Episode 382 Shaping on a Point of Contact Pt 2: Asking Not Demanding - The Difference It Makes
- 1 day ago
- 2 min read
This is part 2 of our conversation about shaping on a point of contact.
In Part 1 we began the conversation with Dominique saying she doesn’t believe you can fully reap the full benefits of positive reinforcement training if you don’t understand and use this concept of shaping on a point of contact - at least when you’re working with horses. That’s a strong statement to make. As always, contrast is a good teacher.
Dominique has been watching trainers in the barn where she keeps her horses using treats to teach some behaviors and traditional commands to teach others. The difference in the demeanor of the horses under these different contexts is striking. The change reminded her of the poisoned cue research that was done by Dr Jesus Rosales Ruiz and his graduate student, Nicole Murray roughly twenty years ago. So that’s where we began - with a description of the research and the implications for horse training.
When the research first came out, the conclusion was negative and positive reinforcement shouldn’t be mixed. When you do, you’ll end up with poisoned cues. My response was to say: but we would never use the lead in the way that it was applied. In the experiment, when the dog did not respond appropriately, it was dragged by the lead to the handler. This was clearly aversive to the dog. Dragging was a clear escalation of pressure.
In shaping on a point of contact, you take the slack out of the lead. That makes contact. You have made your presence known. The lead is saying: “I want something.” But it’s not up to you to solve the puzzle for the learner. If you add more pressure, you will move the dog’s body for him. In shaping on a point of contact, it is up to the dog to move his own body. Waiting is part of the process. Small approximations are part of the process. The use of the lead is there to provide information that helps the learner get to his reinforcement faster. If the ask begins to be painful, scary, threatening in any way, then you have crossed a line and you run the risk of creating poisoned cues with all the negative, long lasting consequences that we observed in the original study.
So in Part 1 we set the stage with the discussion of the poisoned cue research.
In Part 2 we contrast shaping on a point of contact with more abrupt techniques that make use of escalating pressure. I talk about the crippling effect that backwards traction has on horses. It’s one of the many reasons learning to go to a point of contact and not beyond is so very important.
Comments