Kelton

It's hard to say why we hunt (actually, only a very small minority of people hunt). In reality, most of us watch TV and do other stuff, so why not ask questions about that? That's MY question! : ) People probably hunt because they were taught to do it and to enjoy it...no different than other people have been taught to play basketball or ping pong. For those of us that don't care for hunting, we tend to judge it and ask pointed questions about it. For some, it's an easy way to grab the moral high ground by making comments about the hobby. Others tend to "read into it" like there is some deeper meaning about man's need to dominate or control things. That might be a bit much. Given that so many of us don't have any interest in hunting (most of us, anyway), there is good reason to believe that there isn't much to this hunting instinct....it's just sport. Why do we engage in sport? hmmmm

Your use of the word "know" should be defined. "knowing" is not a technical term, but rather, a word used to indicate that a person can do something. We don't know if a person or dog "knows" something until we see them do it. A person can demonstrate they "know" something by actually responding appropriately at the appropriate time. The same thing goes for dogs (and fish and parrots etc.). Sometimes people infer some sort of special process when they say "know". Further, the implication is that "knowing" is some sort of human specific trait. If a dog "sits" when told to sit, then we can say that the dog knows when to sit. If a boy can say "6" when I ask him "how old are you?", then we can say the boy "knows" when to say "6". Can the dog discuss the matters relating to "sitting on cue"?...probably not. The dog does not have the capacity to develop the verbal behavior necessary for such a feat (they certainly don't have the physiological structures to do so among other things). Talking is a seperate issue and sometimes people like to muddy the behaviors of talking with words like "knowing". I am a behavior analyst, and this is just one of the very many area of departure we have when compared to traditional psychology. I would say that we should be catagorized under the study of biology, but that's a seperate issue!

A dog's ability to sit when given the cue "sit" is no different than my ability to type or think the very words that I am typing as I sit here. I suppose you could say that it is "programming", but it is just as appropriate to say "learning". Based upon the dog's exposure to his environment (over the course of his cute little life), he has learned to 'sit' on cue in certain circumstances. Similary, based upon my own exposure to to my environment (over the course of my life time), I have learned to think the thoughts that I tend to think and type the words that I am typing under certain circumstances. So long as I am reinforced for thinking/typing these things, I will continue to do so. If the reinforcement ceases, then I will lose this way of thinking and typing over the course of time. The dog will lose this manner of 'sitting on cue' if he is no longer reinforced as well. Anyway, I do agree that dogs are 'dumber' than people....of course. In fact, I think most people over-estimate the intelligence of dogs by a huge margin, and I am a major dog lover. The word 'intelligence' is another topic for discussion, so I am admittedly using the word loosely at the moment. Kelton

The definition of subconscious (and conscious) are subject to a variety of interpretations. This alone makes the use of the term somewhat questionable as one forms other theories based upon such a foggy term. It may be altogether unnecessary. To say that our "subconscious directs our behavior" seems to make sense, but it's a bit too convenient and doesn't really explain the behavior. This forum is called "Science Forums and Debate".....so, I'm being 'debate-ee'!

In casual conversation, people often use "negative reinforcement" interchangeably with "punishment". I didn't mean to be disengenuous as I DO know what Coquina meant in her usage of the term. There are some important problems with the use of punishment as a behavior change procedure and behavior analyst are very often hired to teach other types of practictioners about alternatives to punishment. That is, to teach others how to change behavior with the use of reinforcement rather than aversive methods. Ironically, the common reputation of the behaviorist is that of "the punisher!". Punishment is clearly necessary in certain types of circumstances, but it is use FAR more than it should be and it's less likely to be used by a behaviorist than other forms of people in the field. This is something of a change of subject isn't it? This is my first ever avatar. Man, it was a bit of a trick getting it down to the acceptable size! Kelton

Reinforcement of Accelerating Rates of Behavior: That would probably be the title of such a procedure.....I can almost remember such a thing from a reading, but just not sure. I just can't see it really happening, though. Coquina, negative reinforcement is a good thing. Everyone wants to be negatively reinforced because it means that an unwanted thing has been removed.

So to be clear....the animal will, after his first responses, begin to gradually respond at an acelerated pace? It this is what you're saying, I think that it would be very challenging to condition an animal to do such a thing in with only the lever and no other signaling device. It could be impossible, but it's an interesting question.