Blog Archives

There are lots of skilled trainers around in cyberspace who know all, or most, of what I am about to present in this kind of message. To those old-hands, my apologies for covering familiar ground such detail. I hope you’ll agree that, to those who may have not been encountered with the demands associated with achieving reliable actions, these are rules and practices that will deserve discussion.

As some of you already know, Animal Behavior Enterprises, our company for nearly 5 decades, was a for-profit firm dedicated primarily (but is not wholly) for the study and coaching of animals. Therefore, time was income, and efficiency was imperative. However, we learned very early where we could not, should not, and did not cut corners.

We were very patient (since my kids explained frequently, “like the chipmunks”) whenever establishing STIMULUS CONTROL and BEHAVIORAL FLUENCY (accomplishing the behavior quickly and carrying it out
right). Most trainers, in my expertise, get a actions right, or nearly appropriate, a few instances, and then, figuring perhaps which the behavior is right now learned, move on. WRONG! In much exactly the same way, there some trainers seem to achieve the notion that, when an undesired behavior appears extinguished for a few trial, then that behavior isn’t longer in the actual animals repertoire. WRONG, too!

We also invested what some would likely consider an inordinate period analyzing behavior, both the actions we wanted plus the (natural) behavior emitted with the animal (what we had to utilize). We did this kind of before anyone found a clicker (as well as other device). We then determined the obvious way to get from the actual animal’s natural repertoire as to the we wanted. This often took somewhat longer to do than it can to say. And, we were not absolutely right in the way we chose, although, after more as compared to 15, 000 animals and over 140 distinct species, we got excellent at this. To an outsider, it might have looked that we were never concerned with getting on using the job – yet again, WRONG!

When we found we had made mistakes, and we made some great (read large) ones, we had zero hesitation about lowering our losses, going back to square one, and starting around. We knew the actual penalties for continuing to reinforce unwanted behavior — LOOOONNNGGERRR periods associated with extinction; and that charges MONEY.

While we tend to be believers in operant fitness, we know that ours is not a perfect technologies. We also are aware that human error is really a major factor throughout failed programs. Human error throughout program design. Human error within the craft of coaching. We constantly evaluated our progress. If we have been stalled, we tried to see why, and then moved on. But, again, we took as long as necessary to achieve a mission, and we don’t often reduced our criteria to present the appearance of success to ensure we could move about the next step. Moving on prematurely typically returns to haunt an exercise program, sometimes sooner, sometimes later. So, we backed in place or started around when necessary, and we would not move on until the animal and the actual trainer were set. In contrast, we have found many trainers (for reasons not absolutely their fault) keep pushing ahead, accepting mediocrity in beginning of training, and possibly wanting to polish in place behaviors later in the future – still yet again, WRONG!

What I include pointed out here is the importance of earlier stages of coaching. Consider a amateur trainer, just learning the actual craft, and making a lot of errors – easy to understand and forgivable glitches, but errors however. The animal is the subject of many instances associated with grossly misreinforced conduct – sins associated with omission and associated with commission, all of which create a repertoire of reoccurring undesired behaviors.