Training treats considered as detrimental

[GentleLake]

I read it correctly the first time, thanks.

 

And I still argue that you could have accomplished the same thing, using the same methods but with a different type of collar that wouldn't have risked causing the dog pain.

[JohnLloydJones]

For instance, people commonly say, "Look at the guilty expression - he knows he did wrong."

 

Usually the "guilty" look means something else.

Well, let's think about litttle Johnny. Mummy comes and sees scribbling on the wall and Johnny is holding a crayon. As mommy comes up, Johnny looks down and shuffles his feet. He know that he has done something that will make mummy angry, so he adopts a position of appeasement. Would we say that Johnny looked guilty? If you answer yes, would you use the same term about a dog who has done "something bad"? Is Johnny's expression different from an adult's "guilt"? Why yes, I believe a young child has a very simple concept of "done bad" and is a far cry from what an adult means by guilt. Maybe we are too eager to be politically correct and throw the baby out with the bath water? Dogs are mentally the rough equivalent of a small child; we shouldn't overload our concepts more than that.

[Root Beer]

Getting back to the original topic of whether or not food is detrimental to training, I'd like to share something that really settles the question completely for me.

 

I've been on these boards for quite a while and those of you who have been here the whole time know that Speedy started out as a severely fearful dog. He was literally terrified of every person who was not my husband or me, and of every dog who was not one of ours. When we started out together, he would hide behind and cower there if someone even looked at him, much less talked to him. And as far as anyone else touching him . . . no way.

 

Since I had not yet learned what I ended up learning because of him, I let that go on for quite some time, thinking he would "grow out of it". That fear started to transform into reactivity and was on the verge of becoming out and out fear aggression.

 

It was at that point that I started to learn about desensitization and counter conditioning - all done with food. It was a long process. I had to learn everything from scratch, and of course I didn't work as smart as I could have had I known what I was doing. Later Click to Calm came along, and we had out big breakthrough when Speedy and I would sit and watch dogs and people go by and I would feed him for watching calmly. He started to transform before my very eyes.

 

He and I did build a very solid relationship, but food has always been a major part of his behavior work and training.

 

When we first started out, going to the vet was quite traumatic for him. He would dive under chairs, do everything he could to hide. Later on, he had to be muzzled at the vet's office because of worry that he might snap (which never actually did happen). Gradually we built his comfort level and confidence. Years later he was x-rayed without any sedation and it was no problem. By that point, no more muzzles were needed. He got to where he would let the vet do anything as long as my hand was on him. And then, he got to where he didn't even need that.

 

The other day, I was able to drop him off for surgery, leave him, not worry about him in the least, and he was perfectly fine. He is actually my best dog at the vets now. (Not worry about him behaviorally/fear-wise, I mean. Of course I was concerned for his life and well being).

 

Why was this able to happen? Because of the way I used food in his training. Food was the bridge between paralyzing fear and trust, confidence, and "normalcy". It took work, it took commitment, but changed his life in ways that I would not have dreamed possible when we first started out.

 

I could never say that food is a detriment to training after this experience. It doesn't matter if we "technically" could have gotten where we are without the use of food. The fact is, we did use food and the results have allowed a dog with serious issues to lead not only a normal life, but a great life.

 

The experience of training and competing with a mentally challenged dog (in several significant ways) was the ride of a lifetime. But, those accomplishments pale in comparison to this one.

 

I've used food to successfully train self control, confidence, manners (including reliable recalls and other things that supposedly one "can't use food" to train), sport skills, and to do some pretty significant behavior modification.

 

I honestly can't even come up with what I could do with food in training to make it detrimental if I was trying to.

[geonni banner]

There are nearly as many ways to train a dog as there are people who train them. I believe that a live-and-let-live attitude is the one to have. I have trained a great many dogs using my methods, and I have yet to have a dog complain. There have been precious few owners who complained either, and for those few that did, I referred them to other trainers, which used methods I felt they would be more comfortable with. It is immaterial to me what method people use – as long as it gets the job done. But for some people this is not good enough. If I refuse the “enlightenment” they offer, I am branded as a Neanderthal. I do not love dogs enough.

To this I can only say that if they were as willing to consider learning the proper use of a choke-chain as I am to employ treats in training where they seem to be indicated, (and I do, regularly) then they might learn some useful and rewarding dog-handling skills to keep in their training toolbox along with the clickers and liver treats. Instead, they prefer to brand me with the epithet of “cruel.” It is their loss.

[GentleLake]

Your little poster is cute, but there's one item on it for which there's a very simple alternative. So it's both misleading and sensational. Not tactics that tend to convince me of much. <sigh>

[Root Beer]

So it's both misleading and sensational. Not tactics that tend to convince me of much. <sigh>

 

Moreover, the logic of the poster is flawed.

 

I don't know of any trainer who uses a hammer, scissors, a car, etc. to "correct" a dog by using that object to directly cause a "negative consequence" of some kind. Honestly, if one was, I wholeheartedly agree - stop using them - for that purpose. Use of a hammer as a correction, for instance, to train a reliable recall is not only unnecessary, but potentially quite dangerous.

 

If anything, the point the poster makes is that corrective devices are painful, dangerous, and unnecessary to train a dog - if one is comparing their use to the use of a hammer, scissors, a car, etc. to correct a dog. At least that would be my take away.

 

Now, of course I know that is not the intent of the advertisement. But the intended logic of the statement doesn't work.

[Eileen Stein]

Your little poster is cute, but there's one item on it for which there's a very simple alternative. So it's both misleading and sensational. Not tactics that tend to convince me of much.

 

There's more than one item on the poster for which there are simple alternatives. But so what if there were only one? The basic point is that the fact that an item has the capacity to cause pain is not reason to reject its use altogether, without regard to whether or not it is being used in a way that causes pain. Statements like "using a choke chain is cruel" and "people who would use a choke chain are cruel" are much more sensational and misleading than this poster, IMO. If I understand her correctly, geonni is arguing for a more nuanced attitude, rather than the anathemas and self-righteousness that (I assume) caused Donald to compare training dogmatism to religious belief.

[Root Beer]

There's more than one item on the poster for which there are simple alternatives. But so what if there were only one? The basic point is that the fact that an item has the capacity to cause pain is not reason to reject its use altogether, without regard to whether or not it is being used in a way that causes pain. Statements like "using a choke chain is cruel" and "people who would use a choke chain are cruel" are much more sensational and misleading than this poster, IMO. If I understand her correctly, geonni is arguing for a more nuanced attitude, rather than the anathemas that (I assume) caused Donald to compare training dogmatism to religious belief.

 

FWIW, I would consider a person who used a hammer, scissors, car, etc. to cause pain/discomfort to a dog in some way in the name of training "cruel", or at the very least "misguided" without hesitation.

 

Call it dogmatism if you will, but I personally disagree.

 

People who use choke chains are using a piece of chain to cause a direct negative consequence (at best discomfort) as part of the training process.

 

That is an objective fact. If the chain did not operate in such a way when the handler uses it for this purpose, it would be completely ineffective.

 

Whether or not an individual considers such a use of a piece of chain to train a dog "cruel" or not, really is a legitimate matter of opinion.

 

That point of view is going to be influenced by many factors: the trainer's prior experience with training (those who have successfully trained without such use of a chain are going to view the matter very differently from a trainer who has only been successful through use of a chain), the effect that the trainer has seen the device have on dogs in real time (again, those who have seen clear negative effects will view the matter differently from those who have been satisfied with what they have seen), and often plain and simple reasonable deduction (one does not have to have used any particular device in order to weigh the potential benefits, risks, pro's, cons, alternatives, etc).

 

Obviously different people draw different conclusions. If some come to the conclusion that such use of a chain is "cruel", that is as valid as those who come to the conclusion that it is fine and dandy.

 

However, being a person of very strong religious belief, I can tell you that the way I approach a choice of training method, and the manner in which I form my opinion on the use of tools that I don't personally choose to use, is quite different from the manner in which I approach matters of faith.

 

The whole religious/dogmatism objection really strikes me as a charge that moves the conversation off of objective points like: how training methods actually function, results, the spectrum of alternatives available, observable strengths and weaknesses of the method, etc.

 

I am not telling anyone what to say or what not to say, but it seems to me that it would be very interesting if, instead of calling those who choose to use reinforcers in training "quasi-religious" or "dogmatic" and putting them in a position where they have to object to that charge, one were to ask about the actual results of their training.

 

Explanation of the results of a chosen training approach - employed complete and correctly, or even the results/outcome of choosing not to use a certain training approach is not dogmatism. It is, instead, discussion of observable, measurable, and objective results.

 

Now, promotion of use a corrective device because a car, in theory, could cause a dog pain/discomfort, and one is obviously not going to give up driving the car, so the use of a corrective device is as neutral to the dog as driving a car is to the human . . . that's misleading.

[GentleLake]

It's not about dogmatism. It's simply a matter of pointing out that there are reasonable and equally effective alternatives.

 

In the case of the hammer, for example, you could choose to use a 10# sledge to drive a nail, or a simple ball peen. The latter will suffice quite nicely, while the former might well damage the item the nail is being driven into.

 

In the case of the choke chain, a properly fitted martingale -- or better yet, a clicker and some treats -- will achieve the same results without the potential for as much damage to the dog being trained.

[D'Elle]

It's not about dogmatism. It's simply a matter of pointing out that there are reasonable and equally effective alternatives.

 

In the case of the hammer, for example, you could choose to use a 10# sledge to drive a nail, or a simple ball peen. The latter will suffice quite nicely, while the former might well damage the item the nail is being driven into.

 

In the case of the choke chain, a properly fitted martingale -- or better yet, a clicker and some treats -- will achieve the same results without the potential for as much damage to the dog being trained.

 

Well said.

[geonni banner]

There's more than one item on the poster for which there are simple alternatives. But so what if there were only one? The basic point is that the fact that an item has the capacity to cause pain is not reason to reject its use altogether, without regard to whether or not it is being used in a way that causes pain. Statements like "using a choke chain is cruel" and "people who would use a choke chain are cruel" are much more sensational and misleading than this poster, IMO.

Thank you for seeing the real point to my graphic.

[geonni banner]

re·li·gion

noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

Full Definition of RELIGION

1

a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2

: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3

archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4

: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

 

From: Merriam-Webster

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

 

It would seem that comparing religion to certain attitudes about dog training is not so far-fetched after all. In both, the “infidel” may be seen as misguided and even evil.

 

All my posts were not put up to defend my use of a choke-chain, or any of the other tools I use in training dogs. They have been posted to try and present a more “ecumenical” attitude toward trainers and training. I commonly use treats – I’ve even used a clicker – and had good results. But because I also use a choke-chain, no matter how skillfully or humanely, I am lumped with those who use the choke-chain to harass and punish a dog into doing what they want. There is no defense – should I feel the need to defend myself – against such arrogant presumption.

 

But the original question on this thread was can treats be detrimental to training dogs. I believe that they can be, in certain contexts and with certain dogs. The same can be said of a choke-chain – without hysterics and “excommunication.”

 

I’m not trying to sell the choke to anyone who chooses not to use it. Nor do I think that I’m “better” or “more enlightened” because I do use it. I have met dogs that were indifferent to food rewards. I have met dogs that were unduly distracted by food rewards.

 

I have met dogs that were too anxious or outright fearful to take a food reward – or even look at it. Is a choke-chain as training device/strategy my second choice for that dog? Decidedly not! Time, patience and micro-incremental exposure to the fear-causing object/situation are the tools of choice for me in that situation. Proof that the technique works is lying at my feet right now.

[Eileen Stein]

I am not telling anyone what to say or what not to say, but it seems to me that it would be very interesting if, instead of calling those who choose to use reinforcers in training "quasi-religious" or "dogmatic" and putting them in a position where they have to object to that charge, one were to ask about the actual results of their training.

 

Explanation of the results of a chosen training approach - employed complete and correctly, or even the results/outcome of choosing not to use a certain training approach is not dogmatism. It is, instead, discussion of observable, measurable, and objective results.

 

There's no need to ask about the results of anyone's training. People volunteer the results of their training methods over and over again in these discussions. Why would anyone ask you about your results, for example, when they need go no further than your post #303 above to read the glowing reports?

 

It is an interesting observation, though, and injects a bit of novelty, to notice how dogmatism and quasi-religious fervor do creep in, whether proponents are aware of it or not. (BTW, it would be only fair to note that it's not just "those who choose to use reinforcers in training" that Donald made his "religious" observation about. He said it about the turn discussions over training methods so often take in general, on all sides. But then, of course, I doubt you could name anyone who would not fit the description "those who choose to use reinforcers in training." It's a bit wider category than "those who choose not to use corrections in training," isn't it?)

 

I find this paragraph of yours particularly telling, in its description of virtue vs. vice:

 

 

That point of view is going to be influenced by many factors: the trainer's prior experience with training (those who have successfully trained without such use of a chain are going to view the matter very differently from a trainer who has only been successful through use of a chain), the effect that the trainer has seen the device have on dogs in real time (again, those who have seen clear negative effects will view the matter differently from those who have been satisfied with what they have seen), and often plain and simple reasonable deduction (one does not have to have used any particular device in order to weigh the potential benefits, risks, pro's, cons, alternatives, etc).

 

Who in this discussion "has only been successful through use of a chain"? Has anyone claimed that they can only train with a chain? Do you have personal knowledge that someone here has only been successful through use of a chain? Or is that comment only meant to "damn"? And juxtaposing "those who have seen clear negative effects" not with "those who have not seen such effects," but rather with "those who have been satisfied with what they have seen" (IOW, who are too stupid to be able to see negative effects, or too cruel to care whether there are any)? Wow. That really separates the elect from the unworthy. And true, "one does not have to have used any particular device in order to weigh the potential benefits, risks, pro's, cons, alternatives, etc.," but one certainly risks coming to incorrect conclusions that actual knowledge/experience with the unholy device might have saved one from.

 

 

Now, promotion of use a corrective device because a car, in theory, could cause a dog pain/discomfort, and one is obviously not going to give up driving the car, so the use of a corrective device is as neutral to the dog as driving a car is to the human . . . that's misleading.

 

I'm not sure why, but you seem to have totally missed the point of this graphic. It has nothing to do with what a car (or hammer or scissors, for that matter) could do to a dog.

[Root Beer]

I find this paragraph of yours particularly telling, in its description of virtue vs. vice:

 

 

 

Who in this discussion "has only been successful through use of a chain"? Has anyone claimed that they can only train with a chain?

 

In this particular discussion, no.

 

To be clear - nobody here has claimed that they can only train with a chain - we agree on that. However, I have run into trainers elsewhere who have, in their own personal experience, only trained through the use of a corrective collar (choke, prong, or shock). If you haven't run into people coming from that background, I can assure you, they are out there. It was not a "religious" statement, nor a value judgment of some kind - it was simply an example of a background that some people do, in fact, come from.

 

And, my use of that example was not intended as a reference to this discussion, but a general statement of a particular training background that might contribute to a particular individual's assessment of the appropriateness of use of a chain in training. That person's point of view on the tool is going to be different from that of a person who has successfully trained without one. Again, not a value judgment - just a reality.

 

 

Do you have personal knowledge that someone here has only been successful through use of a chain? Or is that comment only meant to "damn"?

 

Again, a chain per se - no. But corrective collars more generally - yes.

 

And that is not meant to "damn". It is an objective fact that there are trainers who come from that type of training background. That just is what it is. To deny it would make no sense.

 

 

 

And juxtaposing "those who have seen clear negative effects" not with "those who have not seen such effects," but rather with "those who have been satisfied with what they have seen" (IOW, who are too stupid to be able to see negative effects, or too cruel to care whether there are any)?

 

Nice job reading something into what I wrote that was not there.

 

There are people who, for a good many reasons, are satisfied with the results of corrective collars. Again, simply a statement of fact.

 

This may upset you, but yes - sometimes people do miss the signs that are right in front of their eyes that a dog is responding negatively to a corrective device. It happens. And it happens to highly intelligent and caring people, so please don't read that I am calling anyone "stupid" because that is not what I am saying.

 

 

Wow. That really separates the elect from the unworthy. And true, "one does not have to have used any particular device in order to weigh the potential benefits, risks, pro's, cons, alternatives, etc.," but one certainly risks coming to incorrect conclusions that actual knowledge/experience with the unholy device might have saved one from.

 

You are the one making his about "holy" and "unholy" and "saved".

 

FWIW, that's not the mindset I am coming from when engaging in discussion with trainers who make choices that are different from my own. I am far too busy looking at the dogs in front of me and the amazing journey that I am in the midst of with each of them.

 

 

I'm not sure why, but you seem to have totally missed the point of this graphic. It has nothing to do with what a car (or hammer or scissors, for that matter) could do to a dog.

 

I understand the point. I simply disagree that it is made effectively through the comparison presented, and I spelled out the reason for that very clearly above.

[D'Elle]

I find this paragraph of yours particularly telling, in its description of virtue vs. vice:

Who in this discussion "has only been successful through use of a chain"? Has anyone claimed that they can only train with a chain? Do you have personal knowledge that someone here has only been successful through use of a chain? Or is that comment only meant to "damn"? And juxtaposing "those who have seen clear negative effects" not with "those who have not seen such effects," but rather with "those who have been satisfied with what they have seen" (IOW, who are too stupid to be able to see negative effects, or too cruel to care whether there are any)? Wow. That really separates the elect from the unworthy.

I am sure that Root Beer can speak for herself and I am not meaning to defend her or speak for her. But I can't help but mention that I did not interpret her post in the same way that you did, Eileen, and so I wonder if she really meant it that way.

When she said "only been successful through use of a chain", I felt that described me years ago. Until about 10 years ago I had only been successful training dogs to heel with a choke chain. That's because I did not know any other way to do it, and that's the only method I had ever used.

I will be the first to admit that I should have become aware that other methods exist much sooner than I did. But the method worked and I did not look for alternatives. Doesn't mean I was a cruel person; I just did not know any other way. That is what I thought she meant by that statement.

Similarly, in my experience with using a chain to train I did not see any "clear negative effects". The dogs got trained. I was "satisfied" with what I had seen. Doesn't mean I was stupid or cruel, and I did not take Root Beer's statement to imply that in any way. Maybe she meant it that way, but that is not how I took it.

ETA: this was written before I read Root Beer's post, above. We must have been writing at the same time.

Edited January 10, 2014 by D'Elle

[GentleLake]

...I can't help but mention that I did not interpret her post in the same way that you did, Eileen...

 

Nor did I.

[Root Beer]

That's because I did not know any other way to do it, and that's the only method I had ever used.

 

Thank you, D'Elle!! That is exactly what I was referring to by those who "have only been successful through use of a chain". It was a plain and simple reference to an experience background.

 

 

Doesn't mean I was a cruel person; I just did not know any other way. That is what I thought she meant by that statement.

 

Exactly!

 

Similarly, in my experience with using a chain to train I did not see any "clear negative effects". The dogs got trained. I was "satisfied" with what I had seen. Doesn't mean I was stupid or cruel, and I did not take Root Beer's statement to imply that in any way. Maybe she meant it that way, but that is not how I took it.

 

You are correct - I did not mean to imply that.

 

In fact, I would be the first person to tell you that the vast majority of people who train using corrective collars love their dogs, care very deeply for them, and that their intention is to do the very best that they can by their dogs. And while I do not ultimately make the same choices for a good many well thought out and considered reasons, of course I know that and have always acknowledged it.

 

My observation that those who come from different training backgrounds have different points of view on the appropriateness of certain training devices was neither a highly coded implication that I think that those who use tools that I do not choose to use are stupid or cruel, nor an expression of religious faith.

 

I am glad for the opportunity to clarify.

[Smalahundur]

Funny topic this, it is essentially about interspecies communication.

Ironic part is how difficult intraspecies communication about it turns out to be... .

[Eileen Stein]

I'm not upset, Root Beer. I don't see what reason you would have for suggesting that I am. But I am a little amused that you would say there is no value judgment implicit in your posts.

 

Just as there are people so ______[fill in the blank]_______ that they "miss the signs that are right in front of their eyes that a dog is responding negatively to a corrective device," I guess there are also people so ________________ that they fail or refuse to see that their rhetoric is loaded with value judgments pretending not to be value judgments.

[Root Beer]

Just as there are people so ______[fill in the blank]_______ that they "miss the signs that are right in front of their eyes that a dog is responding negatively to a corrective device," I guess there are also people so ________________ that they fail or refuse to see that their rhetoric is loaded with value judgments pretending not to be value judgments.

 

All I can do is tell you plainly that my statements above were not value judgments, but observations of fact. Others have stated that is apparent to them, and I am glad to know that.

 

If you choose not to take my directly stated word on the matter, that choice is yours.

[Eileen Stein]

Reminds me of the joke -- so well-known that I'm sure I don't need to provide the build-up -- that ends with "Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"

[geonni banner]

deleted because of difficulty with the quote feature.

[rushdoggie]

I am sure that Root Beer can speak for herself and I am not meaning to defend her or speak for her. But I can't help but mention that I did not interpret her post in the same way that you did, Eileen,

 

 

Neither did I.

[geonni banner]

Root Beer says: (and don’t take this personally – I have nothing against you or your training methods.)

“People who use choke chains are using a piece of chain to cause a direct negative consequence (at best discomfort) as part of the training process.

 

That is an objective fact. If the chain did not operate in such a way when the handler uses it for this purpose, it would be completely ineffective.”

 

This is not an “objective fact.” It is your impression, based on your observation. And furthermore, the way I use a choke chain, it would be correct to say “at worst, discomfort.”

 

I learned my use of a choke chain from people who used it in this way. Actually choking a dog or hoicking it around is thought to be poor and counterproductive technique. Pairing the sound of the chain’s links “ratcheting” to mark an undesired response, (essentially the same concept as using a clicker to mark a desired response) with a voice marker to indicate the desired response. The chain does not need to be tightened to the point of squeezing the dog’s neck and causing discomfort in order to produce this auditory marker. But its sound in such close proximity to the dog’s ear makes it a clear message, and will frequently be all that is needed to refocus an inattentive the dog on the task at hand.

 

Have I ever used a choke chain to cause discomfort in a dog? You bet. And I would again in the right context. The inveterate car-chaser, owned by someone too lazy or unreliable to manage the dog in such a way as to prevent the behavior. The dog’s life is at stake. Sure, the same thing might be accomplished with “look at me” exercises and positive reinforcers for giving me its attention and refraining from the behavior. But I if know the owner is not willing to take the time to employ, or even have the wit to execute such a strategy, I will do what is necessary to put a stop to the car chasing quickly. A temporarily uncomfortable dog is, in my opinion, greatly preferable to one converted to roadkill. I think even the dog would agree with that, if it knew what the alternative was.

There are other scenarios, but I won’t bore you…

 

Do you suppose a stock person would cope with a working collie that has repeatedly tried to take down livestock by doing “look at me” exercises? No, probably not. Because the “bang” that dog gets out of sinking its teeth into ovine extremities will not be offset by the “bang” of a treat, a game of tug or a squeaky toy. It might be offset by calling it off the stock and withholding the enjoyment of stock work – but then again it might not. How many sheep legs do we sew up to see if that works?

 

Need I say that offering treats might be counterproductive?

[Root Beer]

Root Beer says: (and don’t take this personally – I have nothing against you or your training methods.)

“People who use choke chains are using a piece of chain to cause a direct negative consequence (at best discomfort) as part of the training process.

 

That is an objective fact. If the chain did not operate in such a way when the handler uses it for this purpose, it would be completely ineffective.”

 

This is not an “objective fact.” It is your impression, based on your observation. And furthermore, the way I use a choke chain, it would be correct to say “at worst, discomfort.”

 

If the effect of the use of the chain is in no way negative to the dog, why would it decrease undesired behavior?

 

Therein lies the objectivity of the statement that I made.

 

If the use of the chain is neutral to the dog, the dog's behavior will not change, rendering the tool useless.

 

If the use of the chain is something that the dog desires and wants to make happen again, the behavior being marked by the chain (the undesired behavior) is what is going to increase. Again, rendering the tool useless for it's purpose.

 

Therefore, I stand by the objectivity of my statement above.

 

Whether or not the use of the chain is 1) necessary; 2) humane; 3) the best option available are certainly matters that are up for legitimate debate. I think I can say pretty safely that you and I hold different positions on those particular points. There are countless internet groups that debate these questions and consider them from every angle imaginable.

 

But the mechanism through which the chain technically works really just is what it is. It really is not a matter of personal interpretation.

 

ETA: Not taking any of this personally.