I have now read two different views on approaching your dog and giving
affection and having a dog come to you asking for affection.

At first I was under the impression when a dog comes to you for
affection, you ignore it, only when he is called do you reward the dog
with affection. Otherwise they are always in control when they are to
get rubbed / love.

I then read how to train a dog by Gaby Popper - and he states that you
should not go to a dog and give affection, that is beta asking alpha
for approval, instead whenever the dog comes to you give love and
affection has beta is coming to alpha to see if he belongs.

My dog comes to me all the time and rests he head on my lap during
whatever I do, if I am seated. I was loving on him, and then ignoring
him and waiting for him to leave then calling him and loving him.

Thoughts?

On 22 Sep 2005 13:39:10 -0700 buzzsaw whittled these words:
I have now read two different views on approaching your dog and giving
affection and having a dog come to you asking for affection.
Either or neither can be right depending upon (1) you and (2) the dog.

Don't get too wrapped up in that stuff. When I got my Oso I didn't know
why I objected to some of the things he did, I just knew they "felt"
different from what my other dog was doing. Behavior can be a very subtle
thing, which is why good trainers/behaviorists insist on SEEING what is
going on rather than relying on owner reports. Absent someone SEEING what
is going on the rules are simple. If you are doing something because you
WANT to then fine, if you are doing something to avoid or cater to what
the dog is DEMANDING not fine. Allow behavior you want to continue, don't
allow behavior you want to stop.

People come up with all kinds of theories to explain things. Dogs differ
from one another just as people do. Their motives differ. What rewards
them differs. Their temperaments differ. Their concern about social
relationships differ. What is perfectly right for one dog is perfectly
wrong for another. Keep it simple. Pay attention to your attitude, and
your dog's attitude. There is no better guide to whether something is
working or not. All the rest of the information is just opening up your
mind to possibilities.

--
Diane Blackman
There is no moral victory in proclaiming to abhor violence
while preaching with violent words.
http://dog-play.com/ http://dogplayshops.com/

HOWEDY Master Of Deception blankman,

wrote:
On 22 Sep 2005 13:39:10 -0700 buzzsaw whittled these words:
I have now read two different views on approaching
your dog and giving affection and having a dog come
to you asking for affection.

Either or neither can be right depending
upon (1) you and (2) the dog.

You mean you got NO ANSWER.

Don't get too wrapped up in that stuff.

You mean, the SCIENCE of BEHAVIOR?

When I got my Oso

Your last three dogs DIED of STRESS INDUCED AUTO-IMMUNE
DIS-EASE aka The Puppy Wizard's SYNDROME, Master Of
Deception blankman.

I didn't know why I objected to some of the things he did,

That's EZ! You're a IDIOT and a LIAR and DOG ABUSER.

I just knew they "felt" different from what my
other dog was doing.

Your OTHER dog was DYIN of STRESS INDUCED AUTO-IMMUNE
DIS-EASE aka The Puppy Wizard's SYNDROME {); ~ )

Behavior can be a very subtle thing,

You mean YOU GOT NO ANSWER.

"Postitive emotions arising in connection
with the perfection of a skill, irrespective
of its pragmatic significance at a given
moment, serve as the reinforcement," Pavlov.

IOW, emotions, not outside rewards, are what
reinforces any behavior."

Pavlov Told Us So 100 Years Ago. Sam Corson,
Pavlov's Last Student Demonstrated At UofOH
Oxford, That Rehabilitation Of Hyperactive
Dogs Can Easily And Readily Be Done Using TLC.
Tender Loving Care Is At The Root Of The
Scientific Management Of Doggys. {) ; ~ )

which is why good trainers/behaviorists
insist on SEEING what is going on

That's a load of crap. Your "GOOD TRAINERS/BEHAVIORISTS"
don't know the SCIENCE of BEHAVIOR. They gotta "SEE
what's goin on" SO THEY CAN SELL "DOG TRAINING" LESSONS,
you freakin NETWORKING blowhard.

rather than relying on owner reports.

I don't have NO PROBLEM "diagnosing" behavior
problems based on the owner's written REPORT.

Absent someone SEEING what is going on the rules are simple.

That SEZ the "GOOD TRAINERS/BEHAVIORISTS" DON'T KNOW
the SCIENCE of BEHAVIOR, Master Of Deception blankman.

If you are doing something because you WANT to then fine,

You mean based on your "GOOD TRAINERS/BEHAVIORISTS"
mistaken blowhard SALES PITCH advice, Master Of
Deception blankman?

if you are doing something to avoid or cater
to what the dog is DEMANDING not fine.

OF CURSE we wouldn't wanna "CATER" to our
dogs to MAKE THEM HAPPY. WOULD WE, Master
Of Deception blankman. Perhaps THAT'S HOWE
COME your last three dogs DIED of STRESS
INDUCED AUTO-IMMUNE DIS-EASE aka The Puppy
Wizard's SYNDROME {); ~ )

Allow behavior you want to continue, don't
allow behavior you want to stop.

THAT'S HOWE COME YOUR OWN DOGS DIED FROM STRESS.

People come up with all kinds of theories to explain things.

You mean THERE AIN'T NO SCIENCE OF BEHAVIOR,
Master Of Deception blankman???

Dogs differ from one another just as people do.

BUT THE SCIENCE OF BEHAVIOR NEVER VARIES,
Master Of Deception blankman, (CITE WEDTM):

"The Methods, Principles, And Philosophy Of Behavior
Never Change,
Or They'd Not Be Scientific And Could Not Obtain
Consistent, Reliable, Fast, Effective Results
For All Handler's And All Dogs,
ALL OVER THE WHOLE WILD WORLD,
NEARLY INSTANTLY,
As Taught In Your FREE Copy Of The Puppy Wizard's
FREE WWW Wits' End Dog Training Method Manual,"
The Puppy Wizard. {} ; ~ )

Their motives differ.

THAT'S INSANE.

ALL Critters Only Respond In
PREDICTABLE INNATE NORMAL NATURAL INSTINCTIVE
REFLEXIVE Ways
To Situations And Circumstances Of Their Environment
Which We Create For Them.

What rewards them differs.

REWARDS DON'T WORK, Master Of Deception blankman:

"The IMBECILITY of some ofthe claims for operant
technique simply take the breath away. Lovas et al
(1966) report a standard contingent reward/punishment
procedure developing imitative speech in two severly
disturbed non verbal schizophrenic boys. After twenty-
six days the boys are reported to have been learning
new words with alacrity. HOWEver, when REWARDS
were moved to a delayed contingency the behavoir and
learning immediately deteriorated."

Their temperaments differ.

Damn The Descartean War of
"Nature Vs Nurture."
We Teach By HOWER Words And Actions
And GET BACK What We TAUGHT.

Their concern about social relationships differ.

You Get The Critter You Trained

A Dog Is A Dog
As A Kat Is A Kat
As A Birdie Is A Birdie
As A Child Is A Child
As A SP-HOWES Is a SP-HOWES.
As A Mass Murderer Is A Mass Murderer

What is perfectly right for one dog
is perfectly wrong for another.

That's a load of self serving CRAP:

Pavlov Told Us So 100 Years Ago. Sam Corson,
Pavlov's Last Student Demonstrated At UofOH
Oxford, That Rehabilitation Of Hyperactive
Dogs Can Easily And Readily Be Done Using TLC.
Tender Loving Care Is At The Root Of The
Scientific Management Of Doggys. {) ; ~ )

"It is NO WONDER that the marked changes in
deviant behavior of children can be achieved
through brief, simple educative routines with
their mothers which modify the mother's social
behaviors shaping the child (Whaler, 1966). Some
clinics have reported ELIMINATION ofthe need for
child THERAPY through changing the clinical emphasis
from clinical to parental HANDLING of the child
(Szrynski 1965).

A large number of cases improved sufficiently after
preliminary contact with parents that NO treatment
of children was required, and almost ALL cases
SHOWE a remarkably shortened period for therapy.
Quite severe cases of anorexia nervosa have been
treated in own to five months by simply REPLACING
the parents temporarily with EFFUSIVELY LOVING
SUBSTITUTES (Groen, 1966)."

Keep it simple.

"Postitive emotions arising in connection
with the perfection of a skill, irrespective
of its pragmatic significance at a given
moment, serve as the reinforcement." Pavlov.

IOW, emotions, not outside rewards, are
what reinforces any behavior. "All animals
learn best through play." -- Konrad Lorenz

"...all the highest nervous activity, as it manifests
itself in the conditional reflex, consists of a continual
change of these three fundamental processes -- excitation,
inhibition and disinhibition," Ivan P. Pavlov

Pay attention to your attitude, and your dog's attitude.

In The Problem Animal Behavior BUSINESS
FAILURE MEANS DEATH.
SAME SAME,
For The Problem Child Behavior BUSINESS.

There is no better guide to whether something
is working or not.

You mean EXXXPERIMENT, Master Of Deception blankman?:

Here's the crux of the PROBLEM for ALL trainers EXCEPT
those who use my precise scientifically sound methods,
as taught by university trained ethologists:

"Whether we choose ot use positive, negative, or a mix
of reinforcements, we must be sure that our buddy on the
other end of the leash can identify the specific behavior
for which he is being rewarded or corrected." "Smart
Trainers -- Brilliant Dogs" by Janet Lewis.

You CANNOT "MIX" PAIN FEAR FORCE and INTIMIDATION
"METHODS" with PRAISE and UNCONDITIONAL LOVE TRUST
and RESPECT and maintain CONSISTENCY. Inconsistency
is the BANE of the Scientific Method and is responsible
for ALL temperament and behavior problems in children
and dogs.

All the rest of the information is just
opening up your mind to possibilities.

You mean THERE AIN'T NO SCIENCE OF BEHAVIOR?

From: "George von Hilsheimer, Ph.D."
Subject: The Amazing Jerry's take on psychobabble
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:13:44 -0400

You might improve the learning of folk who actually
live with and train dogs to do useful things if you
excluded everyone who uses psychobabble from your lists.

I recommend to all of you who wish to taste the flavor
of sensible animal behaviorists to read THE MISBEHAVIOR
OF ORGANISMS, Breland and Breland.

This married pair of psychologists began the long trail
of highly trained animals who are symbolized by Shamu
eating a mackrel from a girl's hand instead of eating
the much more tasty pretty girl who is exactly the size
of the natural food of killer whales, seals. Yum!

The essay, by the way, is a chapter in B.F. Skinner's
summing up book, CUMULATIVE RECORD. They include a
sentence which more or less says, "unless you understand
the personal history of the particular animal, and the
history of this animal's species and group, the developmental
history of the animal, you cannot effectively train the animal.

Pigs root and hen's scratch, if you try to train hens without
scratching or pigs without scratching or pigeons without pecking,
you aren't going to have much success.

A conditional reflex is one which is learned, the original
primitive reflex occurs no matter what the history of the
animal, and is hard wired. If you train the animal to respond,
say by ringing a bell immediately before turning on a bright
light, then you've taught the animal and made his native reflex
of pupil constriction conditional upon the ringing of a bell.

Thorndyke added some terminology to this kind of training
and insisted that when you train the animal to make gross
motor responses that this learning is "instrumental", the
animal takes action and uses an instrument.

The Russian word translated as "conditional" in all other
contexts was mistranslated by Pavlov's American translator,
Horsley Gannt, as "conditioned" and so American psychology
went haring after phantasmagora.

The major theorists for the development of the language of
operant conditioning are Edward Thorndike, John Watson, and
B. F. Skinner. Their approach to behaviorism played a major
role in the development of American psychology.

They proposed that learning is the result of the application
of consequences; that is, learners begin to connect certain
responses with certain stimuli. This connection causes the
probability of the response to change (i.e., learning occurs.)

Thorndike labeled this type of learning instrumental. Using
consequences, he taught kittens to manipulate a latch (e.g.,
an instrument). Skinner renamed instrumental as "operant"
because in this learning, one is "operating" on, and is
influenced by, the environment. Where classical conditioning
illustrates S--R learning, operant conditioning is often
viewed as R--S learning since it is the consequence that
follows the response that influences whether the response
is likely or unlikely to occur again.

It is through operant conditioning that
voluntary responses are learned.

One should note that Russian Psychology did very well
without the operant language, and only pettifogging
university professors ought to worry about what kind
of label we attach to the learning. Pfui!

Even Skinner understood this!

And please note if you saw the original movie, THE
MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, you saw a Chinese psychologist
who was based on Andrew Salter, CONDITIONED REFLEX
THERAPY.

Alas, Salter didn't have a Ph.D., but he basically rescued
us from the long Freudian nightmare and returned psychotherapy
to a scientific basis. Alas, the 2nd movie didn't even cite
Salter as a source. "...all the highest nervous activity, as
it manifests itself in the conditional reflex, consists of a
continual change of these three fundamental processes --
excitation, inhibition and disinhibition." Ivan P. Pavlov

George von Hilsheimer, Ph.D., F.R.S.H.

What's important is, "does Shamu reliably eat
the fish and not the pretty girl?"

George von Hilsheimer, Ph.D., F.R.S.H.

From: TooCool )
The Puppy Wizard's Wits End Training Method

I have studied canine behavior and dog training for
years. I have a huge library that covers every system
of training.

The Puppy Wizard's (Jerry Howe's) Wits' End Training
Method is by far the most scientific, the most advanced,
the kindest, the quickest and the most effective training
method yet discovered.

It is not an assortment of training tips and tricks; it is
a logically consistent system. Every behavior problem
and every obedience skill is treated in the same logically
consistent manner.

Please study his manual carefully. Please endeavor to
understand the basis of his system and please follow
his directions exactly. His manual is a masterpiece.
It is dense with theory, with explanation, with detailed
descriptions about why behavior problems occur and
how their solution should be approached.

One should not pick and choose from among his methods
based upon what you personally like or dislike. His is
not a bag of tricks but a complete and integrated system
for not only training a dog but for raising a loving companion.

When I once said to Jerry that his system creates for
you the dog of your dreams, his response was that it
produces for your dog the owner of his dreams.

You see, Jerry has discovered that if you are gentle
with your dog then he will be gentle with you, if you
praise your dog every time he looks at you, then you
will become the center of your dogs world, if you use
Jerry's sound distraction with praise, then it takes
just minutes-sometimes merely seconds-to train your
dog to not misbehave (even in your absence) (Just 15
seconds this morning to train my 10 week old puppy to
lie quietly and let me clip his nails).

Using Jerry's scientific method (sound distraction /
praise / alteration / variation) it takes just minutes to
train you dog to respond to your commands.

What a pleasure it was for me to see my 6 week old
puppy running as fast has his wobbly little legs would
carry him in response to my recall command-and he
comes running every time I call no matter where we are
or what he is doing.

At ten weeks old now, my puppy never strains upon
his leash thanks to Jerry's hot & cold exercises and
his Family Pack Leadership exercises.

Jerry has discovered that if you scold your dog, if you
scream at him, if you intimidate him, if you hurt him,
if you force him then his natural response is to oppose
you.

Is Jerry a nut?

It doesn't make any difference to me whether he is or not.
It is a logical fallacy to judge a person's ideas based
upon their personality. As far as dogs are concerned, Jerry
wears his heart upon his sleeve. It touches him deeply when
he hears of trainers forcing, intimidating, scolding or
hurting dogs.

More than that, he knows that force is not effective
and that it will certainly lead to behavior problems;
sometime problems so severe that people put their
dogs down because of those problems.

I believe that it is natural for humans to want to control
their dog by force. Jerry knows this too. We have all been
at our wits' end, haven't we?

Dogs have a natural tendency to mimic. In scientific
literature it is referred to allelomimetic behavior. Dogs
respond in like kind to force; they respond in like kind
to praise.

Don't bribe your dog with treats; give him what he
wants most-your kind attention. Give him your praise.
You will be astonished at how your dog 's anxiety will
dissipate and how their behavior problems will dissipate
along with their anxiety.

Treat Jerry Howe's (The Puppy Wizard) Wits' End
Training Method as a scientific principle just as you
would the law of gravity and you will have astounding
success.

Dog behavior is just as scientific as is gravity.

If you follow Jerry's puppy rules you will get a sweet
little Magwai; if you don't you will surely get a little
gremlin (anyone see The Gremlins?). --Larry

--
Diane Blackman
There is no moral victory in proclaiming
to abhor violence while preaching with
violent words.

You're a FRAUD a LIAR a DOG ABUSER a COWARD and MENTAL CASE:

My friend The Master wrote:

Dianne,
Praise is not punishment or, as you and other Skinnerites
like to call it, a "punisher". It is non-aversive, unless
the dog has been counter-conditioned. It works in the example
I have cited because the dog is looking to connect to the
piece of food, and the praise makes him feel connected to me.

If I want him to drop something, I can say out, drop it,
leave it, or no, and he'll respond. If I want to tell him
it's okay to pick something up, I say okay or fine. My
point in making this post is that people don't understand
no, and they don't understand praise. Your reply, though a
technically brilliant explication of the Skinnerian party
line, indicates that most behaviorists have an incomplete
grasp of canine behavior and training.
--
"NATURE IS NEVER WRONG"
--Rousseau

My Student Amanda wrote:
" wrote:

No, the dog learned that I would hold still
the second she began to pull. She would pull
to go where *she* wanted.

Well if she wanted to stop and go in another
direction.. say to sniff my neighbors yard..

she learned if she wanted to do it I would stop
walking and she could go.. and if there wasn't
enough slack on her lead she would just pull me.

Then when she got done doing *her* thing, she woudl
heel.. smile at me and wait for me to say "let's go"
and finish *my* thing. I would refuse to move .. i
looked like an idiot.. freezing mid walk for minutes
waiting for *my* dog to heel and give *me* permission
to go again.

I did the treats and the let's go... she got to do her
stuff and get a cookie.. if she even wanted the cookie.

I wound up calling Jerry.. as I have a half red nose
pit and half amstaff.. who is incredibly protective..

we had a new pup on the way.. and i needed help.. i
followed petsmarts trainnign guides.. memorized them...
and they *did* work, don't get me wrong.. but only
when my pet wanted a cookie or felt the cookie was
better than what she wanted.. which was not often.

She quickly learned to ignore my commands if she
could see my hands were empty. So I called Jerry...
he chatted me for about an hour and a half.. gave me
his link... and even when i had probs intro'ing the
pup he called me withn i5 mins of my email for help
at 10pm on a sunday night.

One.. singular.. uno family pack exercise after
the hot and cold exercise and i could zig zag
down my street.. about face .. whatever.. and
never had tension.

two men were acrossed the street and she walked right
by them... ordinarily she'd snarl and protect us.

And in two days.. my dog.. who bit the puppy if he
even looked like he was going near my husband or kids..
is nursing him every hour.. cleaning him.. rough housing
gently.. and teaching him to go potty outside..

actually watches him to make sure he doesn't go in
the house... and has milk.. which is awesome since
she's 19 months old and has never had a litter.

She also has stopped barking non stop at our neighbor's
dogs and pig.. does not bark at eveyr car that drives by
and has stopped jumping on people. she's even starting
to ignore our cat who has lived on her dome litter box
and our window sill (literally) for over a year and a half.

She also does her commands on cue.. and doesn't look for a treat.

From: "George von Hilsheimer, Ph.D."
Subject: The Amazing Jerry's take on psychobabble
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:13:44 -0400

You might improve the learning of folk who actually
live with and train dogs to do useful things if you
excluded everyone who uses psychobabble from your lists.

I recommend to all of you who wish to taste the flavor
of sensible animal behaviorists to read THE MISBEHAVIOR
OF ORGANISMS, Breland and Breland.

This married pair of psychologists began the long trail
of highly trained animals who are symbolized by Shamu
eating a mackrel from a girl's hand instead of eating
the much more tasty pretty girl who is exactly the size
of the natural food of killer whales, seals. Yum!

The essay, by the way, is a chapter in B.F. Skinner's
summing up book, CUMULATIVE RECORD. They include a
sentence which more or less says, "unless you understand
the personal history of the particular animal, and the
history of this animal's species and group, the developmental
history of the animal, you cannot effectively train the animal.

Pigs root and hen's scratch, if you try to train hens without
scratching or pigs without scratching or pigeons without pecking,
you aren't going to have much success.

A conditional reflex is one which is learned, the original
primitive reflex occurs no matter what the history of the
animal, and is hard wired. If you train the animal to respond,
say by ringing a bell immediately before turning on a bright
light, then you've taught the animal and made his native reflex
of pupil constriction conditional upon the ringing of a bell.

Thorndyke added some terminology to this kind of training
and insisted that when you train the animal to make gross
motor responses that this learning is "instrumental", the
animal takes action and uses an instrument.

The Russian word translated as "conditional" in all other
contexts was mistranslated by Pavlov's American translator,
Horsley Gannt, as "conditioned" and so American psychology
went haring after phantasmagora.

The major theorists for the development of the language of
operant conditioning are Edward Thorndike, John Watson, and
B. F. Skinner. Their approach to behaviorism played a major
role in the development of American psychology.

They proposed that learning is the result of the application
of consequences; that is, learners begin to connect certain
responses with certain stimuli. This connection causes the
probability of the response to change (i.e., learning occurs.)

Thorndike labeled this type of learning instrumental. Using
consequences, he taught kittens to manipulate a latch (e.g.,
an instrument). Skinner renamed instrumental as "operant"
because in this learning, one is "operating" on, and is
influenced by, the environment. Where classical conditioning
illustrates S--R learning, operant conditioning is often
viewed as R--S learning since it is the consequence that
follows the response that influences whether the response
is likely or unlikely to occur again.

It is through operant conditioning that
voluntary responses are learned.

One should note that Russian Psychology did very well
without the operant language, and only pettifogging
university professors ought to worry about what kind
of label we attach to the learning. Pfui!

Even Skinner understood this!

And please note if you saw the original movie, THE
MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, you saw a Chinese psychologist
who was based on Andrew Salter, CONDITIONED REFLEX
THERAPY.

Alas, Salter didn't have a Ph.D., but he basically rescued
us from the long Freudian nightmare and returned psychotherapy
to a scientific basis. Alas, the 2nd movie didn't even cite
Salter as a source. "...all the highest nervous activity, as
it manifests itself in the conditional reflex, consists of a
continual change of these three fundamental processes --
excitation, inhibition and disinhibition." Ivan P. Pavlov

George von Hilsheimer, Ph.D., F.R.S.H.

What's important is, "does Shamu reliably eat
the fish and not the pretty girl?"

George von Hilsheimer, Ph.D., F.R.S.H.


From: Mike )
Subject: Info. on the puppy wizard?
Date: 2004-07-18 14:27:02 PST

Oh, and did I mention his methods work, ya nuff said.
Mike

Ok Mike which part worked for you?

It helped clear problems from my dogs in the
field using the can penny distraction technique.

Works like a charm.

My dogs get distracted easy from their jobs ie,
retrieving or training to find lost people, oh did
I mention that I am a Search and Rescue Team
Leader.

Sorry that slipped my mind.

I have read volumes of training books and don't
know where people get that Jerry copied others
work as I have NEVER come across his methods
before. I would like to see proof.

Just like Jerry outlined I eliminated problems one
at at time as they arose. I used to try and train to
the way I wanted them but this is backward, you
train out the problems leaving what you want left over.

Funny part is the second dog who had the same
problems as the other didn't need correcting for
some of his habits after I cleared it from the first
dog.

Seemed he learned through osmosis.

Nice side benefit there.

It nearly came to giving them up to a 3rd party
trainer as they were not performing well. The
VAST majority of working dog trainers are
agressive in their actions with the dogs.

I tried it and it didn't work and guess what I
was at my "Whits End" then someone I new
turned me onto Jerry and the rest is history.

I referred friends and families to Jerry's manual
and all have had great results. Starting puppies
out on the distraction technique is especially
good because they never develop the habit.

I had my sisters dog healing, sitting and down
stay reliably at 8-9 weeks. The first night home
following Jerrys advice we ditched the crate and
put the pup on the floor beside the bed and after
2 whimpers NOT A SOUND OUT OF THAT DOG
FOR 6 HRS! first night, that has never happened
in all my days.

Sorry, the man understands dogs its that simple.

Mike

Dr. George VonHilsheimer writes in
"Is there a SCIENCE of BEHAVIOR?":

"Valette 1966 is a complete trivialization of
scientific findings. It overstates the case for
reinforcement theory. No careful researcher
would contend that operant techniques CAN
ANY THING MORE than modify SHORT TERM
BEHAVIOR in a highly controlled and limited
environment with a large number of skillful
experimenters. Certainly the most elaborate
studies have shown that the withdrawal or
temprary inefficiency of the reward system is
immediately followed by CESSATION of the
programmed behavior.

In fortunate contrast to this depressing paper
is the research reported by Whelan (1966) who
makes the simple but profHOWEND caveat that
"It is only through CORRECT, EFFICIENT APPLICATION
(of operant principles) that children's behavor can
be changed to the extent that they can subsequently
contribute to the REAL WORLD in which they live.

Whelan illustrates the simple nature or the
learning process by referring to Ferster's
engaging study of two three year old
chimpanzees taught mathematics through
simple procedures. Whelan carries this
EVIDENCE a step futher by pointing HOWET
it's applicability to disturbed children.

If chimpanzees CAN LEARN mathematics
through step by step learning AT THEIR OWN
PACE, reinforced primarily by CORRECT
ANSWERS rather than with "fruit loops and
rasins", we can assume that even developmentally
RETARDED or CONfHOWENDED children CAN LEARN as well.

Moreover, Whelan makes the EXXXTREMELY important point
that while most teachers assume that learning takes place
verbally, primarily it is a non verbal
process..

Unfortunately Whelan limits himself to the problem
that "teachers must not only modify or remove specific
deviant behaviors, but must also develop socially
acceptable behavior patterns in the classroom and
classroom conditioned goals, NOT LEARNING.

Other researchers have emphasized the importance
ofadult behaviors in conditioning classroom behavior.
An EXXXCELLENT review of this researchshowd that
tantrum behavior, excessive crawling and dependency,
isolated play, passivity, spelling failure, and other
problem behaviors can be managed by altering habitual
adult responses to children (Harris, Wolf and Baer, 1964) .

Such RESEARCH holds GREATER PROMISE in that
alteration of the conditioning social environment seems
to provide more STABLE and LASTING CHANGES than
"M and M's". Moreover, a great deal of work has been
done developing EFFECTIVE techniques of behavior
modificaton through the conditioning social environment
of peers (Hartup, 1964). These directions would seem
more PRODUCTIVE than a simple minded trainslation
of the Skinner cage to the classroom.

Skinner (1963) pointed HOWET that operant techniques
can "be utilized fully ONLY IF we REDEFINE the GOALS
of education and the CONDITIONS in the educational
environment under which those goals may be reached...
(through) a DIFFERENT KIND of educational research
which is much more closely concerned with the immediate
dimensions of the student's behavior than with gross
changes such as IMPROVED PERFORMANCES."

UNFORTUNATELY, neither Skinner nor ANY OTHER
learning theorist has provided us with a working
model of a school or research enterprise based
on systemic and thorough-going APPLICATION of
LEARNING PRINCIPLES.

Skinner (1948, 1953) approaches a definition of the
philosophical issues involved, and provides an utopian
model of a school, but generally psychologists seem
STUCK at a level of MANAGEMENT of an aggressively
disturbing child in the classroom, through peer approval,
or the aplication of accelerating CONsequences in the
classroom, or scientifically S-HOWENDING tactics like
"TIME HOWET" (which we used to know more simply
as "sendin the kid to the cloakroom").

Hobbs (op. cit.) claims that the classroom is a
natural environement for the child. Thelen (1965)
contends that "classroom practices are UNnatural,
UNreasonable, and 'against NATURE.' ". This
would seem the central issue for the philosophy of
education. Mere trivial application of research findings
to an institution essentially unchanged from Sumerian
academies (Kramer, 1962) will NOT create useful
teaching for human beings.

It seems relevant to ask EXXXACTLY WHAT do we
know abHOWT the learning situation in which HOWER
children find themselves, and why, in the light of HOWER
knowledge, do we do any of the things that schools do?"

We know that there is little agreement among adults
as to what it is they are SUPPOSED to be DOING,
what something to do could be that MIGHT be
EFFECTVE, and what it IS that other people who
have authority over children ought to be doing (Mc-
Eachern and Taylor, 1967). Wherefor the child's
CONfusiHOWEN?

It is NO WONDER hat the marked changes in
deviant behavior of children can be achieved
through brief, simple educative routines with
their mothers which modify the mother's
social behaviors shaping the child (Whaler,
1966). Some clinics have reported ELIMINATION
ofthe need for child THERAPY through changing
the clinical emphasis from clinical to parental
HANDLING of the child (Szrynski 1965). A large
number of cases improved sufficiently after
preliminary contact with parents that NO treatment
of children was required, and almost ALL cases
SHOWE a remarkably shortened period for therapy.
Quite severe cases of anorexia nervosa have been
treated in own to five months by simply REPLACING
the parents temporarily with EFFUSIVELY LOVING
SUBSTITUTES (Groen, 1966).

Probably the most absurd figure in Amaerican mass
media is the TEACHER (Gerbner, 1966). HOWE can
we EXXXPECT children to LEARN responsible P-HOWER
from models of IMPOTENCE? We KNOW that LEARNING
a complex ritualized social role, is facilitated
by observation of an INTELLIGIBLE MODEL much more
effectively than by trial and error with REINFORCEMENT.

Roles which are relatively arbitrary and senseless are
the most difficult to learn (Luchins, 1966). Do we make
ANY EFFORT as teachers to CORRECT the massive impact of
media?

HOWE can the ARBITRARINESS and SENSELESSNESS
of IMPOTENT ADULT MODELS be redeemed by anything
short of RELEVANCE and COMMITMENT?

As an engaging final comment on the PROFESSION
let me mention the little study by Dittman et al (1965)
tha when 15 psychotherapists and 9 professional dancers
evaluated facial and bodily expressons for effect the
dancers ere much MOORE accurate. Need we say
MOORE abHOWET the training of therapists?

THE OPERANT FALLACY

Programs utilizing the "contingencies of reinforcement
model" proposed by Skinner (1963) ar no more well
established in research than the various dynamic
therapists. Research in four areas : 1) direct evaluation
of programmed systems for elarning; 2) reinforcement;
3) cognitive dissonance; and 4) motivation, MOST SURELY
DEMOLISH the claims of operant programers.

The 190 studies annotated by Schramm (1964) when
inspected display NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
in SUCCESS among approaches and modifications.
Programmed instruction is no worse than conventional
instruction, and takes less time, but time reductions in
conventional instruction has frequently been shown
possible without detrimental effects. If you draw your
controls cagily you can always show the superiority of
your PET technique.

Moore and Smit (1964) compared variations on
programmed materials, machines, texts, written
responses, merely reading, free response, multiple
choice, and iving or not giving the students results.
There were NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES despite
Skinner's insistence on the importance of the
CONTINGENCY of REINFORCEMENT. Carpenter
and Greenhill (1963) could find NO DIFFERENCE
in RESULTS even after eliminating the self-pacing
feature by presenting the materials by TV or Video.

Krumboltz and Kiesler (1965) reported that a two month
follow up test showed NO DIFFERENCE between students
given a variety of reinforcement schedules. Mayo and
Longo (1966) report that naval and marine trainees
saved 30% of time in learning electronics fundamentals
through a programed course witrh superior scores on one
measure but not on another, and with no follow-up reported.

The same authors reported a reductionj from 26 HOWERS
to 19 HOWERS in instruction time through the use of
program with NO DIFFERENCE in test scores, except that
as longer blocks of materiallearned through programmed
means were tesed the scores DECREASED.

When the control instruction is manipulated an entirely
DIFFERENT picture emerges Jacobs and Kulkarni (1966)
assignedstudents in three different schools to classes
with standard programmed material giving immediate
knowledge of results to classes without results and to
classes with the order of sections of the program inverted.

In two schools the groups without knowledge of results
and the groups with inverted material SCORED HIGHER.
In one school there was NO DIFFERENCE. So much for
THEORY. Reid and Taylor (1965) presented a linear
program on paper-making to 60 paid undergrads with
a 12 week follow up test. The group which merely
read learned the same material in 154 minutes to
243 minutes for the group given responses- a
REVERSAL of the usual BIASED RESULTS based
on POOR CON-TROLLS. There were no differences
on post tests.

Spagnoli (1965) reports on a study exposing the control
and programed group to the same material in a concentrated
effort over a limited period of time. There were NO
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES.

Sassenrath and Garverick (1965) gave 4 matched
groups of 120 students four procedures: 1) looking
up the wrong answers, 2) having questions discussed
by the instructors, 3) checking answers from correct
ones on the board, and 4) no feedback. The discussion
method proved best.

Finally, in studying means of training men to perform
a 72 action prcedure on Nike-Hercules equipment,
Cox and Boren (1965) demonstrated that the time
required to learn the procedure to critterion was NO
DIFFERENT when the actions were organized into
seven operant spans and taught in reverse order, in
natural order, or without grouping into operant spans
at all.

IT IS CLEAR that as comparisons became more
sophisticated programed instruction and other
operant teaching techniquesreveal tehemselves
as simply another prestigiHOWES FAD--somewhat
better than conventional instruction in saving time,
but certainly not providing a better or better organized
or more independently useful GRASP of KNOWLEDGE.

The IMBECILITY of some ofthe claims for operant
technique simply take the breath away. Lovas et al
(1966) report a standard contingent reward/punishment
procedure developing imitative speech in two severly
disturbed non verbal schizophrenic boys. After twenty-
six days the boys are reported to have been learning
new words with alacrity. HOWEver, when REWARDS
were moved to a delayed contingency the behavoir and
learning immediately deteriorated.

Despite this, and despite the fact that there was no
evidence of cognitive association with the words, the
authors leap to the conclusion that the fact that the
boys improved in the acquisition of Norwegian words
WITHOUT REWARDS while still being given English
words WITH REWARDS suggest hat the children may
be able to acquire new behaviors on their own.

The need for this study escapes one, particularly in
view of the very well established fact that schizophrenics
condition quite readily (Mednick, 1958)

One can see the "SCIENTIFIC" PRECISION by which the
authors drop contingent reinforcements thus PROVING
that the parrot behavior was indeed caused by the schedule
and NOT by some other mystical force.

The use of Norwegian to demonstrate learning that
could not even remotely be related to previous history
is a grotesquery too bizarre to be credited. Who could
possibly doubt that this useless and probably damaging
trained seal routine depended on the psychologist's antics?

What on earth led them to believe that a schizophrenic
needs even more other-focused responsiveness?

Lovaas et al (1965) reportedthree programs carried
out on five year old autistic twins conditioining them
to "social behavior" and to eliminate pathologial
behaviors such as self-stimulation and tantrums.

Affectionate and other social behaviors toward
adults increaseed after adults had been associated
with shock reduction. The routine for this treatment
brings immediate relief to mind Sawrey and Wesz
(1956) routine for producing ulcers in monkeys.

I suppose it is USELESS to speculate on the source
of SO CALLED THERAPISTS willingness to experiment
on human beings with procedures for which there is
sound experimentally established WARNINGS. If the
"double blind" theory of the origin of schizophrenia
(Bateson, 1956) is at all valid, HOWE DEVASTATING
the experience must ULTIMATELY BE.

Do Lovaas et al REALLY BELIEVE the schizophrenic
has no cognitive processes and DOES NOT KNOW
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SHOCK? Greger
(1965) criticized this study on the basis that
trainsfer CANNOT be generalized.

That issue can be answered by experience, and, of
curse, the "social" behavior of these children deteriorates
as soon as the psychologists LOOSE INTEREST.

The IMPORTANT ISSUE for a SCIENCE OF BEHAVIOR
is why not attempt those things which are KNOWN to
WORK at least in some cases if only for control puporses.

Kanner (1954) reports that 13 classically autistic
children improved enough to go to school without
"anything that is regarded as good psychotherapy or
as psychotherapy at all..."

Autistic children have been known to become
permenantely social by deinstitutionalization,
BY REMOVAL from the parents, BY RADICAL CHANGES
in other environments, and by MASSIVE DOSAGE of
TOUCHING, HOLDING, FONDLING LOVE DESPITE THE
REJECTION OF THE CHILD.

My case, Larry, (vonHilsheimer, 1965b), demonstrates
a recovery by using the mother as an autistic boy's
teacher in an open millieu. It is curiHOWES that the
operant technicians provide as few, and as UNIMAGINITAVE
controls for thier "research" as the Freudians.

REWARD / PUNISHMENT

Despite Skinner's clear denunciation of "negative
reinforcement" (1958) NEARLY EVER LEARNING
THEORY model involves the USE OF PUNISHMENT.
Of curse, Skinner has never to my knowledge,
demonstrated HOWE we escape the phenomenon
that an expected reward not received is experienced
as a punishment and can produce extensive and
persistent aggression (Azrin et al, 1966).

MIMICRY, PLAY, EXPLORATION AND
THE NEED FOR DATA

Complex activities are LEARNED MORE QUICKLY
through OBSERVATION (copying, if you will) than
by trial and error with reinforcemet (Luchins,).
Observers of subjects making a first trial of a multiple
choice bolt head maze made fewer errors than the
practiced subjects in the second run, while subjects
who have been shocked for error on a first trial made
more errors than either (Rosenbaum & Hewitt, 1966).
Students will modify their beliefs more when rewarded
for the way in which they carried out arguing for a
disagreeable position (role reward), than when rewarded
for the content of the argument (Wallace, 1966).
======================

"It is NO WONDER that the marked changes in
deviant behavior of children can be achieved
through brief, simple educative routines with
their mothers which modify the mother's social
behaviors shaping the child (Whaler, 1966). Some
clinics have reported ELIMINATION ofthe need for
child THERAPY through changing the clinical emphasis
from clinical to parental HANDLING of the child
(Szrynski 1965).

A large number of cases improved sufficiently after
preliminary contact with parents that NO treatment
of children was required, and almost ALL cases
SHOWE a remarkably shortened period for therapy.
Quite severe cases of anorexia nervosa have been
treated in own to five months by simply REPLACING
the parents temporarily with EFFUSIVELY LOVING
SUBSTITUTES (Groen, 1966)."


Death Producing Ulcers: "Emotional Influences
On Health & Behavior" Dr. George Von Hilsheimer

Emotional Influences On Behavior

Illness is directly related to depression and lack of
adjustment, particularly to a new environment (Parens,
McConville & Kaplan, 1966).

A WIDE RANGE of PSYCHOSOMATIC or
CORTICOVISCERAL DIS-EASES was surveyed
by Wittkower (1965) to demonstrate the enormous
importance of emotional factors in general health.

Interview findings of emotional material (recently
experienced hopelessness) pryor to biological
examinations correctly identified 11 out of 19 with
cervical cancer, and 25 of 32 who were cancer free
even though psychological tests failed to discriminate
these groups (Schmale & Iker, 1966)

150 lung cancer patients showed significantly
constricted expression of emotions. The had fewer
childhood behavior problems, and lower neuroticism
score than their cancer free controls. Heavy cigarette
smokers who DO NOT INHALE are more apt to have LUNG
CANCER. They, too, show LOWER neuroticism scores.
Among heavy cigarette smokers poor emotional
expression is as highly related to cancer as urban
residence and is more important than a chronic cough
or an air polluted environment (Kissen, 1966).

A ten year observation of all the women who developed
cancer in an isolated pupulation of 2,550 showed that
they tended to be unstable or sub stable personalities
characterized by melancholy and extraversion,
especially marked with those of an undecided body
build (Hagll, 1966). Personality dynamics effect both
the development of cancer and it's SITE. Cancer
may result from what appears to be a failure to grow--
somatically, behaviorally and psychologically
(Grinker, 1966).

In 109 cases leukemia and lymphoma were associated
with a number of losses or separations and with
feelings of sadness, anxiety, anger or hopelessness.
The PRIMARY FACTOR seems to be the shame and
hopelessness of running out of psychological resources
(Green, 1966). Cervical cancer patients are less
emotionally responsive, more isolative, and less
frequently diagnosed as having clinical neuroses than
cancer free patients. There is NO CLEAR DIFFERENCE in
their FEELINGS and ATTITUDES toward coitus (Rotkin,
Qunk, & Couchman, 1965).

Schmidt (1966) surveyed nearly 100 studies of
behaviorally induced DIS-EASE in animals CONFIRMING
and EXTENDING the DATA on PEOPLE. Behaviorally
induced DIS-EASES tend to fall into two groups;
(1) Hysteriform problems, which INCLUDE HYSTERICAL
SEIZURES and FORMS of AGGRESSION as well as
collective panic and epilepsies;

(2) organic modifications, including functional
difficulties and lesions affecting gastro intestinal,
cardio vascular, respiratory, sexual, endocrine, skin,
urinary, and neuro muscular systems.

It is INTERESTING, and SLIGHTLY HORRIFYING,
to note that the ONLY SCIENTIFIC RELEVANCE of
the standard six hour school day that I have been able
to detect in research is that Sawrey and Weisz quite
by accident found that six hours on and six hour off of
"EXECUTIVE BEHAVIOR" in monkeys was the ONLY
TIME STRUCTURE that INDUCED DEATH PRODUCING
ULCERS.


All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
-Arthur Schopenhauer

"Thank you for fighting the fine fight--
even tho it's a hopeless task,
in this system of things.
As long as man is ruling man,
there will be animals (and humans!)
abused and neglected. :-(
Your student," Juanita.

Jerry Howe,
Director of Research,
Animal Behavior Forensic
Sciences Research Laboratory,
BIOSOUND Scientific,
Director of Training,
Wits' End Dog Training
1611 24th St
Orlando, FL 32805
Phone: 1-407-425-5092