Quote Esme -I suppose aversion techniques can have their place if an owner is desperate

The quote is from another post on a different topic, aversion is from the learning theory, so often misquoted.

I am interested to know what people think aversives are, especially those who state similar to or meaning of "if an owner is desperate ".

>I am interested to know what people think aversives are

Here you go, the definitions below are what I think aversion training is.

aversive conditioning/training
<psychology> A form of behaviour training or modification in which a noxious event is used to punish or extinguish undesirable behaviour.

aversion therapy
<psychology> A form of behaviour therapy that pairs an unpleasant stimulus with undesirable behaviour(s) so that the patient learns to avoid the latter

Aversives can be used in 2 ways-
positive punishment = the addition of the aversive stimulus (you will note that, in opperant terms, the word 'positve' means the addition of, as it would in maths,)
negative reinforcement = the stopping of the averive stimulus (you will note that in opperant terms, the word 'negative' means removal of or minus as it would in maths)

To explain this in context,

If a dog does not like having water squirted in it's face, the squirting of water in the dogs face in order to train it would be classed as 'aversion training'. However, as with any aversive, one does not know how strongly the dog will react to it untill ones tries it, you could squirt a dog in the face and the dog may like it, you could squirt a dog in the face and it may attack you, you could squirt a dog in the face and it can be enough to cause a negative association with any number of things the dog sensed (saw/heard/smelt/saw/felt) at the time of the squirt or emediately prior or emediately following, therby potentially creating a serious behavioural problem (dog associated the terror of being squirted with the sound of children it heard, so now the sound of children trigger a fear response which leads to fear agression directed towards children).

(I wont mention the more severe forms of aversion as that would have the thread binned quickly - the more severe version is allready covered on the controversial board.)

ETA, the only way in which any stimulus will work as an a aversive is if the dog find it unpleaseant, that can range from merely startling to completely terrifying. If the dog does not find the stimulus unpleaseant it is NOT an aversive.
What do you think aversives are?

Interesting article that looks at the 'good' points of aversive training methods, then the bad points.

Worth reading, even the 'good' points include reasons why the points are not that good.
The article is summed up with:
Aversive methods are more visceral, and have a more pronounced effect, especially in the short term. However, as described above, pain based techniques are also risky and can increase aggression in our dogs. Pain will also increase stress and lower quality of life.

Does aversive dog training work?

It depends on what we mean by work.

If we are interested in providing a good quality of life for our dog, then it is best to apply reward training methods, which are safer and leads to a strong dog-human bond.

..............

If a dog does not like having water squirted in it's face, the squirting of water in the dogs face in order to train it would be classed as 'aversion training'. However, as with any aversive, one does not know how strongly the dog will react

That is not only not operant and irrelevant there is another thread on the subject of water in a dogs face, stay on topic, the mod should really delete that post, 2 posts running on the same topic and you trying to run posts at the same time.

Its a deliberate attempt to take someone elses topic off topic, which was quite clearly put, why not start your post about water being sprayed in a dogs face if your fed up with the current thread on it.

Interesting article that looks at the 'good' points of aversive training methods, then the bad points.

Worth reading, even the 'good' points include reasons why the points are not that good.

FOR HEAVENS SAKE!!!!.........STOP POSTING OFF TOPIC, THATS ALL YOU'VE DONE...GO TO SOMEONE ELSES POST AND RUIN THAT WITH OFF TOPIC CONTENT....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On a very basic level, to me an 'aversive' is anything that the dog doesn't like/will find unpleasant, whether that means it will hurt, annoy, upset etc.

I think ML's posts are relevant though - what's aversive for one dog is not for another, and you did open with a quote about aversion training, not just aversives per se so the wider consideration of the topic was there already.

ETA:  Your thread title also does not state 'what are aversives' but mentions the meaning of them within learning theory - which also suggests that the subject is going to look into not only what they are but their effects and use so again, ML's posts are relevant.  Unless you write a very succinct post you have to expect some interpretation of what you're asking will happen.

Shouting, however, is just rude, aggressive and unnecessary.

to me an 'aversive' is anything that the dog doesn't like/will find unpleasant, whether that means it will hurt, annoy, upset etc.

Thats getting closer except this post is about the learning theory not a specific animal and what it does or does not like, the learning theory means how all animals learn & thats missing.

No, you might be thinking of other post or Mastifflover might have distracted you, that's what she intended, but I quoted the learning theory, heres my topic header, no mention of training anything, it's the learning theory for all animals not educational methods of any species.

This is my topic starting post.

Quote Esme -I suppose aversion techniques can have their place if an owner is desperate

The quote is from another post on a different topic, aversion is from the learning theory, so often misquoted.

I am interested to know what people think aversives are, especially those who state similar to or meaning of "if an owner is desperate ".

> FOR HEAVENS SAKE!!!!.........STOP POSTING OFF TOPIC, THATS ALL YOU'VE DONE...GO TO SOMEONE ELSES POST AND RUIN THAT WITH OFF TOPIC CONTENT..

excuse me???????? All I have spoken about on this thread is aversive training, how is that off topic??????

In addition to me sticking to the topic, I have been polite and respectfull. Please will you adhere to the TOS and stop being so blatently rude, there is no need of it.

>This is my topic starting post.
>Quote Esme -I suppose aversion techniques can have their place if an owner is desperate

Denis, your quote was about aversion techniques not 'aversives in learning theory', so if you didn't want people to discuss that why quote it?

You might well be interested to learn people's thoughts (if you go down your usual course you'll end up sneering and claiming they're wrong), but if you're rude people won't want to discuss anything with you and you'll never find out.

Denis, your quote was about aversion techniques not 'aversives in learning theory',

No, you did not even get the title, which is:

"Meaning Of Aversives In 'The Learning Theory' Of All Animals"

.

Quote Esme -I suppose aversion techniques can have their place if an owner is desperate

The quote is from another post on a different topic, aversion is from the learning theory, so often misquoted.

I am interested to know what people think aversives are, especially those who state similar to or meaning of "if an owner is desperate ".

-----      ____________   ---------------  __________________    ------------------------    ____________________________
|
|
The above is the total of the opening post, not 2 peoples posts pasted as if they were both one persons post .

.

> That is not only not operant and irrelevant there is another thread on the subject of water in a dogs face, stay on topic,

Gladly, please first explain what the topic is if you are not interested in talking about how an aversive stimulus can be used to alter behaviour.

Does the fact an aversive stimulus leans itslef to the subject LEARNING to pair the aversive stimulus with X, Y or X beahviour/object/action/etc and thereby not LIKE that beahviour/object/action/etc, so will be less inclinded to repeat the action that lead to the aversivce stimulus, have no bearing on what you are trying to ask???

Do you only want to know about what others think of the THEORY of learning in general? I have allready told you waht I think the meaning of averisve is in learning theory as it is exactly the same thing in 'theory' as it is in phsycolgoy.

I'd welcome an explanation as to how you can exclude phsycology from a debate about learning theory.

Ahh, I see how I've confused the issue ;) I quoted the meaning of aversive TRAINING in phsycoclogy.

Lets try this:

AVERSIVE
<psychology> The movement of an organism away from a certain type of stimulus, such as electric shock.

Is that more on-topic?
If so, what is the difference and, more importantly, what is your point?

M/Lover - Gladly, please first explain what the topic is

Gladly, this is the title, the topic is in the title, the title is:

>Meaning Of Aversives In 'The Learning Theory' Of All Animals<

.

Don't think Dennis ever knows what the point is :-)

Don't think Dennis ever knows what the point is

No, thats not aversives in the learning theory.
.

AVERSIVE
<psychology> The movement of an organism away from a certain type of stimulus, such as electric shock.

No, thats not part of the learning theory.

> No, thats not part of the learning theory.

So you want to exclude physcology out of the discussion on learning theory? Sorry, I've no idea how it's even possible to seperate the 2, that's like trying to discuss friction without being able to refer to physics. You can carry on this discussion without me.

> You can carry on this discussion without me

Me too! In fact I'm not even going to start. I said what I thought about the use of rattle bottles on the other thread, and why. I have no intention of conversing with someone who resorts to the use of shouting in such a rude manner on this board. Still, I suppose someone who uses such bullying tactics to get his own way probably has no problem with training by negative reinforcement!

I know I said I'm out, but I do have a rather interesting observation relating to physcology and teaching styles (teaching being the way one uses to instuct another being to learn - so still on topic).

The OP has opened with a vague statement along with a question that now appears to have no relevance to the puropse of the thread - this can be compared to the 'teacher' or trainer, expecting something from the student (us) that they - the teacher - either can't or wont explain in a way to get the pupil to understand.

The student (me) attempts to fulfill the 'trainers' (OPs) request and fails by giving the 'wrong' answer (unwanted behaviour)

The 'trainer' sees the 'students' failure and instead of explaining things better, they get agressive (using aversion/dominance) in an attempt to 'make' the student 'answer the question correctly' (give the desired behaviour).

Repeated attempts by the student to get things right are met with yet more aversion/dominance and confusion, - student gets frustrated, can not provide the correct response as they have no idea what is wanted form them, so student gives up - but despite not understanding the lesson, they have no desire left to learn what the trainer is trying to teach,so simply stop the unwanted beahviour (me stop posting). The 'trainer' has what they want (no unwanted postings from me), so even though thier lesson has not been learnt, it has been 'effective'.

It sums up the use of 'aversives in learning' pretty well to me and makes it glaringly obvious, why anybody who lacks the ability or desire  to make thierselfs understood turns to aversives in the first place. It would have been so much simpler, kinder, calmer and genuinly effective at teaching a lesson (rather than forcing behaviour) if the 'student' was set up for sucess in the first place (ie, if the 'trainer' ahd explanied clearly  what they wanted in the first place). But hey-ho, that's just my THEORY :)

Esme - negative reinforcement!

http://www.champdogsforum.co.uk/cgi-bin/board/topic_show.pl?tid=136976;msg=NewPost
.

no relevance to the puropse of the thread

Thats incorrect, the thread is producing the answer.
.

"Stop posting off topic" Priceless.
Jeff.