"all possitive" question

I personally do not believe in the "all positive", "positive only", or "purely positive" approach when we live with dogs as family members.
 
I'm finding more and more articles on this extremist and very unrealistic view point.
 
This guy has some interesting comments:
 
www.tsurodogtraining.com/plan_b.htm>http://www.tsurodogtraining.com/plan_b.htm
 
I agree with most of what he has to say in this article.
 
 

Frankly, I think the term "all positive" is a straw man, a rhetorical trick. It's somewhat like the phrase "politically correct" - originally a pejorative term used only by opponents, which the targets of the perjorative get suckered into adopting, to their own disadvantage. It tricks PR trainers having to either make the impossible argument that they use "all positive" methods (which, again, is a nonsensical phrase anyway - does that mean you use positive punishers too? or that you're just really cheerful?) or else admitting that they are not "all positive," which allows the opponent to jump in with a big fat "HA! Told you so!"

Yeah, I've run up agains terminology issues like this before and I still haven't come up with a good term that is understandable to everyone and actually accurately described what is colloqually known as "positive training". Like many things in life worth learning about, it is too complex to reduce down to a few words that everyone can understand that is also not totally polarizing and makes under-the-breath accusations about "the other side".

Basically for me what I refer to as "positive training" in shorthand is a combination of positive reinforcement, negative punishment, NILIF, hands-off training, and management strategies. I sort of like to think about it as "scaffolded learning" for my dogs. And I tend to focus more on "teaching" my dogs than "correcting" them.

There's also something out there in the education and parenting world known as "Positive Discipline" which is basically "catching kids doing something right" and placing more emphasis in the school discipline plan on reinforcing good behaviors than punishing bad behaviors. So again, it's sort of a misnomer if we're going to get precise about it because it's not like a PD school throws its entire discipline plan out the window. It's a matter of emphasis and what you turn to first when there's a problem.

I personally do not believe in the "all positive", "positive only", or "purely positive" approach when we live with dogs as family members.

I'm finding more and more articles on this extremist and very unrealistic view point.

This guy has some interesting comments:

www.tsurodogtraining.com/plan_b.htm>http://www.tsurodogtraining.com/plan_b.htm

I agree with most of what he has to say in this article.

We shall agree to disagree about this person's viewpoints then. [] Because I do indeed disagree with most of what he has to say (but hey, I read it anyway!). The article is actually quite biased, if you ask me, and presents only personal opinion. It has nothing do with with empirical data on punishment and reinforcement. I had a look at the training site and it describes nothing of the education behind anything they say or write. So I hesitate to put any mind at all into whether or not they have a place to be saying anything. However, it was an interesting read, and it gave me some good laughs. I could go out and find an equal number of articles that dispel the use of punishments in training as I can about the "PP" (a name made up, mind you, by the traditional trainers, NOT the ones who use dog-friendly training techniques!) camp as well. [] It's all in where you put your priorities in what you believe, because a lot of what he says can, and has, been proven false, even if it is just his opinion. But I can tell you it's not somebody I would recommend any of my puppy buyers or friends to go to.

And I wholeheartedly agree Houndlove, it is very hard to put a name to what those of us who do what we do, do. I am the first person to say that I don't like the terms "PP", "positive trainer", as it denotes no punishment at all, which, as I've discussed already, is false! However I also do NOT use, nor will ever use, positive punishments, or any method that involves rough with my dogs. I will NOT use fear, or intimidation, or force, to get my dogs to do what I want them to do. And of course, like I mentioned, it works so well.

I have to wonder at the "camp" who says that clicker training is not reliable, or that it takes forever to train something. I wonder why it is they think this way? Surely it's not because they've actually tried it, so I have to wonder where this mentality comes from? Because it's very obvious from decades of research that it is a) reliable, if taught to be reliable, and b) can be extremely quick (although, in my mind this world is too wrapped up in quick fixes as it is...I don't care if it takes two days or two weeks or two months to teach my dog to recall off-leash, as long as I'm not using fear or intimidation or pain to do it, time is irrelevant for my uses).

Kim MacMillan

Angelique... honestly, I fail to see the relevance in introducing canine euthanasia to every discussion about PR training... is this the dog training equivalent to Godwin's Law or something?

The article is actually quite biased, if you ask me, and presents only personal opinion. It has nothing do with with empirical data on punishment and reinforcement.

Actually, I found this information from that article quite interesting:

The statistics I cited above are from a lecture given to a Toronto audience in the early 1990's by Dr. Ian Dunbar. (I refer to Dr. Dunbar because these days he is so highly regarded by many in the PP movement who view him as the vanguard of the "dog-friendly" training concept.) He stated that the most effective training occurs when positive rewards are combined with positive punishment (i.e., praise/reward combined with correction/punishment). He said that under controlled testing for reliability, when positive only methods were used the reliability factor could be brought no higher than the low to mid 80% range (ranged between 83 – 85%). He went on to say when appropriately timed punishments were added, the reliability increased by 12-14% to a maximum of 97%. He said that no one was able to observe a 100% reliable response, i.e., perfect on all aspects of the tests under a wide range of varying circumstances.

eley,
 
This is in reponse to the orginal post. OP conditioning can include physical reprimands.
 
If you jerk a leash when a dog barks, thats operant conditioning. the dog is not barking to avoid correction.
 
here is a good chart to explain, I am sorry if you no this stuff already
 
[linkhttp://www.finographics.com/schutzhund/concepts/chart.html]http://www.finographics.com/schutzhund/concepts/chart.html[/link]
 
When I use correction, like a pinch collar. the first thing I need to understnd is the dog being disobedient.
 
if I ask for sit, and the dog stares at me like I am speaking greek, but they are staring intently. They in my eyes are obedient. They are trying, they may have forgotten, or I might have to proof the behavior more. sometimes sit in the living room is not the same to the dog as sit in the dog park.
 
but If I ask for sit, and the dog gets ups and sniff the grass, this is avoidance. this may or may not warrant a correction. I have to figure some things. IS my motivatior strong enough, is there competeing motivation. if this is the case i need to stop, and do it somewhere wher the distractions are less. But if my dog is ignoring me for the sake of ignoring, that's disobedience. correction used at the wrong time, under the wrong circumstances can cause more problems than it solves. this is the art of dog training. first having the science of it in your head, then having the ability to read the dog and take into account the dogs past training and current talent level and having compassion. and having a clear cut communication system in place.
 
the one thingI see being deteramental to the dog, is the correction is dished out, when the dog has no idea what the communication means.           
 

I have to say this has been a thread with some real laugh out loud moments: "kerfluffle" - such an apt term for a parrot and several terriers and the humans trying desperately to save the feathers of said parrot - and the Godwin's Law reference. You may be on to something there, Jones. []

There really are some people who try to be "all positive" apparently, but I don't think they really, truly do if they are honest with themselves. If they did I submit that their dogs would be like the kids on "SuperNanny". [8D]

I'm a combo trainer. You really cannot go without corrections - P+ - on stock. If I don't use aversives, let's just say the stock will - especially cattle. [] Incorporating a few mild aversives when training easy things means they don't fall to pieces the first time they meet that pressure on stock the first time.

My trainer and I had a couple long arguments about it this weekend. For one thing, he doesn't want to admit he's a closet user of operant conditioning techniques. I just left that, lol. But I feel that there is a strong need for clicker training outside the working world - mostly because it's difficult to abuse a dog going into it with that philosophy. He conceded that point. []

ORIGINAL: fisher6000

Nobody here uses time outs?

If you consider "puppy push-ups" as a time out, I certainly use those.  They also fall under the category, sometimes, of an "incompatible behavior".  I have, on occasion, simply led a dog to its crate and just quietly closed the door, so yes, I do use time outs occasionally.

Rebecca, I don't have "supernanny" dogs and I am probably as close to all positive as anyone on the board.  However, were I to use my dog in her working capacity, and feel that she needed an aversive applied, I would do it under certain circumstances for the reason you mention.  But, in the context of pets, I really think that if you apply positive methods correctly, you greatly reduce the possibility that you ever need to use the aversives.