Tweet
Learning Theory: A thesis between parallels of [Dog] Training and Role Playing
As part of my studies as a Dog Trainer, there is a large contingent of modules in my course regarding animal learning which can be applied to any animal with a nervous system.
Part of understanding for me is to disseminate the ideas behind Skinner, Pavlov and others research in a way that can be understood by the general public. There is a huge amount of misinformation about animal training in media and on the internet (dog and horse training are the worst of all for misinformation). Partly this because of the ideas of 'traditional' training and a lot of the information and techniques on TV about dogs should be considered abuse [it is in at least 2 European countries]. Why is it accepted? Because there is a lack of critical thinking in Dog Training; by the trainers, and especially in the general public. (Critical thinking resource: https://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup)
So what does this all have to do with anything? Dogs and people respond to the same same Learning Theory. Some people know very well what they are doing when they train people or train dogs. Those who understand the science have a better chance to understand why a behaviour might be happening, but we don't need to get into the organisms head to understand how the behaviour changes.
So what is Learning? Learning can be summed up in dog training as a dog performing a behaviour to increase or decrease the likely-hood of something good, or bad happening to them. Primarily here I am concerned with mutability of behaviours; any behaviour can be changed (some require a large investment from animal however. But what makes it a Theory?
A theory, in the scientific realm, is something that has been proven, over and over, and whittled down to a basic idea. There is no need for speculation with a Theory. Scientific Theories are often sited by the lay public as meaning hypotheses, when this is incorrect. A hypothesis is a guess or statement supported by some fact, but not completely proven; if something cannot be proven in the hypotheses, an effort is made to find a solution; if no solution can be found, you start over; if a solution is found, the hypothesis is updated. Once all the facts fit the hypothesis and it is proven rigorously, it can become a Theory. No one disputes the Theory of Gravity, Gene Theory, Atomic Theory, Quantum Theory, but they often look at things like Learning Theory and toss it out the window because it does not conform to their belief system on how animals learn. The main goal here will be to elaborate the works of Skinner and Pavlov to two parallels; dog Training, and Role Playing (both player and character).
Skinners research worked with Operant Conditioning (OC). This meaning that the dog, or Role Player, can operate on the environment in some way to manipulate the consequences. To sum this up a little, if the dog barks at a cat and the cat runs away and the dog keeps barking at cats - it has accomplished something a behaviour change (note: in order to test if OC has taken place, the behaviour must go up, down, or remain the same – one offs prove nothing). If I walk all over a Sunites prize flower garden, they yell at me; if I continue to walk over the garden, despite the yelling. Their yelling has had no effect. The easiest way of talking about operant conditioning is A->B->C (Antecedent → Behaviour → Consequence). Something might happen, the behaviour happens, something follows to reinforce or punish the act. Within OC, there is always Classical Conditioning occurring.
Pavlov, as most people know, worked with dogs. He was not concerned at the time about psychology (in fact he loathed it). As a doctor, he worked with dogs; won a Nobel prize in Medicine for Digestion. One day he noticed that every time his assistant entered the room, the dogs started to salivate. This occurred, because his assistant was associated with food. Summing this up A predicts B (Stimulus → Stimulus). There is no behaviour concerned in Classical Conditioning. In dogs we use this to change emotional states not to suppress it. In Role Playing, if every time a certain type of monster you get an emotional response (“yeah! It's an Ogre, easy pickings” or “No! Not another ogre!”), you've experienced Classical Conditioning.
Why is this important in Dog Training? It behooves us as trainers to make sure that we understand the basic science (and sometimes the more advanced science) behind what we do. The public deserves to know the rights behind what a trainer plans on doing with their dog. I advise anyone to ask themselves first – “Would I allow this done to a child?”. And ask their trainer - “How will you motivate my dog/deal with this issue.?” If the answer isn't clear they either do not understand the science they are using, or worse, are misleading you.
Why is it important in Role Playing? Maybe not terribly, but it is interesting to me to see things develop sometimes and the results it gets. Most people use Learning Theory without understanding that they actually are using it; this seems to be especially true of Pavlovian conditioning.
As part of my studies as a Dog Trainer, there is a large contingent of modules in my course regarding animal learning which can be applied to any animal with a nervous system.
Part of understanding for me is to disseminate the ideas behind Skinner, Pavlov and others research in a way that can be understood by the general public. There is a huge amount of misinformation about animal training in media and on the internet (dog and horse training are the worst of all for misinformation). Partly this because of the ideas of 'traditional' training and a lot of the information and techniques on TV about dogs should be considered abuse [it is in at least 2 European countries]. Why is it accepted? Because there is a lack of critical thinking in Dog Training; by the trainers, and especially in the general public. (Critical thinking resource: https://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup)
So what does this all have to do with anything? Dogs and people respond to the same same Learning Theory. Some people know very well what they are doing when they train people or train dogs. Those who understand the science have a better chance to understand why a behaviour might be happening, but we don't need to get into the organisms head to understand how the behaviour changes.
So what is Learning? Learning can be summed up in dog training as a dog performing a behaviour to increase or decrease the likely-hood of something good, or bad happening to them. Primarily here I am concerned with mutability of behaviours; any behaviour can be changed (some require a large investment from animal however. But what makes it a Theory?
A theory, in the scientific realm, is something that has been proven, over and over, and whittled down to a basic idea. There is no need for speculation with a Theory. Scientific Theories are often sited by the lay public as meaning hypotheses, when this is incorrect. A hypothesis is a guess or statement supported by some fact, but not completely proven; if something cannot be proven in the hypotheses, an effort is made to find a solution; if no solution can be found, you start over; if a solution is found, the hypothesis is updated. Once all the facts fit the hypothesis and it is proven rigorously, it can become a Theory. No one disputes the Theory of Gravity, Gene Theory, Atomic Theory, Quantum Theory, but they often look at things like Learning Theory and toss it out the window because it does not conform to their belief system on how animals learn. The main goal here will be to elaborate the works of Skinner and Pavlov to two parallels; dog Training, and Role Playing (both player and character).
Skinners research worked with Operant Conditioning (OC). This meaning that the dog, or Role Player, can operate on the environment in some way to manipulate the consequences. To sum this up a little, if the dog barks at a cat and the cat runs away and the dog keeps barking at cats - it has accomplished something a behaviour change (note: in order to test if OC has taken place, the behaviour must go up, down, or remain the same – one offs prove nothing). If I walk all over a Sunites prize flower garden, they yell at me; if I continue to walk over the garden, despite the yelling. Their yelling has had no effect. The easiest way of talking about operant conditioning is A->B->C (Antecedent → Behaviour → Consequence). Something might happen, the behaviour happens, something follows to reinforce or punish the act. Within OC, there is always Classical Conditioning occurring.
Pavlov, as most people know, worked with dogs. He was not concerned at the time about psychology (in fact he loathed it). As a doctor, he worked with dogs; won a Nobel prize in Medicine for Digestion. One day he noticed that every time his assistant entered the room, the dogs started to salivate. This occurred, because his assistant was associated with food. Summing this up A predicts B (Stimulus → Stimulus). There is no behaviour concerned in Classical Conditioning. In dogs we use this to change emotional states not to suppress it. In Role Playing, if every time a certain type of monster you get an emotional response (“yeah! It's an Ogre, easy pickings” or “No! Not another ogre!”), you've experienced Classical Conditioning.
Why is this important in Dog Training? It behooves us as trainers to make sure that we understand the basic science (and sometimes the more advanced science) behind what we do. The public deserves to know the rights behind what a trainer plans on doing with their dog. I advise anyone to ask themselves first – “Would I allow this done to a child?”. And ask their trainer - “How will you motivate my dog/deal with this issue.?” If the answer isn't clear they either do not understand the science they are using, or worse, are misleading you.
Why is it important in Role Playing? Maybe not terribly, but it is interesting to me to see things develop sometimes and the results it gets. Most people use Learning Theory without understanding that they actually are using it; this seems to be especially true of Pavlovian conditioning.
Comment