Equiosity

This is part 3 of a conversation that’s on one subject - the foundation lesson that I call the grown-ups are talking, please don’t interrupt. In several recent podcasts Dominique has said this is her favorite behavior. That’s a strong statement to make, so we both thought we should have a conversation where she gets to explain why she likes grown-ups so very much. It turns out we both have a lot to say about grown-ups. In Part. 1 I got us started by describing the behavior I’m referring that I call the grown-ups are talking, please don’t interrupt. We ended that episode by saying that we aren’t just looking for a particular head orientation, but we are looking for the whole expression of the horse because we want to build in calmness and Deep all-is-well relaxation. In Part 2 we described how you go about creating not just a horse who stands still when asked, but who is relaxed, confident and at ease when doing so. We included some handling tips for building duration. It turns out the process of building duration helps the base behavior of grown-ups to expand. Grown-ups morphs into ground tying, meaning your horse remains in stillness while you move around him and perform tasks such as grooming, foot care, saddling, etc. We looked at what it means for grown-ups to be an off switch for other behaviors. And we ended with the way grown-ups can be used to teach great balance. We can use grown-ups to normalize the feel of standing in balance. In Part 3 we continue to talk about balance, both physical and emotional. We describe default behaviors - what they are and how they function. That includes “the pose” which is a behavior that has been a keystone in Robin’s training. I describe both how the pose was taught and its many benefits.

This is Part 2 of our conversation with Dr Susan Friedman. Dr Friedman is one of our favorite guests on this podcast. She’s a professor emeritus in the psychology department at Utah State University. She’s been a long-time member of the Clicker Expo Faculty and she runs the very popular on-line course Behavior Works: Learning and Living with Animals. In Part 1 Susan shared with us her most recent project - the Behavior Works Zoo School which you can read about at BWZS.org. We talked about why teams matter. In Part 2 the conversation centers around how to develop great working teams. We talk about what it means to be a leader. How do you maintain control and support a creative, generative team? Susan talks about the different reinforcers people chase. There are individuals who want to be the empire builders. You can often recognize them by how often they use the word “I” in their presentations. And there are people who enjoy being part of a team, who enjoy collaborating and being influenced by others. In teams attribution is still important. When others take credit for your ideas, there’s a sting that can fester into resentment. Susan discusses ways to maintain healthy teams.

This is Part 5 of a conversation with Lucy Butler of River Haven Animal Sanctuary, and Dr Stephanie Jones and her grad student, Sofia Abuin. In Part 1 we talked about the common links between teaching people and working with animals. We talked about coercion, control, and most importantly about empathy. In part 2 Stephanie described a pilot study she and her colleagues set up at the River Haven Animal Sanctuary. Shaping can be incredibly challenging to teach well. Often people refer to the science and the art of training. What Stephanie and her colleague Michael Yencha wanted to investigate is what makes up the “art” part of training? Is there a way to tease this apart so it becomes less mystery and more approachable through science? In Part 3 Stephanie reminded us that the goal of this research project was to help new trainers shape well. That was the reason for the latency criterion. They were using it to judge when to shift criteria. They weren’t looking at any other aspects of shaping. They weren’t looking at the details of the reinforcement strategy or the set up of the environment. They weren’t saying those elements aren’t important, but they wanted to focus on this one component and give it a good rule. The question was how do you get robust interventions that aren’t influenced by implementer errors? Even in art there is technique. If you give people this rule, does that mean learners will be better off because shapers are able to minimize exposure to extinction without even needing to know what it means to minimize exposure to extinction? Can new trainers shape well even when they are lacking experience and a broad theoretical background? We ended Part 3 at a point where Stephanie and Sofia had to leave, but we continued the conversation with Lucy Butler. In Part 4 we talked about the latency rule Stephanie and her colleagues used in the study with the goats and contrasted that with Loopy Training. Whether we’re talking about science or art, there are principles that guide us towards better results. Lucy suggested that instead of trying to design a study that teases apart the elements that lead to better shaping results, it might be more useful to watch a master teacher train to see what they do. In Part 5 we continue to explore the what we can learn from watching effective trainers. When there are constraints on the training, what becomes really important? The constraints may be the time you have to train, or the environment you have to work in, how do you prioritize what to work on? The discussion takes us to this great statement from Lucy Butler: When we understand how behavior is selected and reinforced, we understand that we don’t have to fear behavior. There’s going to be some way we can design and train our way to something better. It’s such an optimistic and hopeful way of being with our animals, and what it turns into is confidence. Join us as we weave our way to this very hopeful statement.

This is Part 3 of a conversation with Lucy Butler of River Haven Animal Sanctuary, and Dr Stephanie Jones and her grad student, Sofia Abuin Dr. Jones graduated with her PhD in Behavior Analysis from West Virginia University in 2021. Her primary research focuses on effects of implementer errors that occur during well-established behavioral treatments. To meet this aim, she conducts laboratory and applied research with the aim of supporting development of robust behavioral interventions. She started teaching and conducting research at Salve Regina University in 2021 and is the principal investigator for the Translational Research and Applied Intervention Lab. IN PART 1 we talked about the common links between teaching people and working with animals. We talked about coercion, control, and most importantly about empathy. In part 2 Stephanie described a pilot study she and her colleagues set up at the River Haven Animal Sanctuary. Shaping can be incredibly challenging to teach well. Often people refer to the science and the art of training. What Stephanie and her colleague Michael Yencha wanted to investigate is what makes up the “art” part of training? Is there a way to tease this apart so it becomes less mystery and more approachable through science? Stephanie began by describing the shaping procedures they used with the goats at River Haven. In one context the criteria was changed when the goat had successfully met the current criterion three times in a row. In the second context a latency component was added. The goat had to meet the criterion within a certain time period which was determined by the goat’s own previous performance. I described the metaphor of shaping from the wide versus the narrow end of the funnel and what it means to shape using narrow end of the funnel thinking. In Part 3 Stephanie reminded us that the goal of this research was to help new trainers shape well. That was the reason for the latency criterion. They were using it to judge when to shift criteria. They weren’t looking at any other aspects of shaping. They weren’t looking at the details of the reinforcement strategy or the set up of the environment. They weren’t saying those elements aren’t important, but they wanted to focus on this one component and give it a good rule. The question was how do you get robust interventions that aren’t influenced by implementor errors? Even in art there is technique. If you give people this rule, does that mean learners will be better off because shapers are able to minimize exposure to extinction without even needing to know what it means to minimize exposure to extinction? Can new trainers shape well even when they are lacking experience and a broad theoretical background?