This morning I took my girls for a walk in the woods.  Still just about light enough to let them off lead at the moment.  It's a regular route and we generally put leads back on in the same place most times.  They are pretty good and either check in from time to time (beagle) or stay in sight (springer glued to my leg)  The beagle goes on lead sooner than the springer so she does not go chasing some ponies kept nearby.

Now just to reiterate my understanding of positive training
1 set the trainee up to succeed
2 give the trainee chance to think about what you want and to make the right choice - see above for set up to succeed in the choice
3 reward appropriate behaviour

Now in action

As we got to our usual spot she was approaching, looked and realised I had not called.  Actually I was going to give her a bit longer.  She stopped and suddenly became fascinated with some grass about 10 yards from me where I would have to pass.  She continued to watch me as she sniffed intently at the grass.  So, I have two options either pass and collect her giving her a treat for going lead on or call her and possibly give two treats one for recall one for lead on.  (see point 1)
I called her (see 2)
She bounced over to sit at my feet and wait for treats and leads (see point 3 - reward). 

So who is training who?  I was set up for the behaviour she wanted (providing treats)  And rewarded for my behaviour by being allowed to fuss my dog and put her on a lead!

I always knew the beagle was bright but whatever next?!?

Incidentally I can and do get recalls without treats but being a beagle she is very food oriented and a little motivator will do no harm :p 

Great stuff, I reckon they definitely set us up to succeed, point 1. Gave you time to think about it and make a choice, point 2, and then the reward, you are very pleased with your bright intelligent dog, point 3!

Brilliant! Mine have certainly got me pretty well trained to produce treats on command during walks! :-p

Excellent!

We really don't give our dogs enough credit sometimes and nag them when actually they learn a lot better and want to perform the task more if they see it as them training us to reward!

I love positive reinforcement!

She is an awesome dog and she really does have an incredible brain.  It was so clear today that she knew what she was planning to get me to do.  I have never known a dog like her.

When I was practicing recall with my girl when she was a pup after a few goes out on walks she realised what I was doing as I was slowing down to let her get ahead then calling her back to me. She she kept running away then sitting watching me waiting for me to call her. At first I didn't notice untill I kept running out of treats with in five minits. I stopped calling her as much and I could see her trying to figure out why it wasn't working, she would run off stop and sit watching me then if I didn't call her she would run a bit further away and stop then a bit more then a bit more. As if she was saying "look look I'm running away, you better call me back, no realy I'm running away, look mum, quickly call me, MUM!"

LOL Sometimes it seems figuring us out comes easier to them than understanding them does to us.

My boy is pulling the same stunt.  He gets a treat for coming in when I have to call him from the depths of the back yard.  If he comes on his own and waits by the door I figure his reward is, you want in?  You got in, no treat.  So now what's he doing?  Standing at the end of the path waiting instead.  He wants in, I'm sure, but he's waiting for me to call him so he'll get the treat too.  :)  Little black devil.

Now just to reiterate my understanding of positive training
1 set the trainee up to succeed
2 give the trainee chance to think about what you want and to make the right choice - see above for set up to succeed in the choice
3 reward appropriate behaviour

I am confused by the title you gave the post and what you wrote above. What you wrote above is a description & results of things you do in training your dog to 'do' something.

The confusion is that nothing of what you wrote is a translation of "positive reinforcement", which is one of the concepts of B F Skinners 'Operant Conditioning'.

Can you please explain again what you think "positive reinforcement" means?

Skinner wrote. "When a positive reinforcer ends a negative reinforcer begins & visa versa"

They also run together, see vid below which includes Skinners definitions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBEvPRkNmbg
.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html
Try this link, it should help clear things up for you, it explains how positive reinforcement is basically rewarding a behaviour to increase that behaviour - according to Skinner.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html
Try this link, it should help clear things up for you

That, for once, is one of the better explanations of OC (operant conditioning), >> providing it is a) read properly & b) communicated to others properly.

ML
it explains how positive reinforcement is basically rewarding a behaviour to increase that behaviour - according to Skinner.

And the above (predictably) is how all goes catastrophically incorrect with misleading quotes of other peoples text transmitted to others as incorrect facts.

There is NO instance of the word "reward" in that link you gave - reward & reinforcement in the context of OC are 2 different things, the word reward is NOT a part of operant learning theory >> if you want to dispute that then quote any Skinner paper & page on OC showing exactly what he did say, not misquoteing what he did not say.

In OC there are 2 kinds of reinforcers, 'positive' & 'negative', they are scientific terms if used in OC & have only one meaning, (1) Skinner 1976 wrote:

Positive reinforcement.
_"A positive reinforcer strengthens any behavior that produces it":-

HP eg -Mass poisoner Dr Harold Shipman was informed his first victim had died. The homicide behaviour was positively reinforced and was believed by police to have recurred again at least 250 times

Skinner, negative reinforcement
-"A negative reinforcer strengthens any behavior that reduces or terminates it"-:

HP eg - . A midwife delivers a newborn, the newborn does not breath immediately, the midwife feels uncomfortable and smacks the newborns bottom to make it cry & start to breath, she terminates her  feelings of discomfort. The newborn soon feels the discomfort called hunger pains, the mother picks up the infant and starts to feed it, the newborn learns crying terminates the discomfort.

Video example of common, daily, negative reinforced behaviours including a Cappucine monkey illustrating the important role of negative reinforced behaviours at the dawn of primate evolution - easy to understand video with Skinner quotes only.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE5HzM6cRX8

Refs.
1. B F Skinner, "About Behaviourism" p52, Vintage Books NY. 1976.
.

I'll be refering to the link I posted earlier, but for ease of reference, here it is again.

> There is NO instance of the word "reward" in that link you gave

You seemed to have missed this part:
"Positive reinforcement strengthens a behavior by providing a consequence an individual finds rewarding."  You need to scroll down a bit, it appears during the definition of 'reinforcement'.

Read on down further:
"The major influence on human behavior is learning from our environment. In the Skinner study, because food followed a particular behavior the rats learned to repeat that behavior, e.g. classical and operant conditioning."

Skinners rats are no different to the OPs dog (no offence Roxylola :) ), the OPs dog has learnt that a food reward follows a recall the recall happens when the dog is a distance away (just as the rats had to move to the point the lever was situated in order to press the lever to get food). So in the OPs example, her dog has learnt to 'push the lever' as it were - the dog actually goes to the distance it thinks will get the recal & subsequent reward. Simples :)

No need to muddle things up with random 'examples' of murderers and non-breathing babies, it's far easier and clearer to reference & liken things to Skinners actual studies - especially when you want to ensure things are written as Skinner intended them to be interpreted :)

Actually my post is not about positive reinforcement in dog training.  You may notice that nowhere do I mention the dog being given positive reinforcement/reward/whatever you want to call it in this instance. 

My dog set me up then reinforced the behaviour she wanted. 

Just a funny story.  I was not really interested in split hairs, definitions or any axes being ground but whatever makes you happy

And thanks mastifflover - that was far moer eloquently put than anything I could have managed.  Especially as I have come to the conclusion that there are some links that no matter how often a person posts them won't be worth clicking.

"Positive reinforcement strengthens a behavior by providing a consequence an individual finds rewarding."

Yes thats correct, in OC, once an organism 'learns' as the result of a reinforcer & any behaviour recurs as >>a consequence<< then the 'conditioning' process is finished & the learning process is over, then there is no reason not to call a behaviour "reward behaviour", AFTER OC learning.

Once Shipmans first victim died he had learned how to succeed at killing people without being caught but that stage was the succesfull consequence not the cause.

Out of interest, why do you enjoy trying to demean B F Skinner? or is it simply that you are anti-education in general?
.

> Incidentally I can and do get recalls without treats but being a beagle she is very food oriented and a little motivator will do no harm

No harm in adding a little motivation :)

Buster is food orientated too. I got in a bit of a stale-mate when trying to teach him to 'leave' when he was sniffing things. As he hit the teenage stage he became much more interested in sniffing while on a walk, the sort of sniffing where they wont move from the spot and really cram their face into the grass to get a good nose full.

I went back to rewarding a 'leave' with a bit of cheese. Things seemed to work quick, but I found it strange how Buster was sniffing stuff every few steps and was super-quick at 'leaving' them along with not seeming that interested in the sniffing to start with ie, no drooling, or lip-smacking and he wasn't shoving his face into anything, he was just pointing his nose towards it.

From that point I studied him very closely - he was picking every large clump of grass, or a part of a bush that stuck out,sniffing in the general direction of it, while watching me - waiting for me to say 'leave it' as he knew a bit of cheese would follow!!
Cheeky monkey, he's always figuring out ways of getting a goodie out of me :)

It's just such a game to them.  We can think we are in charge but it's only because they let us think that lol

> We can think we are in charge but it's only because they let us think that lol

LOL, very true :-D

I do wonder it a bit of positive reinforcement could help us get a desired behaviour (I.e staying away) from certain others!

I do wonder it a bit of positive reinforcement could help us get a desired behaviour (I.e staying away) from certain others!

There are only two reinforcers in OC (operant conditioning) 'positive' & 'negative', the words do NOT have the same meaning as the same words used in everyday language, the OC meanings are below:

Positive = a mathematical translation of any animals behavioural response to any external stimulus which adds something to the animals behaviour.

Negative = a mathematical translation of any animals behavioural response to any external stimulus which removes something from the animals behaviour.

In the video, below the dog is removing the feeling of being cold by high, prolonged running & hunting activity.

In the same video, she is constantly adding different bits/areas/spaces of environment to explore for her own hunting purposes.

The dogs behaviour you portray in your post your dog is not 'staying away', which you seem to want, it is 'adding' 'closeness' of another dog which your dog seems to want, THAT is 'positive' (addition) reinforced behaviours of your dog.

Co-active positive & negative reinforced behaviours.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBEvPRkNmbg
.

Hi Roxylola

Just wanted to add that I really enjoyed your post - and identified with it too.  My dogs are SO good at training ME and they never cease to amaze me with their cleverness.  Also, I hope I interpreted it correctly - i.e. that it was meant to be somewhat light-hearted and not an academic exposition of operant conditioning!
- lol - X

parry site lol

Works for me Josh ;)

Amazing how something so simple can be made to seem so complicated!