If you investigate any number of modern dog training sights, professional organizations for behavior counselors or read basic psychology texts you’ll find the term “learning theory”. Apparently, by memorizing the catechism of “learning theory” one doesn’t need to look at nature. It’s all explained, right there in the scientific research. Being a natural skeptic, I have my doubts about this assumption. Having spent over 30 years working with animal behavior at the highest levels of difficulty, I don’t buy it. I think the primary purpose of citing learning theory as the be-all, end-all of behavior is to silence people who do not have an academic background. Guess what? I don’t have an academic background but I can read scientific literature apparently better than the vast majority of learned doctors. I also have tens of thousands of hours of experience actually controlling behavior. Obviously, I am not silent. That is because once you prick the bubble of “learning theory” you realize that it’s a scam. To save time and effort I will lay it out for you. As I am not a modern behavioral scientist, I don’t expect you to believe me just on my say-so. Feel free to check my statements as much as you like. If you are objective about the topic you’ll come to the same conclusions I have. If you are biased, you’ll ignore the logic and believe what you want to believe. If it was a conversation about who is going to win the World Series we could let it ride. However, the use of “learning theory” to squelch questioning of modern behavioral therapy inevitably leads to withholding treatment known to be effective – universally considered unethical in the medical and psychological world.

1. The term “learning theory” implies that there is a rule of learning that transcends species and contexts. It also implies that scientists know such a great deal about it that they are experts on the topic. This leads to several rather pointed questions. Why is learning the only concern of behavioral scientists? Ask yourself what percentage of your life is devoted to learning. Learning is a process that leads to doing. Why is there no “doing theory”? Why is there no discussion of instinctive behaviors? The hunting behavior of predators is a combination of instinctive “kick starts” such as a dog’s natural tendency to chase things. Over time this crude instinctive behavior turns into a highly developed skill through learning – and then moves to the “doing stage.” This format is the most common way that behaviors develop yet it is not considered by the creators of “learning theory.”
2. Learning assumes dynamic change. However, nature will casually end your life if you forget that something must be done the same way, every time. Run away from the bear as fast as you can does not require learning anything other than the association between the bear and some risk to you. i.e. Nature requires that sometimes you do a static behavior at a high level of competence or you die. This is true whether the behavior is learned or not. If we stick to the study of learning theory this fact is not acknowledged as important. In other words, learning is a means to an end and only a small part of the behavioral equation. Nature doesn’t respect learning if you are only half-skilled when you need the behavior at a full level of achievement. Why is there no “static behavior” theory? Static behavior is the end game. Does anyone not want to hit home runs after they have achieved that level of success? Do you want a brain surgeon to cut your head open who is still “learning?” What about “static behavior maintenance theory”?
3. The people who study learning theory do not actually study learning by any meaningful definition of the term. Neither do they actually teach behaviors to animals or humans. They record rats pressing levers and pigeons pecking keys and analyze the rate of response under various conditions. Pigeons peck – it’s an instinctive behavior and not learned. (See #1, above) Rats do not instinctively press levers, but they do use their forelegs to manipulate things. A rat in a box with only a lever to break up the uniform surface and only one way to get food and water will “learn” to press a lever. Once the rat learns to press the lever, the experiment is all about doing an already learned behavior. So what? How does that apply to the behavior or other species in robust environments where they have full access to their instinctive repertoires and ability to augment and refine new behaviors or repeat old ones.
4. Why isn’t all of the peer-review literature cited when people assert the supremacy of learning theory? For instance, the scientifically validated best method for stopping aggression is with punishment. The specific modality is electric shock. If someone mentions using electric shock to stop aggression, learning theory advocates raise their hackles and attack viciously. As they do not know the literature fully they must shout down and accuse people of cruelty to win the argument. In essence, this is academic hubris at its worst. To justify their position they attack anything that suggests they are wrong, regardless of source. If they haven’t studied it their way, it’s not valid. If you doubt my statements, take a look at Ulrich, Wolfe & Dulaney, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1969, Punishment of Shock Induced Aggression. (It’s available online by googling the authors or title.) It’s a foundational study. They caused “aggression” with electric shock and then stopped it the same way. This research is never referenced though it has never been contradicted. That’s not science. Real scientists integrate new findings into their understanding of the phenomenon. Note: This is science by the definition of scientists – it’s not just my opinion.

    

There are many other objections to this claptrap than I can cite here. The reality is that behavioral scientists do not examine reality to come up with their findings. They examine myopic slices of the behavior of rats and pigeons inside austere chambers. The animals have access to a single behavior – lever pressing in rats and key pecking in pigeons. Pigeons are never studied in a park to see how they really behave in the real world. The “findings” of learning theory are based on extrapolation, speculation and biased fantasies. No, you cannot control behavior with exclusively positive reinforcement. No, science doesn’t prove that “positive” methods are at all effective, let alone more effective than a balanced use of both reinforcement and punishment. They have never been tested in blind trials – the foundational criterion for validity within science. No, people who use positive methods cannot compete with master trainers who use both attractive and aversive control. You know this in your heart. Here is a question that reveals the truth. If your mother had to navigate Manhattan, blindfolded, would you give her a dog from the Seeing Eye – a group of non-academics who do not use “learning theory” to guide their methods, or would you get a dog from the Harvard Rat lab? If you wish your mother to survive the experience, you’ll go with the non-academic master trainers of the Seeing Eye. I did, once. I trusted Lukas Franck, head trouble-shooter of the Seeing Eye and used a guide dog while wearing a blind-fold in Morristown, NJ. Lukas knew that no matter how much I know about training I had to live it to know it fully. Keep that in mind when you look for gurus and experts.