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?
All content for Equiosity is the property of Equiosity and is served directly from their servers
with no modification, redirects, or rehosting. The podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by Podjoint in any way.
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?
Episode 338 Dr Susan Schneider Pt 1 Horses Climate Change & Making a Difference
Equiosity
49 minutes 57 seconds
5 months ago
Episode 338 Dr Susan Schneider Pt 1 Horses Climate Change & Making a Difference
In this three part series we’re joined by Dr. Susan Schneider is a behavior analyst. She is the author of “The Science of Consequences” which many of you may have read. Normally when we have behavior analysts as guests we talk about academic subjects such as schedules of reinforcement.
In this case I wanted to talk to Susan about what horse people can do to help mitigate the climate change crisis.
For the past eight years Susan has made climate change her primary focus.
Her work on climate change and sustainability includes outreach, community projects, organizing, academic and nonacademic publications, and extensive public speaking. As Senior Scientist for the sustainability nonprofit Root Solutions, Dr Schneider helped design projects and coauthored two chapters in its 2022 guidebook, Making Shift Happen: Designing for Successful Environmental Behavior Change.
Recent outreach includes a podcast for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Schneider’s award-winning book for the public, The Science of Consequences, covers basic learning principles, their role in nature-nurture relations, and their broad range of applications, including sustainability.
Schneider is on the faculty at Western Michigan University and serves on its Climate Change Working Group. She also serves on the Tools of Change Landmark Peer Review Panel for Climate Change, and on the board of the nonprofit Green Driving America.
Now if you are wondering why a podcast about all things equine is talking about climate change, here’s the connection. Horses are grazing animals. That means that collectively horse people own, manage, make decisions about a huge amount of land. What we are learning is healthy pastures help to contribute to healthy horses.
Healthy pastures also contribute to biodiversity. Healthy pastures come from healthy soils. Improved soil quality absorbs more water which helps to reduce flooding. Healthy soils also sequesters carbon.
So horse people can help in the climate change crisis through the way we manage our land. It’s one of those win-win-win situations. Healthier pastures are good for our horses which is good for us and it’s also good for the planet.
I wanted to explore three major topics with Dr. Schneider. The first is where are we now in terms of climate change? Why should we care? The second is what can we do to make a difference. And the third area is how can we talk to others without shutting them down and driving them away? There are lessons to be learned here not just about how do we talk about climate change, but how do we talk about positive reinforcement training when we’re surrounded by command-based trainers.
In part 1 I set the stage for this conversation and then Dr. Schneider took us to some hopeful solutions that are available to all of us.
Equiosity
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?
