What makes YOU a positive trainer?

People can use a clicker and still punish their dogs (it happens all the time) and people can also use reward-based methods and not use a clicker at all. I'm working on being 'ambidextrous'--both a clicker AND a marker word (which I keep changing because it needs to be a word that instinctually just comes out without me having to think about it and I'm still trying to figure out what that word is--it was "good" for a while but then I started attending group classes where everyone says "yes" and I've now heard "yes" so much that that's started to come out instead of "good" and I'm glad I have forgiving dogs!), for different situations. Clickers are hard to handle for me in agility class--there's just too much going on and leashes and treats and toys and moving from place to place. I didn't have that problem in obedience class since we were stationary, so I used a clicker. At home I usually use a clicker but on walks, I use a marker word (Conrad's currently learning "watch me" and to target while on walks).

But one thing that there is in common is a desire to not use aversive stimuli if at all humanly possible when working with our dogs.  

I use mostly positive methods because they work better than other methods. The training goes faster, it produces more reliable results, and a lot more fun for dog and trainer than collar pops.

FourIsCompany

If your dog knows what "no" means, then you're not "positive only"

My dog doesn't know what the word "no" by itself means.  He does understand things like "no bite" "no bark" "no pull" "no jump" and the like.  But in my house "no" is always followed by a modifier.

FourIsCompany

The classic case is calling the dog and he doesn't come, so instead of calling again, I turn around

That's my body language signal for "get back here now!"  It works because Xerxes trusts that whatever I'm doing or whatever I'm looking at has got to be more interesting than what he's doing.  I've made sure that he knows I can see squirrels, deer, foxes, birds and chipmunks long before he can.  So therefore my eyesight, being 3 feet above his, is superior. Again, it's trust. 

It seems the definition of P.R.T. is coming to the forefront here so I will give you mine. Whether you use a clicker or a marker word is irrelevant, the method of training is what counts. Yes my dogs know a firm , eh eh, means they probably shouldn't be considering that dive into the garbage. But that I don't consider negative, I consider it a way for them to know right from wrong. They also know what a short time out in the crate is. But I don't consider that a negative because there timeouts always include something safe to chew on in their crate ans are always only minutes long. The timeout just lets them figure out what not to do.

To me negative is screaming at them, hitting them, the old rolled up newspaper BS, endless hours in a crate for something they don't even remember they did, muzzles for barking, prong collars, the old school "DO IT OR ELSE" training methods, etc. But of course that's just me.

I've posted this a million times before, but the same thing keeps coming up so I'll post it again:

The Myth of "Purely Positive" 

With the "no" thing or some other NRM (no-reward marker) or attention-getting sound, whether or not that is an aversive is defined by the dog, not the the trainer.  

Corvus, it is interesting that you talk about wild animals and their influence on you.  In a universe in which my senior bio course didn't overwhelm and discourage me, I'd be a wildlife biologist or ethologist. 

I don't have much experience with wild animals, but I cut my training teeth on the yard cats we had when I was a kid. Just for fun, I taught them things like shake paw, sit, roll over.  It took patience and positive reinforcement, because cats are cats. I also taught my goldfish to swim to the top and blow bubble kisses on my finger when I tapped the side of his bowl. I think I taught a few things to my hamster, too.  Ok, I was a weird kid!

My current batch of cats (3 brothers) were feral kittens we cat-napped from the mama.  They were truly feral, not stray. Taming them took time, and gentle invitation.  They still aren't as trusting as a regular house cat, and retain many wild traits. They too have been taught to sit up for a treat. Trust is key with them.  They love us, but 2 of them would lose trust very easily if we stopped respecting them.  The third is tamer than the others, and more tractable.

houndlove

The Myth of "Purely Positive" 

You consider positive reinforement training a myth?

With the "no" thing or some other NRM (no-reward marker) or attention-getting sound, whether or not that is an aversive is defined by the dog, not the the trainer.  

You are correct your dog can define aversive which in turn allows us to. If you watch your dog and understand them that is an easy call.

houndlove

I've posted this a million times before, but the same thing keeps coming up so I'll post it again:

The Myth of "Purely Positive" 

Thank you for doing it one more time, because I hadn't seen it before.  

glenmar

I don't think that's at all what is being said, Carla.  Some folks really LOVE using clickers. 

I don't understand what this has to do with what I said. The OP  says something about "clicker or positive trainers". That could mean that she is saying that clicker means positive (as in "dog or canine" where the 2 terms are synonymous) OR it could mean clicker or positive (as in "cat or dog" where the two terms are not synonymous, but inclusive of two concepts).

I'm just saying that if she meant the former, where clicker and positive are synonyms, I disagree. That's all.  

Zart, if you read the article, it is about why PURELY positive training or training using ONLY the +R quadrant of operant conditioning is a myth.  Positive trainers use negative punishment in addition to positive reinforcement, and many use a no-reward marker.  Perpetuating the myth of purely positive plays in to the hands of people who say that all positive training is unworkable and ineffective, because strictly speaking purely positive (+R only, with no -P and no classical conditioning) is just not possible and would be unworkable and ineffective.

Like everyone else (it seems to me) I use the R+ quadrant more than the other quadrants in the OC model.

But to address the more accessible and commonly used meaning of "positive", I have an endlessly optimistic and upbeat attitude with my dog, and do the things that will most/best take us where we want to go. To me, in this context of positive, using a prong can be the most successful and direct way to solve certain leash issues; saying "eh-eh" can be the most efficient response to a bad decision, etc ...

In the everyday usage of the word "positive", whether I am giving treats or corrections, I am focused on the well-being of my dog and myself. I am always conscious of my state of mind when I'm with my dog (I keep an eye on anger, judgment, bitterness .... nasty emotions that do little good for me or her). In this way, being "positive" is also good for me: supports my self awareness and keeps me clean.

That's pretty darned well-rounded and useful conception of positive, for me.

Dog_ma

were feral kittens we cat-napped from the mama.  They were truly feral, not stray.

Been there, done that.  I was adopted by a feral kitten.  He shredded everyone that touched him.  So I slowly built the trust with him and finally took him home.  Silly and smart that cat was.  His nighttime activities included turning the hall light (wall switch) on and off continuously for about 10 minutes, taking his favorite toy (a piece of 440 parachute cord) into the bathroom, dropping it into the toilet and diving in after it, playing in the sink, hiding in the laundry hamper and "attacking" everyone that walked by.  He was fearless of water, and had a vertical jump over 5 feet and he'd steal waffles off your plate and drag them under the couch, where he'd guard them and growl at anyone coming to take them away.   

 houndlove I am not trying to argue with you just stating what I believe to be positive training. To me if the whole training experience stays upbeat and positive that's positive training. If I have to use "no" or "eh eh" as long as I reward the correct result then the experience is a positive one. To say that every action, every word, will always be positive I think is unrealistic.

Being new on this board I have no wish to argue with anyone. So with that I will bow out of this discussion.  

What makes me a positive trainer?  I try to use "positive" methods before anything else, and typically don't have to go beyond that b/c I chose not to work with dogs I'm not confident enough I can control.  I don't think you have to use different methods to be balanced, you just have to have a general knowledge of all possible methods and when to use which.  I have a soft dog that will shut down under physical corrections (she hangs her head, starts glancing back and forth, and runs away) and she also gets very confused and nervous when being physically positioned (ie, she needs to free stack, not be setup; she needs to learn fronts and finishes by being lured with food, not led with a leash).

I am a fairly thick skinned person, I don't take offense easily.  I would never describe myself as soft or emotional.  I am a laid back, live and let live, bombproof kind of person.

I am learning to drive.  I have learned FIRST HAND how corrections hinder learning ability.  Yes, I have learned "that was a mistake, try not to repeat", but nevertheless, further learning after that mistake is severely hampered.

My pursuit of the mythical unicorn of "Positive Only" training has definately "gone up a gear" (ha ha) since I started my driving lessons.