A correct translation of the title of Ivan Pavlov’s magnum opus is not Conditioned Reflexes. Pavlov studied unconditioned reflexes. The title of his book is Conditional Reflexes. In Russian, the word for conditioned and conditional is the same. You can only know which meaning is correct if you put the word in context. The English translator didn’t know the context – just like modern behavioral scientists. If you think this is a small thing, read on.
The word conditioned means “learned.” The word conditional implies a situation where sometimes a learned association can be created and sometimes not. In Pavlov’s research this was the singular issue – finding out the details of the foundational key to all learning. To a trainer that is a critical piece of information. To a behavioral scientist this information isn’t all that important. They don’t have to actually produce dependable behavior. They intentionally create models of behavior in tiny boxes where they don’t have to know real-world rules. EG: When B.F. Skinner decided to create his science of behavior, he didn’t think Pavlov’s work was very important. Nate Azrin, one of Skinner’s first graduate students, told me that he was never required to read it. I ask this question of veterinarians, psychologists and behavior analysts periodically and they all report the same way. They didn’t have to read it. That means they do not know the foundational science behind teaching connections between signals and events. After all, what can 100 year old science tell us that modern behaviorists don’t already know?
“AVSAB recognizes that both positive reinforcement and punishment require significant skill, effort, and awareness on the owner’s part. Both must be applied as the animal is performing the target behavior or within one second of the behavior to be most effective.”
This comes from a bun
ch of veterinary behaviorists who wrote a “position statement on punishment” and published in on the internet. They use this statement to convince people that connecting consequences to behavior is oh-so-difficult that we shouldn’t bother. They also use it to turn people away from contemplating the use of punishment. Their ideological purpose is to convince you of this thought. If you have to punish and reward within one or two seconds, practical training is impossible for the average pet owner. (Yet is exists all over the world, throughout history – outside academia.) I guess you’ll just have to hire some fancy behaviorst. If you think I shouldn’t question the statements of modern scientists, I’ll accept your suggestion and let Walt Disney do it for me. Caution, contradicting Walt Disney is risky business. If you have ever seen the movie, Bambi, you’ll know that Thumper knew that smoke meant the rapid approach of a forest fire. Bambi’s dad knew that pop-pop noises meant hunters. Do we think that Thumper had to be burned within one or two seconds of smelling smoke to make the association. (See picture – no burn marks are visible.) These are accurate observations of wild animal behavior. The point is that a cartoonist knew more about nature than AVSAB, without the benefit of a board certification or advanced degree. You see, Disney agreed with Pavlov.
To paraphrase the master…
“It is not the sight of the bear that kills the dog, it is the claws. If a dog had to wait for the claws to sink into his flesh to respond, there would be no dogs.”
Ivan’s assumption is simple. If animals had to live by a one-to-two-second rule they would be dead. A lame, crippled ancient coyote would have plenty of time to kill the fastest road runner. Nature requires that animals correctly associate an initially neutral signal to a consequence with an assumed latency sandwiched in between. To investigate latency, Pavlov created an experiment that tested the one-to-two-second rule long before it was asserted. He tested it two ways. One experiment connected the sound of a bell with the presentation of food. The other connected the sound of a bell with electric shock. Two different dogs were used but you could run the same experiment on the same dog if you used two different signals. After the initial association Pavlov started gradually delaying the presentation of the food or shock. He didn’t find a one or two second rule. He pushed the associations out to 30 minutes. EG: The dog conditioned to the bell-shock sequence would hear the bell and his muscle would flinch, 30 minutes later with no shock. Feel free to read that again. Pavlov went further in his findings. He suggested that the latency could be much longer. Nature bears this out. If an animal hears the rumbling of an avalanche, they begin their escape immediately. They cannot afford to wait to find out when it’s going to arrive. Sometimes the avalanche comes hours after the animals have left the area. As there is no downside to using early warning, long latencies occur commonly in nature.
A Logical Test:
So, we have a disagreement between the Nobel Prize winner for physiology, Ivan Pavlov, and a group of modern behaviorists. I’d say that Pavlov, learned doctor, mathematician and physiologist probably should be given extra weight. That’s just me. Especially since Walt Disney agreed with Pavlov. However, there is a simple way to test the one-to-two-second rule against reality. Get a dog, a doorbell and a human to answer the door. Ring the bell. Repeat. Have the human arrive at the door at variable times from one to 30 seconds. Voila. If AVSAB is correct, dogs don’t learn to go ballistic at the door when guests arrive. If Pavlov is correct, a dog will learn this association because an initially neutral stimulus (Greek for “to goad or prod” or scientific jargon for “thingy.”) is paired with a predictable event that has value to the animal. We all know that even though there is always a delay of more than a couple seconds between the presentation of the doorbell and when the human can open the door and greet the guest, all dogs who live in houses learn this association. The latency is pretty much irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is the predictability of outcome. If the dog believes that the association is consistent, latency isn’t the most important criterion. What is important is the stimulus that signals the onset of an expected event. So, if a dog jumps up on you and you time the jumping with the word ‘No!’, you can present the punishment later. How much later? It’s not all that important. If you want a ball park number for beginners, ten seconds works well. So pick something that cannot harm your dog. When the dog rushes the door, say “NO” at the instant the dog starts for the door. Then throw a pillow at his head with enough force to startle him. Repeat. Make sure the bonk comes within ten seconds. Done. After three or four repetitions, the behavior will stop. Then you can use clicks and treats for anything other than rushing the door. Oddly, this solution rests firmly on understanding what is called respondent or Pavlovian conditioning. Skinner and the behaviorists do not understand this because…they didn’t read Pavlov. What is called respondent conditioning is actually they foundation for all learning. Those who call it associative learning also miss the boat by implying that recognizing signals isn’t really the foundation for operant conditioning.
As a practical test on the positive side of the coin, try this little experiment. Five minutes before you normally feed your dog say the words “soup’s on”. You don’t even have to be looking at your dog or interacting in any way. Do that every day for a month. Watch what happens. If the experts are right, the dog will never learn that “soup’s on” means dinner is coming. If I’m right, within about three weeks your dog is going to cut to the chase and upon hearing the magic words is going to fly toward the food bowl. If you want to skip all that fancy stuff and just agree with me, you can. That’s because if you own a doorbell and your dog responds to it, you’ve already made a perfect association between in initially neutral event (sound of a bell) and a tangible consequence. (Guest at the door.)
There are few books in behavioral science that rival Conditional Reflexes for brilliance, scope and accuracy. If you wish to be a behaviorist or trainer, it would behoove you to get a copy and spend many nights reading every line and understanding every chart. That is not to say that other scientists have not added to Pavlov’s work. It is to say that avoiding foundational material can cause you to believe things that aren’t true. When you take the time to understand valid science you will always be rewarded. Don’t be surprised if it sinks in long after a second or two.
p.s. Not to lambast AVSAB alone, many learned academics say the same thing. The US Airforce Patrol Dog training school gets even more precise (and therefore more wrong) – they say 2.3 seconds. Fortunately, combat dogs are trained elsewhere.