Quadratic Confusion... and Morning Coffee

Mass confusion usually follows anytime I am permitted to make up the questions to test the mettle of our class on their knowledge of operant conditioning. 

I will admit, I'm seriously obnoxious. I come up with statements that intentionally force our students to think critically, using the method that my brother and I made up to analyze and figure out in which of the four quadrants the answer lies. 

Here's my most annoying example to date: 

A very cute dog walks up to his owner and paws her in the leg. The owner smiles and tells her dog to sit, a treat hidden in her palm. When the dog puts his butt on the floor, the owner smiles wider and gives the dog the treat. The dog never sits again.

WHAT?! usually follows this statement. 

Surely I screwed that up, saying that a dog that is given a treat for sitting would never sit again. That isn't possible; it's not even probable! 

Don't worry; I'm just being a jerk. I'll admit it.

I also threw in a lot of meaningless babble, such as "very cute dog," the pawing of the owner's leg, the smiling, the fact that the dog was given a treat, etc. 

Well, how do you figure out where this falls on the grid? Let's analyze and check it out!

(*Note that nowhere do I say "desired" or "undesired" behavior; I simply note that a behavior is performed. Whether or not we like it has little to do with the science.)

Forgetting anything about our preconceptions about what dogs like or should do in accordance to blahblahblah, let's take the sciency way!

(A very cute dog walks up to his owner and paws her in the leg. The owner smiles and tells her dog to sit, a treat hidden in her palm. When the dog puts his butt on the floor, the owner smiles wider and gives the dog the treat. The dog never sits again.)

1.) Identify the behavior. 

In this case, the behavior is sitting. 

2.) Identify the consequence.

The dog is given a treat.

3.) What happened to the behavior as a result of the consequence?

The behavior decreased.

So, something was applied that made a behavior decrease. So, if you go back up and check out the section of the grid where behaviors are decreased and then check out in which of those two something is applied, you should come up with Positive Punishment or P+.

If you're anything like the people who take my class, you're probably all but ready to jump through the computer and argue with me that a treat cannot be a form of positive punishment. 

(Funny note: That's uncritical anthropomorphism you're using; because you believe that giving a dog a treat is positive, therefore the dog must think that getting a treat is positive. This is not so, and this kind of thought process will bite you in the butt... If a dog doesn't get there first!)

So, with that note: 

Can you critically and scientifically analyze these statements and tell me which of the four quadrants they fall under?

1.) A dog barks while running agility. His handler takes him off the field and plays fetch. The dog learns not to bark on the agility field.

2.) A dog barks while running agility. The owner takes him off the field and puts him in a crate. The dog learns to bark on the agility field.

3.) A dog steps out of heel position and is collar corrected. The dog learns not to step out of heel position.

4.) The leg bands on a front pull harness loosen when a dog chooses to walk closer to his handler.

The Label Behavior (Part 2)

The Anthropomorphic Standpoint.

Get ready to - Why is that bunny holding a  ... what is that?!

Ever heard of a guy named Gordon Burghardt? 

Me neither.

But I have heard of the concept of anthropomorphism, as illustrated by the oh-so-adorable bunny above.

All of my experience, readings, and conversations with professionals have led me to one conclusion: Under no circumstances is anthropomorphism appropriate when dealing with dog behavior.

In fact, too many of the animal professionals I know distance themselves from the possible emotional standpoint of the dog to such a degree that they are sometimes accused of thinking of dogs as robots.

Uhm. Anyone notice that the adorable robot puppy is uh... missing a limb...?

Anyway, I recently revisited a study on Critical and Non Critical Anthropomorphism, and I'm reconsidering my standpoint on anthropomorphism never being helpful and never being appropriate.

Ever heard of these two terms?

Non Critical Anthropomorphism is the sort that you always hear. "My dog ate my shoes because he was mad that I left him in his crate for five minutes longer than I should have last Tuesday." (Yes, a client honestly said this to me once. I just blinked, unsure that I'd heard her correctly.)

Non Critical is also another way of saying "it's not scientific enough for us smart people, so it doesn't really matter."

...which bring us to our next term

Critical Anthropomorphism. 

Now, since non critical is not sceincey enough for us nerdy people, does that make critical just the opposite?

To a certain extent, why yes it does!

....Even though it still seems to me that putting "anthropomorphism" with critical - meaning it is scientific and carefully evaluated - just seems oxymoronic.

In this type of anthropomorphism, you put yourself in the dog's shoes - er, paws - and try to deduce, induce, reduce (whatever kind of logic you use) the why of what he's doing. 

If you yell at a dog and he slinks away, non critical anthropomorphism might suggest that he feels guilty.

This is applying what YOU might feel if someone yelled at you, and doesn't take into account that dogs are a separate species that see the world differently than we do.

Critical Anthropomorphism would turn the equation upside down and rethink the whole situation. What would YOU do if you were a social animal who had just been threatened or confronted by a member of your social group? Remember, your programming dictates that you are much less interested in a fight than you are in maintaining the peace, because fights lead to injury lead to death, and you're all about survival.

(Sorry. Had to add this one.)

So, what do you do when another member of your group threatens you?

You try to placate that member. In doggie speak, you lower yourself and show that you are not returning the threat.

So, what do you think?

Is all anthropomorphism absolutely useless? 

And what do you think about Gordon Burghardt's Critical and Non Critical Anthropomorphism?