What makes YOU a positive trainer?

Chuffy

I don't believe in "being cruel to be kind".  Being cruel is being cruel, however you dress it up in fancy words....  Now if you would just give me a hand down from this soap box....

corvus

Chuffy

I don't believe in "being cruel to be kind".  Being cruel is being cruel, however you dress it up in fancy words....  Now if you would just give me a hand down from this soap box....

I'm cruel to be kind to my dog sometimes. I wouldn't lift a finger to save her from Jill's wrath last weekend when Penny stole food from her bowl! She got a scare and a couple of scratches, which is a much worse punishment than she'd ever get from me. I think Jill's way is more effective in that case. . You can bet she hasn't learnt her lesson all the same, though.

Actually, you were not cruel.  You were simply uninvolved, which is fine as long as you know that the wronged dog won't commit complete mayhem on the pilferer.

Because it works.

I don't need a big, drawn-out explanation, of why I'm a gentle person, or why I don't like to do certain things, or why it is dog-friendly. Those are all very true things, but those three little words explains it all. That's why I use it. What I do works just dandy, so why would I implement things in my dogs' life that's only going to cause them some sort of unhappiness, intimidation, fear, stress, or anxiety, when I don't have to?

It's funny, I've come to the conclusion that the only people who think what some of us do are extremist is because either:
a) they simply don't understand it
b) they are a bit intimidated that there are methods out there that don't involve positive punishments, which causes them a little (even unconscious) discomfort about what they do with their dogs.
c) or a little bit of both.

The only people who would call something extremist, are people who for whatever reason don't grasp what is being told. That's all it is. The only time something becomes extremist to me is when what is spoken about doesn't work, so that personal agenda goes beyond what is actually realistic. But in terms of this, it works just fine, so there is not an ounce of extremism. It's quite the contrary, and quite a "balanced" (quotations intended) way of living if you fully understand it.

Just because you have four quadrants in OC, doesn't mean you have to use them all.

But then again I don't call myself a positive trainer. I dropped those labels long ago. I'm just me. I don't have a mold that I fit anywhere perfectly.

FourIsCompany

And I don't believe ANYONE deals with their dogs in an exclusively positive way.

Kim_MacMillan

Because it works.

Me, too. I am quite capable of giving punishments. Goodness knows I received enough in my lifetime and I think it affected me for a long time.  Violence begets violence and teaches that violence is an acceptable solution. Not that a little collar pop is violence on the same level as some of my corporate punishment. So, when I mention the punishment in my upbringing, it is not as a comparison to what people do here. It is to show, in some ways the ineffectiveness of constant punishment, as well as some of the damage. When I was 7, I was playing in the dirt. And I told the truth. And I got whipped so hard and so long that I was black and blue and blistered and peeling. Now, I get paid to play in the dirt and I still tell the truth, even if it gets me in trouble. I'm not all implying that anyone here beats their dogs, let alone hard enough to rip the hide off of them, as was done to me. What I am saying, is that, from what I have seen, in a predominance of cases, +R works better than other methods. I use it not because it makes me feel good to not have to use punishments but because it works. True, I talk about the clicker and food treats because those exact tools work in our case. But the process as a whole can be applied to many dogs, differing only in the marker and the reward. Punishments can be tricky. You don't always know if they are working or what the long term effect is, not to diminish any actual success with a punishment.

ron2

Kim_MacMillan

Because it works.

  I use it not because it makes me feel good to not have to use punishments but because it works.

I use it because it works, and yes it makes me feel good to not use punishments.

Carla, I think you are correct that positive training and clicker training are not synonymous.  Clicker training is, by definition, positive.  However, simply using a clicker does not mean that you are a "clicker trainer".  There has been much discussion on the clicker boards about why that is so, but I guess that there are still lots of people who disagree with that, and that is your right.  For me, positive training, clicker or not, means that you choose the least invasive and most minimally aversive techniques that you can.  People who are generally regarded as positive trainers usually think of punishment as a last resort, and almost never resort to it, nor do they need to.  If you are clicker training, or lure/reward training, and doing it correctly, using a motivator (not always food) that the dog wants to work for, it's rare to have to resort to punishers, so I am always a bit puzzled as to the tenacity with which some trainers, who consider themselves positive, would be so concerned about hanging on to punishment as such an important option, when it really should be in the very bottom of the toolbox.. 

Interesting to hear that familiar judgemental tone pointing out that all "positive trainers" are not created equal, yet the specific doctrine which defines a truly "dog-friendly" and "positive only" which is accepted by the majority of all canine professionals, has not been posted anywhere in this thread.

It seems many folks are in the dark as to which "positive trainers" are the "most positive", so that we don't get them confused with those who are "not as positive" as the first group, but still better than those who "arent very positive at all."

Hard to separate the actual scientific quadrants from all of the emotional marketing and contradictory statements in some posts, too. Technically, if I only use the "scientific" terms for the two quadrants of operant conditioning which contain the words "positive", I would be using "positive reinforcement (+R)" and "positive punishment (+P)" quadrants, the basic doctrine would be clear, and I could "scientifically" call myself a "positive only trainer".

"Positive" is also word associated with it's opposite "negative". Therefore, if I'm not a "positive trainer", I must be a "negative trainer". Twenty years in retail, I know marketing when I see it, diirect, indirect, or redirect. And, the word "positive" is generally associated with the word "good", whereas "negative" is associated with the word "bad"...unless your waiting for the results of your biopsy...ask any doctor about that one! Yes! One must keep up that (good) positive attitude, so one doesn't spread any (bad) negative energy!...Still more emotional marketing.

So, back to trying to find the doctrine which describes exactly what a "dog-friendly", "positive trainer" actually is. It's good to understand the specific parameters of a box (scientific or otherwise), before judging who fits into it, yes?

Or, should we just put up the dictionary definition of the words "positive" and "trainer"? 

spiritdogs

Carla...  Clicker training is, by definition, positive.

Agreed.

spiritdogs

However, simply using a clicker does not mean that you are a "clicker trainer". 

I can see how using a clicker doesn't necessarily make a person a "clicker trainer", just as using a frying pan doesn't necessarily make a person a chef. If they use the clicker incorrectly, for example, or punish the dog for not doing the behavior, I think we can say they are not a clicker trainer. They don't know how to use it.

But will you explain how, if I use a clicker to train certain behaviors with my dogs and I use it correctly and I'm successful, but I also use corrections in other areas of training, how am I not a "clicker trainer".

In the original post, you said this:

spiritdogs

But, please, leave this thread for people to say why they went with clicker or positive methods.

And it's ambiguous. It could mean that using a clicker means you are automatically a positive trainer and I disagree with that. A person who uses a clicker to train tricks (even if they use it correctly) might also use correction and/or punishment in other areas. YOU may not consider them a "clicker trainer", but if they're using a clicker and using it correctly, then they're a "clicker trainer". They may not be what you call a "positive trainer", but they use a clicker and use it correctly. They're a "clicker trainer", if only in part of their training.

I know what my definition is of Positive reinforcement training is. And I sure don't need the "box" of "operant conditioning" to put up a smoke screen I can fit my nonexistent choke, prong, whatever in. I am positive none of those come close to fitting my definition.

*content removed*

Carla, you make some intelligent points, but the OP asked "what makes YOU a positive trainer", so I assume that it's ok to post MY opinion of what does, just as you are free to post yours.  I think that a trainer that uses punishment extremely judiciously can still be considered positive, and I think that applies to clicker trainers, or people who use clickers, too.  But, I do not agree that the routine use of corrections is associated with anything that I consider positive training.  In fact, I believe that it is pretty antithetical.  The reason is that if you are too often stopping behavior, you inhibit the dog's desire to offer it.  That does not make a good clicker dog, and in fact, is the reason why some people are not successful with clicker training.  The dog just sits there.  You see it with crossover dogs a lot, until they finally get the idea that this new game is one where you offer behavior until you get one right, then you get rewarded.

spiritdogs

Carla, you make some intelligent points, but the OP asked "what makes YOU a positive trainer", so I assume that it's ok to post MY opinion of what does, just as you are free to post yours.  I think that a trainer that uses punishment extremely judiciously can still be considered positive, and I think that applies to clicker trainers, or people who use clickers, too.  But, I do not agree that the routine use of corrections is associated with anything that I consider positive training.  In fact, I believe that it is pretty antithetical.  The reason is that if you are too often stopping behavior, you inhibit the dog's desire to offer it.  That does not make a good clicker dog, and in fact, is the reason why some people are not successful with clicker training.  The dog just sits there.  You see it with crossover dogs a lot, until they finally get the idea that this new game is one where you offer behavior until you get one right, then you get rewarded.

I agree with your post entirely

spiritdogs

The reason is that if you are too often stopping behavior, you inhibit the dog's desire to offer it.

I disagree, for that to happen you would need to stop ANY behavior whatsoever that the dog has to offer and thats not the case, people who stop behaviors only stop the undesired ones but the dog is 100% free to offer a different one instead, in my opinion my dog has way more choices to pick from and offer me 10 different behaviors that i like than just only one (the one that i would teach her to do instead as some people in this forum like to do)

espencer

in my opinion my dog has way more choices to pick from and offer me 10 different behaviors that i like than just only one (the one that i would teach

So, do you do anything to capture and reinforce the behavior you do like when you see it? As you note, you are only stopping the behavior you don't want. And your dog is free to offer others that you may like. Do you reinforce that?

espencer

spiritdogs

The reason is that if you are too often stopping behavior, you inhibit the dog's desire to offer it.

 

I disagree, for that to happen you would need to stop ANY behavior whatsoever that the dog has to offer and thats not the case, people who stop behaviors only stop the undesired ones but the dog is 100% free to offer a different one instead, in my opinion my dog has way more choices to pick from and offer me 10 different behaviors that i like than just only one (the one that i would teach her to do instead as some people in this forum like to do)

Actually, that isn't quite the case.  Dogs do have the ability to offer the behaviors, but often they choose not to.  Many dogs simply wait for the human to instruct them with a command, rather than risk doing anything on their own that could result in a punishment.  You see this sometimes very subtly in dogs that are trained with a minimum of correction, but you see it big time in dogs that get punished a lot during early training.  My advice is to go and observe a few good clicker classes, or go to a clicker seminar yourself, with your own dog, to see what I'm talking about.   With clicker savvy dogs, you see a lot more activity.  Let me ask you this - if you wanted to teach your dog to close a drawer in your bureau, how would you go about it using your methods?

spiritdogs

the OP asked "what makes YOU a positive trainer", so I assume that it's ok to post MY opinion of what does...

Of course it is. I have said nothing to the contrary. I was just asking for an explanation of why you think a person who uses a clicker (correctly and successfully) is NOT a "clicker trainer". I wasn't saying it's not OK for you to post something.

spiritdogs

But, I do not agree that the routine use of corrections is associated with anything that I consider positive training. 

I didn't say that it did. I said a person could use corrections and still be a "clicker trainer". You seem to be using "clicker training" and "positive training" as synonymous again, even though in your last post you said you DON'T think they're synonymous. It's really confusing. Now we have a new term "clicker dog". What is that?

spiritdogs

The reason is that if you are too often stopping behavior, you inhibit the dog's desire to offer it.

I don't find this to be true. I think it's probably because when I do inhibit behavior, it's done without emotion, and there's no fear or weirdness. Of course, maybe I'm not crossing that elusive line of "too often", wherever that is. My dogs are still very willing to offer behaviors at any time, not just when I have a clicker.