When is an aversive not an aversive?
When it is a fact of life. To paraphrase; don't throw out the aversives with the bath water.
Very interesting topic.
Aversive stimuli are those environmental events which, under normal circumstances, an organism would move away from, or avoid. Painful electric shock, being out in the cold, etc., would all be examples of aversive stimuli. A couple of cautions need to be kept in mind here. First, the extent to which a particular environmental event will function as an aversive stimulus is conditional in that it depends to some extent on the organism's past history. For example, while a piece chocolate cake may seem like a good example of an appetitive stimulus for most people, it could be considered aversive for someone who got violently ill after eating some chocolate cake (taste aversion learning). Also, the magnitude of the stimulus is a factor in the degree to which an environmental event will function as an aversive stimulus. Music played at a moderate level may be appetitive, but played at 120 dB is aversive.
As well;
It is common to hear people say that they only use "positive reinforcement" techniques when they train. However, it’s unlikely that this training technique is the only one used. Negative reinforcement and punishment, when used properly, also are effective tools. For example, keepers often "walk" an animal into the barn, i.e., uses the animal’s flight distance to encourage the animal to move away from the keeper (and into the barn). This is an example of using negative reinforcement. The animal is moving away from a mildly aversive stimulus (keeper entering within the animal’s flight space) and increasing the rate of responding (entering the barn).
By the aforementioned definition;
Aversive: Causing avoidance of a thing, situation, or behavior by using an unpleasant; frightening, startling or painful stimulus.
I'm sure aversives come in handy when the stove is hot, the hot water is hot, the iron is hot and the, nevermind I think you get the picture. Here's one to try; 2 year old child doesn't want to put on socks/boots but wants to go outside; could punish/correct by time-outs, forcing child to put on socks/boots or simply let child out in controlled area to discover; golly gee; my feet got awfully cold; there is an aversion to cold feet; thus child now puts on boots/socks when it is indicated that snow is outside; same with mitts, hat, coat.
Where is the problem with aversives there? It worked; there was no "handler" inflicted harm and the student learned an excellent lesson.
Same methodology has taught many animals, many decent lessons in life. For instance; guess how my puppy learned to not poke the horse in the butt; or follow too close; or that horses don't like to be chased. Yup, she was put in a situation where she could be corrected by a suitable horse in a suitable situation. In fact both animals learned a valuable lesson; the dog to keep her distance or run alongside w/o pressuring the horse with predatory signals; and the horse learned that if you give chase the predator will back down and an offer to kick now is as good as the actual kick to communicate displeasure. Dogs don't "reward" other dogs; they create a situation of aversion; for instance; annoying dogs who pester their elders; there is no re-direction; there is no reward; there is simply; wham/bam, thank you, yes ma'am; I'll go over here and play and stop bugging you. Same for horses that don't understand space preferences of their pasture companions; there is no re-direction, no reward; but simply aversion; cause Wilma kicks or bites when Fred encroaches on her personal space.
I prefer to think that Mother Nature (or whomeverelse you currently believe in) has a pretty decent method of teaching necessary skills and we can often pattern our teaching methods after her/him/them/they. Keep in mind what happens to birds who don't "fear" when the nasty cat starts prowling around them - supper.
I don't have a problem with any method of training as long as it is applied in a fair manner (to the animal) and that specific animal gets it; and can use it to their best ability, and their handler or owner or whatever is happy with that performance. If the preferred method doesn't work; don't get a bigger stick or carrot; pick up some spurs or a celery and see if that works for you! In fact I intend to create some responses and train some commands in my aloof dog that will enhance her responses in the show ring. She is slow and I would like to speed her up; which clicker training certainly helps with. And by the way; my clicker efforts are likely to include aversive techniques - for food rewards; she must be hungry (an unpleasant), and for play rewards; she must be unstimulated/crated for a period (an unpleasant). This is a low drive, independent animal. Kinda like a cat.
Three very important concepts;
humans generally suck at reading their animals or any animals really; we really should take the TIME to develop a relationship and see/hear/feel precisely when the animal responds, just take time to observe your animals.
stop using words/ideas/ to 'box' information up in a tidy format; animals are too intricate to 'box' as are most natural things.
we are not "naturally" part of an animals world; they are genetically imprinted to eat and have sex (play may or may not be another drive and may be linked to their "eating skills" (to survive and continue the species) - where we fit in those two categories I do not know -- so I would consider that anything I am asking that dog, cat, horse to do is involving some sort of aversive situation - something I am asking the dog/cat/horse to do that is not involved with eating or sex (their ultimate reward).
For that matter, neutering animals takes away a fundamental drive; very aversive. J/K.
When it is a fact of life. To paraphrase; don't throw out the aversives with the bath water.
Very interesting topic.
Aversive stimuli are those environmental events which, under normal circumstances, an organism would move away from, or avoid. Painful electric shock, being out in the cold, etc., would all be examples of aversive stimuli. A couple of cautions need to be kept in mind here. First, the extent to which a particular environmental event will function as an aversive stimulus is conditional in that it depends to some extent on the organism's past history. For example, while a piece chocolate cake may seem like a good example of an appetitive stimulus for most people, it could be considered aversive for someone who got violently ill after eating some chocolate cake (taste aversion learning). Also, the magnitude of the stimulus is a factor in the degree to which an environmental event will function as an aversive stimulus. Music played at a moderate level may be appetitive, but played at 120 dB is aversive.
As well;
It is common to hear people say that they only use "positive reinforcement" techniques when they train. However, it’s unlikely that this training technique is the only one used. Negative reinforcement and punishment, when used properly, also are effective tools. For example, keepers often "walk" an animal into the barn, i.e., uses the animal’s flight distance to encourage the animal to move away from the keeper (and into the barn). This is an example of using negative reinforcement. The animal is moving away from a mildly aversive stimulus (keeper entering within the animal’s flight space) and increasing the rate of responding (entering the barn).
By the aforementioned definition;
Aversive: Causing avoidance of a thing, situation, or behavior by using an unpleasant; frightening, startling or painful stimulus.
I'm sure aversives come in handy when the stove is hot, the hot water is hot, the iron is hot and the, nevermind I think you get the picture. Here's one to try; 2 year old child doesn't want to put on socks/boots but wants to go outside; could punish/correct by time-outs, forcing child to put on socks/boots or simply let child out in controlled area to discover; golly gee; my feet got awfully cold; there is an aversion to cold feet; thus child now puts on boots/socks when it is indicated that snow is outside; same with mitts, hat, coat.
Where is the problem with aversives there? It worked; there was no "handler" inflicted harm and the student learned an excellent lesson.
Same methodology has taught many animals, many decent lessons in life. For instance; guess how my puppy learned to not poke the horse in the butt; or follow too close; or that horses don't like to be chased. Yup, she was put in a situation where she could be corrected by a suitable horse in a suitable situation. In fact both animals learned a valuable lesson; the dog to keep her distance or run alongside w/o pressuring the horse with predatory signals; and the horse learned that if you give chase the predator will back down and an offer to kick now is as good as the actual kick to communicate displeasure. Dogs don't "reward" other dogs; they create a situation of aversion; for instance; annoying dogs who pester their elders; there is no re-direction; there is no reward; there is simply; wham/bam, thank you, yes ma'am; I'll go over here and play and stop bugging you. Same for horses that don't understand space preferences of their pasture companions; there is no re-direction, no reward; but simply aversion; cause Wilma kicks or bites when Fred encroaches on her personal space.
I prefer to think that Mother Nature (or whomeverelse you currently believe in) has a pretty decent method of teaching necessary skills and we can often pattern our teaching methods after her/him/them/they. Keep in mind what happens to birds who don't "fear" when the nasty cat starts prowling around them - supper.
I don't have a problem with any method of training as long as it is applied in a fair manner (to the animal) and that specific animal gets it; and can use it to their best ability, and their handler or owner or whatever is happy with that performance. If the preferred method doesn't work; don't get a bigger stick or carrot; pick up some spurs or a celery and see if that works for you! In fact I intend to create some responses and train some commands in my aloof dog that will enhance her responses in the show ring. She is slow and I would like to speed her up; which clicker training certainly helps with. And by the way; my clicker efforts are likely to include aversive techniques - for food rewards; she must be hungry (an unpleasant), and for play rewards; she must be unstimulated/crated for a period (an unpleasant). This is a low drive, independent animal. Kinda like a cat.
Three very important concepts;
humans generally suck at reading their animals or any animals really; we really should take the TIME to develop a relationship and see/hear/feel precisely when the animal responds, just take time to observe your animals.
stop using words/ideas/ to 'box' information up in a tidy format; animals are too intricate to 'box' as are most natural things.
we are not "naturally" part of an animals world; they are genetically imprinted to eat and have sex (play may or may not be another drive and may be linked to their "eating skills" (to survive and continue the species) - where we fit in those two categories I do not know -- so I would consider that anything I am asking that dog, cat, horse to do is involving some sort of aversive situation - something I am asking the dog/cat/horse to do that is not involved with eating or sex (their ultimate reward).
For that matter, neutering animals takes away a fundamental drive; very aversive. J/K.
