Don't Fix It if It Ain't Broke

ron2

snownose

......none of us use that method.....verstehen

 

Ich verstehe. Your methods are actually more of a positive bent than you let on.

I would argue that her methods are less harsh than other people consistently imply. I have never seen snownose claim anything but what she did in this thread, in terms of how she handles her dogs.

And respectfully, mudpuppy, 30 years ago harsh training was not all that existed. Maybe all that existed in the "professional" world, but gentler methods existed then just as they do now. I don't know how to say this without sounding obnoxious, but I could never train dogs harshly just because an authority figure told me to. I had to force myself to be relatively harsh with Ivan, after logic convinced me it was the correct thing. It was, but frankly it was torture for me.

I got my first training experience with no input from the world of professionals and outside advice. As a child, I trained my filthy yard cats to do fun tricks, and as I've said before I even trained a goldfish to do one trick. One was enough, because it is rather boring to train goldfish. It is only through experience with dogs, and now my child, that I have come to appreciate the ways in which punishment is a part of social animals' co-existence.

Ron, you say mudpuppy has stayed the same in all her time here. Yet she is challenging *us* to change. Funny that. Perhaps people don't always learn best through blunt P+. 

The great divide here is so artificial. Yes, there are philosophical disagreements but most of us here are in the same neighborhood of the training spectrum. We get caught up in who is a little to the left, or the right, and forget that we're all on similar journeys despite vocab differences, and we all have much to learn from each other.

For example, Spiritdogs, I don't always agree with you, but I respect your experience and believe it or not I consider what you say. I value corvus, dgriego, four, etc. etc. If I've left you out, it doesn't mean I don't value you. I try not to over do the "Hey, that really helped me!" because reading these forums stimulates my thoughts on a daily basis. I will say that there are a few posters, who do not even agree with each other, that I tune out and disregard because of presentation. Could be my loss, but I think if you can't figure out how to talk to humans, why should I trust your approach to dogs?   

PS:  All those word came from only two threads that were recently very active. 

ETA:

Ron, you say mudpuppy has stayed the same in all her time here. Yet she is challenging *us* to change. Funny that. Perhaps people don't always learn best through blunt P+. 

luvmyswissy

The problem is “some”  of the positive only community continually uses words like;  Abusive,  Bad relationship, Cruel, Harmful, Shutdown, Harsh, Unfulfilled life, Roughly man-handled, Inhumane, Dogs suffering, Intimidate.  To make other’s feel like failures. 

You forgot, "yank and crank", "yank and spank", "hang", "beat", "pain based training","zapping", "jolting", comparisons to parents beating children to make them say they love the parent, parents promising rewards and then not delivering and other comparisons to NEVER rewarding, and when all else fails, insistence that anyone who uses the +P quadrant at all is a devotee of he who shall not be named.....

The very first time I posted in a thread that started by asking the question of why one might use +P, within a page of subsequent posts I was described as "yank and spank", accused of making the board "unsafe" (!) for those who preferred not to use +P, compared to an abusive parent, told that I had no experience with clicker training, and those were just the polite responses. So, I stopped participating in these discussions, although I do check in on them occasionally, in the hopes that maybe somewhere somehow someone manages to convince a few people that there is a spectrum of training methods, instead of their method or abysmal cruelty as the only alternative. I don't care at all if people agree with how I train my dogs, or if they think they have a better method. I might actually enjoy discussing other methods and I might even be inclined to try other methods. But if the only way that people think they can demonstrate the superiority of their methods is to blatantly lie about what I do in order to demonize what I do, then I don't have any reason to think that their approach is really any better.

FourIsCompany

spiritdogs

Also, we need to draw a distinction between behavior modification and training.  Behavior modification, classical or operant conditioning, is often harder for newbies to grasp and accomplish. 

 

In my opinion, we need to do no such thing. I raised 2 wonderfully brilliant and stable dogs without ever drawing such a distinction and without ever knowing the terms operant and classical conditioning. "Newbies" (an extremely disrespectful word, in my opinion) don't NEED this information. This is exactly what this thread is about. This attitude that some of us know better and others are just "newbies". Yuck!

There's nothing wrong with learning about learning theory. I am enjoying it. But to assume that people need this to raise wonderfully healthy, happy dogs is just not in the slightest true.

Actually, I think that anyone working with their dogs does need all the info they can get.  If not, how can you make an informed decision?  That's one of the more redeeming qualities of this board--you DO get all perspectives and lots of information. 

and you also forget that we do these horrible things because we are deficient in our training, backward perhpas ignorant etc

great post luvmyswissy

sillysally

Actually, I think that anyone working with their dogs does need all the info they can get.

Can I get an amen? 

buster the show dog

luvmyswissy

The problem is “some”  of the positive only community continually uses words like;  Abusive,  Bad relationship, Cruel, Harmful, Shutdown, Harsh, Unfulfilled life, Roughly man-handled, Inhumane, Dogs suffering, Intimidate.  To make other’s feel like failures. 

You forgot, "yank and crank", "yank and spank", "hang", "beat", "pain based training","zapping", "jolting", comparisons to parents beating children to make them say they love the parent, parents promising rewards and then not delivering and other comparisons to NEVER rewarding, and when all else fails, insistence that anyone who uses the +P quadrant at all is a devotee of he who shall not be named.....

The very first time I posted in a thread that started by asking the question of why one might use +P, within a page of subsequent posts I was described as "yank and spank", accused of making the board "unsafe" (!) for those who preferred not to use +P, compared to an abusive parent, told that I had no experience with clicker training, and those were just the polite responses. So, I stopped participating in these discussions, although I do check in on them occasionally, in the hopes that maybe somewhere somehow someone manages to convince a few people that there is a spectrum of training methods, instead of their method or abysmal cruelty as the only alternative. I don't care at all if people agree with how I train my dogs, or if they think they have a better method. I might actually enjoy discussing other methods and I might even be inclined to try other methods. But if the only way that people think they can demonstrate the superiority of their methods is to blatantly lie about what I do in order to demonize what I do, then I don't have any reason to think that their approach is really any better.

But at the same time, I have seen some behavior from some individuals who are not into all positive that is equally bad.  Implying that people who are all positive let their dogs run the house, doing the ever memorable "do you even HAVE dogs" thing, telling others that if they just used "their method" they could have done it better/faster/etc, repeatedly targeting and picking at certain members training methods, etc.  We have even had members that were not into the all positive thing kicked off for their repeated bad behavior. 

The door most definitely swings in both directions on this board, a number of people (myself included) regardless of their preferred training method, have behaved badly at some point, so I'm not sure what good jumping on any "group" does.  I think that EVERYONE would benefit from thinking about what they are posting and if it will actually have the effect they intended. 

I don't know why threads like this have to turn into training method pissing contests when it is totally obvious to me, at least, that this is *not* what the OP intended.

And, just in the interest of full disclosure, I am one of those "in between" training method people who really enjoys the variety of perspectives offered here--I just eat the meat and spit out the bones.....   

sillysally

The door most definitely swings in both directions on this board, a number of people (myself included) regardless of their preferred training method, have behaved badly at some point, so I'm not sure what good jumping on any "group" does.  I think that EVERYONE would benefit from thinking about what they are posting and if it will actually have the effect they intended. 

Word. This is not a one-sided issue, nor am I always saintly. (Don't tell my husband that. My position on the matter at home is that I always right!) 

sillysally

Actually, I think that anyone working with their dogs does need all the info they can get.  If not, how can you make an informed decision?  That's one of the more redeeming qualities of this board--you DO get all perspectives and lots of information. 

Information is great. I think we should search it out and inform ourselves. But what I'm saying is that people can raise perfectly wonderful dogs even if they don't know all the scientific terms and reasons for everything. I'm all for education, but I don't think anyone NEEDS to be able to past a test on operant conditioning and learning theory to raise a perfectly wonderful, happy dog.

Look at my statement in context. Look at the post I was responding to, which said that we need to draw a distinction between behavior modification and training. Behavior modification, classical or operant conditioning, etc.... I have nothing against information, but you don't need to know how to build a car to drive to the store. That's all I'm saying.

sillysally

The door most definitely swings in both directions on this board

I totally agree!

sillysally

I don't know why threads like this have to turn into training method pissing contests when it is totally obvious to me, at least, that this is *not* what the OP intended.

Can I get an Amen?!  

Dog_ma

Ron, you say mudpuppy has stayed the same in all her time here. Yet she is challenging *us* to change. Funny that. Perhaps people don't always learn best through blunt P+. 

I'm not debating your statement that I just quoted. But I also happen to notice that you didn't quote the statement I made that I don't always agree with MP, either. And your not the only one to side-step a statement we could agree on. Sometimes, I think we post in cycles. Possibly, everything everyone is saying is just rubbing us the wrong way. Would you also care to note Glenda and I have disagreed on dog food but agree on other things? That I didn't always agree with Spiritdogs? I don't guess we'll all agree all of the time and that's okay, too. And sometimes, a disagreement can be cleared up by a few pms or even just changing track and finding something to agree on. I'm still high off the "Save Sheba" endeavor where many people, regardless of differences, moved heaven and earth to save one dog.

Dog_ma

Could be my loss, but I think if you can't figure out how to talk to humans, why should I trust your approach to dogs?   

I could be one of those people.

I have found my dog to be better company than some people.

sillysally

I don't know why threads like this have to turn into training method pissing contests when it is totally obvious to me, at least, that this is *not* what the OP intended.

Because there are people out there who think this is about them and their views and that is all that matters to them. Not one person said they were going to try and stop learning, not one person (until later) brought any view of which type of training method was better or worse. But once again they only read what they wanted to read, interpret it all wrong and go on and turn into something it never was. You could liken it to hounding and one up-manship or paranoia.

I can almost take bet's that if I see a post by A, B is going to post and the digs will start. If I see it, I am sure other's do too.

Great topic!

Wow, I've really been around the block and back as far as being exposed to a lot of different belief systems. I'd have to say it's deffinately been the dogs themselves which have had the greatest influence and have been the best of teachers.

At age nine I used social learning, classical conditioning, and operant conditioning with the family dog (lots of treats and tricks). Although, I didn't know how to break it all down until years later. My neighbor introduced me to traditional praise/correction training with his lab pup, who became my best dog-friend.

I studied Koehler with a former canine officer (30 years ago) who was a very by-the-book and inflexible thinker. I was far too much of a free-thinker to buy into a lot of what he was preaching. So, I picked through the stuff which made sense - the use of the word "out", a "Koehler" form of NILIF, and some of the leash work...and left the rest of the Koehler stuff and my instuctor behind. I didn't have to hang a dog or use harsh corrections simply because someone told me to. I guess I don't have any bad memories and "guilt" to overcome by swinging to the other extreme either.

After seeing some demonstrations of treat training and studying the basics of OC about 15 years ago, I noticed there was something kind of creepy, evangelical, and cultish about many of the "positive only" proponents of this particular form of OC. So many of them preached so "positive" and "scientific", yet used such emotionally manipulative tactics in their debates and "sales pitches", that it was very hard to glean any useful information. Another turn-off was how much time and effort the leaders and trainers within this group spent smearing other philosophies and trainers rather than educating or showing concrete results proving the benefits of their chosen beliefs in the "real" world. I do however, see value in operant conditioning in spite of this group.

I have to say that there was a time when I too felt doubt due to the pressure of this group. But then, just as I did with my Koehler instructor, I trusted my "gut", left them behind, and started listening to the dogs. I've never looked back or doubted again.

In the end, the dogs will always be the proof for me. That proof being a stable, happy, safe, balanced, socially well adjusted dog who is welcome anywhere.

But at the same time, I have seen some behavior from some individuals who are not into all positive that is equally bad.  Implying that people who are all positive let their dogs run the house, doing the ever memorable "do you even HAVE dogs" thing, telling others that if they just used "their method" they could have done it better/faster/etc, repeatedly targeting and picking at certain members training methods, etc.  We have even had members that were not into the all positive thing kicked off for their repeated bad behavior. 

Absolutely!!  But from my experience that happens when people are in defense mode.  Don't get me wrong, there are many positive minded here that don't do that and that I hold in high regard.  But there are others that I think ruin it for the good of the movement "so to speak"!  IMO have no creditability what so ever.