Post by Shanaya on Jun 17, 2017 6:21:39 GMT -5
To whom it may concern,
I am addressing this letter to you in hopes of showing interest in joining the University of Calidor in addition to discussing my background and the pertinent sciences I hope to excel at.
I hail from Solatium. I do not have formal education in sciences, although I have been taught numbers. In addition, I can read and write - as this text hopefully indicates - and I am very reasonably good at negotiating prices and acquiring goods. I hope these talents will serve the university well even though my main interest lies in training animals.
Although one may make the mistake of assuming that animals are simple beasts incapable of any thought beyond base instinct, I have observed what many animal trainers must know by heart: animals of varying kinds are very capable of following instruction and learning, provided one knows how to handle the animal in question. Based on that premise, I present two case studies upon which I hope to expand later should you choose to include me in your ranks. Both studies focus on animals and how they learn. The first case is an experiment built to demonstrate an animal’s ability to observe their environment and to solve a simple problem. The second case is a comparison between training methods - a joint study conducted with help from Michelle’s Kennel. The second study compares the differences between positive reinforcement and unyielding discipline when it comes to teaching a doberman a set of specific tasks.
The first study: observational learning
The goal of this experiment was to demonstrate that an animal is capable of observing its surroundings and solving a simple puzzle without prior instruction. The specimen used for this experiment is a young female doberman called Nefrid. The setup included a quiet room with little other distractions. There was a piece of meat she prefers inside a flat, heavy metal cylinder with a lid that can be opened by stepping on a switch located at the bottom part of the cylinder, which was facing the direction from which one enters the room. The subject was allowed to explore the room until it solved the puzzle or gave up. The experiment was repeated three times a day for a full month - once in the morning, once around noon and once in the evening. Due to a mistake in the early measuring process, the doberman was called a Very Good Girl every time she successfully completed the puzzle.
| Day | Morning | Noon | Evening |
| 1 | No | No | No |
| 2 | No | No | No |
| 3 | Yes | No | No |
| 4 | No | Yes | Yes |
| 5 | Yes | No | Yes |
| 6 | No | Yes | Yes |
| 7 | Yes | Yes | No |
| 8 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 9 | No | Yes | Yes |
| 10 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 11 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 12 | No | No | Yes |
| 13 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 14 | Yes | Yes | No |
| 15 | Yes | No | Yes |
| 16 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 17 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 18 | No | Yes | Yes |
| 19 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 20 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 21 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 22 | Yes | Yes | No |
| 23 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 24 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 25 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 26 | Yes | No | No |
| 27 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 28 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 29 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 30 | Yes | Yes | Yes |
The results suggest that Nefrid learned the mechanics of the puzzle before the first tenday was over. She was able to get to the treat reliably and although there were some instances where she did not complete the puzzle, she managed to solve it noticeably faster each time. Indeed, a future improvement of the same study could well measure the amount of time it takes for the subject to solve the puzzle.
Although Nefrid failed to complete the puzzle a few times even towards the end of the experiment, I suspect that at least some of these failures had something to do with either the fact that she was tired or had fed well enough earlier. It would certainly be unwise to say that she forgot how to complete the puzzle simply due to the fact that she did not always complete it without a failure or with the same amount of energy.
In addition to not measuring the amount of time it took for the subject to solve the puzzle, the results of this experiment are not widely applicable. In future, I plan to repeat the experiment with another dog of similar breed and age. Moreover, I have managed to capture a bat and a wolverine. I hope to use both for a similar test later on. It is my hope to assemble a small roster of reliable tests which I can conduct with a multitude of animals in an attempt to build a collection of knowledge which will help to quantify the simple problem-solving skills of different species.
The second study: positive reinforcement versus discipline and repetition in training a doberman
The aim of this experiment was to compare the differences between two approaches to raising doberman puppies. The approaches used were A) an approach focused on a traditional mixture of discipline and repetition and B) an approach that rewards success with treats and praise while paying less attention to undesirable behavior. This study was conducted in cooperation with Michelle’s Kennel. Ms Michelle Tyson, the breeder who originally sold me Nefrid, gracefully agreed to use another female puppy from the same litter for this study. She also worked as the other trainer in exchange for a small monetary compensation. The study took five months to conduct, with the majority of testing happening during the last month.
The method employed in the study was to have two trainers raise two relatively similar puppies (the same sex, the same litter). Both puppies were taught to obey four simple commands: sit, come, down and stay. Dedicated training started when the puppies were four months old, though the assigned methods were used in raising the puppies from the onset of the study..The trainers made a record of the time when the puppies followed each command reliably. In this experiment, we agreed that reliable is defined as follows: the subject follows a command at least two times out of three on three consecutive days. Once the puppies learned to obey all the above commands, the statistical analysis of the study was over. In addition, both trainers wrote a short qualitative analysis about their dog’s performance, behavior and wellbeing. For the sake of minimizing individual differences between trainers, it was agreed that Ms Tyson rears her puppy using repetition and discipline when encountered with undesirable behavior. Meanwhile, I focused on giving my dog treats and praise (I called her a Very Good Girl each time) whenever she followed a command successfully. I ignored undesirable behavior and instead rewarded good behavior as if the dog had followed a command successfully. It was agreed that we use only ethically acceptable methods, meaning that corporeal punishment and questionable substances were entirely out of question.
Bella - Ms Tyson - Approach A) repetition and discipline
Sit: 11 days
Come: 15 days
Down: 12 days
Stay: 21 days
Nefrid - Shanaya - Approach B) rewards and praise
Sit: 7 days
Come: 10 days
Down: 13 days
Stay: 16 days
The study resulted in notable gains with approach B) when compared to approach A). The only exception manifested with the down command, which is understandable as the expected posture is a submissive one. Indeed, qualitative analysis revealed that Bella was considerably more submissive towards her trainer, although not to a degree that would have put undue pressure to either the dog or the trainer (as insecure dogs are prone to behaving oddly). Both dogs were reasonably happy and obedient, although Nefrid displayed a better attitude towards strangers - neutral to friendly in comparison to Bella’s reserved - and she learned to live indoors considerably faster than Bella, who kept urinating “basically everywhere” for nearly a tenday during the very first month of training.
It is unlikely that the differences can be explained with statistical error, but it is plausible that either the personality of the trainer or the dog had an effect on the rate at which the dogs learned to obey the four commands. Indeed, the study should be repeated with another litter of dobermans and then possibly other breeds of dogs or other receptive animals for enhanced reliability.
On that note, I would love to test similar methods on a snake, although I would first have to learn more about snakes. My initial hypothesis is that snakes will not be very receptive to being called a Very Good Girl, but I digress.
Conclusion
To draw my observations together, it appears that animals are indeed very capable of learning both on their own and when directed by a methodical trainer. Of the two methods I am familiar with, it appears that the method which is focused on encouraging desirable behavior is a clear winner, although there are many cases where I do not know what different animals consider a suitable reward. Food seems like a generally applicable answer, at least.
Though both studies suggest something about animal learning, I believe that they should be repeated until there is a reliable body of results that allows one to make wider generalizations. That said, both I and Ms Tyson believe that there are wide individual differences between animals and as such it may not be wise to pursue universal truths about animal learning and the best training methods. Instead, an educated trainer should have access to a considerable amount of knowledge and methods so that they may choose the best fit for each animal based on their unique circumstances.
I hope that you have time to review both studies and consider my earnest application
Shanaya
P.s. Although my expertise with animals lies mostly with dogs, I am curious about the knowledge you have regarding other species. In particular, I would like to learn more about snakes. I have a question in that vein:
It recently came to my attention that my dear friends encountered a three-eyed giant snake in the swamp near Calidor. Ms Gallraith mentioned that the snake, despite its prodigious size, managed to envenom Ms Jia. Based on the little reading I have done on snakes, I have come to understand that it is often the smaller species of snakes that have venom whereas the bigger species tend to crush and suffocate their prey.
My question is as follows: What manner of prey could this enormous snake hunt that it requires venom in addition to its massive size? Ms Gallraith mentioned that it was able to devour a boar with very little trouble. It is, furthermore, strange that the species should have such redundancy if the existence of venom does not play a key part in the species’ survival - or could this in fact be a recent mutation and/or possibly an unique specimen?
