "natural" learning method?

Do you disagree?

How does a dog learn not to bite it's litter mates - something UNPLEASANT happens, generally the pup either gets bit back (depending on the strength of the pup originally bitten; or he gets yelped at (loud and obnoxious/unpleasant sounds) or the other pup gets up and walks away (unpleasant for an animal that likes people/packs/friends - whatever box you'd like to put the dog in).

Please comment on this;

It is common to hear people say that they only use "positive reinforcement" techniques when they train. However, it’s unlikely that this training technique is the only one used. Negative reinforcement and punishment, when used properly, also are effective tools. For example, keepers often "walk" an animal into the barn, i.e., uses the animal’s flight distance to encourage the animal to move away from the keeper (and into the barn). This is an example of using negative reinforcement. The animal is moving away from a mildly aversive stimulus (keeper entering within the animal’s flight space) and increasing the rate of responding (entering the barn).


From DoberluvThe point is, there is nothing unnatural about dogs living with humans. What's unnatural though, are people who think that it is necessary to use harsh aversives, extreme dominance on dogs and people who think that dogs think in the extreme complex way we do and in terms of our sense of logic, values, morals etc. Then the poor dogs get the real short end of the stick.

First you write that dogs are complex, then your above statement has them not being complex? And what are these qualifying terms; harshaversives, and extremedominance.

For those that think you are a natural part of your dog's life; what do you do for/to them that is natural?

Crates for 8 hours at a time, vaccinations, neutering, collars, leashes, eating cereal, staying in the house, Pugs, Chinese Cresteds, Bulldogs, bathes, grooming, not allowing them to hunt, allowing encouraging them to hunt but confiscating their prey or not having a kill bite, and from the premise that they are not pack animals; how can people have upwards of one dog and call it natural; if they are not naturally pack animals.

Dogs use humans to their advantage; from Coppinger's book; I see them living beside humans; as village scavengers; not with humans; although I'm sure they could take advantage of the closer proximity if the outside environment was aversive (read harsh, cold, no food, nasty predators).