|
Post by fth on Jun 17, 2007 10:05:00 GMT 1
aslo I think for the purposes of this group we need to go futher in defintiions -- this was shown by the recent debate on punishment
negative reinforcement is simply the REMOVAL of a stimulus on an actoin the word negative refers to the REMOVAL of the stimulus, NOT the nature of hte stimulus..
so if we are leading a hrose and we walk off and the horse stands still at first, he then feels pressure o his poll...he then moves forward which REMOVES the pressure -- and so he is reinforced in his decision to move forward...that is negative reinforcement
punishment in the training literature is purely and simply an aversive stimulus applied to reduce the frequency of a behaviour -- in the literature there is NO emotion, NO fear, NONE of the negative elements we all associate with the word -- if a horse pulls back he feels pressure on his poll -- ie there is a consequence if he pulls back -- this is technically a punishment...for that behaviour -- when he changes his bheaviour amd moves forward off the pressure he is then reinfoced for that choice by the removal of that pressure...an aversive consequence for the undesirable behavour and a reinforcement for the desireable behavour...
in effective training we tend to use the words "consequences" and we try to set htings up so the horse does things to itself...ie we create situations to help the hrose do the "right" thing
now in common usage, esepcially with animals and people, the word punishment has developed an attachement to all sorts of baggage: think of the feelings you experience when you hear the word punishemnt -- many of us think punishment = fear, =pain, =anger = resentment
in the training sense punishment is attched to none of those things....
in real life, we attach a lot of those meanings to it
as someone who studied learning, animal behaviour etc etc I ahve no problem with the concept of punishment as a consequence for a behaviour -- and accept that MOST training situatoins involve a combination of punishment, (when he pulls back) negative reinfocement (when he steps forward and the pressure is removed) and postiive reinforcement (when we then praise or reward him additionally for his choice)...
maybe the topic would be easier to discuss if we used the phrase "undesireable consequence" rther than punishment as this might make clearer that we do not intend pain, fear, resentment, etc
just my two cents
|
|
|
Post by Catrin on Jun 17, 2007 10:07:50 GMT 1
... Catrin, what are you on about? ... My observations on an alien culture. I had to learn many things on arrival on these shores, BOG OFF being the first. However I am learning not to be bovvered by it all.
|
|
|
Post by Catrin on Jun 17, 2007 10:10:19 GMT 1
aslo I think for the purposes of this group we need to go futher in defintiions -- this was shown by the recent debate on punishment negative reinforcement is simply the REMOVAL of a stimulus on an actoin the word negative refers to the REMOVAL of the stimulus, NOT the nature of hte stimulus.... punishment in the training literature is purely and simply an aversive stimulus applied to reduce the frequency of a behaviour... just my two cents And well worth it I say, I'll bid five!
|
|
|
Post by JackieJATaylor on Jun 17, 2007 12:53:58 GMT 1
"as someone who studied learning, animal behaviour etc etc I have no problem with the concept of punishment as a consequence for a behaviour "
Exactly so. Liz said in her summing up of the debate that an effective punishment could not possibly be light and would have to induce fear - not so. Take the following examples:
A horse aggressively swings his head at me when I am skipping out whilst he is eating. I hug his nose and kiss it passionately. He returns to his feed and decides ignoring me is the wiser course if he wants to be left in peace to eat. I punished him, I changed a behaviour, but I caused no fear.
Another horse hangs over the door making aggressive faces as I approach with his feed. I halt, stop dead in my progress. I just punished that horse too, again without causing fear.
I did not enter the debate because the motion was wrongly worded in my opinion. I think propably should have said something like anger and retribution have no place in horse training - punishment in the behavioural sense has a far wider definition.
Jackie
|
|
|
Post by fth on Jun 17, 2007 13:36:29 GMT 1
oh jackie I agree -- in fact there have beena couple of ideas for other debates...
I did love the wording of htat one though as it created a debate where we all ahd to think a fair bit...
I was thinking of puttingone up saying "emotions have no place in hors training" -- again a deliberately loose wording to allow some creativity in response, but could be very interesting!!
love your kissing his nose as a punishment -- wish I had thought of htat whe I was posting there!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2007 13:43:28 GMT 1
I did not enter the debate because the motion was wrongly worded in my opinion. I agree with you, Jackie. The nature of a debate is that you argue the motion in front of you, though. We had two opposers and no proposers. The alternative was no debate and that would have been a shame. If nothing else, it looks like we've all got everyone thinking! That is not, by the way, to say that I don't think punishment is way over used and that the alternatives aren't better. It would, though, have been a lot easier to argue with clearer wording (sorry, Catrin!).
|
|
laura
Grand Prix Poster
going for a splash
Posts: 3,867
|
Post by laura on Jun 17, 2007 14:58:15 GMT 1
it can be difficult to get the wording right cant it for the purpose of a debate .... interesting however to take part as it makes one think . its the definitions of each word that then ceates the difficulties ........ if the word punishment is take in its commonly understood context it differs quite a bit from punishment in the educational / traiining / learning sense. also in a way the word training could be taken to be one particular session / skill / set of skills .......... or be taken to mean every action one has with the equine as we "train" eachother ( human and equine) all the time ;D I think debating in this format means that evidence needs to be provided rather than just emotions or opinions , so maybe it promotes more thought ? I agree there are lots topics that could link in . After I contributed to the debate I thought of the word "discipline" in relation to punishment - is there a less emotional context ... or again does this cover such a wide context Discipline can be self imposed, can be mild .... or abusive and extreme actions can be called "discipline". I agree with Liz P ...... we took part to get the ball rolling and I hope that other debates will take place ......... definitions are tricky and can sometimes be restrictive ....... sometimes leaving the wording so open is beneficial. Leaving it open in this case made us try to define the word ..... and look for the variations, hopefully prompting readers to do the same . so ...... a start ... next ;D
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jun 17, 2007 15:29:01 GMT 1
Well I've personally loved the debate and spin off threads...........However, and I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that, I would feel a bit intimidated and overwhelmed (probably not the word I want) in trying to put forward a good reasoned argument......mind you, I suppose we could debate a 'load of rubbish' but how useful would it be?? ;D
|
|
|
Post by malikariverbaby on Jun 17, 2007 19:27:51 GMT 1
If a motion was put forward that was too simple there would be no debate e.g cruely causes distress and therefore has not place in the horse training. It is the wording that has got us all going and it has really made me re-evaluate what I do.
|
|
|
Post by Catrin on Jun 17, 2007 19:38:37 GMT 1
... It is the wording that has got us all going and it has really made me re-evaluate what I do. Next time I'm in Perpignan, the drinks are on me.
|
|
Derek Clark
Grand Prix Poster
Olympic Poster
Posts: 1,369
|
Post by Derek Clark on Jun 17, 2007 23:11:12 GMT 1
Woohoo! ;D ;D ;D And I don't mean to imply that anyone's "what I do" was in any way "good", "bad", "right", or even "wrong". I just think it's great when anyone re-evaluates anything! A wise person said, "if everybody's thinking the same thing then somebody's not thinking". The debate was great, IMHO. Reading the views put forward in favour of the motion has triggered some thoughts that I'll be re-evaluating over the next few days (weeks, years... ) Message for mandal: any time I read your posts they always sound like valuable, good sense to me. So, how about joining in next time...? Derek
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2007 8:15:05 GMT 1
Message for mandal: any time I read your posts they always sound like valuable, good sense to me. So, how about joining in next time...? Hey Derek - I AGREE!!!!! Debates are interesting, aren't they? Because you are tied to specific wording, you have to argue exactly that. I have other reasons I prefer to avoid punishment - mainly that it leaves a void, it shows you what not to do but not what to do instead - but those reasons weren't the debate. So, to argue your line you really have to think. The worst thing, of course, is when your opponent submits his closing statement on Saturday evening and you read it just before you go to bed. Can you imagine what you did to my sleep, Derek, and my ability to think straight the next day! Unfair!
|
|
Derek Clark
Grand Prix Poster
Olympic Poster
Posts: 1,369
|
Post by Derek Clark on Jun 18, 2007 9:50:51 GMT 1
Hi LizP, Unfair, me? , On the subject of definitions, I just got a copy of General L'Hotte's "The quest for lightness in equitation" through the door this morning. I can't put it down! Fortunately, I promised myself a day off today, so I can indulge with impunity ;D There's a chapter outlining L'Hotte's impressions of Baucher when he (L'hotte) was his pupil around the 1840's. Apparently Baucher was obsessed with trying to " find words which have no synonyms", so that he could express exactly what he meant " without fear of a discussion about the scientific meaning" of what he said. Oh well, better keep debating (obsessing?) then... ;D ;D ;D Derek
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jun 18, 2007 11:55:20 GMT 1
Thanks Derek and LizP! I wasn't really looking for complements though just trying to be objective about myself! LOL Next time if it's a broad motion I will try and discuss it properly then! Like others it has really got me thinking about what I do and reinforced how important it is to evaluate constantly!!! It has also brought home to me the benefits to be gained from (knowledgable objective (as possible ) 3rd party observation and feedback of your work.... Helps with the 'can't see the wood for the trees' syndrome if nothing else. More,more,more please!!
|
|
Derek Clark
Grand Prix Poster
Olympic Poster
Posts: 1,369
|
Post by Derek Clark on Jun 18, 2007 12:45:40 GMT 1
Hi all, How about this for a next topic then; "How do you know when a horse is in self-carriage?" Derek
|
|