In Search of Distinctions
The OC School argues that learning theory based on reinforcement completely encompasses everything being said in Natural Dog Training. Meanwhile my complaint with OC is that while it is highly descriptive and in ways insightful, this is because in my view a lot of “charge” is removed from someone's mind when they observe what’s going through a strict clinical approach which if I’m summing it properly is to wit: what reinforces behavior is a reinforcement and what doesn’t isn’t. However it seems to me (and correct me if I'm in error) that this is circular reasoning akin to Darwinism’s survival of the fittest credo as critiqued in “The American Scholar.” "Who survives? Those that are the fittest. Who are the fittest? Those that survive."
So in the interest of drawing distinctions between Natural Dog Training and current theories of learning, I want to pose the following question: What does OC say about the following: If a dog is stimulated by something within its sphere of perception, for example a dog perks its ear and watches someone a hundred yards away through a window, but doesn’t actually become “stimulated” so that soon its head is resting between its paws, and thus the dog hasn't done anything, interacted with anything, nothing has affected it in any way, and therefore nothing of any reinforcement value can be said to have occurred, has in fact nothing happened? In other words, is it possible that something has changed within the dog even though no reinforcement has happened?