Alright, Problems With +R

I suppose with +R methods becoming very mainstream and big right now, everyone has gone a little overboard in thinking that anything but +R is evil....!
 
I dont' want to use physical force, but that doesn't mean that a little discipline isn't called for once in a while (loud sharp voice, timeouts, etc).
 
I did a Petsmart puppy class (huge waste of time and money) and the trainers answer to everything was "put a treat in front of her nose".... uh, no.

Timeouts are a classic +R technique, and they are -P.

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought +R rewards for the behavior in which you are trying to instill.  Not treating them for every little thing.  I use +R by rewarding with praise and occasionally treats.  If a wrong behavior is presented I will try again with what I am asking and reward when accomplished.  I reward for commands when followed, like sit, down, off, etc.  If not I try to redirect.

Yes I accept your concerns.  However it is not the technology that is the problem.  It is the people.  The behavioral history of the person attempting to use the methodology is real issue. (on the school issue)  I will state emphatically that the use of aversive methods (punishment) with severely involved (disabled) individuals (or any kid for that matter) is problematic.  The use of positive reenforcement to set the occassion of behaviors that will occur in the future is critical.  Without the behavioral history of compliance for access, options once out of public school become absolutely dismal.  The problem is, you really cant do this well without a team effort, data collection, and getting rid of personal feeling that retribution and reparation is necessary.  That is also true in training.
 
The answer to both situations is a combination of management and reenforcement.  Set up the environment so the right thing can occur.  Reenforce it when it happens.  Work to generalize the behavior across situations.  Once the behavior is established, an occassional correction (in the mildest form possible to impact the behavior) can occur without excessive damage. 
 
Using aversive based approaches before a behavior is possible (*the prerequistites are not in place) is no better than turning reenforcement into bribery.

What really bothers me is the sheer volume of people that muck up any training method available. What also bothers me is people not willing to even consider what people with other training methods have to say. I see this same sort of thing on the nutrition section of the forum. Everyone feeds the right thing to their dog. There are hundreds of things you could feed them, but every person feeds the right thing. The way I see it, everybody comes to a place where they feel a great sense of Zen in what they're doing with their dog. I argue with these people sometimes, and it never gets me anywhere. I've got my own Zen moment happening and everything else seems baffling at the best and criminal at the worst. The best I can really do about it is have my say and try not to get people's hackles up.

So my question is, what is one to do? The only course that seems open is to acknowledge the good and bad in everything we do and find what works best for us and our dogs as individuals and a team. But trying to encourage tolerance on these topics is like peeing into the wind. There's too much passion and people don't want to think that their way could be compromised by other things working as well.

I'm the kind of person that questions everything. Partially because I was trained that way and partially because I'm opinionated and demand credible, logical answers to everything. I settle on something because it makes sense and the reviews are good. Other people find their Zen place through their personal explorations and experiences. How can you blame someone for clinging to what they believe in?

I agree with you, but what can you do?

While I would have to go back and read all the threads to be absolutely positive, I don't believe that I attacked anyone on a personal level for the training methods that they use.  I've got six big dogs and only with one went to anything as aversive as a prong, which, used properly is pretty benign.  BUT, I got called a treat dispensing butler/roommate because I don't believe in STARTING with the harsher methods.  And, I do allow that sometimes there is a place for some of those methods, but for me, doing it right from the get go...and by right I mean right for me which is the kinder/gentler methods, is a heck of a lot easier than the other way, and much more pleasant.
 
But, in addition to being a treat dispensing butler/roommate, my dogs have no respect for me, I'm not a leader in any way shape or form........I have to say it's the CM followers and the folks who are more into the older methods who SEEM to be the ones unwilling to listen...and more likely to attack on a personal level.

Positive reinforcement is an excellent tool of learning when teaching a skill, task, trick, or specific behavior. It is a proven method when timed and used correctly and excells within a controlled environment. But it is only one of the four quadrants by which all animals learn. 

"Positive (reinforcement) Only" does not exist anywhere in the natural world, and is thus a "man-made" concept. By limiting yourself to this belief system, a person ends up with a pretty small toolbox.

The problems arise when people use it to define themselves as "good" because it is the only method they claim to use, (although most trainers claiming this eventually admit it is not all that they use and then start splitting hairs on where to draw the line), and everyone else is portrayed as "bad" because they are not part of the "Positive Only" group. IMO, this has a lot more to do with human motives, agendas, and the need to control what other humans think and do, rather than what is in the best interest of the dog.

I guess I've just stopped breaking everything down into "Positive" and "Negative", in favor of interacting with the dog by directly communicating what I want and don't want on a social level because the dog is perfectly capable of understanding direction and instruction, rather than simply cause and effect.

the sad thing is, is the people who mess up clickntreat would probably also mess up any training method.  The principles of behavioral modification are the same whether you modify behavior by collar pops or by treats. Clearly these people just don't grasp the underlying concepts. There is also the very real problem that TIMING of applying reinforcements is of more importance than what you using to reinforce, and getting your timing right takes a lot of practice.

What really bothers me is the sheer volume of people that muck up any training method available.

This is exactly it, Corvus. This is why I started the thread. Just to clarify, I use +R techniques and do not set myself up to use aversives in training my dog.

I started the thread because people were hurling names and ideas around (like treatdispensingbutlerroommate) that to me sounded like pretty accurate representations of someone using +R badly.

Angelique, you are also hitting the nail on the head--using +R only does leave you with a really tiny toolbox. I would say that, as a +R trainer, I happen to use a lot more -P (withholding the desired thing) and environmental management (which is like -P lite), than +R (or actively dispensing treats or whatnot).

I do avoid +P, but frankly if I am in the shower and forgot to put the toilet paper roll up on the high shelf and the puppy goes to grab the toilet paper roll and my mouth is full of water, I am going to do what I can in the moment--I am going to shoot the water out of my mouth onto the puppy so that he does not get to discover the joys of toilet paper! That is +P, and it is the easiest solution in that particular moment, and usually that is not true but when it is and the dog is not harmed by it, I am going to use it.

(and then next time I will remember to put the toilet paper away)

Thanks for the responses, folks.

Great post Fisher6000 and you are so on the money. 

I think that on this board we all try and do the right thing and use the methods "we find suitable” for our dogs and situation properly.  But that is usally not asked first before the accusations start flying.  If we like it of not, CM has brought the world of training to the forefront and EVERYONE wants to train there dogs now, hench the methods being used incorrectly both positive and negative.
 
I think that the "personal” responses ont his board come in to play (for me anyway) when a "generalization” is made about the methods I use.  Or visa/versa when a generalization is made on the methods others use.  For example:  If you use leash pops, you're cruel and it's not necessary to abuse you dog, shut your dog down and make him unwilling to learn.  On the other hand, if you're using treats or a clicker for training, you're a mindless treat dispenser, butler etc.  So the leash poppers get upset and the Clicker people get up set and try to defend their decisions on the methods they find appropriate.

In general on this board I think everyone is open to everyone views, if only each "side” would be less willing to point out the how the others methods are so "bad” per say.  I use positive and negative reinforcement, or should I say, I have used both.  My dog is really past the discipline training stage and age so I don't have the need for leash pops any more and haven't use them for a long time.  They worked to help me with my issues with my dog and I do support aversion methods, I don't support abuse.  I do use treats, praise and happiness and always have to solidify my relationship and get new behaviors, tricks and compliance from my dog and they too have worked and I do support the methods. 

I would love to understand more about "Positive” training and things I can do with my dog like, the 101 things to do with a box – I think it would be fun.  I read many books so I have a good background on all the methods. 

If only we could start a thread for instance on positive reinforcement, where people like Anne and Mudpuppy, etc could answer questions we have without the naysayer's taking it off track with attacks on treat dispensers. 

Or a thread for those who need to use aversion methods (prongs, ecollars, leash correction), where people can ask questions to help them use the tools properly to not harm their dogs without the positive naysayer's taking it off track and with accusations of being a dog abuser.

I honestly believe that with the exception of a few, we could on this forum be non judgmental.  There are so many good people with insight for all methods and a wealth of really good information on here. 

Wonderfully put, Swissy [sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif] 
 
 
 
 

I personally like the Premack method (also known as "Nothing In Life is Free") best of all.   Hey!  It works for me!  I'm not always thrilled about doing my work, but I like getting paid  after I do a good job!  It seems to work for my girls, too.  I have two very prey oriented, extremely energetic bird dogs.  They are doing great because they know that they get a paycheck when they complete a task. The harder the task, the bigger the paycheck.  It can be a good rub down, a game of tug-o-war, a delicious treat.

I get a little put off, too, at the sniping.  I physically flinch whenever I submit a reply that might not completely agree with the absolute +R philosophy.  I have an invisible fence (not +R) and that alone catagorizes me as an abuser in some eyes.    When I read someone's post who comes in with a different perspective that doesn't quite meet with certain approval.  I get this mental picture of a bunch of people trampling and beating  the poor poster to a pulp and screaming at the bloody remains, "YOU STUPID DUMBY!  YOU ARE ABUSING YOUR DOG!  YOU'RE STRANGLING YOUR DOG!  YOU'RE DAMAGING YOUR DOG'S PSYCHE!" [] 

Lately, we are reinforcing Trudy's teeter skills.  She's not wild about the teeter, but knows that when she completes it, Mom will jump up and down like a crazy person and dispense pieces of chicken, or bacon or whatever is wonderful at the time.  My husband and neighbors even laugh that that sight!

Personally I don't care much for all the emphasis that is put on categorizing training techniques. Sure, if you are a pro trainer or doing seminars on behaviour, you want to get your lingo right. But for people like me who just want to train my own dog, there is a multitude of training resources, aids, and techniques I can consider using. I can spend an hour trying to figure out R+, R-, P+, P-, [:'(], but in the end I'll employ the techniques I feel are effective and fair no matter what letter they start with. I use positive techniques primarily and as the basis of how I handle my dog... but I don't think my training would be complete or effective if I didn't use a little P (timeouts, sharp voice/noise) sometimes.
 
On another topic, I love the simplicity of using NILF to build your relationship with your dog.
 

I have often told people that after all the "months" training and trying to inprove behaviors it was NILIF that I think made the biggest impact.    It is simplistic with BIG benefits!!  Even my husband and 5 year old use NILIF easily without much thought.