我發現多數飼主常自尋煩惱
明明很簡單的行為問題，例如亂大小便或暴衝
他們卻常想東想西，以為是自己地位不夠或狗狗故意犯錯
明明最簡單的解釋只是：狗狗缺乏定點上廁所或無須暴衝的概念
牠們只是需要有人協助學習而已
～請多多仔細觀察，簡單解釋～
引用或轉貼請註明譯文出處，請尊重著作權。
最簡單的解釋是王道！
（Simple as Parsimony!）
原文出處： 動物行為同儕通訊（Animal Behavior Associates Newsletter）
2007年10月10日，Volume V，Issue 10
http://www.AnimalBehaviorAssociates.com
譯者：黃薇菁
譯文出處：『動物的事‧響片訓練』奇摩部落格
我們最近在一次會議演說中討論到與狗玩拔河的相關迷思，我們解釋了拔河是個合作性的遊戲，並不是一種競爭誰得以控制玩具的互動關係，多位聽眾提到他們曾聽人說拔河是個建立狗兒「自信」的好方法，這是什麼意思呢？
一位聽眾說，當訪客想拍拍他家幼犬時牠就會順服性漏尿，有人告訴他玩拔河可提升幼犬的自信，當牠較有自信就較不會出現順服性排尿的行為，於是這位飼主不再讓訪客伸手去摸幼犬，而是請他們拿起玩具和牠玩拔河，不出人意外地，這個作法相當有效地停止了漏尿情形。
這個方法之所以有效是因為它改變了客人對待幼犬的行為，他們不再伸手接近牠，也不再做出一些人們覺得友善、但狗兒常感到相當威脅的行為（例如眼睛直視、朝著牠們彎腰，並且去摸牠們的頭），相反地他們引發了另一項行為──遊戲行為，它與順服性排尿的行為無法同時出現。
這位相當精明的狗兒飼主接著表示，這個方法是有效，但是它並不是因為那個別人告訴他的理由而生效，他說得沒錯，使這個方法奏效最簡單的理由就是它消除了引起漏尿反應的事件（企圖去摸幼犬），並且讓幼犬進行一項與漏尿不相容的行為（開心玩拔河時很難去做尿尿這事）。
說它奏效是因為狗兒自信提昇是個太過複雜的解釋，以狗兒行為來看，何謂「自信」？如果簡單的理由就可以說得通，幹嘛這麼複雜地用人類特質予以解釋？
所謂的「簡約法」（parsimony，也稱為Occum's Razor）利用最簡單的解釋說明現象，這是研究動物行為時的重要基本原則，它明白指出，如果簡單的答案可以解釋一個行為現象，那麼選擇一個較為複雜的答案不但沒有必要，而且也不恰當。
多年前蘇姍曾應邀上一個熱門電視節目「未解之謎（Unsolved Mysteries）」當來賓，那一集的主題是動物，探討牠們為何有時出現拯救飼主或其他人性命的「英勇」行為，有個例子是一隻紐芬蘭犬在河裡有人翻船時救了一個險遭溺斃的人，人們請蘇姍回答的問題是，狗兒怎麼懂得那個人快淹死了，需要救援？她回答──牠並不懂。
紐芬蘭犬的飼主經常帶牠到河裡游泳戲耍，牠也有從河裡拾回大型浮木的習慣，蘇姍的看法是，那個快溺斃的人遠遠看來好似狗兒以前時常拾回岸上的浮木，因此對此行為最簡單的解釋就是：狗兒的行為和過去一樣──把浮木拾回罷了。
如果我們選擇以最簡單的解釋說明動物行為，它不僅較可能正確，而且當我們有必要改變動物的行為時，我們所採取的措施也可能較為適當。
原文如下：
During a recent presentation at a conference, we were discussing myths surrounding playing tug of war with dogs. We were explaining that tug-of-war is a cooperative game, not a competitive interaction over which individual is going to control the toy. Several people in the audience mentioned they had heard playing tug-of-war is a good way to build a dog's "confidence." What exactly does this mean?
One person described that he had been told to play tug to build the dog's confidence in order to decrease his puppy's submissive urination when people would try to pet her during greetings. If she was more confident, she would be less likely to submissively urinate. So, rather than having visitors reach out to pet the puppy, the owner instructed them to pick up a toy and play tug with her. Not surprisingly, this was quite effective stopping the submissive urination.
The technique was effective because it changed the way visitors behaved toward the puppy. Rather than reaching out to pet her, and showing all those behaviors people think are friendly, but are often quite threatening to dogs, (making eye contact, facing them while leaning over them and reaching over their heads to pet them) visitors instead stimulated an alternative behavior - play - that was incompatible with submissive urination.
The dog owner, quite astutely, then commented that the technique worked, but NOT for the reasons he had been told it would work. He was exactly right. The simplest explanation for the effectiveness of the technique is that it removed the events that triggered the behavior (trying to pet the pup) and also engaged the dog in an incompatible behavior (it's hard to urinate when you're happily engaged in a game of tug).
Attributing the effectiveness of the procedure to building the dog's "confidence" is a much more complicated explanation. What does "confidence" mean in terms of dog behavior? Why invoke a more complicated description of personality when a simpler explanation will do?
Using the simplest explanation to explain observations is called parsimony, and is an important, basic principle in the study of animal behavior. Also known as Occum's Razor, parsimony dictates that it is not only unnecessary, but also inappropriate to choose a complicated explanation to explain observations of behavior, when a simpler one will do.
A number of years ago, Suzanne was a guest on the popular television series "Unsolved Mysteries". This particular episode was all about animals and why they sometimes displayed "heroic" behavior and saved the lives of their owners or others. One example was a Newfoundland that saved a person from drowning whose boat had overturned in a river. The question put to Suzanne was how did the dog know that the person was drowning and needed saving? Her answer was - he didn't.
The Newfie's owner routinely took the dog to the river to swim and play, and the dog was in the habit of retrieving large logs that often floated down the river. In Suzanne's view, at a distance, the drowning person resembled the large logs the dog had retrieved many, many times. So, the most parsimonious explanation for the dog's behavior was that he was doing what he had always done - retrieve floating logs.
When we choose the simplest explanation for an animal's behavior, not only are we more likely to be correct, it's also more likely that we can take the appropriate steps to modify the animal's behavior, should that be necessary. |
发表于 2011-11-11 16:08
|