Who is a Positive Trainer?

JackieG

Ron, your post is a perfect example of why I dislike labels. 

Is it the bravado? The tendency of labels and reacting to them to get one's "back up," so to speak? That's just me talking and your mileage may vary. We'll never completely get away from labels because it's how we tell one thing from another. And it may be a male thing, to make labels. I once saw a relationship counselor describe the difference between men and women. Women have this one thread that runs through all of their lives and everything connects to it. Men have boxes or compartments. We have a work box, a play box, a church box, a love box, and a nothing box. The nothing box is where we de-compress. Women ask us what we are doing or thinking and we say "nothing." And we mean it. We are in our nothing box. I'm not sure how accurate that all is but it explains the differences to an extent. And, in that vein, perhaps what you found distasteful or unsettling in my post is a result of my aggressive tendencies as a male. I don't think you are taking offence at me, but at the attitudes that might be generated by what I wrote, or just the whole ill will one feels with the use of labels, even if it is me saying bring on the labels and then let's see what you've got. When, as it should be, we are in this to find the peaceful path, not the confrontation. Then, again, I have felt that perhaps the whole aggression model better fits humans than canids, anyway.

And there is many a time that I don't fit within a particular label. In spite of my bluster, I'm a peace-loving hippie. A peace loving hippie who is a marksman with a pistol and can kill with my hands with a single move. Fit that into a box.

Long and short of it, I agree with you, that labels can do more harm than good. It's just that I cannot suffer a bully and my first instinct is to call the bluff. And labels, as you might point out, can be used to bully someone. It's an ad hominem attack, usually from a position of weakness in the debate.

Kim_MacMillan

I'm afraid I go along the lines of Jackie in this one. I don't call myself an "anything" trainer. I love to discuss the pro's and con's of any method, I love discussing philosophy, and heck knows I love discussing the science of it (!!!), but I don't like classifying people into neat little boxes, because frankly I wouldn't fit into any of them, so I wouldn't normally assume another person would either. It's why I hadn't found a purpose to posting here up until now.

Ditto, not to mention that I might switch tools, markers, and rewards half a dozen times in a single training session based on the behavior.  I can't really give a label for how I train, I can only describe it and if people feel the need to label it they can go ahead and use their labels if it makes them feel better about themselves. *shrug*  I think many people get way over-analytical, probably myself at times.  Really, dog behavior does not have to be that complex.  I really think that at least on this board, regardless of what methods we push, we all know and agree on what a happy, "freed up" dog looks like and what an anxious, stressed dog looks like, what calming signals look like, what a dog showing total avoidance looks like.  What makes your dog really happy might bore my dog to death.  What startles my dog might not even be cause for your dog to blink.  But anyone watching my dog fetch a ball can see he's happy, or anyone watching me give a stern verbal correct to Kenya could see that this type of thing makes her stressed.  I feel like a broken record here but it seems in so many threads we have here recently, in our need to label and define and put everything into neat little boxes we are forgetting that these are DOGS and that, bottom line, they are going to be genetically predisposed to act and react a certain way.  My main issue with all these labels and analysis is not really whether I agree or disagree with any one specifically, but that it seems to assume that if you pick the most right one you can use that theory to get any dog to do or not do anything and that is what I find pointless.

griffinej5

You're not often dealing with just a three term contingency, and these people certainly can make up whatever name they want for things. Of course, if they're not interested in things that are observable and measurable, that can work out just fine. It probably sells better to lay persons as well when fluff words are used as opposed to the terms from behavior analysis.

I really feel that was uncalled for. I know you're studying psychology, but I'm studying affective state in animals. So when you're spitting about fluff words and sneering down your nose at terminology you suppose is designed to appeal to the layperson, you're spitting about stuff I'm doing a PhD on, and concepts that I find difficult, let alone the layperson. Believe it or not, affective state is measurable. It's a growing field with a lot of crossover between ethology, neuroscience, and psychology. Your comments are rude and display not only a gross lack of understanding, but a rather offensive arrogance to boot. I can give you a reading list if you care to educate yourself, but in the meantime this is me politely asking you not to spout aggressive criticism of things you don't know very much about.

Like PO (and I myself) have said, it's not one or the other. Affective state, motivation, sensitivity to rewarding and aversive stimuli, these are all things that just add detail to what Behaviorism has already given us. It's not a case of out with the old and in with the new. It's a case of building on our knowledge.