Positive Reinforcement

fburton said:
Yes, one can use NR and PR together (concurrently), and that's what this discussion has been about. However, the stimuli used for these are not simultaneous. In the case of NR, an aversive stimulus is applied and then removed when the desired behaviour occurs. In the case of PR, nothing is given until the desired behaviour occurs; only when (or after) it occurs is the rewarding stimulus given. So the actual stimuli - aversive and rewarding - would occur at different times (non-simultaneously) when NR and PR are being used concurrently. Therefore, I would argue - but you and others may disagree - there is no possibility of overshadowing in this situation because overshadowing requires the stimuli to occur at exactly the same time (or at least overlap, though note that there should be no overlap if NR and PR used together are performed according to definition).

If the aversive stimulus were to be given when the desired behaviour occurred, it wouldn't be NR - it would be positive punishment. And yes, overshadowing would come into the picture if a rewarding stimulus was presented at the same time as an aversive, the net effect depending on the relative salience of the two stimuli - but we were discussing NR+PR not PP+PR.
Click to expand...

Very interesting and it's certainly very thought provoking regarding stimulus presentation - it has certainly got the old brain cogs moving again after Xmas!! It has definitely made me reappraise my understanding of the concepts.

What do you think McLean/McGreevy had in mind when they discussed concurrent use of NR and PR and overshadowing? I would be very interested to know what Paul McGreevy/McLean says about this and whether he would be interested in clarifying their use of the terms 'concurrent', 'overshadowing', etc, in NR and PR.

Best wishes for 2013.
 
Tom and Bill Dorrance, were born in 1910 and 1906, respectively. Their training, now branded Natural Horsemanship, obviously proved successful and spawned most of the NH trainers who are in their 50's now.
Whilst Skinner was messing about giving rats electric shocks, trying to stick a label on behavior and how to influence it. The Dorrances were forging ahead with horses, and demonstrating how it should and could be done.
Anyone who has read 'True Unity' by Tom and True Horsemanship through feel' wil know that neither were academic, thank God, and their ideas were difficult to explain.
What they do say is the language of horses is feel, not pressure, not reward, not punishments.
As far as Skinner et al are concerned, it's back to the drawing board as far as horses are concerned. I don't think they come close.
 
Pale Rider said:
Tom and Bill Dorrance, were born in 1910 and 1906, respectively. Their training, now branded Natural Horsemanship, obviously proved successful and spawned most of the NH trainers who are in their 50's now.
Whilst Skinner was messing about giving rats electric shocks, trying to stick a label on behavior and how to influence it. The Dorrances were forging ahead with horses, and demonstrating how it should and could be done.
Anyone who has read 'True Unity' by Tom and True Horsemanship through feel' wil know that neither were academic, thank God, and their ideas were difficult to explain.
What they do say is the language of horses is feel, not pressure, not reward, not punishments.
As far as Skinner et al are concerned, it's back to the drawing board as far as horses are concerned. I don't think they come close.
Click to expand...
You're entitled to your view, of course. :) Actually, I find behaviourism explains nearly everything I see horses do in the way of learning, either with each other or when trained by humans - and it does so in a simple, economical way (i.e. one doesn't have to invoke dodgy anthropormorphisms like 'respect', or pseudo-science around 'hierarchy'). YMMV, naturally - for me, things get too fuzzy, too touchy-feely(!), if you cut out pressure, reward, punishment, etc.

I think you have a good point about 'feel' though, and I would concur with others who have noted a rather mechanical quality in some equitation science practitioners. I would much rather watch horsemen and women with a well-developed or natural feel - such as Lesley Desmond (NH) or Mark Rashid (not-really-NH) or Jacky Low-Mitchell (conventional) - although what they do can still be explained, ultimately, in terms of behaviourism. Some may possess supreme, breath-taking skill, but there is nothing whatever mysterious or 'magical' in what they do.

Alyth, I very much agree with you that 'learning theory' by itself is not enough. However, I feel it provides a solid base on which to develop other skills, such as feel and timing, and, most importantly, the ability to read a horse from moment to moment.
 
Tonks said:
What do you think McLean/McGreevy had in mind when they discussed concurrent use of NR and PR and overshadowing?
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know, Tonks!

I would be very interested to know what Paul McGreevy/McLean says about this and whether he would be interested in clarifying their use of the terms 'concurrent', 'overshadowing', etc, in NR and PR.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, I'm on the case. :)

Best wishes for 2013.
Click to expand...
Same to you, and to everyone!
 
The aim for most when training their own horses, is developing the relationship to where the horse does what they ask, without resistance, without being forced.
I'd agree that behaviourism explains everything and anthropomorphic interpretation confuses and sets everyone on the wrong path.
However, for the person setting off on the path, they need to learn the nuts and bolts. That's why in the early stages or poorly done it does appear mechanical. It's only through practice and experience that the feel is developed.
I'm just not a big fan of Skinner.
 
very interesting thread.... mind if I join in? :)

Just going back to the point about whether it is possible to start a horse using only +r training, I have a few musings to share, as follows. These musings are coming from someone who has started a number of horses and increasingly uses +r, where possible (though to get to the point, my conclusion so far is that it is impossible to use solely +r):

If you really want to be able to say that you have started a horse using only +r, then theoretically you'd have to know that since birth that horse has only ever been trained using +r. This is in the first place unlikely unless you bred the horse yourself. Even if you have bred the horse yourself ... really, think about it.... can you truely get through life with that horse without ever using -r? While I love young horses, are there really never any times when you might wish to instill a boundary and make your point over something - e.g. the horse not barging into you?

Putting that aside, the next step would be to say can you do all the groundwork necessary to prepare for ridden work, using only +r? There is for sure much you can do using +r but the aspects that I think is pretty impossible is teaching the horse to understand the bit. For sure sure you can initially teach the horse to accept the bit into his mouth/ accept a bridle using only +r...... honey on the bit also really helps! However, the bottom line with the bit is that it is inherrently a lot about pressure/ release. Even at the mild end of the spectrum, if you want the horse to turn his head right, you would apply the right rein (even gently) and this is -r (and yes, it's -r, even if you then also add in click and treat when the horse turns his head).

When teaching the horse to understand the bit, I would do a lot of in-hand bridle work. This would mean walking along side the horse practicing go/ stop/ turn/ accustoming the horse to a "contact", and eventually encouraging the horse to take a better shape overall. I would love to say that could be achieved with only +r but I just don't see how it can be. For example, when you want to stop, OK you will say the verbal cue for this/ stop yourself/ drop your own energy but then there does come a point where the horse must stop off the rein aid (again, that's -r, even if done so mildly). If the horse doesn't stand this rein aid, imho he's not safe to get on.

Of course this begs the question - what if you want to ride bittless? Well, to be honest, even bitless, for safety's sake, the horse must absolutely know your stop cue (which may vary depending on what bittless bridle you use). It may be hard to instill that without some -r.

What about the dream of getting on a horse bareback & bitless then? surely you could do that with just +r? I dunno. Certainly not met anyone that has done it. Maybe I might have had a chance at doing it with one of mine who was particularly sweet and who I did have since a foal, but even then, young horses are a different kettle of fish to adult horses and if they end up going through a bit of a teenage phase, I think I'd want something on their heads (and actually, if the horse does raise a question that needs a bit of a direct answer, surely better to answer that and end the conversation as actually, yes, if you're sitting on a horse there is a point where for safety's sake he needs to do as asked) ...... now of course an older, wiser horse bareback & bitless, is another question altogether....

In terms of the actual backing process (by which I mean accustoming the horse to accept you up there), there is an awful lot you can do with +r. I would get the horse in just a halter/ rope (to which he is already conditioned, so any signals are at that point only cues) and first teach him to stand by the mounting block using +r (depending on the horse, this might be scratchies while he is there so he learns to "present" his back for scratching - or it might be basically clicker in that horse stands there, gets his "good-boy/ click/ whatever your signal is" then gets a treat). A catch to the clicker route here is that the horse often then takes a backward step to get his treat from you (and you are still standing on the mounting block). So, you need to quickly progress to "good-boy, etc", then jump off the mounting block to give the horse his treat at his head, while he is still stationary.

Once the standing by the mounting block is understood then you can progress to putting a leg over/ leaning over, etc, etc... all built up slowly slowly. Eventually you would put a leg right over and give the horse a treat while on board but that takes a lot of building up to.

To be frank, the process of backing this way is long and probably why most pro yards don't bother with it (and I wonder, would any owners want to pay for it, if the results take so much longer?). I do it this way because fortunately I don't have to make money out of it!

Then after you can sit up there and also the horse understands the rein aids and your voice aids (and also the fact that the whip is an aid, as that can be taught from the ground also, with a lot more +r than you'd think - after all, you only want the horse to move away from the whip at this stage....) then basically you're good to go. You can start your baby's first ridden steps and you can at this point skip out being on the lunge (though a ground helper can often be useful to give the young horse confidence). After that things can come surprisingly quickly but the preparation will have taken a lot of time. One quick thing to add (and another disadvantage to all the +r training) is that the horse may well be confused when taking his first few steps as you've just spent however many weeks explaining to him you'd like him to stand at the mounting block while you do all sorts of things up on his back! - so as not to undo all the good work so far, this is where ground help is absolutely necessary, to give the horse a gentle lead forward.

Hope some of that is of some use. I've skipped over some parts so feel free if you have any questions! - this isn't supposed to be a total how to monologe, it's just some highlights of what to me are the more interesting points.
 
Kelpie, I think you philosophy is spot on and I would happily entrust any horse of mine to you. You hit the nail on the head, ultimately most yards don't have the time to take this approach but I think they would develop more confident horses who enjoy working if they did.
 
canteron said:
Kelpie, I think you philosophy is spot on and I would happily entrust any horse of mine to you. You hit the nail on the head, ultimately most yards don't have the time to take this approach but I think they would develop more confident horses who enjoy working if they did.
Click to expand...

awe, thank you so much :) :)
 
I just don't think you can honestly say that everything you do is done with PR, why would you even want to. Balance is the key and horses need some NR.
Why is everyone so convinced that in this context NR is a bad thing. (dam Skinner).
 
Pale Rider said:
I just don't think you can honestly say that everything you do is done with PR, why would you even want to. Balance is the key and horses need some NR.
Why is everyone so convinced that in this context NR is a bad thing. (dam Skinner).
Click to expand...

Agreed....... imho, -r isn't of itself a bad thing - now -r used to excess, OK, not so good, but then there's that whole minefield of defining excess - I think that's where the trouble starts.....
 
"The thing you are trying to help the horse do is to use his own mind. You are trying to present something and then let him figure out how to get there." - Tom Dorrance

If folk keep that quote in mind and don't get task oriented its achievable and fun, especially when they get good at figuring things out.
 
Kelpie what you say is pretty much how I did my boy, had him from 6 month unhandled foal off the moor, traumatised by people already, and it's because of him I got into clicker and PR etc as he was so untrusting and nervous. I wish I could say everything we ever did was +r but I can't see it being possible and things happen now and again but his training was +r as much as I could and I was learning along the way with much to.still learn. I finally backed him at 6! So it took a long long time but he was amazing and the bond we have is amazing because of it. He's so sensitive to.voice command, the seat and the slightest touch. He did go to boarding school for 5 weeks in July to polish him off as my skills are limited but chose one that did clicker and are as kind as possible. Sadly I've recently loaned him due to my ill health the most devastating thing ever to me but his welfare was at stake and he's very happy where he is.

anyway sorry rambling but just wanted to say your post makes much sense and time really is the key a lot of people won't bother with, it's all very well if it's your own forever but if you're backing to sell etc people want a quick turnover.

the other thing mentioned in these posts is feel and I strongly believe you can have all the learning theory, behavior theory, training techniques in your head but unless you have a feel for the animal outcomes can be very different
 
I like that quote Pale Rider so true, again people are too pressured to try and let them work things out for themselves, if you do though they tend to understand much more!
 
I still feel people are interpreting 'negative reinforcement' as 'negative' rather than 'taking away a stimulus'......
 
Alyth said:
I still feel people are interpreting 'negative reinforcement' as 'negative' rather than 'taking away a stimulus'......
Click to expand...

I'm glad you said that :)

I've been reading this thread with interest and have no real experience on training /learning theory etc. but had thought after reading this thread I now understood what positive and negative reinforcement was.

It confused me when nobody mentioned that Kelpie was describing e.g. pressure on the bit as negative reinforcement when according to what I thought I had learned is actually positive reinforcement as it is adding something i.e. pressure. :)
 
I think that the constant misconception abou negative reinforcement is damaging, as trainers are somehow seen as brutal or unkind because they use it, and to some horses, who constantly being rewarded take full advantage of the situation and become pushy and demanding, when their kindly owner/trainer, who doesn't like or use negative reinforcement, attempts the impossible.
 
I don't believe it is possible to train/work horses without the use of negative R. Any physical cue/visual stimulus/voice command used to encourage a desired response is pressure in some form, and must, by definition, be followed by Neg R if the horse is to learn a habitual response.

I would like to hear about examples of PR-only training practice.
 
Numpty here but in my understanding positive reinforcement is adding something the horse loves such as a treat or scratches immediately after the desired behaviour. Negative reinforcement is the removal of an aversive stimulus. So pressure on the bit is an aversive stimulus and releasing the pressure makes it negative reinforcement. It may be incorrect in theory but in training I think of -R as a two stage process... applying pressure and releasing it. To add +R you would then go on to give a treat for eg but timing is crucial in all this so this is where clicker training comes in for many trainers to 'mark' the behaviour being rewarded when the treat can't be delivered quickly enough or for precision.

The argument is usually about the word aversive and some wish to train without using any pressure. As PR says the pressure scale is up for argument, judgement and personal preference but the main thing to remember is timing and waiting for a response or attempt at a response which is called a 'try' by some including Mark Rashid. Observing the horse is crucial, learning to see/feel their smallest efforts and releasing and rewarding and also how they are responding to the pressure applied.
For ridden work about this I recommend Mark Rashids DVD Finding the try. Theoretically some of it may be +P but that's wayyyyy out of my understanding. :( Simple minds and all that. Hope I haven't added confusion, I should keep off these threads. I have been poisoned about them. :D
 
Coming from a background of positive reinforcement training is so much simpler!

Compared to negative reinforcement systems like Natural Horsemanship & Dominance Reduction, it's just so simple.

And you don't ever, have to be mean & nasty to your favourite animal friend ... we assume this is an upside foryou?

The myth that training animals is difficult derives from our traditional reliance on negative reinforcement & punishment - to be effective you needed to eliminate all the behaviours you didn't want, leaving only the one you do. That's a massive challenge for anyone!

Whereas with positive reinforcement,you teach the reward technique (10 minutes) & then proceed to only reward the behaviours you want. Wouldn't it be great not to have to use force ever again? Wouldn't this be so much simpler?

The above is a quote from someone advertising their system of training. Little wonder people get confused when this, clearly inaccurate rubbish is touted as a valid training technique.

Sorry if this is confusing in lay out, on my phone, so limited.
 
Pale Rider said:
I believe rewarding the slightest try is an important first step in all 'brands' of horsemanship.
Click to expand...

Yes, but a successful trainer will set the scene so the subject (horse) makes the correct choice (or try as you put it). Dorrence hit the nail on the head but might possibly have phrased it a bit better.

I find the jargon merely clouds the issue. Successful training is all about providing the subject with choices and making it easy for it to make the right choice with the minimum of upset.

Look at the following situation: You go into the doctor's waiting room and sit down. The chair is uncomfortable. You can get up and go home, or sit there and suffer in silence, or you can try a different chair. My take of the situation is where a fellow patient points out that there is a much more comfortable chair if you care to move to it. That is a lot more efficient than trying all the chairs in the waiting room at random to find the best one!

Now, substitute the horse for yourself and the other patient as the helpful trainer, and you have the key to very many training situations -- and I don't really care whether it is negative or positive reinforcement, so long as it works. Random and erratic behaviour (shutting down, rearing, etc) is much more likely if the horse is pushed into a situation where it cannot see a way out, panics, and feels it must escape at any cost. A good trainer explains in terms the animal can understand that there is a better way.
 
Pale Rider said:
Coming from a background of positive reinforcement training is so much simpler!

Compared to negative reinforcement systems like Natural Horsemanship & Dominance Reduction, it's just so simple.

And you don't ever, have to be mean & nasty to your favourite animal friend ... we assume this is an upside foryou?

The myth that training animals is difficult derives from our traditional reliance on negative reinforcement & punishment - to be effective you needed to eliminate all the behaviours you didn't want, leaving only the one you do. That's a massive challenge for anyone!

Whereas with positive reinforcement,you teach the reward technique (10 minutes) & then proceed to only reward the behaviours you want. Wouldn't it be great not to have to use force ever again? Wouldn't this be so much simpler?

The above is a quote from someone advertising their system of training. Little wonder people get confused when this, clearly inaccurate rubbish is touted as a valid training technique.

Sorry if this is confusing in lay out, on my phone, so limited.
Click to expand...

It would help if we knew what the quote extended to.
 
Sorry AengusOg

Coming from a background of positive reinforcement training is so much simpler!

Compared to negative reinforcement systems like Natural Horsemanship & Dominance Reduction, it's just so simple.

And you don't ever, have to be mean & nasty to your favourite animal friend ... we assume this is an upside foryou?

The myth that training animals is difficult derives from our traditional reliance on negative reinforcement & punishment - to be effective you needed to eliminate all the behaviours you didn't want, leaving only the one you do. That's a massive challenge for anyone!

Whereas with positive reinforcement,you teach the reward technique (10 minutes) & then proceed to only reward the behaviours you want. Wouldn't it be great not to have to use force ever again? Wouldn't this be so much simpler?

Is the quote.
 
Dry Rot said:
Look at the following situation: You go into the doctor's waiting room and sit down. The chair is uncomfortable. You can get up and go home, or sit there and suffer in silence, or you can try a different chair. My take of the situation is where a fellow patient points out that there is a much more comfortable chair if you care to move to it. That is a lot more efficient than trying all the chairs in the waiting room at random to find the best one!

Now, substitute the horse for yourself and the other patient as the helpful trainer, and you have the key to very many training situations -- and I don't really care whether it is negative or positive reinforcement, so long as it works. Random and erratic behaviour (shutting down, rearing, etc) is much more likely if the horse is pushed into a situation where it cannot see a way out, panics, and feels it must escape at any cost. A good trainer explains in terms the animal can understand that there is a better way.
Click to expand...
I think the point about using only a positive R approach is to avoid the discomfort in the first place.

I'm another who believes training and living with horses cannot exclude -R. There are formal training sessions but horses (like us) are learning all the time so by extension we are training/teaching them all the time even if inadvertently. Learning theory doesn't just apply to formal training/teaching imo.
I look on -R as giving a clue to the horse as to what is required and then reinforce any attempt at the behaviour. I'm too dumb to be able to work out how to live without it, plus, I believe it is something horses and humans understand innately. I've argued these points so many times in the past... apologies for boring anyone.

For me the important part is HOW we do this stuff and how reliable and consistent we are. If we are constantly changing the goal posts or confusing the horse with conflicting messages then they will get frustrated and who can blame them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top