Yet, she often does that. I recently attended a 2 day seminar given by her. I was very disappointed. I thought her training demo was pretty good and I learned some new techniques that I have tried. I didn't agree with all of them, but I did find some I could incorporate.
But once she left the field of pure, hands-on training of the basics and the mechanics of it, it went down hill. She doesn't have a good grasp of behavior, IMO.
She showed a training video where she works with a dog (Dog A) that was dog-reactive to unknown dogs. The two people walk dog A and dog B toward each other, which the eventual goal of being able to walk by each other. (I wouldn't personally set it up this way, but nevertheless, this is the scenario). If Dog A doesn't react, he gets a high value treat. If Dog A does react, he gets put away in a crate for a while, and watches while Dog B gets the treats he would have gotten had he not reacted. Her explanation was that Dog A really wants the treats, even more so when he sees that his actions caused Dog B to get them instead. That this works because eventually the dogs can walk past each other. I found this reasoning a bit flawed and pointed out that the scenario may be working simply because in the hour or so that it took to get to the point of being able to walk past the other dog, Dog B became a familiar site and not as likely to cause a reaction in Dog A. Also, that the assumption of the jealousy of Dog A and his understanding of the cause and effect relationship to his actions seemed to be ascribing to the Theory of Mind scenario that she had eschewed the previous day. She responded that she was a scientist and was trained to look at things from a scientific perspective. (I got the feeling that I was being patted on the head and told this was over my head.) I responded that I was a trained scientist myself and would be interested in hearing what she was basing her conclusions on. That caught her off-balance a bit, but she just changed the topic and never did answer my question (nor call on me again).
I certainly wouldn't spend the money to see her again. While she can be an engaging speaker, more times than not I found her insulting and abrasive. She would often respond to questions from the audience in an insulting manner; either calling the question, the audience member or people of that mindset "stupid". And she isn't confident enough in her own skills or ideas, to accept the possibility that people might disagree with her - hardly behaving in a professional manner, IMO.
She would go on about people not being smart enough to ask the right questions, that they will always assume an intent to dogs behavior instead of describing the physical actions of the dog (which is a valid point, yet she does it herself) but then she would assume an implied intent to a question that an audience member asked. Usually, she would not be correct in her assumption (at least based on my understanding of what the person was asking) and would then go off and expound on what should have been asked, etc. The few times she got herself into a bind, she would fall back on "well, I'm a scientist so I have been trained to look at things differently" which quite frankly, made me cringe. This woman showed no evidence that she understood even the basics of the scientific method or the importance of questions or healthy skepticism in the pursuit of science.
I agree, that is who she means when she says that. Unfortunately, she is very clear - or at least she was in the seminar I attended when I asked for clarification - that she believes all stock people use harsh adversives in training. She said they "might not do it in front of you, but they use them". Wow. Talk about making assumptions.
The difference between her and Patricia McConnell is staggering. From what I've seen of McConnell, she is a true professional and conducts herself well. She cites other people's work, she takes pains to say whether she is giving an explanation of a theory, or giving her own opinion.
Whereas, Donaldson seemed to think we should consider her opinion with the same weight as tested theories.