Training Without Conflict® Podcast Special Edition: The Seat Belt Analogy and Negative Reinforcement
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.พ. 2025
- Training Without Conflict® Podcast Special Edition: The Seat Belt Analogy and Negative Reinforcement
Earlier this year in one of Ivan's Facebook posts, he stated that the commonly used seat belt analogy is misleading and does not properly illustrate the concept of Negative Reinforcement.
This podcast is a 30-minute excerpt from my Training Without Conflict® course lecture on Negative Reinforcement where he discusses why this analogy is problematic.
Ivan Balabanov is a 2-time World Champion dog trainer, Ot Vitosha Malinois breeder, trainer of Premier Protection Dogs, and founder of the revolutionary Training Without Conflict® dog training system.
For more information about Ivan Balabanov and information on how to train your dog or to learn how to become a dog trainer and become certified in the Training Without Conflict® training methodology, check out:
trainingwithou...
malinois.com
premierprotect...
Please like, comment, and share with your dog friends!
Probably the best teacher I've had in my life, and I had extensive education including a major degree. Big hug Ivan!
Thank you!
🎉🎉🎉
I'm from the Ph🇵🇭 and your courses sir are as far as I want to learn from them is a 18 years worth of wage for us here.😅
Nevertheless, your contents and podcasts are allowing me to piece it all together and become a better trainer for my dog. I know I will not get your full picture and ways of how TWC works 100% but you have been the most useful and well explained information out there.
Thank you sir Ivan!❤
And, btw I'm trying to earn and will soon get your possession games and chase and catch. Bless you sir for giving us these gems!🙏
Man, very cool to provide this to the public, everyone will benefit from it.
100%!
Hopefully one day I can take the professional course. Excellent knowledge here!
You will be very pleased with what you will learn !
@@IvanBalabanov I have no doubt. Once I get some financial security it’s one of my goals. In the meantime I’ve listened to all your podcasts and purchased the cornerstone collection which has really opened my eyes to another side of dog training and relationship
Thank you for the great information 👍💪
Like, and share 😉
Super helpfull full of information and help thanks Mr Ivan
You’re welcome
So it would not let me edit my previous post. After listening and watching more my question was answered. At any given moment in time the level of stimulation that example could reinforce a sit, that same level could be a versive enough to also punish a different behavior
Another amazing podcast! Keep them coming!
Once again - Ivan nails it. Thank you! :) TWC is the only way to train!!
Incredible, I was looking for this stuff. I've seen the Facebook post and the comment disagreeing
thank you! sometimes it takes me a while ...
Thanks for sharing this
Thank you very much for sharing this!
thanks, very detailed explanation
Like damn this content is so good
Brilliantly simple 👌👊
Thanks!
Thank you for this great explanation
you're welcome!
Thanks for showing this.
I'm not sure that I understand this exactly. I understand the flaw in the initial idea that the beeping is meant to annoy a person into putting on the seatbelt. But as mentioned in the video, we can get around this by hooking up the seatbelt from the back. My question is, how does the increase in aversive in this situation work if I also just get around this issue but hooking it up to the back? Because if you just hook it up to the back, the increase in the level of aversive becomes redundant right? I'd appreciate it I could get an explanation if I'm not understanding this correctly. 🙏
Ivan, thank you for all. But I would like to know if I can start to do this now with my nine year old frenchie bulldog. I did not know about this before so...
Absolutely
Negative reinforcement is not a static thing, as said in the video. And I'd like to add that the escalation process is also not a static thing and can (and should) be changed to achieve different results. For example, for a brand new dog, you might escalate the aversive very slowly and really help him to understand what to do. Yet, for an experienced dog, you might jump immediately from a low level to high level rather than a slow, smooth increase in escalation to get him to perform his best. It's all fluid based on the dog and other factors.
I use an alarm clock as the example.
It goes off, annoys us, we go towards it turning off the pressure.
Wouldn’t this run into the same problem as the seatbelt analogy?
The example the girl gave where the seat belt has to be on in order to put the car in drive is positive reinforcement, not negative punishment. It would be using a something the person likes (driving the car) to reinforce the desired behavior (using the seat belt). Use the belt, drive the car. Positive reinforcement.
Negative punishment would be like if the person were already driving and then removed the seat belt, and the car became undrivable. Removing what the person likes (driving) to reduce the undesired behavior of removing the seat belt. Remove the belt, no more driving. Negative punishment.
GOLD 💫👌🙏🏆
Than you
In my opinion I think we can make the analogy likened to a time bomb?
The later you disarm it, the faster and stronger the sound gets? Like from "tick... Tick... Tickk" per second to "tit! Tit! Tit! Tit!Tit!" Every millisecond?
Correct me if im wrong here but that's how I understood this wonderful discussion 😄
I disagree with Ivan entirely. Dogs are not verbal; nor do they come pre programmed with English or ready ability. This is the distinction Ivan fails to make. Dogs are physical; not verbal.
Put the collar in on your hand and begin tapping yourself on a an 8-12. Then go look up the definition of “aversive” and explain to me how low level stim is aversive:
Now, consider the person in the line behind you at starbuck’s tapping on your shoulder to get your attention. That is negative reinforcement. Just as steady leash pressure or steady ecollar taps to a dog are negative reinforcement.
I don’t enjoy hearing my seatbelt reminder, but it’s just annoying enough for me to want to do something about it. Just as low level ecollar stim (or gentle steady leash pressure) is enough for the dog to figure out how to shut it off.
So there are principles and science but still very much a art. I will give a example and hopefully you can explain. If we have a big strong powerful dog low food drive very high pray drive for toys tug balls etc.. he has been conditioned to low level stimulation via negative reinforcement for come down place sit etc.
Since we cannot say for sure what is going on in the dogs head but an area of little to no distraction you say sit dog does not sit you apply low level stimulation immediately prior to the verbal sit.
Dog still does not sit. You apply a pretty high level of stimulation definitely aversive immediately prior to the command and keep repeating the command with stimulation until his butt hits the ground. Keeping with the principles that a high-level aversive extinguishes or punishes behavior but in this case it did indeed reinforce the sit. Curious what your take is on this Ivan? Thanks!!
I’m very much against using aversive prior On this topic check out my other podcast here th-cam.com/video/lQlJNX9BGoI/w-d-xo.html
1. You should give the cue first (Sit command), and apply the stimulus 2nd, only if the dog does not sit. If he sits, you are done. If he does not sit, increase the stimulus level and continue increasing until he does sit, then stop the stimulus.
Applying the stimulus first is not fair to the dog since he cannot predict when it will be applied and has no chance to avoid the stimulus. The goal of training is to have the dog respond to the command, not the shock. How can he learn that if you shock him before you give the command?
2. A high level aversive does NOT automatically punish or extinguish a behavior. In the example you give, you are reinforcing a behavior (the sit) through negative reinforcement. It does not matter how high the level of aversive is. If it stops when he sits, you are reinforcing the sit.
Positive or negative punishment would reduce the sitting behavior, not negative reinforcement. Punishment = reduced behavior, Reinforcement = increased behavior.
3. You should not be giving the command and applying the stimulus at the same time either. The dog will only pay attention to and learn one or the other. In this case he will pay attention to the shock and not the command, which works against the end goal of him responding to a command.
Instead, say the command and give the dog a chance to respond. If he does not, then apply the shock without repeating the command and give him a chance to respond. If he does not, continue to gradually increase the stimulus level until the dog does the desired behavior, then stop the stimulus immediately. It should go without saying that the dog should understand the command before you do this.
Once the dog figures this all out, you will no longer need the shock. He will respond to the command alone, to avoid the shock.
Gimmi Larry Krohn anyway 😅
its like if you got in the car and refuse to put your seatbelt on, eventually the car starts beeping and still doesn't motivate you to put it on... so i put a revolver you don't know is empty against your hand and start playing russian roulette until you do.
the next time, just the beep is enough to match your motivation.
what i'm curious about, is why you wouldn't do it every single time, and instead choose to match the motivation? it seems like the only downside to this would be potential accumulative stress (you would want to get in the car less if you knew that you'd be playing russian roulette if you weren't motivated or forgot to put your seatbelt on). but assuming we create a safe state of emergency... isn't this just better?
I wonder will they put E-collars in the Tesla cars next? They ban on dogs because not good but good for humans