Dog Discussion: PROBLEMO! Another EXXXPERT DOG TRAINER JERRYIZED.

PROBLEMO! Another EXXXPERT DOG TRAINER JERRYIZED.
Posts: 6

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

The Amazing Puppy Wizard
2005-01-27 04:41:40 EST
HOWEDY People,

Here's an article The Amazing Puppy Wizard
FHOWEND that needs to be EXXXAMINED
and considered the CAUSE of ALL temperament
and behavior problems.

> Wednesday, January 26, 2005

>Dogs of Our Lives: Best training method differs for each dog

Well that's just plain INSANE. A dog is a dog.

>---------------------------

>RUE CHAGOLL

No offense Rue, but there's NO room at the inn
for dog abusers and dog abuser apologists.

> Ask three canine trainers, "What's the best dog
> training method?" and it's quite possible you'll
> get three different answers.

Yeah. THAT'S HOWE COME The Amazing Puppy
Wizard QUOTES their methods and CITES their
CASE HISTORIES.

> You might also hear a bevy of buzzwords such
> as "purely positive"

Yeah. We hear that alot from dog abusers like
captain arthur haggerty and his ilk who don't
believe ALL dogs can be trained withHOWET
HURTIN BRIBING and CRATING them.

> or "clicker training"

Clicker training relies on withholding bribes
to elicit mindless meaningless unthinking
behaviors to release a treat from a human
skinner box.

> sprinkled with terms borrowed from psychologists
> and behaviorists such as "operant conditioning."

Good point. Operant conditioning means HURT the dog.

> To someone who just wants to find the best
> way to teach his or her dog to walk on a leash
> and not jump on visitors, such training-speak
> can be confusing.

Or worse. It can be LIES and ABUSE.

> The following brief history and overview is
> intended to give you a clearer understanding
> of modern training alternatives.

Well La, Di, Da?

>History of dog training

> Though dogs have long lived in our company, the
> whole idea of formalized training is relatively recent.

Yeah. Caesar and the Vikings had some
pretty highly trained war dogs.

> In the United States, canine obedience training
> was largely unheard of until after World War II.

News travels slowly pryor to the WWW, thanks
to V.P. Al Gore. THANKS V.P. Al Gore for inventing
the internet!

> The sizeable deployment of dogs in military service

Yeah. The Amazing Puppy Wizard was just talkin
to a couple military dog handlers abHOWET HOWE
to train their dogs not to piss on a tent post on the
way HOWET to the field to look for snipers and land
mines. Seems they ain't so keen on the idea of jerking
and choking their dogs to break them of peein in camp
as they was pryor to THINKIN IT HOWET with a little
HEELP from The Amazing Puppy Wizard <{) ; ~ ) >

> and the accompanying necessity of training
> thousands of canine handlers during the war

Yeah. That was then. But this is NHOWE. The
military and police gotta stop abusing their dogs
on accHOWENT of they're doin US a DISSERVICE.

> (along with onset of the baby boom and suburban
> sprawl afterward) is often credited with spurring a
> surge in interest.

Well, the akc and the dog food companies
kinda had sumpthin to do with it.

>In the half-century that has elapsed, much progress
> has been made in understanding canine behavior

That so? You COULN'T PROVE THAT if you "ASKED
THREE TRAINERS," NHOWE, could you.

> and developing and improving the ways we train.

INDEED. Shock collar trainin is still in it's infancy
according to FRAUDreck hassan of sitmeansit
internet radio shock show.

> The age of aversion

Perhaps THAT'S WON of them "terms borrowed
from psychologists and behaviorists" you find
CONfusing. What you REALLY mean is pain fear
force and intimidation.

> I remember, not quite twenty years ago,

The Amazing Puppy Wizard been specializing
in temperament and behavior problems and
protection training for over forty years.

> training my first Golden Retriever to walk with me.

That's EZ. All you gotta do is praise IT and not
try FORCING CHOKING or BRIBING IT.

> When he lagged, I "popped" the chain collar

Perhaps THAT'S a other WON of them "terms
borrowed from psychologists and behaviorists"
you find SO CONfusing. What you REALLY
mean is YOU HURT and INTIMDIATED your dog.

> to cause him to catch up,

OR YOU'D HURT IT SOMEMOORE.

> then rewarded him with verbal praise when he did so.

You mean AFTER THE FACT. PROBLEMO! You cannot
REWARD a behavior AFTER THE FACT anyMOORE than
you can PUNISH a behavior AFTER THE FACT, if you don't
want to run into anyMOORE of them "terms borrowed from
psychologists and behaviorists" you find CONfusing.

Like OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE DISORDER
FEAR AGGRESSION HYPERACTIVITY and
STRESS INDUCED AUTO-IMMUNE DIS-EASE.

For starters.

> If he forged away from me, I reacted similarly.

You HURT IT someMOORE to make IT want to be with you.

> He leaned down as I applied my superior weight
> to his and physically placed him into a down position.

Yeah. Try THAT with a Great Dane or English Mastiff.

> To teach him not to jump on me,

Jumping is BONDING behavior.

> I learned to sharply connect my knee to his sternum.

We've SEEN "trainers" break their dog's
bones like that RIGHT HERE.

>This approach to training relied on the principle of aversion.

Naaah. That approach to training relied on IDIOCY.
You'd have to be a IMBECILE to think HURTING
your dog is gonna TRAIN IT to do ANY THING other
than FEAR MISTRUST and HATE YOU.

> Through the application of momentary discomfort

Perhaps THAT'S a other WON of them "terms
borrowed from psychologists and behaviorists"
you find SO CONfusing. What you REALLY
mean is pain fear force and intimidation.


> via collar pop or knee to the sternum,

You mean a physical assault. You mean choking
and kneeing the dog in the chest. You mean a
criminal behavior in ALL circumstances HOWEtside
of the ring with a referee and a licensed doctor
in attendance. Or in combat. Or self defense.

But NOT in a LEARNING and BONDING situation.

And CERTAINLY NOT on a DEFENSELESS DUMB
ANIMAL on accHOWENT of we got OTHER TERMS
for THAT. Perhaps THAT'S WON of them "terms
borrowed from psychologists and behaviorists" you
find CONfusing. What The Amazing Puppy Wizard
thinks of in TERMS that might be FHOWEND CON-
fusing is PSYCHO-PATHOLOGICAL ANTI SOCIAL
BEHAVIOR.

> my dog essentially learned what not to do.

No. You had to CONTINUE HURTING and
INTMIDATING IT on accHOWENT of "REINFORCEMENT
NEVER ENDS" according to FRAUDreck,
internet shock collar salesman and captain
arthur haggerty, dog abusing FRAUDS and
cowards, both of 'm.

> Though the methods sometimes struck me as a bit harsh

"HARSH"? You mean CRUEL.

Perhaps THAT'S a other WON of them "terms borrowed
from psychologists and behaviorists" you find CONfusing.
What you REALLY mean is pain fear force and intimidation.


> (my dogs have always been thought of as "kids"),

INDEED? THAT'S HOWE COME The Amazing
Puppy Wizard is DROPPIN THE HAMMER on
the whole doGgamend INDUSTRY of behaviorISM.

> I couldn't argue with the results.

Not with The Amazing Puppy Wizard <{) ; ~ ) >
NOT UNLESS YOU WANNA COME HOWET
WITH WON of them "terms borrowed from
psychologists and behaviorists" you find CONfusing.

BWEEEEEEEEEEHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAA!!!

Let's cut the crap. PAIN FEAR FORCE INTIMIDATION
SOCIAL ISOLATION AVOIDANCE and RESTRICTING
FOOD and WATER to CON-TROLL HOWEsbreaking
(with EXXXCEPTION to isolation) is CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
according to the GENEVA CONVENTIONS
ARTICLES OF WAR and ILLEGAL to use on prisoners.

But you'll do THAT to your kids based on
the sez so of a professor of behaior who
hurts and intimidates his own dog...

> We could walk together, and I didn't worry about
> him leaping to greet visitors.

Or you'd HURT him.

> Life together was good.

For you. You didn't mind HURTING your dog.

> I could confidently mix in public and invite visitors
> to my home without having to isolate or leave my
> best friend behind.

You mean the best friend you jerked and
choked bribed and intimidated to make IT
be NICE and ENJOY the GOOD LIFE.

For many years The Amazing Puppy Wizard
WONdered HOWE COME dogs ATTACK
people on their EXIT. Seems THAT happens
from FORCING CON-TROLL when guests enter.

>While what I just described was in fact effective and humane,

Perhaps THAT'S ANOTHER WON of them "terms
borrowed from psychologists and behaviorists" you
find CONfusing. What you REALLY mean is pain fear
force and intimidation ARE STANDARD FARE.

> most trainers today largely eschew such "jerk
> and pull" training in favor of gentler methods.

That so? CITES PLEASE?

>Positive training evolves

No. AVERSION TRAINING EVOLVED.

Positive trainin is HOWE dogs and man
first got together, if you wanna look
into HISTORY.

>Benefiting from behavioral research

Ahhh, the EXXXPERTS with the big words
you have a PROBLEM with.

> and the efforts of forward-thinking enthusiasts,

Dog lovers like yourself, no DHOWET.

> training methods evolved through the 1990's to
> an approach generally labeled as "positive."

Oh? You mean avoidance and bribery.

> I taught my most recent training partner to
> walk on a loose leash by coaxing with a piece
> of food held forward of her nose.

That so? Perhaps you should make your
leash HOWET of liver? Then you wouldn't
need to hold a treat while you're walkin
DHOWEN the street?

> When she forged or lagged,

You mean when she broke her bribe...

> I simply stopped and waited until I regained her attention

You mean like HOWE dr ian dunbar teaches...

> and then rewarded with more food

Ahhh, you REWARD the dog for PULLIN
by STOPPING to FEED IT a REWARD for
BREAKING HER BRIBE.

Well, La, Di, Da!

> when she was once again in position.

That's freakin SHEER IDIOCY.

>Later, I waved a treat from her nose back over
> her head, and as her head tilted up, her rump
> automatically hit the ground.

Yeah. That'll work UNLESS you got a Great
Dane who'll simply TAKE IT OFF YOU and
EAT IT and tell you to go git him someMOORE.

> That's how she learned to sit.

Yeah. The PROBLEM is, as you WITHHOLD
TREATS to ELICIT MINDLESS MEANINGLESS

UNTHINKING BEHAVIORS you INCREASE

ANXXXIHOWESNESS and create GREED
and MISTRUST.

When you ASK for that BRIBE "TRAINED"
command in the future under REAL LIFE
WORKING SITUATIONS, your BRIBE
TRAINED DOG INCREASES his ANXXXIHOWESNESS
to the level it was when he was being BRIBED
and THAT, combined with the ANXXXIETY
of the WORKING SITUATION will OVER RIDE
the dog's ABILITY to CON-TRAIN HISSELF
and will CAUSE IT to BREAK THE BRIBE
again and YOU GOT NO TRAININ and NHOWE
you gotta HURT THE DOG like HOWE you
was TRAINED TWENTY YEARS AGO.

And THAT'S HOWE COME you cannot train
a dog using BRIBERY or FORCE.


> Positive training relies on teaching via
> an attractive lure,

NO. THAT IS NOT POSITIVE TRAINING

THAT IS POSITIVE BRIBERY.

And all it gets you is a GREEDY DOG.

> usually a special treat or toy.

Giving PHYSICAL REWARDS DISTRACTS
dogs from THINKING of the behaivor you're
SUPPOSED TO BE TRYING TO TRAIN.

> It represents less risk to a dog's attitude
> that sometimes occurs with harsher methods.

Well THAT AIN'T TRUE EITHER.

Witholding REWARDS makes dogs ANXXXIHOWES
and ACTIVATES sections of the brain where SEIZURE
and OCD behaviors live. You can make your dog
PHYSICALLY ILL by WITHHOLDING BRIBES.

IN FACT, we just seen a PROBABLE CASE
of THAT right here on The Amazing Puppy
Wizard's FREE WWW Wits' End Dog Training
Method Forums SCHOOL OF HARD KNOCKS
and HUMAN BEHAVIOR RESEARCH LABORATORY.

You're SETTIN in it.

> Nor does it risk provoking borderline
>aggressive or seriously dominant dogs.

Well that's NOT TRUE EITHER.

Offering fear aggressive dogs bribes may
make them ATTACK on accHOWENT of
dogs are SCAVENGERS who STEAL
scraps of food and run to hide to eat it
with their backs to the wall in a heightened
state of alert.

>One offshoot of positive training involves
> the use of techniques called operant
> conditioning and shaping.

Well you're pushin the limit NHOWE.
You're using some of them big words
you DON'T UNDERSTAND again.

> Operant conditioning is easiest to describe by example.

Oh goody!

> I feed my dog a treat while simultaneously creating a
> sound or using a word. Most commonly employed is
> a small hand-held device that makes a clicking sound.

You mean, like FINGERS?

>The dog will learn to associate the pleasant
>experience of the food reward with the sound
>of the clicker.

RIGHT. THEN you got to REDUCE the dog's
diet by 20% to encourage the dog to WORK
FOR FOOD. The US Military Marine Mammals
Corps with it's EXXXPERT military trainers
LOSE 10% of their PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED
sea mammals soon as they hit open water and
FREE FOOD.

Where do you think your dog will be FHOWEND
if you're walkin DHOWEN the street luring your
dog with your stinkin weenie and pass a garbage
can or ripe road kill?


> Later, the clicker sound is used to "mark" a specific
> correct response (e.g. sitting, walking in position) at
>precisely the moment it occurs.

You mean kinda like sayin GOOD BOY?

> "Clicker training" has proven extremely useful
> in many aspects of dog training.

IOW, you snap your fingers and praise. But
you gotta GIVE A COOKIE and THAT DISTRACTS
the dogs THINKIN from the CONTEXT of the LESSON.

PERHAPS you should just study your FREE copy
of The Amazing Puppy Wizard's FREE WWW
Wits' End Dog Training Method Manual and you
won't have none of them trHOWEBLESOME
words to cope with?

>What matters most

The Amazing Puppy Wizard firmly believes what
matters MOST is IDENTIFYING EXXXPOSING
and DISCREDITING ineffective training methods
and incompetent lying dog abusing punk thug
cowards and active long term incurable mental
cases who jerk choke shock crate bribe punish
and murder innocent critters and try to get HOWET
callin THAT, trainin.

>Today, while it is probably safe to say most
> trainers embrace positive methods,

Well that's a load of crap. Most of the "trainers"
we got here on rec.pets.dogs.behavior are lying
dog abusing punk thug coward mental cases
who'll do and say ANY THING to defend their
alleged right to hurt intimidate and murder dogs
as they've done for decades.

> there are a variety of slightly divergent approaches

Yeah, and THAT'S HOWE COME these MENTAL
CASES GOTTA HURT DOGS on accHOWENT
of dog trainin AIN'T LUCK.

> with the predictable disagreement (and sometimes
>bickering) between those subscribing to one or another.

Naaaah?

> Some trainers feel positive methods work well
> for teaching a new behavior, but will use mild
> aversives to assure rapid and consistent compliance
> once it has been learned.

IOW, they're FRAUDS. They're lying dog abusing
punk thug coward FRAUDS. You can't train a dog
using bribery and then HURT IT for not doin what
YOU NEVER TAUGHT IT TO DO on accHOWENT
of the dog CANNOT CHEW and THINK at the same
time.

> Others insist on a "purely positive" approach.

You mean BRIBERY and AVOIDANCE.

> Some use operant conditioning

You mean HURT the dog.

> while others do not.

SO, you THINK dog trainin is a matter of PREFERENCE?

> Many use clickers and many do not.

Clicker trainin is like takin a SHOWER with a raincoat.

> Why so many methods?

On accHOWET of ineffective incompetent
university trained behaviorists who shock
choke bribe and murder innocent critters
a la descarte.

> Quite simply -- because they all worked.

NO. The Amazing Puppy Wizard's 100%
CONSISTENTLY NEARLY INSTANTLY
SUCCESSFUL FREE WWW Wits' End
Dog Training Method Manual Students
GET 100% TOTAL NON PHYSICAL CON-
TROLL NEARLY INSTANTLY by NOT DOIN
NUTHIN like HOWE the EXXXPERTS SEZ.

> We have gravitated to those methods that
>produce reliable results and that we and our
> students are confident and comfortable in
> using.

You're blowin smoke up HOWER arses.

> No one method will produce equal results for all.

Well, NOT if you're gonna BRIBE CHOKE
INTIMIDATE AVOID and CONFINE your dog.

> Dogs aren't appliances,

Of curse not. You wouldn't jerk and choke
your t.v. if IT didn't come on when you lured
IT with an antenna. You gotta fire it up with
some juice, have an antenna, and a station
within range to recieve it. OtherWIZE you'll
be lookin at a expensive box.

> and therefore can't be expected to all work
> the same way.

IOW, there AIN'T NO SCIENCE of BEHAVIOR.

>The same goes for trainers.

That's another PROBLEM you seem to be
havin NHOWE that you've cover all the big
words, them "terms borrowed from psychologists
and behaviorists" you find CONfusing.

What you're talkin abHOWET are BALANCED
trainers. Trainers who KNOW WHEN to HURT
your dog and HOWE to HURT IT PUPPERLY.

LIKE HOWE YOU LEARNED.


>The best training method is the one
>that works best for you.

That so? You mean JUST PICK WON?

> What matters most is getting results

Yeah? THAT'S HOWE COME YOU HURT YOUR DOG!!!!

> and having a dog that's a joy to live

Well that's EZ for YOU to say. You're the bum
CHOKIN your dog. Perhaps if the dog had the
choker on you and jerked you every time IT
pulled you'd learn to keep up with your dog
and you wouldn't NEED to HURT YOUR BEAST
FRIEND?

> with and welcomed in the community.

The Amazing Puppy Wizard doesn't take
kindly to folks jerking and choking their dogs
in front of innocent children. They might LEARN
to do likeWIZE by watchin and THAT would
be contributing to the delenquency of a minor.

>Rue Chagoll lives in the Town of Lansing and
> trains with Golden Retrievers. He belongs to
> the Ithaca Dog Training Club and has received
> writing and editing awards from the Dog Writer's
>Association of America and the American Kennel
> Club. Comment, questions and dog news are
> welcome at rchagoll@capital.net.

PROBLEMO...

>Copyright ©2004 The Ithaca Journal. All rights reserved.
>Use of this site indicates your agreement to the Terms
>of Service(Terms updated 12/20/02)


Dr. George VonHilsheimer writes in
"Is there a SCIENCE of BEHAVIOR?":

"Valette 1966 is a complete trivialization of
scientific findings. It overstates the case for
reinforcement theory. No careful researcher
would contend that operant techniques CAN
ANY THING MORE than modify SHORT TERM
BEHAVIOR in a highly controlled and limited
environment with a large number of skillful
experimenters. Certainly the most elaborate
studies have shown that the withdrawal or
temprary inefficiency of the reward system is
immediately followed by CESSATION of the
programmed behavior.

In fortunate contrast to this depressing paper
is the research reported by Whelan (1966) who
makes the simple but profHOWEND caveat that
"It is only through CORRECT, EFFICIENT APPLICATION
(of operant principles) that children's behavor can
be changed to the extent that they can subsequently
contribute to the REAL WORLD in which they live." "

"The Methods, Principles And Philosophy Of Behavior
Never Change, Or They'd Not Be Scientific And Would
Not Obtain Consistent, Reliable, Fast, Effective Results
For All Handler's And All Dogs, As Taught In Your FREE
Copy Of The Puppy Wizard's FREE WWW Wits' End
Dog Training Method Manual," The Amazing Puppy
Wizard. <{} ; ~ )

Dr. Von continues:

"Whelan illustrates the simple nature or the
learning process by referring to Ferster's
engaging study of two three year old
chimpanzees taught mathematics through
simple procedures. Whelan carries this
EVIDENCE a step futher by pointing HOWET
it's applicability to disturbed children."


A Dog Is A Dog As A Child Is A Child As A Kat
Is A Kat. All Critters Only Respond In Predictable
Innate, Normal, Natural, Instinctive, Reflexive,
Ways To Circumstances And Situations Of Their
Environments Which We Create For Them.

ALL BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS ARE CAUSED BY
MISHANDLING. Damn The Descartean War of
"Nature Vs Nurture." We Teach By HOWER Words
And Actions And GET BACK What We TAUGHT.

In The Problem Animal Behavior BUSINESS
FAILURE MEANS DEATH. SAME SAME SAME
SAME, For The Problem Child Behavior BUSINESS.

Dr. Von continues:
"If chimpanzees CAN LEARN mathematics
through step by step learning AT THEIR OWN
PACE, reinforced primarily by CORRECT
ANSWERS rather than with "fruit loops and
rasins", we can assume that even developmentally
RETARDED or CONfHOWENDED children
CAN LEARN as well. Moreover, Whelan
makes the EXXXTREMELY important point
that while most teachers assume that learning
takes place verbally, primarily it is a non verbal
process..

Unfortunately Whelan limits himself to the problem
that "teachers must not only modify or remove specific
deviant behaviors, but must also develop socially
acceptable behavior patterns in the classroom and
classroom conditioned goals, NOT LEARNING.

Other researchers have emphasized the importance
ofadult behaviors in conditioning classroom behavior.
An EXXXCELLENT review of this researchshowd that
tantrum behavior, excessive crawling and dependency,
isolated play, passivity, spelling failure, and other problem
behaviorscan be managed by altering habitual adult
responses to children (Harris, Wolf and Baer, 1964) .
Such RESEARCHholds GREATER PROMISE in that
alteration of the conditioning social environment seems
to provide more STABLE and LASTING CHANGES than
"M and M's". Moreover, a great deal of work has been
done developing EFFECTIVE techniques of behavior
modificaton through the conditioning social environment
of peers (Hartup, 1964). These directions would seem
more PRODUCTIVE than a simple minded trainslation
of the Skinner cage to the classroom.

Skinner (1963) pointed HOWET that operant techniques
can "be utilized fully ONLY IF we REDEFINE the GOALS
of education and the CONDITIONS in the educational
environment under which those goals may be reached...
(through) a DIFFERENT KIND of educational research
which is much more closely concerned with the immediate
dimensions of the student's behavior than with gross
changes such as IMPROVED PERFORMANCES."
UNFORTUNATELY, neither Skinner nor ANY OTHER
learning theorist has provided us with a working model
of a school or research enterprise based on systemic
and thorough-going APPLICATION of LEARNING
PRINCIPLES. Skinner (1948, 1953) approaches a
definition of the philosophical issues involved, and
provides an utopian model of a school, but generally
psychologists seem STUCK at a level of MANAGEMENT
of an aggressively disturbing child in the classroom,
through peer approval, or the aplication of accelerating
CONsequences in the classroom, or scientifically
S-HOWENDING tactics like "TIME HOWET" (which
we used to know more simply as "sendin the kid to
the cloakroom").

Hobbs (op. cit.) claims that the classroom is a
natural environement for the child. Thelen (1965)
contends that "classroom practices are UNnatural,
UNreasonable, and 'against NATURE.' ". This
would seem the central issue for the philosophy of
education. Mere trivial application of research findings
to an institution essentially unchanged from Sumerian
academies (Kramer, 1962) will NOT create useful
teaching for human beings.

It seems relevant to ask EXXXACTLY WHAT do we
know abHOWT the learning situation in which HOWER
children find themselves, and why, in the light of HOWER
knowledge, do we do any of the things that schools do?"

We know that there is little agreement among adults
as to what it is they are SUPPOSED to be DOING,
what something to do could be that MIGHT be
EFFECTVE, and what it IS that other people who
have authority over children ought to be doing (Mc-
Eachern and Taylor, 1967). Wherefor the child's
CONfusiHOWEN?

It is NO WONDER hat the marked changes in
deviant behavior of children can be achieved
through brief, simple educative routines with
their mothers which modify the mother's
social behaviors shaping the child (Whaler,
1966). Some clinics have reported ELIMINATION
ofthe need for child THERAPY through changing
the clinical emphasis from clinical to parental
HANDLING of the child (Szrynski 1965). A large
number of cases improved sufficiently after
preliminary contact with parents that NO treatment
of children was required, and almost ALL cases
SHOWE a remarkably shortened period for therapy.
Quite severe cases of anorexia nervosa have been
treated in own to five months by simply REPLACING
the parents temporarily with EFFUSIVELY LOVING
SUBSTITUTES (Groen, 1966).

Probably the most absurd figure in Amaerican mass
media is the TEACHER (Gerbner, 1966). HOWE can
we EXXXPECT children to LEARN responsible P-HOWER
from models of IMPOTENCE? We KNOW that LEARNING
a complex ritualized social role, is facilitated by observation
of an INTELLIGIBLE MODEL much more effectively than
by trial and error with REINFORCEMENT. roles which are
relatively arbitrary and senseless are the most difficult to
learn (Luchins, 1966). Do we make ANY EFFORT as
teachers to CORRECT the massive impact of media?
HOWE can the ARBITRARINESS and SENSELESSNESS
of IMPOTENT ADULT MODELS be redeemed by anything
short of RELEVANCE and COMMITMENT?

As an engaging final comment on the PROFESSION
let me mention the little study by Dittman et al (1965)
tha when 15 psychotherapists and 9 professional dancers
evaluated facial and bodily expressons for effect the
dancers ere much MOORE accurate. Need we say
MOORE abHOWET the training of therapists?

THE OPERANT FALLACY

Programs utilizing the "contingencies of reinforcement
model" proposed by Skinner (1963) ar no more well
established in research than the various dynamic
therapists. Research in four areas : 1) direct evaluation of
programmed systems for elarning; 2) reinforcement;
3) cognitive dissonance; and 4) motivation, MOST
SURELY DEMOLISH eth claims of operant programers.

The 190 studies annotated by Schramm (1964) when
inspected display NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
in SUCCESS among approaches and modifications.
Programmed instruction is no worse than conventional
instruction, and takes less time, but time reductions in
conventional instruction has frequently been shown
possible without detrimental effects. If you draw your
controls cagily you can always show the superiority of
your PET technique.

Moore and Smit (1964) compared variations on
programmed materials, machines, texts, written
responses, merely reading, free response, multiple
choice, and iving or not giving the students results.
There were NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES despite
Skinner's insistence on the importance of the
CONTINGENCY of REINFORCEMENT. Carpenter
and Greenhill (1963) could find NO DIFFERENCE
in RESULTS even after eliminating the self-pacing
feature by presenting the materials by TV or Video.

Krumboltz and Kiesler (1965) reported that a two month
follow up test showed NO DIFFERENCE between students
given a variety of reinforcement schedules. Mayo and
Longo (1966) report that naval and marine trainees
saved 30% of time in learning electronics fundamentals
through a programed course witrh superior scores on one
measure but not on another, and with no follow-up reported.
The same authors reported a reductionj from 26 HOWERS
to 19 HOWERS in instruction time through the use of
program with NO DIFFERENCE in test scores, except
that as longer blocks of materiallearned through programmed
meanswere tesed the scores DECREASED.

When the control instruction is manipulated an entirely
DIFFERENT picture emerges Jacobs and Kulkarni (1966)
assignedstudents in three different schools to classes
with standard programmed material giving immediate
knowledge of results to classes without results and to
classes with the order of sections of the program inverted.
In two schools the groups without knowledge of results
and the groups with inverted material SCORED HIGHER.
In one school there was NO DIFFERENCE. So much for
THEORY. Reid and Taylor (1965) presented a linear
program on paper-making to 60 paid undergrads with
a 12 week follow up test. The group which merely
read learned the same material in 154 minutes to
243 minutes for the group given responses- a
REVERSAL of the usual BIASED RESULTS based
on POOR CON-TROLLS. There were no differences
on post tests. Spagnoli (1965) reports on a study
exposing the control and programed group to the same
material in a concentrated effort over a limited period
of time. There were NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES.
Sassenrath and Garverick (1965) gave 4 matched
groups of 120 students four procedures: 1) looking
up the wrong answers, 2) having questions discussed
by the instructors, 3) checking answers from correct
ones on the board, and 4) no feedback. The discussion
method proved best.

Finally, in studying means of training men to perform
a 72 action prcedure on Nike-Hercules equipment,
Cox and Boren (1965) demonstrated that the time
required to learn the procedure to critterion was NO
DIFFERENT when the actions were organized into
seven operant spans and taught in reverse order, in
natural order, or without grouping into operant spans
at all.

IT IS CLEAR that as comparisons became more
sophisticated programed instruction and other
operant teaching techniquesreveal tehemselves
as simply another prestigiHOWES FAD--somewhat
better than conventional instruction in saving time,
but certainly not providing a better or better organized
or more independently useful GRASP of KNOWLEDGE.

The IMBECILITY of some ofthe claims for operant
technique simply take the breath away. Lovas et al
(1966) report a standard contingent reward/punishment
procedure developing imitative speech in two severly
disturbed non verbal schizophrenic boys. After twenty-
six days the boys are reported to have been learning
new words with alacrity. HOWEver, when REWARDS
were moved to a delayed contingency the behavoir and
learning immediately deteriorated. Despite this, and
despite the fact that there was no evidence of cognitive
association with the words, the authors leap to the
conclusion that the fact that the boys improved in the
acquisition of Norwegian words WITHOUT REWARDS
while still being given English words WITH REWARDS
suggest hat the children may be able to acquire new
behaviors on their own. The need for this study escapes
one, particularly in view of the very well established fact
that schizophrenics condition quite readily (Mednick, 1958)
One can see the "SCIENTIFIC" PRECISION by which the
authors drop contingent reinforcements thus PROVING
that the parrot behavior was indeed caused by the schedule
and NOT by some other mystical force. The useof Norwegian
to demonstrate learning that could not even remotely be
related to previous history is a grotesquery too bizarre to
be credited. Who could possibly doubt that this useless
and probably damaging trained seal routine depended on
the psychologist's antics? What on earth led them to
believe that a schizophrenic needs even more other-
focused responsiveness?

Lovaas et al (1965) reportedthree programs carried
out on five year old autistic twins conditioining them
to "social behavior" and to eliminate pathologial
behaviors such as self-stimulation and tantrums.
Affectionate and other social behaviors toward
adults increaseed after adults had been associated
with shock reduction. The routine for this treatment
brings immediate relief to mind Sawrey and Wesz
(1956) routine for producing ulcers in monkeys. I
suppose it is USELESS to speculate on the source
of SO CALLED THERAPISTS willingness to experiment
on human beings with procedures for which there is
sound experimentally established WARNINGS. If the
"double blind" theory of the origin of schizophrenia
(Bateson, 1956) is at all valid, HOWE DEVASTATING
the experience must ULTIMATELY BE. Do Lovaas et
al REALLY BELIEVE the schizophrenic has no cognitive
processes and DOES NOT KNOW WHO IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE SHOCK? Greger (1965) criticized this study
on the basis that trainsfer CANNOT be generalized. That
issue can be answered by experience, and, of curse, the
"social" behavior of these children deteriorates as soon
as the psychologists LOOSE INTEREST. The IMPORTANT
ISSUE for a SCIENCE OF BEHAVIOR is why not attempt
those things which are KNOWN to WORK at least in some
cases if only for control puporses. Kanner (1954) reports
that 13 classically autistic children improved enough to
go to school without "anything that is regarded as good
psychotherapy or as psychotherapy at all..." Autistic
children have been known to become permenantely
social by deinstitutionalization, BY REMOVAL from
the parents, BY RADICAL CHANGES in other environments,
and by MASSIVE DOSAGE of TOUCHING, HOLDING,
FONDLING LOVE DESPITE THE REJECTION OF THE
CHILD. My case, Larry, (vonHilsheimer, 1965b), demonstrates
a recovery by using the mother as an autistic boy's teacher
in an open millieu. It is curiHOWES that the operant technicians
provide as few, and as UNIMAGINITAVE controls for thier
"research" as the Freudians.

REWARD / PUNISHMENT

Despite Skinner's clear denunciation of "negative
reinforcement" (1958) NEARLY EVER LEARNING
THEORY model involves the USE OF PUNISHMENT.
Of curse, Skinner has never to my knowledge,
demonstrated HOWE we escape the phenomenon
that an expected reward not received is experienced
as a punishment and can produce extensive and
persistent aggression (Azrin et al, 1966).

MIMICRY, PLAY, EXPLORATION AND
THE NEED FOR DATA

Complex activities are LEARNED MORE QUICKLY
through OBSERVATION (copying, if you will) than
by trial and error with reinforcemet (Luchins,).
Observers of subjects making a first trial of a multiple
choice bolt head maze made fewer errors than the
practiced subjects in the second run, while subjects
who have been shocked for error on a first trial made
more errors than either (Rosenbaum & Hewitt, 1966).
Students will modify their beliefs more when rewarded
for the way in which they carried out arguing for a
disagreeable position (role reward), than when rewarded
for the content of the argument (Wallace, 1966).

======================

From: "George von Hilsheimer, Ph.D."
<*.@mindspring.com>

To: <pdd-aspy...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 9:31 AM
Subject: How does diagnosis shape treatment?

How does diagnosis shape treatment?

Nearly every week I have a visit from Jerry Howe, who
publicizes himself as The Puppy Wizard. Jerry is a
master at behavioral modification of dogs.

His fundamental bedrock is the work Pavlov's last student,
the late Sam Corson, Ph.D., did at the U of Ohio (at Oxford,O).

Sam always pointed out if the dog stopped working for
you in the lab, Pavlov and he always took the dog away
from the lab, and put him in a loving home and gave him
TLC for a couple of months, and then started, very carefully,
over again.

Jerry believes that reward and constraint focused training
is immoral. I've watched him in one short session calm
impossible dogs, just about to be murdered (oops "put to
sleep") because of their "incorrigibly" violent behavior.

Sam was one of the first people to apply amphetamine to
hyperactivity (he searched the Middle West for hyperactive
dogs); but he never lost sight of the fundamental reality that
a dog is not a human, but does respond, doggily, to dog love.

You might be surprised to go to B. F. Skinner's "Cumulative
Record" and read the essay by Breland and Breland, "The
Misbehavior of Organisms".

Animals cannot be successfully trained unless the
trainer attends to the evolutionary history, the individual's
developmental history, and the environmental niche of
the animal being trained.

Yep, right there in Skinner's last and summary book.
Even with behavior mod, you must know the animal.

<snip>

Dogs or little boys, you have to know the individual
history, and the nature of he disorder.

Dr. Von

PS if you are interested in dogs, then take a look at
Jerry's work, ThePuppyWiz...@EarthLink.Net


INTRO TO WITS' END DOG TRAINING MANUAL
George von Hilsheimer, Ph.D. F.R.S.H.

Several years ago one of my old students telephoned
to me and asked me what I knew about Doggie Do
Right, a device to cause your neighbor's dog to stop
barking.

I had not heard of the device, nor its inventor, Jerry
Howe, but I telephoned, read his website, and told
my graduate that I thought the device was worth a
trial - indeed I shut up the dogs in my neighborhood
by turning on Jerry's supersonic device.

After all we all know that dogs respond to whistles
humans cannot hear, so why not respond to "attaboy"
sounds which humans cannot hear.

My student lived far from my Florida homestead, so
he tried it on the three incredibly savage, hyperactive
and noisy dogs who lived behind a tall fence just 3 feet
back of his bedroom.

Hot rats! The device worked,

Andy got his sleep and I didn't think much of the
matter again.

A few months ago I had new neighbors on each
side of my house, four of them, all with noisy
unshuttupable dogs. Argh!

So I foned Andrew in Virgina, received the intelligence
that his neighbors dogs were still quiet, and then I foned
Jerry Howe, the inventor of Doggie Do Right, who came
to visit me.

Merlin walked into my office.

Jerry is a slender fellow with a belly button lenghth grey
beard tapering down his chest. I liked him immediately,
and I applied his instrument to the neighborhood again
which again became silent.

It occured to me that if this ultrasonic field worked with
dogs that we ought at least to ask the question, what
happens to humans in range of the device???

I asked Jerry to give me a list of customers and began
inquiring among them. One thing became immediately
evident. The Doggie Do Right not only shuts up your
neighbors' dogs, it calms and modifies your husband's behavior.

Holey Moley, Captain Marvel, this device has major potential.

In the meantime Jerry gave me a copy of his Wits End
Dog Training Manual. I was delighted. He also introduced
me to the world of professional dog trainers some of whom
even have Ph.D.s in psychology.

This was not such a delight as it appeared that none
of these luminaries had actually read Skinner, Lazarus
or other fountains of wisdom in psychology. Indeed, it
seemed as though they knew very little about the laws
of behavior at all!

Punishment and confrontation seemed to be their
major stock in trade.

Well, if you go to my website, www.drbiofeedback.com
you can read of the career of Sam Corson, I.P. Pavlov's
last student.

Sam demonstrated that rehabilitation of hyperactive
dogs can easily and readily be done using TLC, tender
loving care is at the root of the scientific management
of doggies.

Pavlov told us so 100 years ago.

So what are these degreed morons doing punishing
dogs, and shouting "NO" into their doggie faces? If
you pick up B.F.Skinner's last book, CUMULATIVE
RECORD, included in it is an essay by Keller Breland
and Maryann Breland entitled THE MISBEHAVIOR OF ORGANISMS.

Skinner deliberately included his students' chapter
to emphasize that you cannot manage the behavior
of animals unless you take into consideration 1. the
animal's evolutionary niche (who is the animal?);
2. the animal's personal history (who is the animal?)
and 3, the instinctive repetoire of the animal (who is
the animal?) and 4. the personality of the animal (who
is the animal?).

The Brelands moved far from the white rat. "Thirty-eight
species, totaling over 6,000 individual animals, have been
conditioned, and we have dared to tackle such unlikely
subjects as reindeer, cockatoos, raccoons, porpoises,
and whales."

Jerry Howe spends most of his times with dogs, but
he has learned Pavlov's lesson well. Dogs are individuals,
they are individual DOGS, and they respond most directly
and immediately to love and tender loving care.

Read with pleasure, and then go love your dog.

George von Hilsheimer, Ph.D., F.R.S.H.
Who's Who Honoree since 1983

From: TooCool (larrym...@hotmail.com)

The Puppy Wizard's Wits End Training Method

I have studied canine behavior and dog training for
years. I have a huge library that covers every system
of training.

The Puppy Wizard's (Jerry Howe's) Wits' End Training
Method is by far the most scientific, the most
advanced, the kindest, the quickest and the most
effective training method yet discovered.

It is not an assortment of training tips and tricks;
it is a logically consistent system. Every behavior
problem and every obedience skill is treated in the
same logically consistent manner.

Please study his manual carefully. Please endeavor to
understand the basis of his system and please follow
his directions exactly. His manual is a masterpiece.
It is dense with theory, with explanation, with
detailed descriptions about why behavior problems
occur and how their solution should be approached.

One should not pick and choose from among his methods
based upon what you personally like or dislike. His is
not a bag of tricks but a complete and integrated
system for not only training a dog but for raising a
loving companion.

When I once said to Jerry that his system creates for
you the dog of your dreams, his response was that it
produces for your dog the owner of his dreams.

You see, Jerry has discovered that if you are gentle
with your dog then he will be gentle with you, if you
praise your dog every time he looks at you, then you
will become the center of your dogs world, if you use
Jerry's sound distraction with praise, then it takes
just minutes-sometimes merely seconds-to train your
dog to not misbehave (even in your absence) (Just 15
seconds this morning to train my 10 week old puppy to
lie quietly and let me clip his nails).

Using Jerry's scientific method (sound distraction /
praise / alteration / variation) it takes just minutes
to train you dog to respond to your commands.

What a pleasure it was for me to see my 6 week old
puppy running as fast has his wobbly little legs would
carry him in response to my recall command-and he
comes running every time I call no matter where we are
or what he is doing.

At ten weeks old now, my puppy never strains upon
his leash thanks to Jerry's hot & cold exercises and
his Family Pack Leadership exercises.

Jerry has discovered that if you scold your dog, if you
scream at him, if you intimidate him, if you hurt him,
if you force him then his natural response is to oppose
you.

Is Jerry a nut?

It doesn't make any difference to me whether he is
not.

It is a logical fallacy to judge a person's ideas based
upon their personality. As far as dogs are concerned,
Jerry wears his heart upon his sleeve. It touches him
deeply when he hears of trainers forcing, intimidating,
scolding or hurting dogs.

More than that, he knows that force is not effective
and that it will certainly lead to behavior problems;
sometime problems so severe that people put their
dogs down because of those problems.

I believe that it is natural for humans to want to control
their dog by force. Jerry knows this too. We have all been
at our wits' end, haven't we?

Dogs have a natural tendency to mimic. In scientific
literature it is referred to allelomimetic behavior. Dogs
respond in like kind to force; they respond in like kind
to praise.

Don't bribe your dog with treats; give him what he
wants most-your kind attention. Give him your praise.
You will be astonished at how your dog 's anxiety will
dissipate and how their behavior problems will dissipate
along with their anxiety.

Treat Jerry Howe's (The Puppy Wizard) Wits' End
Training Method as a scientific principle just as you
would the law of gravity and you will have astounding
success.

Dog behavior is just as scientific as is gravity.

If you follow Jerry's puppy rules you will get a sweet
little Magwai; if you don't you will surely get a little
gremlin (anyone see The Gremlins?). --Larry

"TooCool" <larrym...@hotmail.com wrote in message
news: a2_Mc.882$Bc1.121@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...

"Learning Theory"-An Insult to Canines

Classical and operant conditioning is founded in
what is termed "learning theory".

The four rudimentary rules of "learning theory" are:
Something Good can start or be presented, so
behavior increases = Positive Reinforcement (R)

Something Good can end or be taken away, so behavior
decreases = Negative Punishment (P-)

Something Bad can start or be presented, so behavior
decreases = Positive Punishment (P)

Something Bad can end or be taken away, so behavior
increases = Negative Reinforcement (R-)

Proponents of "learning theory" believe that no
learning can take place without reinforcement or
punishment either positive or negative. That is why
they employ treats and force.

"Learning theory" is a flawed concept for
evolutionarily advanced species. Advanced species
learn without any external motivation. They are not
automatons that merely respond to stimuli. Their
evolutionary survival has endowed them with self
motivated learning behavior. Canines, in particular,
are curious, they love to learn and they exhibit
pride in what they have learned. They think-they
figure things out. They can invent games to play.
They can invent behaviors to drive you crazy. They
have emotions-they can be humorous and they can
be vindictive-their feelings can be hurt. They can
suffer terribly if you don't treat them with respect.

They actively seek their environment for new things to
learn. They also learn from watching other animals and
humans and they mimic their behavior (in the scientific
literature this is termed allelomimetic behavior). It is an
insult to the intelligence of dogs and to their owners to
employ operant conditioning (clicker training).

Dogs are not B. F. Skinner robots whose only capacity
to learn stems from the four rules of "learning
theory". Canines deserve treatment and training that
is tailored to their nature. You can literally ruin
your dog if your treatment and training does not
respect their nature.

Please study the Puppy Wizard's Wits' End Training
Method. It is the only available method, of which I
am aware, that is based upon the true nature of
canines. In his system, praise is not used as a
reinforcement or motivator, i. e., dogs are not asked
to work for praise.

--Larry

"TooCool" <larrym...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:

Planarians are primitive, free-living, flat bodied,
freshwater creatures. They can be conditioned to
respond to stimuli, display the ability to master a
two-choice maze, and can transfer the memory of
training from one individual to another by feeding a
ground up planarian to another one.

It is this primitive level of learning that "Learning
Theory" and operant conditioning addresses. Operant
conditioning does not rely upon an animal's ability
to think. It operates upon a primitive (nervous
system) level for animals in general, regardless of
the level of their brain development.

When you train a dog using clicker training, you are
training a mindless reaction to your clicker /
reinforcement.

Your dog is not learning an idea-he is learning a
conditioned reflex. He will perform just like a robot
when you give the signal-he can't help it.

It has also been shown that when you later withdraw
your reinforcement that it will induce stress which will
lead to behavior problems-often quite severe.

Learning in humans is conceptual. "Learning theory"
plays absolutely no part in human learning. Humans
do not learn through a process of gaining some
reinforcement or avoiding some pain. They study their
environment, they form concepts, they learn logic (in
order to separate truth from falsity) and using
reasoning they attempt to integrate all of their
knowledge without contradiction. If humans seem to
respond to some reinforcement or to avoid some pain,
it is because they have consciously evaluated the
various alternatives and have made a reasoned
choice--that is not a conditioned behavior and
it is not an application of "Learning Theory".

Canines are not conceptual animals, but they do
possess the ability to think. Their thinking powers
are different both in kind and in degree from humans.
That is why it is so important to learn their nature
in order to train them successfully.

Operant conditioning operates at a primitive, nervous
system level. It does not take advantage of a dog's
ability to think-only his ability to be conditioned.

The act of subverting his nature as a thinking
creature causes stress and anxiety which can in
turn produce behavior problems.

Please study the Puppy Wizard's Wits' End Training
Method. It is consonant with the nature of a
thinking dog. It will not induce stress and anxiety
and no behavior problems will result. --Larry

All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
-Arthur Schopenhauer

"Thank you for fighting the fine fight--
even tho it's a hopeless task,
in this system of things.
As long as man is ruling man,
there will be animals (and humans!)
abused and neglected. :-(
Your student," Juanita.

"If you've got them by the balls their hearts
and minds will follow,"
John Wayne.
The Amazing Puppy Wizard. <{} ; ~ ) >


BarbnBeau
2005-01-27 07:19:20 EST
Very nice posts Jerry,( have read the next four as well)
They are all Very Positive,and Very Informative.
Thanks for breaking down some of the terms we hear often from others
including supposed expert Dog Trainers, but didn't really understand. It
sure clears up many questions as to Why or Why not - very simply, very
clearly.
I have saved these and added them to my folder with "Wit's End Dog Training
Manual"
(BTW, can't imagine anyone taking offense to these posts:):) nicely done!)
They sure will help folks like me < not an expert, just an ordinary person
wanting a happy, well behaved and well adjusted dog. I am trying hard not to
screw that up!
Thanks again.
Cheers,

Barb
"The Amazing Puppy Wizard" <TheAmazingPuppyWizard@Yahoo.Com> wrote in
message news:1106818900.532694.142110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
HOWEDY People,

Here's an article The Amazing Puppy Wizard
FHOWEND that needs to be EXXXAMINED
and considered the CAUSE of ALL temperament
and behavior problems.

> Wednesday, January 26, 2005

>Dogs of Our Lives: Best training method differs for each dog

Well that's just plain INSANE. A dog is a dog.

>---------------------------

>RUE CHAGOLL

No offense Rue, but there's NO room at the inn
for dog abusers and dog abuser apologists.

> Ask three canine trainers, "What's the best dog
> training method?" and it's quite possible you'll
> get three different answers.

Yeah. THAT'S HOWE COME The Amazing Puppy
Wizard QUOTES their methods and CITES their
CASE HISTORIES.

> You might also hear a bevy of buzzwords such
> as "purely positive"

Yeah. We hear that alot from dog abusers like
captain arthur haggerty and his ilk who don't
believe ALL dogs can be trained withHOWET
HURTIN BRIBING and CRATING them.

> or "clicker training"

Clicker training relies on withholding bribes
to elicit mindless meaningless unthinking
behaviors to release a treat from a human
skinner box.

> sprinkled with terms borrowed from psychologists
> and behaviorists such as "operant conditioning."

Good point. Operant conditioning means HURT the dog.

> To someone who just wants to find the best
> way to teach his or her dog to walk on a leash
> and not jump on visitors, such training-speak
> can be confusing.

Or worse. It can be LIES and ABUSE.

> The following brief history and overview is
> intended to give you a clearer understanding
> of modern training alternatives.

Well La, Di, Da?

>History of dog training

> Though dogs have long lived in our company, the
> whole idea of formalized training is relatively recent.

Yeah. Caesar and the Vikings had some
pretty highly trained war dogs.

> In the United States, canine obedience training
> was largely unheard of until after World War II.

News travels slowly pryor to the WWW, thanks
to V.P. Al Gore. THANKS V.P. Al Gore for inventing
the internet!

> The sizeable deployment of dogs in military service

Yeah. The Amazing Puppy Wizard was just talkin
to a couple military dog handlers abHOWET HOWE
to train their dogs not to piss on a tent post on the
way HOWET to the field to look for snipers and land
mines. Seems they ain't so keen on the idea of jerking
and choking their dogs to break them of peein in camp
as they was pryor to THINKIN IT HOWET with a little
HEELP from The Amazing Puppy Wizard <{) ; ~ ) >

> and the accompanying necessity of training
> thousands of canine handlers during the war

Yeah. That was then. But this is NHOWE. The
military and police gotta stop abusing their dogs
on accHOWENT of they're doin US a DISSERVICE.

> (along with onset of the baby boom and suburban
> sprawl afterward) is often credited with spurring a
> surge in interest.

Well, the akc and the dog food companies
kinda had sumpthin to do with it.

>In the half-century that has elapsed, much progress
> has been made in understanding canine behavior

That so? You COULN'T PROVE THAT if you "ASKED
THREE TRAINERS," NHOWE, could you.

> and developing and improving the ways we train.

INDEED. Shock collar trainin is still in it's infancy
according to FRAUDreck hassan of sitmeansit
internet radio shock show.

> The age of aversion

Perhaps THAT'S WON of them "terms borrowed
from psychologists and behaviorists" you find
CONfusing. What you REALLY mean is pain fear
force and intimidation.

> I remember, not quite twenty years ago,

The Amazing Puppy Wizard been specializing
in temperament and behavior problems and
protection training for over forty years.

> training my first Golden Retriever to walk with me.

That's EZ. All you gotta do is praise IT and not
try FORCING CHOKING or BRIBING IT.

> When he lagged, I "popped" the chain collar

Perhaps THAT'S a other WON of them "terms
borrowed from psychologists and behaviorists"
you find SO CONfusing. What you REALLY
mean is YOU HURT and INTIMDIATED your dog.

> to cause him to catch up,

OR YOU'D HURT IT SOMEMOORE.

> then rewarded him with verbal praise when he did so.

You mean AFTER THE FACT. PROBLEMO! You cannot
REWARD a behavior AFTER THE FACT anyMOORE than
you can PUNISH a behavior AFTER THE FACT, if you don't
want to run into anyMOORE of them "terms borrowed from
psychologists and behaviorists" you find CONfusing.

Like OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE DISORDER
FEAR AGGRESSION HYPERACTIVITY and
STRESS INDUCED AUTO-IMMUNE DIS-EASE.

For starters.

> If he forged away from me, I reacted similarly.

You HURT IT someMOORE to make IT want to be with you.

> He leaned down as I applied my superior weight
> to his and physically placed him into a down position.

Yeah. Try THAT with a Great Dane or English Mastiff.

> To teach him not to jump on me,

Jumping is BONDING behavior.

> I learned to sharply connect my knee to his sternum.

We've SEEN "trainers" break their dog's
bones like that RIGHT HERE.

>This approach to training relied on the principle of aversion.

Naaah. That approach to training relied on IDIOCY.
You'd have to be a IMBECILE to think HURTING
your dog is gonna TRAIN IT to do ANY THING other
than FEAR MISTRUST and HATE YOU.

> Through the application of momentary discomfort

Perhaps THAT'S a other WON of them "terms
borrowed from psychologists and behaviorists"
you find SO CONfusing. What you REALLY
mean is pain fear force and intimidation.


> via collar pop or knee to the sternum,

You mean a physical assault. You mean choking
and kneeing the dog in the chest. You mean a
criminal behavior in ALL circumstances HOWEtside
of the ring with a referee and a licensed doctor
in attendance. Or in combat. Or self defense.

But NOT in a LEARNING and BONDING situation.

And CERTAINLY NOT on a DEFENSELESS DUMB
ANIMAL on accHOWENT of we got OTHER TERMS
for THAT. Perhaps THAT'S WON of them "terms
borrowed from psychologists and behaviorists" you
find CONfusing. What The Amazing Puppy Wizard
thinks of in TERMS that might be FHOWEND CON-
fusing is PSYCHO-PATHOLOGICAL ANTI SOCIAL
BEHAVIOR.

> my dog essentially learned what not to do.

No. You had to CONTINUE HURTING and
INTMIDATING IT on accHOWENT of "REINFORCEMENT
NEVER ENDS" according to FRAUDreck,
internet shock collar salesman and captain
arthur haggerty, dog abusing FRAUDS and
cowards, both of 'm.

> Though the methods sometimes struck me as a bit harsh

"HARSH"? You mean CRUEL.

Perhaps THAT'S a other WON of them "terms borrowed
from psychologists and behaviorists" you find CONfusing.
What you REALLY mean is pain fear force and intimidation.


> (my dogs have always been thought of as "kids"),

INDEED? THAT'S HOWE COME The Amazing
Puppy Wizard is DROPPIN THE HAMMER on
the whole doGgamend INDUSTRY of behaviorISM.

> I couldn't argue with the results.

Not with The Amazing Puppy Wizard <{) ; ~ ) >
NOT UNLESS YOU WANNA COME HOWET
WITH WON of them "terms borrowed from
psychologists and behaviorists" you find CONfusing.

BWEEEEEEEEEEHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAA!!!

Let's cut the crap. PAIN FEAR FORCE INTIMIDATION
SOCIAL ISOLATION AVOIDANCE and RESTRICTING
FOOD and WATER to CON-TROLL HOWEsbreaking
(with EXXXCEPTION to isolation) is CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
according to the GENEVA CONVENTIONS
ARTICLES OF WAR and ILLEGAL to use on prisoners.

But you'll do THAT to your kids based on
the sez so of a professor of behaior who
hurts and intimidates his own dog...

> We could walk together, and I didn't worry about
> him leaping to greet visitors.

Or you'd HURT him.

> Life together was good.

For you. You didn't mind HURTING your dog.

> I could confidently mix in public and invite visitors
> to my home without having to isolate or leave my
> best friend behind.

You mean the best friend you jerked and
choked bribed and intimidated to make IT
be NICE and ENJOY the GOOD LIFE.

For many years The Amazing Puppy Wizard
WONdered HOWE COME dogs ATTACK
people on their EXIT. Seems THAT happens
from FORCING CON-TROLL when guests enter.

>While what I just described was in fact effective and humane,

Perhaps THAT'S ANOTHER WON of them "terms
borrowed from psychologists and behaviorists" you
find CONfusing. What you REALLY mean is pain fear
force and intimidation ARE STANDARD FARE.

> most trainers today largely eschew such "jerk
> and pull" training in favor of gentler methods.

That so? CITES PLEASE?

>Positive training evolves

No. AVERSION TRAINING EVOLVED.

Positive trainin is HOWE dogs and man
first got together, if you wanna look
into HISTORY.

>Benefiting from behavioral research

Ahhh, the EXXXPERTS with the big words
you have a PROBLEM with.

> and the efforts of forward-thinking enthusiasts,

Dog lovers like yourself, no DHOWET.

> training methods evolved through the 1990's to
> an approach generally labeled as "positive."

Oh? You mean avoidance and bribery.

> I taught my most recent training partner to
> walk on a loose leash by coaxing with a piece
> of food held forward of her nose.

That so? Perhaps you should make your
leash HOWET of liver? Then you wouldn't
need to hold a treat while you're walkin
DHOWEN the street?

> When she forged or lagged,

You mean when she broke her bribe...

> I simply stopped and waited until I regained her attention

You mean like HOWE dr ian dunbar teaches...

> and then rewarded with more food

Ahhh, you REWARD the dog for PULLIN
by STOPPING to FEED IT a REWARD for
BREAKING HER BRIBE.

Well, La, Di, Da!

> when she was once again in position.

That's freakin SHEER IDIOCY.

>Later, I waved a treat from her nose back over
> her head, and as her head tilted up, her rump
> automatically hit the ground.

Yeah. That'll work UNLESS you got a Great
Dane who'll simply TAKE IT OFF YOU and
EAT IT and tell you to go git him someMOORE.

> That's how she learned to sit.

Yeah. The PROBLEM is, as you WITHHOLD
TREATS to ELICIT MINDLESS MEANINGLESS

UNTHINKING BEHAVIORS you INCREASE

ANXXXIHOWESNESS and create GREED
and MISTRUST.

When you ASK for that BRIBE "TRAINED"
command in the future under REAL LIFE
WORKING SITUATIONS, your BRIBE
TRAINED DOG INCREASES his ANXXXIHOWESNESS
to the level it was when he was being BRIBED
and THAT, combined with the ANXXXIETY
of the WORKING SITUATION will OVER RIDE
the dog's ABILITY to CON-TRAIN HISSELF
and will CAUSE IT to BREAK THE BRIBE
again and YOU GOT NO TRAININ and NHOWE
you gotta HURT THE DOG like HOWE you
was TRAINED TWENTY YEARS AGO.

And THAT'S HOWE COME you cannot train
a dog using BRIBERY or FORCE.


> Positive training relies on teaching via
> an attractive lure,

NO. THAT IS NOT POSITIVE TRAINING

THAT IS POSITIVE BRIBERY.

And all it gets you is a GREEDY DOG.

> usually a special treat or toy.

Giving PHYSICAL REWARDS DISTRACTS
dogs from THINKING of the behaivor you're
SUPPOSED TO BE TRYING TO TRAIN.

> It represents less risk to a dog's attitude
> that sometimes occurs with harsher methods.

Well THAT AIN'T TRUE EITHER.

Witholding REWARDS makes dogs ANXXXIHOWES
and ACTIVATES sections of the brain where SEIZURE
and OCD behaviors live. You can make your dog
PHYSICALLY ILL by WITHHOLDING BRIBES.

IN FACT, we just seen a PROBABLE CASE
of THAT right here on The Amazing Puppy
Wizard's FREE WWW Wits' End Dog Training
Method Forums SCHOOL OF HARD KNOCKS
and HUMAN BEHAVIOR RESEARCH LABORATORY.

You're SETTIN in it.

> Nor does it risk provoking borderline
>aggressive or seriously dominant dogs.

Well that's NOT TRUE EITHER.

Offering fear aggressive dogs bribes may
make them ATTACK on accHOWENT of
dogs are SCAVENGERS who STEAL
scraps of food and run to hide to eat it
with their backs to the wall in a heightened
state of alert.

>One offshoot of positive training involves
> the use of techniques called operant
> conditioning and shaping.

Well you're pushin the limit NHOWE.
You're using some of them big words
you DON'T UNDERSTAND again.

> Operant conditioning is easiest to describe by example.

Oh goody!

> I feed my dog a treat while simultaneously creating a
> sound or using a word. Most commonly employed is
> a small hand-held device that makes a clicking sound.

You mean, like FINGERS?

>The dog will learn to associate the pleasant
>experience of the food reward with the sound
>of the clicker.

RIGHT. THEN you got to REDUCE the dog's
diet by 20% to encourage the dog to WORK
FOR FOOD. The US Military Marine Mammals
Corps with it's EXXXPERT military trainers
LOSE 10% of their PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED
sea mammals soon as they hit open water and
FREE FOOD.

Where do you think your dog will be FHOWEND
if you're walkin DHOWEN the street luring your
dog with your stinkin weenie and pass a garbage
can or ripe road kill?


> Later, the clicker sound is used to "mark" a specific
> correct response (e.g. sitting, walking in position) at
>precisely the moment it occurs.

You mean kinda like sayin GOOD BOY?

> "Clicker training" has proven extremely useful
> in many aspects of dog training.

IOW, you snap your fingers and praise. But
you gotta GIVE A COOKIE and THAT DISTRACTS
the dogs THINKIN from the CONTEXT of the LESSON.

PERHAPS you should just study your FREE copy
of The Amazing Puppy Wizard's FREE WWW
Wits' End Dog Training Method Manual and you
won't have none of them trHOWEBLESOME
words to cope with?

>What matters most

The Amazing Puppy Wizard firmly believes what
matters MOST is IDENTIFYING EXXXPOSING
and DISCREDITING ineffective training methods
and incompetent lying dog abusing punk thug
cowards and active long term incurable mental
cases who jerk choke shock crate bribe punish
and murder innocent critters and try to get HOWET
callin THAT, trainin.

>Today, while it is probably safe to say most
> trainers embrace positive methods,

Well that's a load of crap. Most of the "trainers"
we got here on rec.pets.dogs.behavior are lying
dog abusing punk thug coward mental cases
who'll do and say ANY THING to defend their
alleged right to hurt intimidate and murder dogs
as they've done for decades.

> there are a variety of slightly divergent approaches

Yeah, and THAT'S HOWE COME these MENTAL
CASES GOTTA HURT DOGS on accHOWENT
of dog trainin AIN'T LUCK.

> with the predictable disagreement (and sometimes
>bickering) between those subscribing to one or another.

Naaaah?

> Some trainers feel positive methods work well
> for teaching a new behavior, but will use mild
> aversives to assure rapid and consistent compliance
> once it has been learned.

IOW, they're FRAUDS. They're lying dog abusing
punk thug coward FRAUDS. You can't train a dog
using bribery and then HURT IT for not doin what
YOU NEVER TAUGHT IT TO DO on accHOWENT
of the dog CANNOT CHEW and THINK at the same
time.

> Others insist on a "purely positive" approach.

You mean BRIBERY and AVOIDANCE.

> Some use operant conditioning

You mean HURT the dog.

> while others do not.

SO, you THINK dog trainin is a matter of PREFERENCE?

> Many use clickers and many do not.

Clicker trainin is like takin a SHOWER with a raincoat.

> Why so many methods?

On accHOWET of ineffective incompetent
university trained behaviorists who shock
choke bribe and murder innocent critters
a la descarte.

> Quite simply -- because they all worked.

NO. The Amazing Puppy Wizard's 100%
CONSISTENTLY NEARLY INSTANTLY
SUCCESSFUL FREE WWW Wits' End
Dog Training Method Manual Students
GET 100% TOTAL NON PHYSICAL CON-
TROLL NEARLY INSTANTLY by NOT DOIN
NUTHIN like HOWE the EXXXPERTS SEZ.

> We have gravitated to those methods that
>produce reliable results and that we and our
> students are confident and comfortable in
> using.

You're blowin smoke up HOWER arses.

> No one method will produce equal results for all.

Well, NOT if you're gonna BRIBE CHOKE
INTIMIDATE AVOID and CONFINE your dog.

> Dogs aren't appliances,

Of curse not. You wouldn't jerk and choke
your t.v. if IT didn't come on when you lured
IT with an antenna. You gotta fire it up with
some juice, have an antenna, and a station
within range to recieve it. OtherWIZE you'll
be lookin at a expensive box.

> and therefore can't be expected to all work
> the same way.

IOW, there AIN'T NO SCIENCE of BEHAVIOR.

>The same goes for trainers.

That's another PROBLEM you seem to be
havin NHOWE that you've cover all the big
words, them "terms borrowed from psychologists
and behaviorists" you find CONfusing.

What you're talkin abHOWET are BALANCED
trainers. Trainers who KNOW WHEN to HURT
your dog and HOWE to HURT IT PUPPERLY.

LIKE HOWE YOU LEARNED.


>The best training method is the one
>that works best for you.

That so? You mean JUST PICK WON?

> What matters most is getting results

Yeah? THAT'S HOWE COME YOU HURT YOUR DOG!!!!

> and having a dog that's a joy to live

Well that's EZ for YOU to say. You're the bum
CHOKIN your dog. Perhaps if the dog had the
choker on you and jerked you every time IT
pulled you'd learn to keep up with your dog
and you wouldn't NEED to HURT YOUR BEAST
FRIEND?

> with and welcomed in the community.

The Amazing Puppy Wizard doesn't take
kindly to folks jerking and choking their dogs
in front of innocent children. They might LEARN
to do likeWIZE by watchin and THAT would
be contributing to the delenquency of a minor.

>Rue Chagoll lives in the Town of Lansing and
> trains with Golden Retrievers. He belongs to
> the Ithaca Dog Training Club and has received
> writing and editing awards from the Dog Writer's
>Association of America and the American Kennel
> Club. Comment, questions and dog news are
> welcome at rchagoll@capital.net.

PROBLEMO...

>Copyright \ufffd2004 The Ithaca Journal. All rights reserved.
>Use of this site indicates your agreement to the Terms
>of Service(Terms updated 12/20/02)


Dr. George VonHilsheimer writes in
"Is there a SCIENCE of BEHAVIOR?":

"Valette 1966 is a complete trivialization of
scientific findings. It overstates the case for
reinforcement theory. No careful researcher
would contend that operant techniques CAN
ANY THING MORE than modify SHORT TERM
BEHAVIOR in a highly controlled and limited
environment with a large number of skillful
experimenters. Certainly the most elaborate
studies have shown that the withdrawal or
temprary inefficiency of the reward system is
immediately followed by CESSATION of the
programmed behavior.

In fortunate contrast to this depressing paper
is the research reported by Whelan (1966) who
makes the simple but profHOWEND caveat that
"It is only through CORRECT, EFFICIENT APPLICATION
(of operant principles) that children's behavor can
be changed to the extent that they can subsequently
contribute to the REAL WORLD in which they live." "

"The Methods, Principles And Philosophy Of Behavior
Never Change, Or They'd Not Be Scientific And Would
Not Obtain Consistent, Reliable, Fast, Effective Results
For All Handler's And All Dogs, As Taught In Your FREE
Copy Of The Puppy Wizard's FREE WWW Wits' End
Dog Training Method Manual," The Amazing Puppy
Wizard. <{} ; ~ )

Dr. Von continues:

"Whelan illustrates the simple nature or the
learning process by referring to Ferster's
engaging study of two three year old
chimpanzees taught mathematics through
simple procedures. Whelan carries this
EVIDENCE a step futher by pointing HOWET
it's applicability to disturbed children."


A Dog Is A Dog As A Child Is A Child As A Kat
Is A Kat. All Critters Only Respond In Predictable
Innate, Normal, Natural, Instinctive, Reflexive,
Ways To Circumstances And Situations Of Their
Environments Which We Create For Them.

ALL BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS ARE CAUSED BY
MISHANDLING. Damn The Descartean War of
"Nature Vs Nurture." We Teach By HOWER Words
And Actions And GET BACK What We TAUGHT.

In The Problem Animal Behavior BUSINESS
FAILURE MEANS DEATH. SAME SAME SAME
SAME, For The Problem Child Behavior BUSINESS.

Dr. Von continues:
"If chimpanzees CAN LEARN mathematics
through step by step learning AT THEIR OWN
PACE, reinforced primarily by CORRECT
ANSWERS rather than with "fruit loops and
rasins", we can assume that even developmentally
RETARDED or CONfHOWENDED children
CAN LEARN as well. Moreover, Whelan
makes the EXXXTREMELY important point
that while most teachers assume that learning
takes place verbally, primarily it is a non verbal
process..

Unfortunately Whelan limits himself to the problem
that "teachers must not only modify or remove specific
deviant behaviors, but must also develop socially
acceptable behavior patterns in the classroom and
classroom conditioned goals, NOT LEARNING.

Other researchers have emphasized the importance
ofadult behaviors in conditioning classroom behavior.
An EXXXCELLENT review of this researchshowd that
tantrum behavior, excessive crawling and dependency,
isolated play, passivity, spelling failure, and other problem
behaviorscan be managed by altering habitual adult
responses to children (Harris, Wolf and Baer, 1964) .
Such RESEARCHholds GREATER PROMISE in that
alteration of the conditioning social environment seems
to provide more STABLE and LASTING CHANGES than
"M and M's". Moreover, a great deal of work has been
done developing EFFECTIVE techniques of behavior
modificaton through the conditioning social environment
of peers (Hartup, 1964). These directions would seem
more PRODUCTIVE than a simple minded trainslation
of the Skinner cage to the classroom.

Skinner (1963) pointed HOWET that operant techniques
can "be utilized fully ONLY IF we REDEFINE the GOALS
of education and the CONDITIONS in the educational
environment under which those goals may be reached...
(through) a DIFFERENT KIND of educational research
which is much more closely concerned with the immediate
dimensions of the student's behavior than with gross
changes such as IMPROVED PERFORMANCES."
UNFORTUNATELY, neither Skinner nor ANY OTHER
learning theorist has provided us with a working model
of a school or research enterprise based on systemic
and thorough-going APPLICATION of LEARNING
PRINCIPLES. Skinner (1948, 1953) approaches a
definition of the philosophical issues involved, and
provides an utopian model of a school, but generally
psychologists seem STUCK at a level of MANAGEMENT
of an aggressively disturbing child in the classroom,
through peer approval, or the aplication of accelerating
CONsequences in the classroom, or scientifically
S-HOWENDING tactics like "TIME HOWET" (which
we used to know more simply as "sendin the kid to
the cloakroom").

Hobbs (op. cit.) claims that the classroom is a
natural environement for the child. Thelen (1965)
contends that "classroom practices are UNnatural,
UNreasonable, and 'against NATURE.' ". This
would seem the central issue for the philosophy of
education. Mere trivial application of research findings
to an institution essentially unchanged from Sumerian
academies (Kramer, 1962) will NOT create useful
teaching for human beings.

It seems relevant to ask EXXXACTLY WHAT do we
know abHOWT the learning situation in which HOWER
children find themselves, and why, in the light of HOWER
knowledge, do we do any of the things that schools do?"

We know that there is little agreement among adults
as to what it is they are SUPPOSED to be DOING,
what something to do could be that MIGHT be
EFFECTVE, and what it IS that other people who
have authority over children ought to be doing (Mc-
Eachern and Taylor, 1967). Wherefor the child's
CONfusiHOWEN?

It is NO WONDER hat the marked changes in
deviant behavior of children can be achieved
through brief, simple educative routines with
their mothers which modify the mother's
social behaviors shaping the child (Whaler,
1966). Some clinics have reported ELIMINATION
ofthe need for child THERAPY through changing
the clinical emphasis from clinical to parental
HANDLING of the child (Szrynski 1965). A large
number of cases improved sufficiently after
preliminary contact with parents that NO treatment
of children was required, and almost ALL cases
SHOWE a remarkably shortened period for therapy.
Quite severe cases of anorexia nervosa have been
treated in own to five months by simply REPLACING
the parents temporarily with EFFUSIVELY LOVING
SUBSTITUTES (Groen, 1966).

Probably the most absurd figure in Amaerican mass
media is the TEACHER (Gerbner, 1966). HOWE can
we EXXXPECT children to LEARN responsible P-HOWER
from models of IMPOTENCE? We KNOW that LEARNING
a complex ritualized social role, is facilitated by observation
of an INTELLIGIBLE MODEL much more effectively than
by trial and error with REINFORCEMENT. roles which are
relatively arbitrary and senseless are the most difficult to
learn (Luchins, 1966). Do we make ANY EFFORT as
teachers to CORRECT the massive impact of media?
HOWE can the ARBITRARINESS and SENSELESSNESS
of IMPOTENT ADULT MODELS be redeemed by anything
short of RELEVANCE and COMMITMENT?

As an engaging final comment on the PROFESSION
let me mention the little study by Dittman et al (1965)
tha when 15 psychotherapists and 9 professional dancers
evaluated facial and bodily expressons for effect the
dancers ere much MOORE accurate. Need we say
MOORE abHOWET the training of therapists?

THE OPERANT FALLACY

Programs utilizing the "contingencies of reinforcement
model" proposed by Skinner (1963) ar no more well
established in research than the various dynamic
therapists. Research in four areas : 1) direct evaluation of
programmed systems for elarning; 2) reinforcement;
3) cognitive dissonance; and 4) motivation, MOST
SURELY DEMOLISH eth claims of operant programers.

The 190 studies annotated by Schramm (1964) when
inspected display NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
in SUCCESS among approaches and modifications.
Programmed instruction is no worse than conventional
instruction, and takes less time, but time reductions in
conventional instruction has frequently been shown
possible without detrimental effects. If you draw your
controls cagily you can always show the superiority of
your PET technique.

Moore and Smit (1964) compared variations on
programmed materials, machines, texts, written
responses, merely reading, free response, multiple
choice, and iving or not giving the students results.
There were NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES despite
Skinner's insistence on the importance of the
CONTINGENCY of REINFORCEMENT. Carpenter
and Greenhill (1963) could find NO DIFFERENCE
in RESULTS even after eliminating the self-pacing
feature by presenting the materials by TV or Video.

Krumboltz and Kiesler (1965) reported that a two month
follow up test showed NO DIFFERENCE between students
given a variety of reinforcement schedules. Mayo and
Longo (1966) report that naval and marine trainees
saved 30% of time in learning electronics fundamentals
through a programed course witrh superior scores on one
measure but not on another, and with no follow-up reported.
The same authors reported a reductionj from 26 HOWERS
to 19 HOWERS in instruction time through the use of
program with NO DIFFERENCE in test scores, except
that as longer blocks of materiallearned through programmed
meanswere tesed the scores DECREASED.

When the control instruction is manipulated an entirely
DIFFERENT picture emerges Jacobs and Kulkarni (1966)
assignedstudents in three different schools to classes
with standard programmed material giving immediate
knowledge of results to classes without results and to
classes with the order of sections of the program inverted.
In two schools the groups without knowledge of results
and the groups with inverted material SCORED HIGHER.
In one school there was NO DIFFERENCE. So much for
THEORY. Reid and Taylor (1965) presented a linear
program on paper-making to 60 paid undergrads with
a 12 week follow up test. The group which merely
read learned the same material in 154 minutes to
243 minutes for the group given responses- a
REVERSAL of the usual BIASED RESULTS based
on POOR CON-TROLLS. There were no differences
on post tests. Spagnoli (1965) reports on a study
exposing the control and programed group to the same
material in a concentrated effort over a limited period
of time. There were NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES.
Sassenrath and Garverick (1965) gave 4 matched
groups of 120 students four procedures: 1) looking
up the wrong answers, 2) having questions discussed
by the instructors, 3) checking answers from correct
ones on the board, and 4) no feedback. The discussion
method proved best.

Finally, in studying means of training men to perform
a 72 action prcedure on Nike-Hercules equipment,
Cox and Boren (1965) demonstrated that the time
required to learn the procedure to critterion was NO
DIFFERENT when the actions were organized into
seven operant spans and taught in reverse order, in
natural order, or without grouping into operant spans
at all.

IT IS CLEAR that as comparisons became more
sophisticated programed instruction and other
operant teaching techniquesreveal tehemselves
as simply another prestigiHOWES FAD--somewhat
better than conventional instruction in saving time,
but certainly not providing a better or better organized
or more independently useful GRASP of KNOWLEDGE.

The IMBECILITY of some ofthe claims for operant
technique simply take the breath away. Lovas et al
(1966) report a standard contingent reward/punishment
procedure developing imitative speech in two severly
disturbed non verbal schizophrenic boys. After twenty-
six days the boys are reported to have been learning
new words with alacrity. HOWEver, when REWARDS
were moved to a delayed contingency the behavoir and
learning immediately deteriorated. Despite this, and
despite the fact that there was no evidence of cognitive
association with the words, the authors leap to the
conclusion that the fact that the boys improved in the
acquisition of Norwegian words WITHOUT REWARDS
while still being given English words WITH REWARDS
suggest hat the children may be able to acquire new
behaviors on their own. The need for this study escapes
one, particularly in view of the very well established fact
that schizophrenics condition quite readily (Mednick, 1958)
One can see the "SCIENTIFIC" PRECISION by which the
authors drop contingent reinforcements thus PROVING
that the parrot behavior was indeed caused by the schedule
and NOT by some other mystical force. The useof Norwegian
to demonstrate learning that could not even remotely be
related to previous history is a grotesquery too bizarre to
be credited. Who could possibly doubt that this useless
and probably damaging trained seal routine depended on
the psychologist's antics? What on earth led them to
believe that a schizophrenic needs even more other-
focused responsiveness?

Lovaas et al (1965) reportedthree programs carried
out on five year old autistic twins conditioining them
to "social behavior" and to eliminate pathologial
behaviors such as self-stimulation and tantrums.
Affectionate and other social behaviors toward
adults increaseed after adults had been associated
with shock reduction. The routine for this treatment
brings immediate relief to mind Sawrey and Wesz
(1956) routine for producing ulcers in monkeys. I
suppose it is USELESS to speculate on the source
of SO CALLED THERAPISTS willingness to experiment
on human beings with procedures for which there is
sound experimentally established WARNINGS. If the
"double blind" theory of the origin of schizophrenia
(Bateson, 1956) is at all valid, HOWE DEVASTATING
the experience must ULTIMATELY BE. Do Lovaas et
al REALLY BELIEVE the schizophrenic has no cognitive
processes and DOES NOT KNOW WHO IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE SHOCK? Greger (1965) criticized this study
on the basis that trainsfer CANNOT be generalized. That
issue can be answered by experience, and, of curse, the
"social" behavior of these children deteriorates as soon
as the psychologists LOOSE INTEREST. The IMPORTANT
ISSUE for a SCIENCE OF BEHAVIOR is why not attempt
those things which are KNOWN to WORK at least in some
cases if only for control puporses. Kanner (1954) reports
that 13 classically autistic children improved enough to
go to school without "anything that is regarded as good
psychotherapy or as psychotherapy at all..." Autistic
children have been known to become permenantely
social by deinstitutionalization, BY REMOVAL from
the parents, BY RADICAL CHANGES in other environments,
and by MASSIVE DOSAGE of TOUCHING, HOLDING,
FONDLING LOVE DESPITE THE REJECTION OF THE
CHILD. My case, Larry, (vonHilsheimer, 1965b), demonstrates
a recovery by using the mother as an autistic boy's teacher
in an open millieu. It is curiHOWES that the operant technicians
provide as few, and as UNIMAGINITAVE controls for thier
"research" as the Freudians.

REWARD / PUNISHMENT

Despite Skinner's clear denunciation of "negative
reinforcement" (1958) NEARLY EVER LEARNING
THEORY model involves the USE OF PUNISHMENT.
Of curse, Skinner has never to my knowledge,
demonstrated HOWE we escape the phenomenon
that an expected reward not received is experienced
as a punishment and can produce extensive and
persistent aggression (Azrin et al, 1966).

MIMICRY, PLAY, EXPLORATION AND
THE NEED FOR DATA

Complex activities are LEARNED MORE QUICKLY
through OBSERVATION (copying, if you will) than
by trial and error with reinforcemet (Luchins,).
Observers of subjects making a first trial of a multiple
choice bolt head maze made fewer errors than the
practiced subjects in the second run, while subjects
who have been shocked for error on a first trial made
more errors than either (Rosenbaum & Hewitt, 1966).
Students will modify their beliefs more when rewarded
for the way in which they carried out arguing for a
disagreeable position (role reward), than when rewarded
for the content of the argument (Wallace, 1966).

======================

From: "George von Hilsheimer, Ph.D."
<*.@mindspring.com>

To: <pdd-aspy...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 9:31 AM
Subject: How does diagnosis shape treatment?

How does diagnosis shape treatment?

Nearly every week I have a visit from Jerry Howe, who
publicizes himself as The Puppy Wizard. Jerry is a
master at behavioral modification of dogs.

His fundamental bedrock is the work Pavlov's last student,
the late Sam Corson, Ph.D., did at the U of Ohio (at Oxford,O).

Sam always pointed out if the dog stopped working for
you in the lab, Pavlov and he always took the dog away
from the lab, and put him in a loving home and gave him
TLC for a couple of months, and then started, very carefully,
over again.

Jerry believes that reward and constraint focused training
is immoral. I've watched him in one short session calm
impossible dogs, just about to be murdered (oops "put to
sleep") because of their "incorrigibly" violent behavior.

Sam was one of the first people to apply amphetamine to
hyperactivity (he searched the Middle West for hyperactive
dogs); but he never lost sight of the fundamental reality that
a dog is not a human, but does respond, doggily, to dog love.

You might be surprised to go to B. F. Skinner's "Cumulative
Record" and read the essay by Breland and Breland, "The
Misbehavior of Organisms".

Animals cannot be successfully trained unless the
trainer attends to the evolutionary history, the individual's
developmental history, and the environmental niche of
the animal being trained.

Yep, right there in Skinner's last and summary book.
Even with behavior mod, you must know the animal.

<snip>

Dogs or little boys, you have to know the individual
history, and the nature of he disorder.

Dr. Von

PS if you are interested in dogs, then take a look at
Jerry's work, ThePuppyWiz...@EarthLink.Net


INTRO TO WITS' END DOG TRAINING MANUAL
George von Hilsheimer, Ph.D. F.R.S.H.

Several years ago one of my old students telephoned
to me and asked me what I knew about Doggie Do
Right, a device to cause your neighbor's dog to stop
barking.

I had not heard of the device, nor its inventor, Jerry
Howe, but I telephoned, read his website, and told
my graduate that I thought the device was worth a
trial - indeed I shut up the dogs in my neighborhood
by turning on Jerry's supersonic device.

After all we all know that dogs respond to whistles
humans cannot hear, so why not respond to "attaboy"
sounds which humans cannot hear.

My student lived far from my Florida homestead, so
he tried it on the three incredibly savage, hyperactive
and noisy dogs who lived behind a tall fence just 3 feet
back of his bedroom.

Hot rats! The device worked,

Andy got his sleep and I didn't think much of the
matter again.

A few months ago I had new neighbors on each
side of my house, four of them, all with noisy
unshuttupable dogs. Argh!

So I foned Andrew in Virgina, received the intelligence
that his neighbors dogs were still quiet, and then I foned
Jerry Howe, the inventor of Doggie Do Right, who came
to visit me.

Merlin walked into my office.

Jerry is a slender fellow with a belly button lenghth grey
beard tapering down his chest. I liked him immediately,
and I applied his instrument to the neighborhood again
which again became silent.

It occured to me that if this ultrasonic field worked with
dogs that we ought at least to ask the question, what
happens to humans in range of the device???

I asked Jerry to give me a list of customers and began
inquiring among them. One thing became immediately
evident. The Doggie Do Right not only shuts up your
neighbors' dogs, it calms and modifies your husband's behavior.

Holey Moley, Captain Marvel, this device has major potential.

In the meantime Jerry gave me a copy of his Wits End
Dog Training Manual. I was delighted. He also introduced
me to the world of professional dog trainers some of whom
even have Ph.D.s in psychology.

This was not such a delight as it appeared that none
of these luminaries had actually read Skinner, Lazarus
or other fountains of wisdom in psychology. Indeed, it
seemed as though they knew very little about the laws
of behavior at all!

Punishment and confrontation seemed to be their
major stock in trade.

Well, if you go to my website, www.drbiofeedback.com
you can read of the career of Sam Corson, I.P. Pavlov's
last student.

Sam demonstrated that rehabilitation of hyperactive
dogs can easily and readily be done using TLC, tender
loving care is at the root of the scientific management
of doggies.

Pavlov told us so 100 years ago.

So what are these degreed morons doing punishing
dogs, and shouting "NO" into their doggie faces? If
you pick up B.F.Skinner's last book, CUMULATIVE
RECORD, included in it is an essay by Keller Breland
and Maryann Breland entitled THE MISBEHAVIOR OF ORGANISMS.

Skinner deliberately included his students' chapter
to emphasize that you cannot manage the behavior
of animals unless you take into consideration 1. the
animal's evolutionary niche (who is the animal?);
2. the animal's personal history (who is the animal?)
and 3, the instinctive repetoire of the animal (who is
the animal?) and 4. the personality of the animal (who
is the animal?).

The Brelands moved far from the white rat. "Thirty-eight
species, totaling over 6,000 individual animals, have been
conditioned, and we have dared to tackle such unlikely
subjects as reindeer, cockatoos, raccoons, porpoises,
and whales."

Jerry Howe spends most of his times with dogs, but
he has learned Pavlov's lesson well. Dogs are individuals,
they are individual DOGS, and they respond most directly
and immediately to love and tender loving care.

Read with pleasure, and then go love your dog.

George von Hilsheimer, Ph.D., F.R.S.H.
Who's Who Honoree since 1983

From: TooCool (larrym...@hotmail.com)

The Puppy Wizard's Wits End Training Method

I have studied canine behavior and dog training for
years. I have a huge library that covers every system
of training.

The Puppy Wizard's (Jerry Howe's) Wits' End Training
Method is by far the most scientific, the most
advanced, the kindest, the quickest and the most
effective training method yet discovered.

It is not an assortment of training tips and tricks;
it is a logically consistent system. Every behavior
problem and every obedience skill is treated in the
same logically consistent manner.

Please study his manual carefully. Please endeavor to
understand the basis of his system and please follow
his directions exactly. His manual is a masterpiece.
It is dense with theory, with explanation, with
detailed descriptions about why behavior problems
occur and how their solution should be approached.

One should not pick and choose from among his methods
based upon what you personally like or dislike. His is
not a bag of tricks but a complete and integrated
system for not only training a dog but for raising a
loving companion.

When I once said to Jerry that his system creates for
you the dog of your dreams, his response was that it
produces for your dog the owner of his dreams.

You see, Jerry has discovered that if you are gentle
with your dog then he will be gentle with you, if you
praise your dog every time he looks at you, then you
will become the center of your dogs world, if you use
Jerry's sound distraction with praise, then it takes
just minutes-sometimes merely seconds-to train your
dog to not misbehave (even in your absence) (Just 15
seconds this morning to train my 10 week old puppy to
lie quietly and let me clip his nails).

Using Jerry's scientific method (sound distraction /
praise / alteration / variation) it takes just minutes
to train you dog to respond to your commands.

What a pleasure it was for me to see my 6 week old
puppy running as fast has his wobbly little legs would
carry him in response to my recall command-and he
comes running every time I call no matter where we are
or what he is doing.

At ten weeks old now, my puppy never strains upon
his leash thanks to Jerry's hot & cold exercises and
his Family Pack Leadership exercises.

Jerry has discovered that if you scold your dog, if you
scream at him, if you intimidate him, if you hurt him,
if you force him then his natural response is to oppose
you.

Is Jerry a nut?

It doesn't make any difference to me whether he is
not.

It is a logical fallacy to judge a person's ideas based
upon their personality. As far as dogs are concerned,
Jerry wears his heart upon his sleeve. It touches him
deeply when he hears of trainers forcing, intimidating,
scolding or hurting dogs.

More than that, he knows that force is not effective
and that it will certainly lead to behavior problems;
sometime problems so severe that people put their
dogs down because of those problems.

I believe that it is natural for humans to want to control
their dog by force. Jerry knows this too. We have all been
at our wits' end, haven't we?

Dogs have a natural tendency to mimic. In scientific
literature it is referred to allelomimetic behavior. Dogs
respond in like kind to force; they respond in like kind
to praise.

Don't bribe your dog with treats; give him what he
wants most-your kind attention. Give him your praise.
You will be astonished at how your dog 's anxiety will
dissipate and how their behavior problems will dissipate
along with their anxiety.

Treat Jerry Howe's (The Puppy Wizard) Wits' End
Training Method as a scientific principle just as you
would the law of gravity and you will have astounding
success.

Dog behavior is just as scientific as is gravity.

If you follow Jerry's puppy rules you will get a sweet
little Magwai; if you don't you will surely get a little
gremlin (anyone see The Gremlins?). --Larry

"TooCool" <larrym...@hotmail.com wrote in message
news: a2_Mc.882$Bc1.121@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...

"Learning Theory"-An Insult to Canines

Classical and operant conditioning is founded in
what is termed "learning theory".

The four rudimentary rules of "learning theory" are:
Something Good can start or be presented, so
behavior increases = Positive Reinforcement (R)

Something Good can end or be taken away, so behavior
decreases = Negative Punishment (P-)

Something Bad can start or be presented, so behavior
decreases = Positive Punishment (P)

Something Bad can end or be taken away, so behavior
increases = Negative Reinforcement (R-)

Proponents of "learning theory" believe that no
learning can take place without reinforcement or
punishment either positive or negative. That is why
they employ treats and force.

"Learning theory" is a flawed concept for
evolutionarily advanced species. Advanced species
learn without any external motivation. They are not
automatons that merely respond to stimuli. Their
evolutionary survival has endowed them with self
motivated learning behavior. Canines, in particular,
are curious, they love to learn and they exhibit
pride in what they have learned. They think-they
figure things out. They can invent games to play.
They can invent behaviors to drive you crazy. They
have emotions-they can be humorous and they can
be vindictive-their feelings can be hurt. They can
suffer terribly if you don't treat them with respect.

They actively seek their environment for new things to
learn. They also learn from watching other animals and
humans and they mimic their behavior (in the scientific
literature this is termed allelomimetic behavior). It is an
insult to the intelligence of dogs and to their owners to
employ operant conditioning (clicker training).

Dogs are not B. F. Skinner robots whose only capacity
to learn stems from the four rules of "learning
theory". Canines deserve treatment and training that
is tailored to their nature. You can literally ruin
your dog if your treatment and training does not
respect their nature.

Please study the Puppy Wizard's Wits' End Training
Method. It is the only available method, of which I
am aware, that is based upon the true nature of
canines. In his system, praise is not used as a
reinforcement or motivator, i. e., dogs are not asked
to work for praise.

--Larry

"TooCool" <larrym...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:

Planarians are primitive, free-living, flat bodied,
freshwater creatures. They can be conditioned to
respond to stimuli, display the ability to master a
two-choice maze, and can transfer the memory of
training from one individual to another by feeding a
ground up planarian to another one.

It is this primitive level of learning that "Learning
Theory" and operant conditioning addresses. Operant
conditioning does not rely upon an animal's ability
to think. It operates upon a primitive (nervous
system) level for animals in general, regardless of
the level of their brain development.

When you train a dog using clicker training, you are
training a mindless reaction to your clicker /
reinforcement.

Your dog is not learning an idea-he is learning a
conditioned reflex. He will perform just like a robot
when you give the signal-he can't help it.

It has also been shown that when you later withdraw
your reinforcement that it will induce stress which will
lead to behavior problems-often quite severe.

Learning in humans is conceptual. "Learning theory"
plays absolutely no part in human learning. Humans
do not learn through a process of gaining some
reinforcement or avoiding some pain. They study their
environment, they form concepts, they learn logic (in
order to separate truth from falsity) and using
reasoning they attempt to integrate all of their
knowledge without contradiction. If humans seem to
respond to some reinforcement or to avoid some pain,
it is because they have consciously evaluated the
various alternatives and have made a reasoned
choice--that is not a conditioned behavior and
it is not an application of "Learning Theory".

Canines are not conceptual animals, but they do
possess the ability to think. Their thinking powers
are different both in kind and in degree from humans.
That is why it is so important to learn their nature
in order to train them successfully.

Operant conditioning operates at a primitive, nervous
system level. It does not take advantage of a dog's
ability to think-only his ability to be conditioned.

The act of subverting his nature as a thinking
creature causes stress and anxiety which can in
turn produce behavior problems.

Please study the Puppy Wizard's Wits' End Training
Method. It is consonant with the nature of a
thinking dog. It will not induce stress and anxiety
and no behavior problems will result. --Larry

All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
-Arthur Schopenhauer

"Thank you for fighting the fine fight--
even tho it's a hopeless task,
in this system of things.
As long as man is ruling man,
there will be animals (and humans!)
abused and neglected. :-(
Your student," Juanita.

"If you've got them by the balls their hearts
and minds will follow,"
John Wayne.
The Amazing Puppy Wizard. <{} ; ~ ) >



The Amazing Puppy Wizard
2005-01-27 07:55:01 EST
HOWEDY BarbnBeau,

Pretty compelling STUFF, AIN'T IT.


The Amazing Puppy Wizard
2005-01-27 10:57:36 EST
You can't post here abHOWETS nodoGgamenedMOORE.


Theresa Willis
2005-01-27 18:33:09 EST
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:19:20 -0500, "BarbnBeau" <bdeaton@cogeco.ca>
wrote:


>(BTW, can't imagine anyone taking offense to these posts:):)


You can't? Really?

Then my guess is you have really lousy reading comprehension, and not
much imagination.

Is your name really Marilyn?

The Amazing Puppy Wizard
2005-01-28 03:06:05 EST
Paxil Princess psychoclown wrote:
"Nope. That "beating dogs with sticks"
things is something you twisted out of
context, because you are full of bizarro
manure."

"Get a stick 30- or 40-inches long. You can have a helper
wield the stick, or do it yourself. Tougher, less tractable
dogs may require you to progress to striking them more
sharply.

REPEAT, VARYING HOW HARD YOU HIT THE DOG.

Now you are ready to progress to what most people think of
as force-fetching: the ear pinch.

Make the dog's need to stop the pinching so urgent that
resisting your will fades in importance.

but will squeal, thrash around, and direct their efforts to
escaping the ear pinch even get a studded collar and pinch
the ear against that if the dog still does not open its mouth,
get out the shotshell.

Try pinching the ear between the metal casing and the
collar, even the buckle on the collar. Persist! Eventually, the
dog will give in

With your hand on the collar and ear, say, 'fetch.'

Immediately tap the dog on the hindquarters with the stick.

Repeat "fetch" and pinch the ear all the way to the dummy.
You can press the dog's ear with a shotshell instead of your
thumb; Say 'fetch' while pressing the dummy against its lips
and pinching its ear," lying frosty dahl.

Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron