Variability – The Key to Learning

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s a conundrum for you. Scientists claim they have created something called “Learning Theory” that explains, of course, learning. There is a singular problem with this claim. The research used to develop this perspective doesn’t include a decent examination of behavioral variability. In case you are getting the hint already, learning is necessarily a variation on an existing repertoire or the creation of completely new behaviors. The existing repertoire allows you to “repeat” functional behaviors. Learning  requires that you temporarily abandon “repeat” and instead, do “different.” If they want to have a theory of learning, how come they don’t study “do different?” That would require a completely different research methodology. I know that because behavioral scientists have tried to study variability in an operant chamber without actually changing their methodology – ironically they are  themselves incapable of “doing different” to study “do different.” Here’s what they did do – a repeat of their existing repertoire of having an animal repeat itself endlessly with a wrinkle that barely passes as a variation.

Behavior analysts studying variability took a standard “Skinner Box” and added another lever. Then they reinforced rats for pressing combinations of lever presses – usually in series of four. Left-Left-Right-Right (LLRR) would be an example of a four-press set. To create variability, they connected a specific signal to indicate that the pre-set pattern would be reinforced. Then they added a second light. If second light was on, the original pattern (LLRL) caused the machine to time-out. Any “repeat” behavior caused time-outs while new variations brought reinforcement. (LRLR, LRRR, RLLL, RLRL, etc.) Brilskinner_boxliant. With this set up you can do all kinds of analysis of variability of how often a rat does the same behavior. You can infer all kinds of things and then extrapolate your findings to publish peer-reviewed papers. Just don’t do it too much. Studies regarding variability represent a tiny fraction of actual behavior analytic research. (If you wish to see the best of the best on this topic, look up Allen Neuringer) Continue reading →

Abstract from a workshop I gave at ABAI

Posted on by
Reply

“Punish or Perish”

This year, millions of dogs will die because of a lack of positive punishment. Their common failing is behavioral, not medical. This behavioral malady is composed of several innocuous and lethal behaviors: jumping on people, darting out the front door, destroying property and biting. Each of these behaviors can be stopped through operant means – but not if your only tool is positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement cannot create inhibitions that will prevent an animal from offering normally occurring behaviors. Only positive punishment is capable of stopping a behavior, cold. If you wish to slow down or stop the slaughter, you must be able to skillfully punish a behavior. That presents a bigger problem. Virtually every academic institution and many professional psychological associations tacitly endorse and enforce a bias against the study or practice of positive punishment. Because of this bias, there is not a single text, course, instructor, practical examination, internship or certification that would qualify an academically trained behaviorist to use punishment safely, effectively and humanely. So, while millions of carcasses are hauled to land-fills, major institutions decry the behavioral effect that would save their lives — positive punishment. This presentation will include a robust discussion of positive punishment. This will include a summary of the rules governing the practical and effective use of positive punishment and live demonstrations of these rules on real animals.

(Note: My demo-dogs at the workshop were two Doberman males – a father/son pair. Three days prior they had ripped each other seriously in a deadly serious fight. They were festooned with stitches on their heads, necks, ears and shoulder. I had them lying side-by-side within less than five minutes. As I described details of how I solve these types of problems, they went to sleep next to each other.)

Dusty the No Longer Nasty Cocker

Posted on by
Reply

This is a letter I received from a woman who brought her aggressive Cocker to a seminar. This kind of aggression is typical of Cocker Spaniels – a bit moody and serious when it uncorks. I add this to the blog because it describes the typical result of using my methods and I didn’t write it or edit it. It is not meant to be a testimonial, but an account of a process that saved this dog’s life…Gary Wilkes

Dear Gary,
I hope you remember me and Dusty from the seminar you conducted in Vernal, Utah, last September.  Dusty was the beautiful, angelic-looking Cocker Spaniel with the long eye lashes.  I wanted to give you an update on his progress and thank you for all of your help.  Dusty’s behavior has improved so much that it’s unbelievable.  When we got back to Salt Lake after the seminar, Dusty was in a very compliant mood.  But the first time I tried to enter the TV room, Dusty gave me “the look,” so I yelled “No!” and let the bonker fly.  It worked!  I had to give him one refresher bonk a few days later, but I can now walk into any room, frontwards, make eye contact with him and he doesn’t even growl, let alone attack me. Continue reading →

Learning Theory: Huh?

Posted on by
Reply

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. Continue reading →

Bad Language and Modern Dog Training:

Posted on by
Reply

Using language precisely is not a hallmark of modern training and behavior. Consider that the word “positive” is used to mean beneficial and “negative” is used to mean harmful, abusive and cruel. This is done both when speaking to the general public (something doctors never do) and within the profession, where a higher standard of language should be upheld. For instance, the word punishment is regularly used as a pejorative that implies abuse, even though the scientific definition does not imply anything other than something that causes behavior to decline or stop. EG: “Punishment-based-trainer” is intended as an insult, not a neutral statement about a training philosophy. It’s not accurate, either. A leash and collar is a device that applies positive punishment and negative reinforcement – both considered “negatives” by all-positive trainers. Obviously, if you use a leash, you are by definition a punishment-based trainer. Additionally, if you use a leash to stop a dog from lunging, you are using “positive” punishment. We all know that this would be called “negative” by the same people who claim to be all-positive. The language  (and the concepts behind the words) are used almost exclusively in a rhetorical manner to promote an ideology that is incompatible with a full reading of the scientific literature. Meaning it is not just imprecise, it is incorrect. Continue reading →