Shamu; training one's spouse

Concerning the use of these animal training principles for one's spouse, children, et

  • Brilliant, and likely effective; human males are, ultimately, not that different from dolphins

    Votes: 3 25.0%
  • Sounds promising; there's something to this analogy.

    Votes: 4 33.3%
  • Sounds very iffy; humans, including males, are more complicated

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • It is sure to backfire.

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • It's an insult to men (deserved).

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It's an insult to men (UNdeserved).

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .

Pure

Fiel a Verdad
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Posts
15,135
Brilliant, or misguided?

PS: If you've ever tried this, for instance with kids, why is it so f***ing hard?


What Shamu Taught Me About a Happy Marriage


By AMY SUTHERLAND
NY Times

Published: June 25, 2006

AS I wash dishes at the kitchen sink, my husband paces behind me, irritated. "Have you seen my keys?" he snarls, then huffs out a loud sigh and stomps from the room with our dog, Dixie, at his heels, anxious over her favorite human's upset.


In the past I would have been right behind Dixie. I would have turned off the faucet and joined the hunt while trying to soothe my husband with bromides like, "Don't worry, they'll turn up." But that only made him angrier, and a simple case of missing keys soon would become a full-blown angst-ridden drama starring the two of us and our poor nervous dog.

Now, I focus on the wet dish in my hands. I don't turn around. I don't say a word. I'm using a technique I learned from a dolphin trainer.

I love my husband. He's well read, adventurous and does a hysterical rendition of a northern Vermont accent that still cracks me up after 12 years of marriage.

But he also tends to be forgetful, and is often tardy and mercurial. He hovers around me in the kitchen asking if I read this or that piece in The New Yorker when I'm trying to concentrate on the simmering pans. He leaves wadded tissues in his wake. He suffers from serious bouts of spousal deafness but never fails to hear me when I mutter to myself on the other side of the house. "What did you say?" he'll shout.

These minor annoyances are not the stuff of separation and divorce, but in sum they began to dull my love for Scott. I wanted — needed — to nudge him a little closer to perfect, to make him into a mate who might annoy me a little less, who wouldn't keep me waiting at restaurants, a mate who would be easier to love.

So, like many wives before me, I ignored a library of advice books and set about improving him. By nagging, of course, which only made his behavior worse: he'd drive faster instead of slower; shave less frequently, not more; and leave his reeking bike garb on the bedroom floor longer than ever.

We went to a counselor to smooth the edges off our marriage. She didn't understand what we were doing there and complimented us repeatedly on how well we communicated. I gave up. I guessed she was right — our union was better than most — and resigned myself to stretches of slow-boil resentment and occasional sarcasm.

Then something magical happened. For a book I was writing about a school for exotic animal trainers, I started commuting from Maine to California, where I spent my days watching students do the seemingly impossible: teaching hyenas to pirouette on command, cougars to offer their paws for a nail clipping, and baboons to skateboard.

I listened, rapt, as professional trainers explained how they taught dolphins to flip and elephants to paint. Eventually it hit me that the same techniques might work on that stubborn but lovable species, the American husband.

The central lesson I learned from exotic animal trainers is that I should reward behavior I like and ignore behavior I don't. After all, you don't get a sea lion to balance a ball on the end of its nose by nagging. The same goes for the American husband.

Back in Maine, I began thanking Scott if he threw one dirty shirt into the hamper. If he threw in two, I'd kiss him. Meanwhile, I would step over any soiled clothes on the floor without one sharp word, though I did sometimes kick them under the bed. But as he basked in my appreciation, the piles became smaller.

I was using what trainers call "approximations," rewarding the small steps toward learning a whole new behavior. You can't expect a baboon to learn to flip on command in one session, just as you can't expect an American husband to begin regularly picking up his dirty socks by praising him once for picking up a single sock. With the baboon you first reward a hop, then a bigger hop, then an even bigger hop. With Scott the husband, I began to praise every small act every time: if he drove just a mile an hour slower, tossed one pair of shorts into the hamper, or was on time for anything.

I also began to analyze my husband the way a trainer considers an exotic animal. Enlightened trainers learn all they can about a species, from anatomy to social structure, to understand how it thinks, what it likes and dislikes, what comes easily to it and what doesn't. For example, an elephant is a herd animal, so it responds to hierarchy. It cannot jump, but can stand on its head. It is a vegetarian.






The exotic animal known as Scott is a loner, but an alpha male. So hierarchy matters, but being in a group doesn't so much. He has the balance of a gymnast, but moves slowly, especially when getting dressed. Skiing comes naturally, but being on time does not. He's an omnivore, and what a trainer would call food-driven.

Once I started thinking this way, I couldn't stop. At the school in California, I'd be scribbling notes on how to walk an emu or have a wolf accept you as a pack member, but I'd be thinking, "I can't wait to try this on Scott."

On a field trip with the students, I listened to a professional trainer describe how he had taught African crested cranes to stop landing on his head and shoulders. He did this by training the leggy birds to land on mats on the ground. This, he explained, is what is called an "incompatible behavior," a simple but brilliant concept.

Rather than teach the cranes to stop landing on him, the trainer taught the birds something else, a behavior that would make the undesirable behavior impossible. The birds couldn't alight on the mats and his head simultaneously.

At home, I came up with incompatible behaviors for Scott to keep him from crowding me while I cooked. To lure him away from the stove, I piled up parsley for him to chop or cheese for him to grate at the other end of the kitchen island. Or I'd set out a bowl of chips and salsa across the room. Soon I'd done it: no more Scott hovering around me while I cooked.

I followed the students to SeaWorld San Diego, where a dolphin trainer introduced me to least reinforcing syndrome (L. R. S.). When a dolphin does something wrong, the trainer doesn't respond in any way. He stands still for a few beats, careful not to look at the dolphin, and then returns to work. The idea is that any response, positive or negative, fuels a behavior. If a behavior provokes no response, it typically dies away.

In the margins of my notes I wrote, "Try on Scott!"

It was only a matter of time before he was again tearing around the house searching for his keys, at which point I said nothing and kept at what I was doing. It took a lot of discipline to maintain my calm, but results were immediate and stunning. His temper fell far shy of its usual pitch and then waned like a fast-moving storm. I felt as if I should throw him a mackerel.

Now he's at it again; I hear him banging a closet door shut, rustling through papers on a chest in the front hall and thumping upstairs. At the sink, I hold steady. Then, sure enough, all goes quiet. A moment later, he walks into the kitchen, keys in hand, and says calmly, "Found them."

Without turning, I call out, "Great, see you later."

Off he goes with our much-calmed pup.

After two years of exotic animal training, my marriage is far smoother, my husband much easier to love. I used to take his faults personally; his dirty clothes on the floor were an affront, a symbol of how he didn't care enough about me. But thinking of my husband as an exotic species gave me the distance I needed to consider our differences more objectively.

I adopted the trainers' motto: "It's never the animal's fault." When my training attempts failed, I didn't blame Scott. Rather, I brainstormed new strategies, thought up more incompatible behaviors and used smaller approximations. I dissected my own behavior, considered how my actions might inadvertently fuel his. I also accepted that some behaviors were too entrenched, too instinctive to train away. You can't stop a badger from digging, and you can't stop my husband from losing his wallet and keys.

PROFESSIONALS talk of animals that understand training so well they eventually use it back on the trainer. My animal did the same. When the training techniques worked so beautifully, I couldn't resist telling my husband what I was up to. He wasn't offended, just amused. As I explained the techniques and terminology, he soaked it up. Far more than I realized.

Last fall, firmly in middle age, I learned that I needed braces. They were not only humiliating, but also excruciating. For weeks my gums, teeth, jaw and sinuses throbbed. I complained frequently and loudly. Scott assured me that I would become used to all the metal in my mouth. I did not.

One morning, as I launched into yet another tirade about how uncomfortable I was, Scott just looked at me blankly. He didn't say a word or acknowledge my rant in any way, not even with a nod.

I quickly ran out of steam and started to walk away. Then I realized what was happening, and I turned and asked, "Are you giving me an L. R. S.?" Silence. "You are, aren't you?"

He finally smiled, but his L. R. S. has already done the trick. He'd begun to train me, the American wife.
 
Last edited:
It works. :D

I've done much the same thing with mine (children, spouse, animals), and it does work. Of course, I didn't realize that it had it's corrollaries in animal training...it was just my psychology background rearing it's head.
 
Sure. Well, at least I'll admit it as far as the kids I work with goes. I give stickers and other little prizes for good behavior. My husband calls it the "M + M gang rides again" approach. Hey, if it works for lab rats, why not rug rats?
 
It works on me, I've had it work on others, I see no reason it shouldn't work more often than not.
 
Guy's - it works like this.

For a few days, you put your laundry in the basket - and you get rewards. Then she stops giving the rewards, 'cos you're trained.

Leave it for a couple of weeks, then go for a few days without putting your laundry in tha basket. You'll get a few scowls, then the training kicks in and she'll ignore the laundry. After a few days of leaving your laundry on the floor, start putting it in the basket again AND YOU"LL GET MORE REWARDS.

Never fails - but here's a tip. Don't repeat the laundry basket trick more than once a month, 'cos they've got surprisingly good memories. Do the washing up, or a bit tidying just to switch things around. She'll never catch on and you'll soon have her trained.







;)
 
neonlyte said:
Guy's - it works like this.

For a few days, you put your laundry in the basket - and you get rewards. Then she stops giving the rewards, 'cos you're trained.

Leave it for a couple of weeks, then go for a few days without putting your laundry in tha basket. You'll get a few scowls, then the training kicks in and she'll ignore the laundry. After a few days of leaving your laundry on the floor, start putting it in the basket again AND YOU"LL GET MORE REWARDS.

Never fails - but here's a tip. Don't repeat the laundry basket trick more than once a month, 'cos they've got surprisingly good memories. Do the washing up, or a bit tidying just to switch things around. She'll never catch on and you'll soon have her trained.







;)


Note to neolyte: Intermittent and inconsistent rewards are the best way to keep a behavior from extinction. If you never know when you're going to get a "treat", you'll never forget to put those socks away. You may not do it as often as she likes, but you'll still do it.
 
It doesn't sound like she's so much "training" as growing a spine.
 
glynndah said:
Note to neolyte: Intermittent and inconsistent rewards are the best way to keep a behavior from extinction. If you never know when you're going to get a "treat", you'll never forget to put those socks away. You may not do it as often as she likes, but you'll still do it.
I assure you, the only person in our house that requires training is the cat.

On second thoughts, the cat may well have read the script :rolleyes:
 
glynndah said:
Note to neolyte: Intermittent and inconsistent rewards are the best way to keep a behavior from extinction. If you never know when you're going to get a "treat", you'll never forget to put those socks away. You may not do it as often as she likes, but you'll still do it.
Well, truly, perfect 1-to-1 ratio is probably the best way. A reward /everytime/ will keep it from extinction the most consistently. But all you need is a variable ratio--so the difference between "Best" and "Sufficient".

Variable Ratio is a stong, strong reinforcement schedule. For every 5 to 10 times, some reward... make it random. It's the same principle behind slot machines--every once in a while, some cash spits out, those quarters keep going in. But, were cash to spit out /every/ time, that'd be perfect.
 
Pure said:
I listened, rapt, as professional trainers explained how they taught dolphins to flip and elephants to paint. Eventually it hit me that the same techniques might work on that stubborn but lovable species, the American husband.

.


dammit. so this only works on AMERICAN husbands.
I was getting so interested too...
x
V
 
Pure said:
He'd begun to train me, the American wife.

LOL, except for the last part - she cops. LOL, though. Thank you.

(edit to add: Oh, training- well that goes on a lot so ... I would prefer the attempt to train a wilder-beast, in bed, anyhow. :D )
 
Last edited:
Economy plays a role

Joe Wordsworth said:
Well, truly, perfect 1-to-1 ratio is probably the best way.
Considering that the objective of a slot machine is to entice the gambler to put more money into the machine than is given out (else the casino can't stay in business), the machine can't payoff every time. Then also, the gambler must have the opportunity to lose or it isn't a gamble...it's work.

During WWII research studies of the strategies of defense against incoming enemy bombers showed that how often and the number of interceptor fighter planes were deployed against the enemy bombers had to do with how often the bombers were escorted by enemy fighter planes.

The losses were no different if the bombers were escorted every time or seven of ten times on the cumulative average. Six or less times per ten attacks resulted in poorer performance on mission accomplishment. More than seven times per ten resulted in loosing more fighter aircraft and was more costly than only escorting seven of ten bombing missions. So every time was not the "best" solution.

Students perform about the same whether the consequences occur every time or only 70% of the time. Since the results are the same, it becomes less expensive to save 30% of the energy of responding...once the training period is over to sustain the desired behavior.

At least that has been the findings of research since the 1940's in educational psychology studies.
 
i know the book says 'variable' is the strongest reinforcement schedule, but if you've ever seen a trained seal show, they get fish every time. i wonder why.

with my dog, also, he looks to see if i have food. if he's unsure i have some, he doesn't come. usually i can't fool him by pretending to have food in my hand.

second. why is it so hard to do this [pay attention to positive, only] with a child or spouse? do you know *anyone* who ignores the child's mistakes? (provided life and property are not in great danger).

:rose:
 
Pure said:
i know the book says 'variable' is the strongest reinforcement schedule, but if you've ever seen a trained seal show, they get fish every time. i wonder why.

:rose:

Reminds me of me in a lesbian bar. :D Because I can?
 
Pure said:
i know the book says 'variable' is the strongest reinforcement schedule, but if you've ever seen a trained seal show, they get fish every time. i wonder why.

with my dog, also, he looks to see if i have food. if he's unsure i have some, he doesn't come. usually i can't fool him by pretending to have food in my hand.

second. why is it so hard to do this [pay attention to positive, only] with a child or spouse? do you know *anyone* who ignores the child's mistakes? (provided life and property are not in great danger).

:rose:


You don't ignore them, you just don't make a big deal out of them. Like with puppies. If they make a mess in the house and you CATCH them, you say "NO!" and take them outside, then praise them if they go outside. But if you find a mess and don't catch them in the act, you just clean it up. With kids, it depends on the thing. Certainly you need to reinforce some things very strongly (don't play in the street, don't touch the stove, don't eat bleach under the sink) in the negative. But most things can be rewarded in the positive. We got our little ones to stop decorating the wall with crayons and markers and pens by teaching them to bring us a pen/marker every time they found one anywhere. They would get big time praise and thanks when they gave us a writing implement, and that became more worth it to them than coloring on the walls. :)
 
i suppose with husbands, you can train them to bring it to you every time they see a condom.
 
positive reinforcement to insure that when he sees a pussy, he takes it to the animal shelter.
 
I would think instead of having to train a man as if he is a brainless overprivledged embarrassment who makes you do everything in the household and then yell at you for his own failures to do anything for himself or consider the feelings of his spouse, the man could just stop being a needy child, grow up, take responsibility for themselves and not have to be trained as if he was a brainless mutt.

Seriously, it's not fair to the woman to have to treat her husband like Shamu in order to save a relationship that requires her to treat her husband like Shamu in order to get him to stop being a spoiled brat.

For instance, there is this negative reinforcement technique: If you don't grow up, I will divorce you instead of fretting how to make this unhealthy and unbalanced relationship "work" and thus you will actually have to learn how to take care of yourself without outside aid and will have the unenviable position of having to either become mature or somehow scheme another woman into being a mommy for you.

I think it could catch on and should catch on.

When a man needs to be trained like a dog in order to "save the marriage" enough is enough. That's just plain insulting to men and their capabilities as human-beings.
 
Pure said:
positive reinforcement to insure that when he sees a pussy, he takes it to the animal shelter.

Pet a pussy, get a cookie.
Pet a pussy to orgasm, get a tastier wet cookie.
Pet a pussy to multiple orgasm, get the tastiest wet cookie and access to the bonus round.
 
Lucifer_Carroll said:
Pet a pussy, get a cookie.
Pet a pussy to orgasm, get a tastier wet cookie.
Pet a pussy to multiple orgasm, get the tastiest wet cookie and access to the bonus round.

I've missed you Luc. Where've you been?

The Earl
 
luc, i was not referring to the wife's pussy. :)

-----

i suppose ultimatums have their place--where it's is known that the person has the well developed capability; e.g., a teen is able to take out the trash on the correct night. OTOH, to say to someone 'grow up' or blah-blah-blah may simply be ineffectual if it's not in the repertoire of the listener.
 
Back
Top