SPARCS

Get to know other Positively members here.

Moderators: emmabeth, BoardHost

WufWuf
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 7:53 am

Re: SPARCS

Post by WufWuf »

Zak George only rewards 1 in 10 clicks. I can't remember the exact video I saw him saying it it but he was introducing a little pittie pup to the clicker in the vid.

Edited to add - Simon Gadbois rewards occasionally, it's not that he ditches rewards completely it just becomes very infrequent.
jacksdad wrote: I think the bar for something crossing over from "simply" being HIGHLY enjoyable and creating a desire to repeat and addiction is a bit higher than you maybe are worrying it might be.
I think the waters have gotten a little muddied along the way here, hang on and I'll see if I can clarify what I was getting at.

I'm not worried about accidentally creating an addiction, I'm quoting myself here please forgive me but I just can't face typing it again.
This SPARCS conference made me far more aware of the effect training can have on a dogs brain chemistry and I found myself a little uncomfortable about the idea of creating an addict (which I personally do believe is possible, probably not with all dogs but I've met some training addicted Jackers* as well as the more bidable breeds). I found myself wondering how much this would increase a dogs stress levels and ability to "switch off". If I felt that applying this mechanisim of addiction would benefit Honey I would be remiss in not using it in my own training but as I said my greatest desire is to reduce her stress not add to it.
Quotes from the link above (http://www.helpguide.org/harvard/addict ... _brain.htm)
For many years, experts believed that only alcohol and powerful drugs could cause addiction. Neuroimaging technologies and more recent research, however, have shown that certain pleasurable activities, such as gambling, shopping, and sex, can also co-opt the brain.
Scientists once believed that the experience of pleasure alone was enough to prompt people to continue seeking an addictive substance or activity. But more recent research suggests that the situation is more complicated. Dopamine not only contributes to the experience of pleasure, but also plays a role in learning and memory—two key elements in the transition from liking something to becoming addicted to it.
The reward circuit in the brain includes areas involved with motivation and memory as well as with pleasure. Addictive substances and behaviors stimulate the same circuit—and then overload it.


I would guess that low reward clicker training would be akin to gambling for a dog.

Also speaking as a gamer I have very little interest in games that are "too easy" and in the last few years all video games I play are now started on the hardest difficulty level (increased tolerance). Often times the more difficult the game the greater the "buzz" and the longer you will find yourself playing it. In the past before I understood what was happening I would become addicted to certain games and play them well past the point of it being "fun" anymore. I no longer have this problem as I will stop once I'm "gamed out".
As a result of these adaptations, dopamine has less impact on the brain’s reward center. People who develop an addiction typically find that, in time, the desired substance no longer gives them as much pleasure. They have to take more of it to obtain the same dopamine “high” because their brains have adapted—an effect known as tolerance.
At this point, compulsion takes over. The pleasure associated with an addictive drug or behavior subsides—and yet the memory of the desired effect and the need to recreate it (the wanting) persists. It’s as though the normal machinery of motivation is no longer functioning.
I do have some ideas as to how I could go about creating an addict dog but I've used up my brain budget for the moment :oops: I'll have to come back to it.
Operant conditioning rocks but classical conditioning rules
WufWuf
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 7:53 am

Re: SPARCS

Post by WufWuf »

After giving this some more thought I'm not comfortable with the idea of creating an addict. I think for some dogs in some situations it could be the lesser of two evils but I'm not going to detail how I would hypothetically go about doing it as it feels like something that could be used without regard for the dog. That's not to say I think anyone here would but once it's online there's no knowing who reads it.
Operant conditioning rocks but classical conditioning rules
bendog
Posts: 2188
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:42 am

Re: SPARCS

Post by bendog »

I've seen enough ball/tug obsessed dogs to be uncomfortable with addiction ideas too. Rats etc will "forget" to eat, sleep etc continuously pressing their lever to get their next "high" when the brain is stimulated in the right places. That level of addiction is for sure seriously alarming.

BUT I'm not sure you could create an addict in every dog. Just like some people can smoke, and just quit. I think certain brains may be more geared towards forming those addictive personalities.

I watched this last night, not quite on topic, but discusses addiction a little bit in a new and interesting way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65e2qScV_K8&sns=em

I'm also aware that I find high levels of intensity for anything in dogs a bit uncomfortable personally - maybe because I have terriers so know how quickly things can spill over to aggression, but I spend a lot of time trying to keep dogs calm rather than winding them up. Dogs that will continuously fetch non stop for hours, or tug all day trigger some kind of weird feeling in me. Even if the dog seems to "love" it - I find that level of over arousal/obsession uncomfortable. So my feelings might be colouring my views.
User avatar
Nettle
Posts: 10753
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:40 pm

Re: SPARCS

Post by Nettle »

I agree with both of you. Creating addiction implies feeding that addiction for ever - what would happen if the dog were rehomed? To me, this is just another form of abuse. It's perfectly possible to train dogs without messing up their minds.
A dog is never bad or naughty - it is simply being a dog

SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
WufWuf
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 7:53 am

Re: SPARCS

Post by WufWuf »

Bendog - awesome video I really enjoyed it thanks for posting! Ray Coppinger could do with giving it a watch :lol: .

I'm the same way in that over arousal in dogs makes me a little uncomfortable but like you I've seen too many fights come about from these situations.

I think that in normal life it would be difficult to turn the majority of dogs into addicts but lots of owners do end up creating addicts. I guess it's similar to humans were some are more susceptible to it than others. I do think that if one were to apply some extreme circumstances to both humans and dogs you could turn most into an addict of some kind. These would be highly unethical circumstances but I'm of the opinion that it would work (I have in fact read some stuff by a trainer who does this but I won't post the name here, you can pm me if you want the name)

Nettle - it was the realisation that you would forever change a dogs brain that did it for me and that was why I decided to refrain from posting my ideas on creating an addict. It has also strengthened my personal feeling that I am not really comfortable with the use of some reinforcement schedules when working with anything less than a 100% emotionally stable dog.
Operant conditioning rocks but classical conditioning rules
jacksdad
Posts: 4887
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:48 pm

Re: SPARCS

Post by jacksdad »

first, cool video. thanks for sharing.
bendog wrote:I've seen enough ball/tug obsessed dogs to be uncomfortable with addiction ideas too. Rats etc will "forget" to eat, sleep etc continuously pressing their lever to get their next "high" when the brain is stimulated in the right places. That level of addiction is for sure seriously alarming.
is obsession a pathway to addiction?

is the "mechanics" of obsession similar, related to, or lead to addiction?

while obsession, high arousal, and addiction are things of concern. I do think we need to be careful to not use them inter changeably or toss them together IF they are not actually related issues. when talking about actual conditions, issues, problems we need to be careful to use the words correctly.

For example people often toss out the word addiction to describe a dog that works to get access to a ball, or has to be told enough in order to stop the game of fetch .."my dog is ball addicted". but is the dog truly addicted? or does the dog just really love to play with a ball. Is the love of the ball simply borderline obsession? is that truly a problem? We need to be careful we don't use these terms too casually or incorrectly.
bendog wrote:I'm also aware that I find high levels of intensity for anything in dogs a bit uncomfortable personally - maybe because I have terriers so know how quickly things can spill over to aggression, but I spend a lot of time trying to keep dogs calm rather than winding them up. Dogs that will continuously fetch non stop for hours, or tug all day trigger some kind of weird feeling in me. Even if the dog seems to "love" it - I find that level of over arousal/obsession uncomfortable. So my feelings might be colouring my views.
I think this is something to keep in mind. your perceptions and thoughts WILL be colored by working with 4 terriers for some time to come. Mine is going to be colored by my interest in and working with fearful dogs and fearful dogs that exhibit aggression.
WufWuf wrote:I think that in normal life it would be difficult to turn the majority of dogs into addicts but lots of owners do end up creating addicts.
what does this look like to you? when you see a dog and think addict what are you thinking? what are you seeing? Also, are you also able to observe more than a snapshot of time in the dog's life?
WufWuf wrote: Nettle - it was the realisation that you would forever change a dogs brain that did it for me and that was why I decided to refrain from posting my ideas on creating an addict. It has also strengthened my personal feeling that I am not really comfortable with the use of some reinforcement schedules when working with anything less than a 100% emotionally stable dog.
I still can't help but think you are over reacting to a point. Or over worrying about something that has a low probability of actually happening. OR maybe focusing too much on a possible outcome due to unethical actions of a trainer. you say you are worried about dogs that aren't 100% emotionally stable, but what if done properly different schedules of reinforcement help a emotionally unstable dog become stable? schedules other than continuous having beneficial side affects.

As for "forever changing a dogs brain". If this can be a bad thing...then it could also be a good thing. if it could be a good thing, it could also be a bad thing. Point being there are lots of good things that can be twisted into a bad thing. or bad things that could be adjusted into a good thing. I think about my own dog and from what I am understanding all my work with him is changing his brain, and the results are for sure positive. I am phasing in schedules of reinforcement other than continues for some of the things we are working on and he isn't suffering.
User avatar
Nettle
Posts: 10753
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:40 pm

Re: SPARCS

Post by Nettle »

Very thought-provoking video - thanks bendog - definitely a two-pots-of-coffee discussion there. I would take issue with 'play' being positive because so often in humans and animals I observe it to be anything but. I would substitute 'achievement' as being a better word. Semantics I know, but ours is a rich language and a lot can turn on a single word.

As for addiction - from observation and experience, it is easy (humans and animals) to become addicted to endorphin release, and some subjects (human and animal) are more prone to addictive behaviour than others. So far as I can see (i.e. anecdotally) once the endorphin release has become addictive, one form of addiction can be substituted for another, but it is very hard/maybe not possible to do away with the craving for endorphin release. Removing the source without substitution I believe can lead to depression, but this is not proven science, just my own opinion.

An inborn (genetic) clinical depression is of course something very different and I am not offering comment on this.

Jacksdad I agree that changing a dog's brain could be positive too, but it would take great skill and some time to do it, whereas the creation-of-addictive-behaviour as postulated in training terms might be done quickly and by anybody, and therein lies the danger.
A dog is never bad or naughty - it is simply being a dog

SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
jacksdad
Posts: 4887
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:48 pm

Re: SPARCS

Post by jacksdad »

Ok, next question then..... is Addiction a "spectrum issue"? not sure the right words for what I am trying to say. But here goes....

On one end of the spectrum there is NO addiction by even the broadest definition, on the other you are "strung out" doing anything for the next fix. the stereotypical image of say a cocaine user where there is NOTHING else but the next fix. The question is.... is there parts of that spectrum that you might correctly say an individual is addicted to something, but the level of addiction is of no consequence? or maybe even healthy and good?

example. someone who skydives to get that next rush of adrenaline, or maybe experience some other aspect. BUT they are 100% in control of their lives. or maybe the runner who likes the feeling of running, so they run at every opportunity. or someone who bikes, surfs, studies a subject, writes software code, etc, etc. there are many things in life we work to have another chance at doing/experiencing/feeling. is that technically "addiction"? but at a place on the spectrum that could be considered healthy, normal, of no worry?

if addiction has a spectrum, then I can see where it would be "easy" to become "addicted" to something, BUT that would also mean that not all addiction is bad or harmful. if simply want to repeat something that left us feeling good is addiction, then addiction is why the human race has achieved all that we have. cured illnesses, gone to the moon, build computers, etc.
User avatar
Nettle
Posts: 10753
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:40 pm

Re: SPARCS

Post by Nettle »

Great points, jacksdad.

On a purely personal unscientific viewpoint - I used to do a number of activities that gave me an adrenaline hit followed by oxytocin (as far as I can deduce). Not a dependency, but experiences I went out of my way to repeat. Unlike 'real' addiction, I did not have to advance/increase these experiences to increase the hit as I became accustomed to it, because it almost always delivered ("almost" because you don't always get it right).

Now I cannot do any of these things. And I am desolate in a way that could easily become depression. Not clinical depression but pure sense of loss. I will never feel that way again.

That is probably what you meant by
jacksdad wrote:example. someone who skydives to get that next rush of adrenaline, or maybe experience some other aspect. BUT they are 100% in control of their lives. or maybe the runner who likes the feeling of running, so they run at every opportunity. or someone who bikes, surfs, studies a subject, writes software code, etc, etc. there are many things in life we work to have another chance at doing/experiencing/feeling. is that technically "addiction"? but at a place on the spectrum that could be considered healthy, normal, of no worry?

if addiction has a spectrum, then I can see where it would be "easy" to become "addicted" to something, BUT that would also mean that not all addiction is bad or harmful. if simply want to repeat something that left us feeling good is addiction, then addiction is why the human race has achieved all that we have. cured illnesses, gone to the moon, build computers, etc.
A dog is never bad or naughty - it is simply being a dog

SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
jacksdad
Posts: 4887
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:48 pm

Re: SPARCS

Post by jacksdad »

exactly nettle.

Again, I do need to watch/listen to what was actually said. BUT even still I am not sure I am ready to buy into that addiction is that easy to create. or even that great a concern if you are following sound training practices.

Here is another example. your injured. in pain. The doctor gives you Vicodin to relieve the pain. Because it does, you follow the directions to take the pills. you get relief, feel better, so your repeat the experience. does that make you addicted? I am completely aware that people get addicted in the "can't live/function without, must have more at any expense" way to Vicodin. But the really amazing thing is that most people do not.

I am just not convinced yet that simply wishing to repeat a pleasurable, fun, exciting, stimulating experience, and even working harder to get a repeat of an experience, even with some obsessive or over excitement aspects to your desire when the opportunity presents it's self is necessarily a major concern or just one tiny step from becoming an addicted.

the more I think about this the more I think this is a concern of degree. a little of X is good, a lot of X is bad.
mansbestfriend
Posts: 301
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 7:35 am
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: SPARCS

Post by mansbestfriend »

Pushing the limits of current knowledge is probably 'par for the course' for most scientific research. Occasionally, thanks to insight of people like Prescott Breeden, we get to see and hear research now rather than possibly having to wait for decades before it trickles through to the public.
:)

An interview with Prescott Breeden from before the SPARCS2014 conference.
http://www.smallanimaltalk.com/2014/05/ ... world.html
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single Sit.
Post Reply