Are you sure? I think you may have it the wrong way. Intrinsic motivators and inhibitors may come into it, imho. I'd like to mention autism and adhd, as well as look at the dog training examples in the article and in this thread.

The author cited a personally thought-priming training example where the dog was learning a positive behavior, to identify a scented dumbbell. The dog was observed to look downbeat when he received the 'sorry' negative marker even though he understood the process.

Maybe he wanted to please the trainer, although he wasn't he wasn't happy about it; he was able to manage or ignore the negative side of his reaction and be directed. By the negative marker. It may have been cognitive bias in the observation of unhappiness, but the dog still did the trick. In the case the unhappiness could have been verified (by some dog translator app), why would the dog need to communicate it, but still do the behavior? What could that mean?

In autism and ADHD, and many other neurodevelopmental/diversity conditions, defined by cognitive and processing difference and hyper/hyposensitivity, we see children and adults communicating distress or actively enganging in negative behaviour. Sometimes people comment that it's hard to understand. Often a sensory/emotionally/practically defensive or intrinsically motivated behaviour has a sensory element that is quite off-putting even to those without sensory sensitivity.

Dogs bark at the door.

And in dog training, and in training for autism etc, to understand, we're told again and again, by trainers, teachers, diagnosed trainer/advocates, parents... that a lot comes down to managing stimulation levels within a particular comfortable envelope. Controlling stress helps to manage, and enables those with particular sensitivity and difficulties with self regulation to manage for themselves, their stressed-out and self soothing behaviour. It can also help to build resilience and reduce sensitivity.

I'm not sure if it is credible or desirable to be able to work directly on that last angle, though there's some therapies that claim to. ERP for OCD, desensitization maybe in connection to a range of therapies, ABA, and indeed in dog training for resilience say to loud noises and against separation anxiety and defensive anxious barking, where that's not wanted. Mindfulness. Vagus nerve training with biofeedback or deep breathing. Eye movement training. All kinds of woo stuff. All kinds of motivational stuff.

A lot of the time, the success or otherwise, seems to be related to how woo people are feeling. Placebo theory, but a bit different. (Or developed!!?) Mediated by social tension.

Another thing related to humans, and particularly ADHD and Aspergers, and giftedness, as well as profound disability (might not be as profound as it looks?) as it happens... Even low self esteem, anxiety, children in social services care, a large number of children with similar but different difficulties marked by sensitivity, negative markers, punitive behavior and any kind of appraisal even positive markers sometimes make things worse, or at least many times a remarkable
negative impact. Work is screwed up. Children shut down. Super stressed adult people face say never mind, we're not going out then. When faced with a minor difficulty being broached. Sometimes.

A threatening trigger is different to a negative marker in many ways, but maybe there's a spectrum there.
I think there is also such a thing as a habitual or primed response. Indeed, maybe there's some instinctive partial internalised triggers for threat response behaviour behind examples such as spiders/snake phobia. Physiologically that happens in cold water immersion/face splash response.

There's truly natural intrinsic motivators and intrinsic inhibitors and sensory associations.

And there's atmospheric and very specific situational cues, or interference, which affect human and animal responses to such stimuli, such as stressful sensory input, a sense of social tension, which may in fact be the same thing as conditioned markers.

For some people negative markers rub them up the wrongvway, they indicate threat and emergency. In my experience I know this, so I think your initial response was wrong. But it is very common and seeing as the naughty step or angry rebuke, or the paradigm of crime and punishment altogether is not going out of fashion any time soon, and sometimes it works but generally not very well the more serious things/moods/imbibed disadvantages and inherent motives get (desensitization to inherent inhibitors may be a learned coping skill); so there must be a bridging hypothesis.

I need to work this out to manage my life I think!! And there's a lot of practical digging down.

So my hypothesis is of primed response, whether primed by autistic spectrum traits, previously harsh or longstanding stressful experiences, being in traffic, in a car on a hot day again when you're trying to have a family day out again and not responding kindly to backseat/passengerseat drivers again. This is not a particularly new hypothesis actually. Sure it's not.

A combination of personal, environmental and conditioning primed cues, markers, motivators and inhibitors, as well as skills/response repertoires come into play in any and all situations.

We might just be able to see that if we look at the difference between the two training situations in the article. One is training for demonstration with an a presumably pretrained dog. The other is training as part of a scientific experiment.

It might be cognitive bias, but they feel like very different situations to me. And perhaps to enough of the trainers involved as well. Enough to transfer that emotion to the dogs in a way that affected the outcome. For the demonstration trainer, and other trainers in this thread that use negative markers, perhaps their environment and their pairing/pretrained skills, and their emotions on the job prime it to work, with more dogs. I doubt it works for all dogs. And for happy well adjusted children.

And in the experimental training situation the deferred emotion is demotivating and increases any inherent negative impact or association with a negative marker for a larger proportion of dogs.
Equally, negative markers may mean more, but produce less positive consequences when people don't feel happy and well adjusted.
Sensory sensitive, disadvantaged and stressed people may tune all this up.

More Posts