새로운 팟캐스트! || Ivan Balabanov 및 게스트 John E. R. Staddon과 함께하는 Training Without Conflict 팟캐스트

effort to actually making a school for dog trainers and teach them more in on a personal level instead of just writing a book which is not out of the question but that's how originally we got introduced i i approached you uh because i really that there were so many things that hit home of of the way you view things and and openness you have to talk about what science and what facts really do and how it happens instead of having a certain agenda which probably will end up talking about but without any further delay john welcome and again very very happy to have you as my first uh person on my podcast well congratulations ivan i'm delighted to be here i'm somewhat overwhelmed by your introduction i'm very i'm very very happy that you've read my books and enjoyed them and i'm just really happy to be here so good good yeah especially i i wouldn't think it's a you know sometimes i i would say there is different levels of dog trainers and there is people that really starve and really hungry for the knowledge and the information that they can find in in everything that you write and everything that you teach normally as i said in the introduction when people ask me where i learn and what i and they expect me to point to another dog trainer but in my 40 years of of doing this in a very high serious level i have learned that any dog trainer has some practical hands-on skills that are invaluable but ultimately even if they learn from another dog trainer they're learning something that's probably already explained why and how it works by people like yourself that do all these experiments and the the laboratory research uh especially like like you've done so much with pigeons and rats and and there he is what is his name okay it's a boy or a girl this is a pseudo dog it's a it's a mutt of course nice one it's mostly papillon i think it's beautiful beautiful but she didn't history and i had to bring her up of course it's a it's a dog shell we have to have the dogs right inappropriate right that's right that's right um where where do we start like we can talk for uh and and we can talk as much as we we want to of course we're not going to be able to cover everything that i want and i'm sure i'm sure that i will miss something and later on i'll be like oh how could i miss this but hopefully everybody that listens gonna enjoy the conversation um i guess um yeah before before we get more into learning and and the experiments and and like i have a lot of questions but i i just very recently stumbled upon upon the the last book that you did the scientific method and how science works fails to work and present and pretends to work it's just the title is

immediately it's like i need to read this because um as dog trainers we we very often seem to be put down as okay no these are the doctrines and they don't possibly have that kind of intelligence or need to search for knowledge to to really understanding what goes on and i'm sure in in all aspects like we watch all tv and we listen to news and and there is always the famous well sciences or the latest research points to this and everything starts like this and it's almost uh uh to convince you not to question it and and am i correct yeah absolutely right i mean you could you could replace the word science with gospel and the meaning would be the same and as useful i mean there is no single science i mean people keep asking questions about this covert business and yeah i mean it's uncertain the whole thing is totally uncertain but you never see anybody come onto the screen and say well i'm a scientist and i actually don't know i mean nobody says i don't know and that would be so refreshing if people did but an anecdote i have no friend that um i've known for years and he used to be an expert witness you know in the court cases he's an engineer and i learned from him that the main thing you need to be an expert witness or to be on television is to be decisive you know you have to come across as a knower whether you really do or not you know and you're right that's one of the problems with science right now yes and and it seems like it's instead of and again i'm speaking from my dog training experience and how much i know but but instead of starting to to keep those people that present the papers and the research a little bit more in check it to me it sounds like it there is certain areas where you're pretty much if you have a phd and you write anything and you cite the right people behind this will get published that's my feeling and you're not really delivering nothing new even i mean i should send you a paper i'd i just i just reviewed a book um called now what's it called science is called science fictions science fictions by a british uh chap called richie christopher ritchie i think and it's about the problems with modern science which are huge absolutely huge um you know what probably about the so-called replication crisis you know about that yes yes and he you should you should tell a little bit about it so for the audience essence of science and science existed before statistics and it's debatable whether statistics has been good for science or not but the essence of science is if you have a phenomenon that you're going to write about the essence of science is that it be repeatable you can do it again people who read your

paper can do it again and so on and when it was simple things like chemistry it was pretty easy everybody knew what potassium was everybody had the same element potassium if you showed property x somebody else could show property x and so on um and medicine um much the same thing was true there's a wonderful wonderful book uh the father of experimental medicine claude bernard written in the 1850s or something like that it's it's actually on my website every once in reading english translation of it but it's a marvelous book and he he had a wonderful um theme or dogma i guess it would be how to call a dogma he said no exceptions no exceptions if you are going to talk about a phenomenon it has to be demonstrable every time okay well now flip forward a hundred years and um uh to the invention of statistics which was i mean the first steps in statistics are made by a very brilliant man francis galton who was the i think his half cousin or something in charles darwin so he had quote good genes i guess anyway he was a brilliant guy and he did all sorts of interesting work but he he started the idea of statistics as we know it today i mean there are other people earlier who've done simpler versions of it so but um his success or one of his successes is a man called r a fisher ronald aylmer fisher and he worked in a horticultural unit in england and he invented what's uh come to be known as the null hypothesis testing system null hypothesis statistical test nhst and the idea of that which now become almost a model for all science even though it was a niche product in this day and it should have remained a niche product i don't want to give a long lecture on this but the idea is if you are studying something that can't be repeated in the individual i'll give you an example on the counter example suppose you want to study visual acuity how well people can see different things and so on uh i reported in this article when i when i was a graduate student i did an experiment on visual acuity when the letters were black on white or white on black okay you could do that with one person you go back and forth and back and forth and you don't need statistics you just need to look at your data and look at the result and you can repeat it with one or two others to make sure the person you were studying is not oddball but that's it that's basic science that's what science is all about but if you want to study something like um learning or reading how do you teach kids to read okay you've got method a and method b well you obviously can't compare them with the same kid you training method a and now he's ahead of the kid who just started on method b

so you have to compare groups and that's become the standard method you have one group that learns by a method a one group that learns by method b and there are two major major issues raised by that one is are the two groups really equivalent that's why there's a lot of stuff about randomized control you have to pick this randomly you don't have a dog that gets in the way all the time so you've got to have make sure the groups are the same but the second and this is the big problem is having concluded that method a is better than method b you say well that's how people learn no it's not how people learn that's how groups learn that is how groups learn and to get from the group back to the individual is really very very important and very difficult i'll give one more example uh there's a field called behavioral economics for some of you may have heard of it um the idea is that people follow incentives and so on and the uh the father one of the fathers of this field or two of them actually are a couple of guys called um daniel kahneman and amos trevorski a couple of very very bright israeli guys and they did experiments asking people to choose between different bets now in none of those experiments did a hundred percent of the people go one way or the other but sometimes they got a statistically significant number of people that went when they were the other but the conclusions that came out of it were people are risk averse or people are have show confirmation bias or something like that but not everybody did and they did not do the experiments as claude bernard would have suggested to find out what made the difference why do some people go this way and some people go that way to find the really invariant constant thing about human nature which is what they're after in fact what they were doing was public uh polling opinion yes yes yes like surveys this is yes very common way of making a poll in a survey and all of a sudden going through the right channels and and it becomes truth of human behavior becomes human behavior this is the name and our very nature is to be risk averse or or whatever it might be but it's as if you did a survey found seventy percent of the people voted democrat and thirty percent of voted you know whatever republicans say ah human nature is democratic really nobody would believe that you know but it's the same kind of argument yes i'm sorry no no this is this is absolutely exactly what we we need to talk about this is very very uh informative and very helpful for for us as a dog training society to to understand this a little bit on a deeper level and and i even want to add and maybe you elaborate a

little more to that because there is so many other components on top of what you're saying and i think um you know who is funding the the research well i go on about that at some length and this chap richie is very very good on that too i mean funding the whole funding system needs to be uh examined i mean it's not so much that it's corrupt it's that it's the wrong kind of incentives i mean i shut down my research lab more than 10 years ago and the reason wasn't that i got bored with research the reason was i was sick of spending almost 50 percent of my time writing grant proposals i mean that's crazy that you're right um and second of all that problem arose i think because these grants are very short-term in other words uh if you apply for a grant you're lucky to get one that lasts longer than three years all right so you have your three-year grant you have to reapply when after two years show progress right science doesn't work like that science doesn't work like that the best example i know a counter example i know is is charles darwin he's one of my absolute heroes um and uh um wallace what's his name um i'm blocking russell's russell wallace's first first name anyway wallace was a another evolutionary guy hey darwin in 1938 two years after he returned from collecting stuff he was on a ship the beagle went around the world uh under rather heroic conditions and he just collected stuff for five years all right for five years that was his data collection two years after that he had an idea well if this all begins to make sense in terms of something i will call natural selection all right um so he the next 20 years 19 1838 to you know 58 he worked on proving testing his idea okay so this whole whole thing took him 25 27 years all right that's that was the way science should be done and it was done and it could be done because darwin didn't need a grant he was independently wealthy he had a lot of money from his rich father okay along comes alfred russell wallace young guy wonderful guy too by the way he sends darwin and you probably know some of this story he sends darwin from his sick bed in indonesia a little manuscript he'd written with the idea of you know ring the bell natural selection darwin gets and he's cause he's pretty shocked i mean even in those days priority was very important i mean newton argued with leibniz i mean you know there was a lot of controversy about priorities from beginning of science so so poor old darwin's looking at this oh god you know i shall be completely smashed he says so he didn't know what to do well he was a very very honorable man so what he did was he showed the letter

that he got from wallace to his some of his senior colleagues and said what should i do about this and they said well why don't you write up something well give a little talk on both of you which is what they did in 1858 in the linnaean society uh a little paper joint sort of joint papers were delivered by darwin and wallace okay all very fair i mean what else could what what else could they or should they have done well now you read books say ah darwin was scooped by wallace but he suppressed it you know i mean darwin gets criticism for this i mean because now being first is all that matters being for never mind how much work you've done to to be sure of this idea that you're promoting uh if you're first this could i mean it's quite quite extraordinary really quite quite extraordinary but it's promoted by this granting incentive system you've got to keep uh pumping stuff out you know in order to keep getting your grants and all that i mean it's a complicated thing i'm just skipping one little corner of it yes yes i think it's been going on a long time i i remember when i was still working in the lab we used to joke about something called the lpu the lp lpo is based on the btu now the btu is the british thermal unit that's a scientific unit lpu is the least publishable unit the smallest thing you could could get into print um some people would want to publish on that basis well i mean darwin did not and even russell wallace did not either at least he had a you know 20 or 30 page paper and thought about it for some time but that the pressures are all wrong that's what i'm saying yes science has to allow for failure failure failure failure if you read the history of any great scientific discovery you'll see that this poor scientist whoever he was tried a lot of stuff that didn't work you don't get you don't get paid off for that in the modern system you know i don't know how to solve it i mean yeah that that's a thing but anyway i'll pass it on to you i think it will eventually hopefully hopefully it it changes because um if if they're just just the the regular person starts to understand that there is something that just doesn't make sense anymore of how things are done but human the human capacity for irrationality is i would say almost limitless right look at all this political stuff that's going on now yes i think that phenomenon of um like what what is politically correct there's almost like a like key words not even phrases key words that if you put them in somehow and they may not make sense but those words are in there you have um you have a ticket yeah yeah absolutely absolutely you're absolutely right i think that's the way it is

listen you're a dog guy let me pick your brain let's go i've got this dog here and like a lot of little dogs she barks anything novel she parks at anything though but that's anything yeah i think novelty is the main thing but also i think a strange person speaking outside the window you know the doorbell there is some surprise element to it for sure yeah i think any kind of surprise and i'm curious as how you would cure this with minimal labor on my part so so it might be a common problem right right so it's a it's a good if you you know the the the best thing is to try to collect some history and and and see how much we have to explore the the the genetics predisposition to it and then the what the environment creates and understand that dogs bark because it's there they're programmed to to react and announce it's instinctive i mean exactly so it's not that skinner would say an upper we will get there we will yeah we're definitely getting there but so with the there is in dog trainers there is a lot of different branches of dog training and there is a certain type of dog trainer that is very eager to oh i can do this i can stop him or i can make him without ever questioning why it's happening and should you really completely suppress it or not allow it because it it has a purpose it's it's a in in the whole dog's evolution this was a very meaningful thing that all of a sudden is a nuisance when the doorbell rings at home but actually it has a dramatic purpose in nature correct yeah evolutionary i i i have not totally succeeded in eliminating this this one's um so i think the the one thing is but yeah to allow the dog because even if if you let's say you're so strict and you're like no you i will never let you bark on the doorbell that will that will be almost like a torture emotionally to a dog even if he understands it right so we have to let it be but then there is a point that say okay you told me you barked twice i heard you someone's there now we are good so at this point we have what i mean i i almost feel like i i have no even right to talk about this but you know we gotta introduce some kind of differential reinforce or some some kind of program to where we have to guide it into okay that happened now let's see what else we can do to where and what i think at least in dog training when somebody uses differential reinforcers reinforcer programming it it's it becomes a problematic thing because we're not just trying to change the dog from here to here but we are completely fighting against the whole desire of why this was happening and instead of maintaining oh i can satisfy the desire but you're just gonna do something more um

acceptable instead of completely take you on a different ride and this is a common problem with dog training to where we we definitely can look into stopping a behavior but still find something that comes close to satisfying that desire for that what that behavior happened the same yeah yeah i agree i mean i i would never punish this guy for for barking but once what seems to suppress it is comfort you know if you say oh poor thing she'll stop you know i mean because it's a in a way again the different dogs will do it for different reasons and different that dogs are different so when we when we are barking as an alarm hey hey hey something's going on yeah if you act uh do calming things like that yes so and that situation i can see how calming is uh oh okay finally somebody on my side recognized that yeah you've got to look at the animal state not just the behavior and so on it's like anyway yeah yeah it's very true and and and but this is a a really good topic when we talk uh in dog training because most often than not dog trainers are super super quick to okay we can stop this or we can make him do this completely disregarding why it's happening completely disregarding the the genetic makeup the and just because we know a little bit about how reinforcement and punishment works it's unfair to go against the animals nature because ultimately uh um i i think the animal will will begin to suffer one way or another there's going to be some emotional uh you know it's not going to be a happy animal at that point because it it basically cannot do what it's born to be yeah right that's right that's right no i agree i agree so to some extent some barking is perfectly fine as far as i'm concerned of course there is dogs that they will speaking of which i have one in the house but he can completely just lay down and go woof this one will bark in her sleep but yes i mean it's a way of expression in some way i mean obviously extremely social beings dogs and they have to they have to oh i'm force i heard that first hey everybody i mean in in his world is a big deal right so i i kind of curious to to talk have you talked to us a little bit about you know like your experimental research with the with the like especially um you know you spend a lot of times on on reward and reinforcers and if you can just this can be a very very interesting pretty much anything you say on this topic it will be super interesting to us as dog trainers yeah well for a you know non-scientific audience i'm not sure how super interesting it will be but i can tell you a little bit about my history yes um i i was a terrible student as an

undergraduate um because i was more interested in writing movie reviews and actually i always wanted to do biology but the british educational system was then and i suspect still is quite rigid if you want to do biology in college you have to have taken what's called an a level biology exam in high school my high school did not have a biology program it was quite small it's a grammar school so i couldn't do biology so that was gone uh and via a sort of devious course i wound up in in psychology um and then eventually i went and wound up at harvard into in graduate school and what attracted me there was the experimental method i mean i had been brought up with this an hst method you know the null hypothesis statistical test method even as an undergraduate i thought there's something there's something wrong with this you know i want to study individual organisms and here they're giving me these groups you know it just doesn't seem right and i didn't know that there was any alternative at that time but when i wound up at harvard i found well lo and behold here's this method where you can study individual in that case pigeons they were the uh animal of choice at the time you could study them one at a time repeat your experiments get really really good data and so on and there were a lot of sort of technical problems that were appealing i mean i arrived just after the time when firster and skinner had published this massive rather disorganized book called schedules of reinforcement which is full of these graphs cumulative records of animals behavior in real time and so on now it's only one dimension of their behavior is pecking on a key basically but still it was very very orderly and it looked like a promising way to go and so i became interested in timing behavior how animals tell time which is very technical and quite remote from the um from the dog problem although one of the solutions was offered by dogs many many years later but i just became very interested in these technical issues but at the same time there was a very dominant philosophy in the in the harvard lab and it was the label for it is radical behaviorism okay i was a behaviorist i was perfectly happy to accept that we we can't see into people's souls still less into the souls and dogs we had just to just look at what they do what they say so i was totally committed to that and i think that that even now by people who don't call themselves behavior i think the view that all we have really have to go by as scientists is what people do so i was born i bought into the behaviorist thing but i did not buy into skinner's view of it i it's incredibly sort of naive almost

view that he had you didn't know to need to say anything about what went on inside the organism's head you could just look at the baby and i i received some reinforcement for that this is very boring for you guys no not at all like you have no idea how interesting this specific conversation is what um reinforced me if you like in that view was a work i did at mit massachusetts institute of technology in their computer lab i took lectures from a guy called john mccarthy who was a total 100 nerd guy mathematician basically john mccarthy he invented something called the lisp language which is deals with predicate calculus i mean it couldn't be more abstract but out of this came a very simple view of what's called finite state machines and the i the the view is really arises from alan turing he was the founder of a lot of computer science in a catchy little paper a paper called thoughts on the enschedules problem that was his paper anyway the idea was that you could understand uh historical systems in terms of stimuli responses and states and the state describes how stimuli produce responses and it's a very very simple idea when you think about self-evident right so what they were telling us well what they told me in an event that skinner's idea of dispensing with the idea of internal state was simply wrong you can't do that you on the other hand you don't need to be a physiologist either you don't need to go into the head to find out what the state is because in this computer system an internal state is defined by histories the history of uh stimulation and uh responses that this system has made i'm not being very coherent and describing it now and there are papers on this i just sort of i just edited one i mean there are lots of papers on this but the basic idea is very very very simple a state for the organism is defined by uh by this the class of stimuli and the class of responses that co-occur though any any one of these stimuli will produce any one of these responses okay and that's actually a skinner idea but the point is the state changes it's not always the same it depends on history in complicated ways and so on and so on anyway the bottom line is i i didn't buy skinner's philosophy but i thought his method was fantastic the experimental method was great on the other hand as i've gotten older and worked from more interesting elements on not pigeons but dog not yet human beings they're much too complicated um i realized that you've got to know more than that and i've written about this in a darwinian context right because the behavior of the individual is not too different from the behavior of of a species the animal does various things

some of them lead to good results some of them lead to bad results they're cued in certain complicated ways but it is just like natural selection the animal tries in the good ones inclined to repeat and so on and skinner was very good on that part of it yes selection it were reinforcement strengthens behavior selects itself what he wasn't so good on was where does that behavior come from where does that behavior come from if an animal uh in skinner's terms has an operand level that is it's certain tendency to do different things um what does it what determines that operant level is it just random you know is it just random and of course it's not random at all it's not random at all and that was uh an early discovery we made when we tried to repeat our key experiment as skinner's foundation what's what's he even interested in what happens here and i should say why why it's happening i mean did he have interest or it was really just let's look at the behavior yeah i mean skinner was not interested i mean well he skinner was a complicated guy i'd only get into a lot of stuff people probably very ha many people now hardly know who skinner was but um he was a complicated guy because in one context he was perfectly willing to talk about uh behavioral tendencies if you like that we can't observe he was perfectly happy to talk about that um in the context of what he called verbal behavior speech perfectly happy to talk about that but not in connection with animal behavior which is why i don't know i really don't know why he didn't extend it and in the again in the context of human behavior he was um he he was happy to talk about private events you know what's a private event well it's just like an external event is it really an external event we can measure can we measure these privileges no we can't you know that was the big self-contradictory and he had passionate advocates and so on he's still there he has he has huge following and i mean that's kind of what i was saying especially in the dog training world it's even if as you say some people of course know the name but don't know exactly what he brought up and and what he's famous and what he's controversial about but for certain um dog trainers know about him but there is there is a huge following that um even even today it's it's shown that certain things it's you know you cannot just reinforce or suppress behavior and not look at why that behavior happens it's just it's so long it's so it's a wrong i mean do you think you remember one thing to remember you maybe can tell these people is when you give present a stimulus of value food electric shock some other kind of punishment

that changes the repertoire of the animal right there that changes the repertoire of the animal and if if you're trying to reinforce a behavior let's say with food uh that really really is from the let's say a social repertoire it's not really a food related beer but you give food to reinforce it it doesn't reinforce it it it generates a a bunch of competing behaviors not every not every behavior now reinforces are not like money you know economists think of money reinforces everything it's all the same that's rubbish of course but it's also rubbish even with the dog that food can reinforce everything yes a lot of dogs behave is a social repertoire it comes from sort of a different place and so on and you have to have some kind of intuitive understanding of this if you could really be able to work with the animals that's my i mean you knew much more dogs than i do but uh that's my that's definitely my feeling and you're like taking the individual substitute like the individual's iq and ability to to to learn faster or learn more it also seems like it's not always taken under consideration at the time of skinner's times um the other thing that i well let me stop them be sure to answer you're saying saying that well like let's say they're not willing to come to grips with the fact that not all dogs are equally smart so it's a it's a interesting this is the the truth when we strip it all down that that's what comes down to but in a conversation trainers will say no of course individuality and and the breed and all this matters but the moment they start training we dog trainers will become completely preoccupied of okay i need to do my reinforcement schedule i need to i just focus on how i'm gonna make that behavior and not even put any context in why do you need that behavior and give some purpose for that behavior to the to the animal it's it's a cut out superficial to where everything else becomes disregarded and i i somehow think that this comes from somewhere down the road from what skinner was doing and i'm not sure i think that's right i mean skinner was not interested at all in individual differences and in fact his point was look at because these three species he has a famous slide in one of his uh papers i think i reproduced it in one i just wrote where he has a monkey a human and a pigeon i think or a monkey a rat in a pigeon like three species showing the same thing i mean so for him it was really important that they all were the same and i'll send you some of these things but um funnily enough by a pure coincidence i just came in contact with a woman in in england who has published a paper a couple of years ago on

dog intelligence do you know this her name is cardin rosalind car wrote no arden roswell into arden i can simply definitely we will search that yes she actually published a paper um where she and another guy studied a whole bunch of dogs and came up with with a uh result that she argued is like g you know no g human a general human intelligence called gas they're invented by a statistician way back when and so on and she thinks she this is a way to show something similar in dogs now they were not different species they were all border collies so her idea was to give them a variety of tests look at the correlations you know across the individuals and say aha some have more of g than another and this is just like human cases or it's an oddball kind of thing i don't know if she's still doing this kind of work i mean this paper is three or four or five years old but i thought it was just almost funny that yes you can do ikea research and dogs probably probably not on humans anymore it's become too human too politically sensitive this is a problem with actually political sensitivity ivan i have to go okay shortly so okay i'm going to talk to you again if you'd like yes i i just want to ask you just yeah two two two more questions because it's very interesting for me like like when we talk about skinner uh most of the dog trainers don't don't really understand where and why the the whole resistance and and meets and misunderstanding around punishment comes from and what we are dealing with right now i can give you a quickie on that one it's such a big topic and it's very confusing and and we all i mean in today's society it's drilled into everybody forget dog trainer everybody's brain that punishment has an incredible amount of side effects and you should pretty much never resort to it because we have positive reinforcement and it's just such a like it's not even on the service level of thinking but it's so popular i just want something obvious it's a skinner i've written about this you may have read some of it skinner didn't argue the moral case he was he wasn't arguing the punishment is bad it's cruel or whatever no he was saying it's ineffective yeah the science the science right up there right up there and of course it's nonsense it's absolutely not it's very very effective if under certain circumstances but the fact that skinner argued that scientifically uh punishment was ineffective linked up with the kind of [Music] i don't know societal resistance to any kind of aggressive somehow yes it's wrong it's morally wrong oh no it's not we don't have to worry about it it's ineffective so it it it reinforced the pre-existing

bias that's my take that's my take on punishment and the ineffectiveness because i mean i also i don't know how much he when he was doing the research on punishment how much he already he had concluded in his head and he tried to backtrack and and make the study fit yeah i don't know i mean he didn't do much experimental punishment but his students and colleagues did um a guy called murray sidman did um found the punishments incredibly effective i mean your viewers probably don't know about it but there's something called a sediment avoidance schedule where the animal is let's see shot for um yeah i know that experiment and then it's a very it's a clever schedule then we're shocked uh if he doesn't do something so you get these shocks but if you if you press the lever in time you don't get the shocks but you can just turn off the shock after a while because i've done it i mean that much more stable than most kinds of positive reinforcement i mean if you stop giving the animal food it's going to quit no matter how clever the schedule is and so on so it's all nonsense that doesn't work in general but uh the other the other question of course is what uh under what conditions is it appropriate and that requires a lot of things absolutely absolutely but making it to the point where uh i i think at the moment what goes on and and i i would speak for society not even just dog training but i think uh i mean punishment happens it it's around us and and the national environment are programmed to understand and respond and apply it and respond is very important we're programmed it's not our option and and to say that we we try to eliminate it completely what happens is people do it and instead of finding becoming as efficient as we are now how much we know about positive reinforcement strategies if we actually put the time into punishment instead of having people do the wrong things behind the scene and and do it very wrong way but they still feel that they have to because the truth of the matter is positive reinforced reinforcement does not replace us sometimes when you say no this is not a good idea you cannot and and so people have to but they don't have the education and nobody dares to even talk about it it's just becoming a big problem no it's horrible and never mind dogs i think the same thing is true in public education i corrected terrible effects there i have a good friend who's started several charter schools because of his dissatisfaction with the way these things are done and so on we want to talk more later about it absolutely absolutely i don't want to hold you any further thank you thank you so much this is

one of my big moments in my life talking my pleasure to meet you ivan i'm really really happy that we got together i'm literally here today thank you but maybe with practice it'll get better absolutely i wouldn't mind doing this again with you thank you john so much okay good to see you take care i hope you guys enjoyed that um very very special moment for me as i said in the beginning one of the geniuses in my opinion as far as psychology learning i know that a lot of you are so into this stuff so i hope you appreciate it as i said early on and the dog training school the school for dog trainers i should say we we definitely he is a a cornerstone like one of not one the most influential person that um my doctor in our schools is based on on his knowledge and his work so i hope you enjoyed it that's the first one it's gonna be more to come just as good stay tuned [Music] you