On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:39:59 -0500, diddy wrote:

Am I the only person who has a problem with food luring?

Yes, pretty much.

It works, it works faster than shaping, and it's easier to teach to the
average pet owner.

It's only the purely-positive mafia who have any complaints about it - and
their only real complaint is that it works better than what they do and
they can't call it cruel and imhumane.

--
I swear eternal enmity against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
- Thomas Jefferson

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:40:41 -0500, Jeff Dege
wrote:

It's only the purely-positive mafia who have any complaints about it

Why do they complain?

--
Handsome Jack Morrison

If only Bush wasn't president, this sort of thing would never happen:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/italy/stor...851875,00.html
France to send cooks, can-can dancers, and mimes to augment UN forces in Lebanon, but no actual soldiers!
http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=5290403&nav=0oa8
Who's next?
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/1...-months-later/
Corruption of faith?
http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rticle_id=5764
Why diplomacy is almost always a sham:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...Lebano n&only
There will be no "peaceful solution":
http://www.dailypundit.com/2006/08/r...le_thing_1.php
Do you know what happens when bad behavior is reinforced and rewarded?
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/08...-disaster.html
Five Minutes to Midnight:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...Y0M2ZiMGFkNGI=
Let the Jews Die:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=23822
Well, *this* certainly isn't good news:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
The Brink of Madness. A familiar place.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...Q4OWMzNDhmMzk=
Obsession: Radical Islam’s War with the West (a must-see movie!):
http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:55:20 -0400, Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:40:41 -0500, Jeff Dege
wrote:

It's only the purely-positive mafia who have any complaints about it

Why do they complain?

They object to any training that outside the cult of strict skinnerianism.
But they couch their objections in terms of "aversives" being harmful to
dogs.

Luring is not skinnerian. The trainer is interacting with the dog,
communicating and encouraging it. Not simply playing the part of a
computer-controlled treat dispenser. So the radicals don't approve of it.

But not even they can pretend that luring is aversive, so they have no
tools within their philosophical arsenal for expressing that disapproval.

The resulting cognitive dissonance is the grounds for their complaints.
(Their blind refusal to admit that there is a cognitive anything explains
why they don't understand why they're so uncomfortable with it.)

--
As I understand it, deconstructionism is a form of literary criticism that
is intended to demonstrate the fundamental meaninglessness of literature.
IMO, what it demonstrates is the fundamental meaninglessness of literary
criticism.

In article ,
Jeff Dege wrote:
They object to any training that outside the cult of strict skinnerianism.
But they couch their objections in terms of "aversives" being harmful to
dogs.

The only people I've seen say this kind of thing are pet
owners without much dog training experience or education.
Could you be more specific? To use the word "mafia" implies
a lot of stuff I haven't observed, myself, and you're
flirting with the "some say" problem.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Bad policies lead to bad results.

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:19:25 -0500, Jeff Dege
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:55:20 -0400, Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:40:41 -0500, Jeff Dege
wrote:

It's only the purely-positive mafia who have any complaints about it

Why do they complain?

They object to any training that outside the cult of strict skinnerianism.
But they couch their objections in terms of "aversives" being harmful to
dogs.

Luring is not skinnerian. The trainer is interacting with the dog,
communicating and encouraging it. Not simply playing the part of a
computer-controlled treat dispenser. So the radicals don't approve of it.

I've never heard a PPer complain about using food(!). I'm not denying
it, I've just never heard of one.

But not even they can pretend that luring is aversive, so they have no
tools within their philosophical arsenal for expressing that disapproval.

I don't know how they can claim that food(!) is an aversive either,
but then again, I ain't nuts, like the PPers are.

The resulting cognitive dissonance is the grounds for their complaints.
(Their blind refusal to admit that there is a cognitive anything explains
why they don't understand why they're so uncomfortable with it.)

Just like with doofuses in general, I never try to explain PPers.

Some things are just unexplainable.

--
Handsome Jack Morrison

If only Bush wasn't president, this sort of thing would never happen:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/italy/stor...851875,00.html
France to send cooks, can-can dancers, and mimes to augment UN forces in Lebanon, but no actual soldiers!
http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=5290403&nav=0oa8
Who's next?
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/1...-months-later/
Corruption of faith?
http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rticle_id=5764
Why diplomacy is almost always a sham:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...Lebano n&only
There will be no "peaceful solution":
http://www.dailypundit.com/2006/08/r...le_thing_1.php
Do you know what happens when bad behavior is reinforced and rewarded?
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/08...-disaster.html
Five Minutes to Midnight:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...Y0M2ZiMGFkNGI=
Let the Jews Die:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=23822
Well, *this* certainly isn't good news:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
The Brink of Madness. A familiar place.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...Q4OWMzNDhmMzk=
Obsession: Radical Islam’s War with the West (a must-see movie!):
http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

Jeff Dege wrote:

As I understand it, deconstructionism is a form of literary criticism that
is intended to demonstrate the fundamental meaninglessness of literature.
IMO, what it demonstrates is the fundamental meaninglessness of literary
criticism.

FWIW, my understanding of deconstruction is totally different.
It is not that literature is meaningless, it is that the text has a life
of its own apart from and beyond the intention of the author,
and that each reading of the text is unique, whether by different
readers or the same person reading at different times.

It advocates that we not pretend to have an objective viewpoint.

But that's just my reading.

Amy Dahl

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:26:58 -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:

In article , Jeff Dege
wrote:
They object to any training that outside the cult of strict
skinnerianism. But they couch their objections in terms of "aversives"
being harmful to dogs.

The only people I've seen say this kind of thing are pet owners without
much dog training experience or education. Could you be more specific? To
use the word "mafia" implies a lot of stuff I haven't observed, myself,
and you're flirting with the "some say" problem.

There are folks who use positive techniques, and those who vocally object
to anyone using anything other than positive techniques.

There are those who use learning theory and operant conditioning, and
those who maintain that learning theory complete explains how animals
learn, and disapprove of any technique that isn't

There are those choose to use certain techniques, and there are those who
vilify and persecute, who organize campaigns of legal and political
harassment against those who use anything other than those certain
techniques.

There are a lot of people who use luring. There are a lot who do not.
But the only ones who find luring objectionable in any way are those far
out on the lunatic fringe of radical behaviorism.

--
Je suis l'Eggman.
Vous etes les eggmen.
Je suis le walrus.
Goo goo ga joob.

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 00:16:02 +0000, Amy Dahl wrote:

Jeff Dege wrote:

As I understand it, deconstructionism is a form of literary criticism
that is intended to demonstrate the fundamental meaninglessness of
literature. IMO, what it demonstrates is the fundamental meaninglessness
of literary criticism.

FWIW, my understanding of deconstruction is totally different. It is not
that literature is meaningless, it is that the text has a life of its own
apart from and beyond the intention of the author, and that each reading
of the text is unique, whether by different readers or the same person
reading at different times.

It advocates that we not pretend to have an objective viewpoint.

It advocates that there is no objective truth, so there's no point in
even trying to be objective. There's an enormous difference between
recognizing that perfect objectivity is an ideal that can only be
approximated, and claiming that there is no such thing as objective truth
so any opinion is as good as any other.

But that's just my reading.

Amy Dahl

--
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit
materiari?

In article ,
Jeff Dege wrote:
There are a lot of people who use luring. There are a lot who do not.
But the only ones who find luring objectionable in any way are those far
out on the lunatic fringe of radical behaviorism.

You know when your eyes start rolling so fast they pop out
of your head and roll across the floor? I hate that.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Bad policies lead to bad results.

Jeff Dege wrote:

It advocates that there is no objective truth, so there's no point in
even trying to be objective. There's an enormous difference between
recognizing that perfect objectivity is an ideal that can only be
approximated, and claiming that there is no such thing as objective truth
so any opinion is as good as any other.


I don't have a problem with it. Read Derrida, and met him, about
23 years ago and the intervening experience has fit his descriptions
pretty well.

But this is OT and I shouldn't have spoken up in the first place, so
I'll let it drop.

Amy Dahl
post-Structuralist