Experts versus the rest

[Mark Billadeau]

I agree - bad positive only training is much less likely to cause harm than bad corrective training.

But I don't agree; bad timing when trying to communicate is THE issue. What follows is less of an issue. Positive or negative responses to dogs can be just as deadly. Dogs are "loved" to death every day.

[Root Beer]

Some bad habits can be deadly (like car chasing, counter surfing, darting out a door, dumpster diving, etc).

 

Fact is, there are plenty of correction trained dogs who continue to do these things when, in theory, they shouldn't.

 

Personally, I don't judge training methods by those who employ them incorrectly. I evaluate them on the mechanics of the method itself and the results achieved when they are carried out correctly. And I strive to learn (and to teach others) to use the methods that I choose to utilize in correct and effective ways.

 

Dogs do learn to ignore cars, keep four on the floor around counters, exercise self control at doors, ignore dumpsters, etc. through +R training. I've done some of those things, and other things that were even more challenging successfully myself.

 

The fact that there are some who can't seem to get that done for one reason or another doesn't speak to the effectiveness of the method, but something about the trainer his or herself (knowledge, skill, level of commitment, etc)

[Maralynn]

I think the majority of dog owners (present company excluded) lack both timing and a good sense of communicating with their dogs. They know what they more or less *want* but have no clue about how to get there. So they cherry pick from methods that reasonate with them on some level, or promise success, or something while still remaining clueless on how to get from point a to point b. The results seem to vary between confused dogs demonstrating avoidance and confused dogs being boisterous. I think either method can be used with maximum positive results and minimum negative results if people focus first on clear communication and second on the method they use. I think the posters in this thread fall into the "I want to clearly communicate my expectations" camp and this makes their training effective and their dogs happy and well adjusted.

[Mark Billadeau]

Fact is, bad habits are learned through rewards. If there were no reward for a bad habit; they would not be repeated.

 

 

Your argument is weak in that either training philosophy poorly executed will fail to get the desired results; it does not prove that either method is ineffective.

 

 

I have no doubt positive only training will eventually retrain dogs. I wonder how much faster the desired message could be communicated if reward and correction were both used (both with equally good timing) as opposed to just one or the other. How much less time the dog would need to be managed to prevent it from being tempted. Are we really doing dogs any favor by not clearing and quickly communicating our desires to them? If it takes weeks or months to retrain a dog out of a bad habit are we really effectively communicating with the dog?

[CMP]

But I don't agree; bad timing when trying to communicate is THE issue. What follows is less of an issue. Positive or negative responses to dogs can be just as deadly. Dogs are "loved" to death every day.

We're quibbling on an agreement. Let me rephrase:

 

... uh, no we are not, are we?

 

Method, well applied, is somewhat irrelevent (given two broadly defined and often applied methods) if the timing is off?

 

Yes. I would agree with that.

 

And you are very right. I have seen a few dogs that I consider quite dangerous because no one would "take them in hand", so to speak. That said, I have seen a few dogs that I consider quite dangerous because some idiot trainer thought hitting them with a whip was a good idea.

 

One wonders whether timing plays a huge part in either scenario.

 

So, the "well applied" plays a place in the discussion as well.

 

This is the subject of a doctoral thesis - we can hardly get it all right here, can we? Makes me want to go back to school. Sorta.

[Eileen Stein]

We can go around and around and around on this.

 

Being told, as a +R trainer, that most +R trainers do not consider "purely positive" to be a term of derision just because there are a handful out there who use the term to describe themselves, would be like me telling you that most stockdog trainers don't mind at all if you call Border Collies "borders" because I could find some out there who don't mind it at all. I've been around here long enough to know that most of you take issue with it because of the AKC connotations, even though a lot of people who say "borders" are ignorant of most things AKC and really don't mean anything by it.

 

Regardless of "most", the term is used as a term of derision by a decent population of those who advocate the use of correction in training (whether anybody on this forum uses it in that way or not)

 

It is, at best, outdated and a very poor descriptor of effective +R training.

If you don't like google as a means of determining the frequency of "purely positive" being used in a laudatory (or self-descriptive) rather than a disparaging context, what objective method would you suggest to determine that? If you say "purely positive" is solely (or almost always) used disparagingly and I say it's often used admiringly or self-descriptively, is there any way of determining, even roughly, which one of us is correct? Or are we limited to "Is so!", "Is not!"?

 

I have no idea whether most stockdog trainers mind whether you call border collies "borders." I know that for some it's like fingernails on chalkboard, and they are the ones who are most likely to comment; I feel pretty sure that relatively few would use it themselves; I feel pretty sure that most wouldn't care enough to make an issue of it to someone who did.

 

I wouldn't dispute that "purely positive" is used derisively by many who advocate the use of correction. I feel sure that "+R" would be used by the same people with equal derision if it were a term in common usage.

 

"Purely positive" is not really a descriptor, it is shorthand. You might be able to get "+R trainer" to be recognized as shorthand too, but if so, why would it not be equally likely to be used disparagingly? In the meantime, what good is shorthand that is not understood? "Purely positive" is shorthand that is widely understood, whether used in praise or in derision. It is understood to mean dog training solely (or as solely as humanly possible) by means of positive reinforcement. Isn't that what "+R" means too?

[Eileen Stein]

My point is: you said somewhere up there how it would be less effective (I am paraphrasing) to not use a correction, and in absolute truth I think generally speaking corrections are far more likely to be detrimental for most people in a house training situation, mostly because they are often misused. It sounds like what you use works perfectly well for you.

 

Its not what I recommend for most people (because every week I still here how their puppies are trying to dominate them, or won't pee in front of them, or respond best to a firm whack on the head when the pee inside, or how they are mad because their 11 week old puppy can't hold it all day while they are at work - yes really) because in my experience corrections tend to be less effective.

 

Its not about a dogmatic ideology as I am sometimes accused of by people who feel differently than me, its about what is most effective for most people in my experience.

Okay. I certainly wouldn't advocate correction for the people you are describing here. I would be trying to correct their misapprehensions, because it's a detriment across the board to try to relate to a dog when you are that unable to understand dogs.

 

But suppose you are not dealing with ignorant people? Suppose it's yourself that is doing the training, or someone whose understanding of dogs you respect? Would you then concede that correction broadens the means you have available to train/communicate with your dog, and could enhance the effectiveness of your training? If not, that's where I think dogmatism comes in.

[Root Beer]

If you don't like google as a means of determining the frequency of "purely positive" being used in a laudatory (or self-descriptive) rather than a disparaging context, what objective method would you suggest to determine that? If you say "purely positive" is solely (or almost always) used disparagingly and I say it's often used admiringly or self-descriptively, is there any way of determining, even roughly, which one of us is correct? Or are we limited to "Is so!", "Is not!"?

 

 

I suppose if someone were motivated to do so, a survey could be taken of a large population of +R trainers - those who are well known and those who are not - to get their take on it and get information about their experience with the term.

 

I have no time to conduct such a survey, but if someone wanted to, I'd be happy to contribute questions and to share a link to it on the +R training groups that I am part of.

 

I am confident that the results would show the following:

 

The vast majority would not use the term "purely positive" to describe themselves.

 

The vast majority would say that "purely positive" does not accurately describe the way that they train.

 

The vast majority would have experience with people attempting to debunk their training on the basis of it being "purely positive".

 

The survey would have to be taken to back that up, but based on what I've read and heard said, I would be very surprised if you got any other result.

 

 

I wouldn't dispute that "purely positive" is used derisively by many who advocate the use of correction. I feel sure that "+R" would be used by the same people with equal derision if it were a term in common usage.

 

I disagree. The vast majority of those who advocate the use of correction do employ +R to some extent. Few of them would deride the use of +R in training altogether.

 

The issue isn't with the "positive" part of the term - it is the "purely".

 

The vast majority of +R trainers - and I would go so far as to say almost all - do incorporate some measure of -P into their training. I minimize it, but I use it. And we are open and honest about that.

 

Our training is as close to 100% +R as we can make it, but we aren't "purely" anything.

 

 

 

"Purely positive" is not really a descriptor, it is shorthand. You might be able to get "+R trainer" to be recognized as shorthand too, but if so, why would it not be equally likely to be used disparagingly? In the meantime, what good is shorthand that is not understood? "Purely positive" is shorthand that is widely understood, whether used in praise or in derision. It is understood to mean dog training solely (or as solely as humanly possible) by means of positive reinforcement. Isn't that what "+R" means too?

 

Solely and "as much as possible" are not the same thing.

 

We incorporate -P as much as is necessary and as smartly as possible.

 

Also, there are some aspects of training that are not explained or characterized by quadrants. To say "purely positive" is to deny that we recognize and utilize those aspects, as well. And that is simply not the truth.

 

+R does not equal "purely". "Purely" is the problem.

[Root Beer]

Fact is, bad habits are learned through rewards. If there were no reward for a bad habit; they would not be repeated.

 

 

Your argument is weak in that either training philosophy poorly executed will fail to get the desired results; it does not prove that either method is ineffective.

 

 

I have no doubt positive only training will eventually retrain dogs. I wonder how much faster the desired message could be communicated if reward and correction were both used (both with equally good timing) as opposed to just one or the other. How much less time the dog would need to be managed to prevent it from being tempted. Are we really doing dogs any favor by not clearing and quickly communicating our desires to them? If it takes weeks or months to retrain a dog out of a bad habit are we really effectively communicating with the dog?

 

Plenty of crossover trainers (those who used to incorporate correction into training but now choose not to do so) would maintain that the methods they are using now are faster and more effective than the methods that they have left behind.

 

I am not a crossover trainer myself, but I am acquainted with a good many who hold that point of view having made that switch.

 

So, it really seems to be a matter of perspective based on one's experience.

 

Also, the premise that +R training is slow is incorrect. Some things take time and some are trained very quickly.

 

And if I take weeks or months to train a concept or behavior, but the lesson stays learned for a lifetime and I can take what the dog learned in those weeks or months and build endless other behaviors and concepts out of it quickly (since the basic premise is learned), then yes - I would call that effective communication.

 

I didn't learn to type in one class session - it took weeks and months of practice - but over 20 years later I'm still typing pretty darn fast. That investment of time and practice has paid off.

 

Those behaviors/concepts that take time to train initially through +R have paid off for my dogs a hundred fold. I'd call that effective.

[Mark Billadeau]

Again, it's not that they cannot learn but how long to learn.

 

 

Your typing analogy is okay for learning something new (new manors, new dog tricks, etc). I don't find your typing analogy compelling in regards to correcting a potentially life threatening behavior. You’re not likely to die if you don't learn to type. You're not likely to die if you don't type without errors. You don't increase your odds of death the longer you fail to type, or type correctly.

[CMP]

It's pretty is as pretty does.

 

If you have a well mannered/behaved dog who does what you ask in the way you want it done, then you have used a successful training method for your dog, you and your situation.

 

Mine works for me, Kristine's works for her and so on. She probably wouldn't want me training her dogs but I wouldn't mind her training my dogs as long as I got to yell at them when they got home (that was a joke).

[d112358]

Again, it's not that they cannot learn but how long to learn.

 

 

Your typing analogy is okay for learning something new (new manors, new dog tricks, etc). I don't find your typing analogy compelling in regards to correcting a potentially life threatening behavior. You’re not likely to die if you don't learn to type. You're not likely to die if you don't type without errors. You don't increase your odds of death the longer you fail to type, or type correctly.

 

Management is part and parcel of dog ownership. Supervision and a reliable recall will keep your dog safe in a lot of situations, and it's possible to get a faster happier recall with reward-based methods.

 

I mean, take invisible fences as an example. They issue a perfectly-timed reliable correction to a dog when he crosses the boundary - no human required. And yet I've heard countless stories of people whose dogs would repeatedly take off after a squirrel and leave the yard.

[Eileen Stein]

I suppose if someone were motivated to do so, a survey could be taken of a large population of +R trainers - those who are well known and those who are not - to get their take on it and get information about their experience with the term.

 

I have no time to conduct such a survey, but if someone wanted to, I'd be happy to contribute questions and to share a link to it on the +R training groups that I am part of.

 

I am confident that the results would show the following:

 

The vast majority would not use the term "purely positive" to describe themselves.

 

The vast majority would say that "purely positive" does not accurately describe the way that they train.

 

The vast majority would have experience with people attempting to debunk their training on the basis of it being "purely positive".

 

The survey would have to be taken to back that up, but based on what I've read and heard said, I would be very surprised if you got any other result.

Since such a survey is not practicable, I guess we'll have to rely on google for objective information in the meantime. It gives a pretty good indication of the frequency of the use of "purely positive" as laudatory or self-description vs. the frequency of its use as disparaging, at least on the internet.

 

 

I disagree. The vast majority of those who advocate the use of correction do employ +R to some extent. Few of them would deride the use of +R in training altogether.

 

The issue isn't with the "positive" part of the term - it is the "purely".

 

The vast majority of +R trainers - and I would go so far as to say almost all - do incorporate some measure of -P into their training. I minimize it, but I use it. And we are open and honest about that.

 

Our training is as close to 100% +R as we can make it, but we aren't "purely" anything.

The vast majority of those who advocate the use of correction do indeed employ +R and would never deride its use, but they would never describe themselves as "+R trainers," for the very reason that it is neither their goal nor their practice to use +R exclusively. It's that goal or practice that the term "+R trainer" is intended to signify, and those who disparage "purely positive trainer" would disparage "+R trainer" for the same reason.

Solely and "as much as possible" are not the same thing.

 

We incorporate -P as much as is necessary and as smartly as possible.

Actually, the impossibility of using solely +R for training is one of the few things you and the disparagers agree on, although the disparagers would say (correctly) that many purely positive or +R aspirants deny using anything else and that some actually do not use anything else. And surely the term "+R training" suggests purely positive if it suggests anything at all. The term you chose to use is not "+R and -P trainer," after all.

Also, there are some aspects of training that are not explained or characterized by quadrants. To say "purely positive" is to deny that we recognize and utilize those aspects, as well. And that is simply not the truth.

To say "+R" equally denies that you recognize and utilize those aspects also, doesn't it? "+R" is one of the quadrants. To me, saying "I am a +R trainer" says that you train using positive reinforcement, not that you train using positive reinforcement plus other quadrants plus methods not included in the quadrants. So maybe it's not very good shorthand, even if it were somehow to catch on and displace "purely positive."

[Mark Billadeau]

... and it's possible to get a faster happier recall with reward-based methods.

You're so sure this will work 100% of the time and yet I can give you an example where it is highly unlikely to work (when you're fighting against instinct and you don't want to turn off the instinct).

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

I believe it is simple courtesy to call people by the name they have chosen for themselves. I would not presume to call a woman who has elected to retain her maiden name by her married name and it is better to call African Americans that. Though one senses the marketing wizards behind the curtain I call ecollar trainers "ecollar trainers" and I will, thanks to Kristine, call her training +R training though that may require complicated explanations"behaviorism . . .skinner. . .pryor . . .quadrents blah, blah, blah" to practically anyone who is not, already a +R trainer. If calling +R trainers "Purely Positive" is misleading because they sometimes use corrections, calling them "positive" is misleading because it implies other trainers are negative and I, who train mostly with corrections am the most positive guy you ever want to meet.

 

 

What I know about training methods:

 

Almost all trial retrievers and bird dogs are trained with ecollar as are many (though not all police dogs).

 

Almost all Agility dogs, drug sniffing and bomb dogs are trained by +R methods.

 

Most SAR dogs and top obedience dogs are trained by traditional methods : ie a mix of +R plus corrections.

 

Almost all sheepdogs are trained by corrections.

 

The vast majority of satisfactory pet dogs sort through the confusion to intuit what their owners really want them to do.

 

Most pet owners make so few demands on their pets it doesn't matter which half-assed version of which half-assed training method they chose. It's only when exquisite performance/communication are required methods becomes an issue (and when pet trainers are competing for customers).

 

If we exclude the genetically influenced dogs sports, (retrieving,sheepdogging, protection) it interesting to compare agility (a pure sport) with competitive obedience (which purports to have real world consequences but is, like agility a pure sport.

 

What is it about dogs (or human culture) that makes dogs do so much better with +R in agility than obedience?

 

Donald McCaig

[Root Beer]

Since such a survey is not practicable, I guess we'll have to rely on google for objective information in the meantime. It gives a pretty good indication of the frequency of the use of "purely positive" as laudatory or self-description vs. the frequency of its use as disparaging, at least on the internet.

 

 

 

Personally, I will choose instead to rely on what I hear and learn from the +R trainers that I know and discuss training with.

 

The vast majority of those who advocate the use of correction do indeed employ +R and would never deride its use, but they would never describe themselves as "+R trainers," for the very reason that it is neither their goal nor their practice to use +R exclusively. It's that goal or practice that the term "+R trainer" is intended to signify, and those who disparage "purely positive trainer" would disparage "+R trainer" for the same reason.

 

 

Some would.

 

But at least they would be describing us with an accurate term. "Purely positive" is a misnomer that most of us completely reject. If I am going to be disparaged, I'd rather be disparaged for something that I actually do, not something that I don't.

 

 

Actually, the impossibility of using solely +R for training is one of the few things you and the disparagers agree on, although the disparagers would say (correctly) that many purely positive or +R aspirants deny using anything else and that some actually do not use anything else. And surely the term "+R training" suggests purely positive if it suggests anything at all. The term you chose to use is not "+R and -P trainer," after all.

 

 

Actually, that is not correct. I said that in my post above.

 

We do not deny using -P. Nor do we deny employing approaches that do not fall under the umbrella of quadrant theory.

 

To say "+R" equally denies that you recognize and utilize those aspects also, doesn't it? "+R" is one of the quadrants. To me, saying "I am a +R trainer" says that you train using positive reinforcement, not that you train using positive reinforcement plus other quadrants plus methods not included in the quadrants. So maybe it's not very good shorthand, even if it were somehow to catch on and displace "purely positive."

 

A better term would be "predominantly positive".

 

That's catchy and much more accurate. Maybe we could compromise on that?

[d112358]

What is it about dogs (or human culture) that makes dogs do so much better with +R in agility than obedience?

 

Agility is largely about speed and not overthinking. Rewards in motion encourage a dog to go faster. It's far easier to refine an enthusiastic but slightly incorrect behavior than it is to speed up perfect execution.

[alligande]

 

What is it about dogs (or human culture) that makes dogs do so much better with +R in agility than obedience?

 

Donald McCaig

I will take a stab at this... But with the understanding I am an agility competitor with no knowledge of obedience. The attitude of the dog, I believe is the difference. in agility we require our partners to want to play, they need to be fast, focused and most importantly understand their half of the job. To be competive in agility both parts of the team need to be good at their jobs, my job is to set the path, be clear in my handling, and remember the course. His is to get his timing right so the bars stay up, the turns are tight, make sure he gets a paw in the contact zone. I need my partner to get as much fun out of our run as I do, so he wants to do it again, if a dog thinks agility is a chore, it will never be fast, never get that turn tight, this is a sport based on speed and skill and dog has to see value in giving you that. Obedience is about accuracy, the dog is not making it's own decisions, it's following clearly stated direction. In agility I only use positive methods as I am well aware that most of the mistakes we make are my fault, I have a very vocal dog, he yells at me if I am not clear in my directions, and I do mean yell he gets mad at me, if I handle well he is silent and happy, it's the best reward I can have.

This is all a long winded way of saying compulsion does not work for agility.

[Root Beer]

What is it about dogs (or human culture) that makes dogs do so much better with +R in agility than obedience?

 

There is a growing population of +R Obedience trainers who are working very hard to change this.

[Root Beer]

Your typing analogy is okay for learning something new (new manors, new dog tricks, etc). I don't find your typing analogy compelling in regards to correcting a potentially life threatening behavior. You’re not likely to die if you don't learn to type. You're not likely to die if you don't type without errors. You don't increase your odds of death the longer you fail to type, or type correctly.

 

In my experience, teaching the behaviors that you specified (exercising self control around moving cars, counters, etc.) have not taken a long time to train/change through correct use of +R in training. Certainly not anywhere near long enough for life to be at stake.

 

In some cases I've seen it work almost instantly. In other cases it has taken some time, but the handler was easily capable of using things like leashes and clean counters temporarily to keep the dog safe.

[GentleLake]

"LIMA trainers"

Sorry -- Can't format the quote function. Coming to the discussion late, so apologize if this has been asked and answered already. What is LIMA? Googled but didn't find it. Thanks

[Root Beer]

 

"LIMA trainers"

>Sorry -- Can't format the quote function. Coming to the discussion late, so apologize if this has been asked and answered already. What is LIMA? Googled but didn't find it. Thanks

 

 

Least Invasive Minimally Aversive.

[GentleLake]

In other threads I've read posts which say that a dog cannot really be considered housebroken until it's a year old. This is astonishing to me, and I can't help wondering if that's because a poor, convoluted and obscure means has been used to try to communicate a simple, crucial concept to the dog.

 

When I've said this, I mean not so much the the pup/dog doesn't understand the concept, but that it's still young enough that it may have accidents because of an unexpected lapse of control, brain fart or something similar.

 

But, yes, I agree that house training, for me at least, includes some corrections, generally in the form of an interrupter, unless the dog is old enough to know better when I may use a verbal rebuke.

 

ETA: When I've mentioned this also, I've said that "some people" have claimed this, not necessarily me. And I have done it primarily to help folks understand that either they're expecting too much from a young pup and/or have not been consistent with their methods. IOW, encouraging them to have some patience and reset expectations.

[Eileen Stein]

We do not deny using -P. Nor do we deny employing approaches that do not fall under the umbrella of quadrant theory.

You -- and probably most (but not all) self-professed +R and/or purely positive trainers -- don't deny using -P. You yourself don't deny employing approaches that do not fall under the umbrella of quadrant theory, but I suspect most self-professed +R and/or purely positive trainers deny that there even ARE approaches that do not fall under the umbrella of quadrant theory. However, the term "+R trainer" suggests "+R only," even if that suggestion is incorrect. Everybody uses SOME +R.

 

A better term would be "predominantly positive".

 

That's catchy and much more accurate. Maybe we could compromise on that?

I don't think so, unless you want to sacrifice precision in favor of an awfully big tent. Heck, anyone who observed me training would probably say that *I* am predominantly positive. (That's my guess, anyway; I don't pay attention to that kind of stuff in real life.)

 

But I'll call you personally anything you want, as I did in my first post on this topic, and as Donald advocates. Donald will definitely call anyone he meets on the Boards whatever they want, so long as the first word of what they want to be called is "Mr." or "Ms." Otherwise, tough luck.

[ourwully]

I would like to complement all the contributors to this thread for maintaining such a civilized discussion. I have been on other forums where the issues have become completely obscured by quarelling and insulting. Regarding the continuum of corrections versus no corrections I know that my experience and natural talent with dogs (ability to read a dog) are not sufficient enough for me to embark on a purely positive training program. I truly think that only a very few really talented trainers can pull off the pure positive training. With that in mind I will be trying to be as positive as possible.

 

This whole issue reminds me of discipline in the school system. I worked in a large school system for 10 years going from class to class helping teachers with all sorts of things. What I noticed over time was that some exceptional teachers, even really young ones, needed very little disciplinary action to get things done. They just seemed to know what to do and they always seemed positive. Discipline was not an issue for them. I noticed other teachers that used a little discipline and that was also enough . The teachers I saw who were struggling were usually all positive (trying to be best friends with the students) and letting the students run all over them, or they were so harsh the students hated them and misbehaved just to spite them. These teachers just did not seem to be in sync with the students. I think with dogs it may be the same. If you are a really experienced and talented trainer, you can probably succeed with a purely positive approach or with just a minimum of corrections, but if you are a beginner, possibly short on time or natural talent, it might be a difficult task to keep everything positive.

 

Anyway, it is really informative and enjoyable to read the different points of view.

Bill