Positive Training Overload?!

"too positive" no, but some newbies to the idea think it means no boundaries, no rules, total permissiveness. Which is simply a mis-interpretation of purely positive training.

JD_Shelties

but gosh is there such a thing as too positive

No.

That's not to say punishment should never be used, but it should be relatively rare, careful and considered use. 

Dominance is iver used, misunderstood and a loaded term besides.

All that said, there is DEFINITELY such a thing as "too many corrections" or "too much dominance".  

So, sounds like she is erring on the side of caution and going by "least invasive, minimally aversive".  Nothing wrong with that at all.

mudpuppy

"too positive" no, but some newbies to the idea think it means no boundaries, no rules, total permissiveness. Which is simply a mis-interpretation of purely positive training.

Right so what would you call someone like that? How do you approach them about the subject?

Okay so I gave you the example how she refuses to demonstrate craddle & massage because she says it's mild animal torture... .... ?!

She refuses to do demonstrations that have to do with using a correction "tone" such as "ah-ah!" etc etc... ?!

She does not believe in any correction. Ignoring is the only way. Ignore ignore ignore. Don't speak, don't move, ignore... ...

Okay so let's think about that then... I understand many different ways to use ignoring verses correction. EXAMPLE... for "Leave-It" we could just show the dog the forbidden treat, cover our hand on top of it, wait for the dog to stop biting and scratching at our hand, mark/reward.

What about when ignoring doesn't work?? What happens when just ignoring a lab puppy who constantly bites his owners isn't enough? The problem I now have is she can't provide the students with any other method, any other answer...

I guess I just believe that there is no such thing as ONE way to train... every dog is different, every dog may need a different method... I'm just not used to someone who doesn't believe in correcting their dog?! Well for one... she's never owned a dog and I live with 6 right now... so we both are living different lives right now.

And myself only been training for... oh almost 3 years now "professional"?? I have a hard time talking to her about this... because like I said, I'm open to all theories! I just can't have someone helping me run a class if we're not on the same page it's frustraiting...

I do know what you are talking about.All these terms like dominance, correction, leadership, etc. mean different things to different people.I try not to talk philosophy with a trainer but focus on exactly what they want me to do and what they hope the result will be.As long as my dog seems to be understanding and is not confused or scared I am willing to try things their way. How are the manners on her own dog?provided she's had him awhile this is a good litmus test as to if her methods are too permissive.

Tena

JD_Shelties

.....I now have a training assistant who is still in college studying animal behavior and pre-vet. I have no idea how else to explain her other than a "positive training overload." If she is around she's constantly correcting/questioning me ....

Perhaps you could point out the irony here....

buster the show dog

JD_Shelties

.....I now have a training assistant who is still in college studying animal behavior and pre-vet. I have no idea how else to explain her other than a "positive training overload." If she is around she's constantly correcting/questioning me ....

Perhaps you could point out the irony here....

LOL Yes!!! I really could, couldn't I...

She's that type of person who doesn't have a "filter" when they speak (if you know what I mean) but yet with dogs all this patience and no questioning their actions....

I don't want to tell her she's WRONG... I just want to tell her "look be a little bit more open minded"

No, I don't think there's such a thing as TOO positive.  Maybe she's just an annoying person and is too hung up on semantics?   But that is an issue between you and her, not the training method itself.

I was beginning to think so much positive training, sounding like cupcakes and ponies and rainbows...but now that I am getting into sports that involve harder dogs with a lot more drive (Schutzhund, PSA, Dog Sport, police K9), I'm just finding MORE trainers using positive techniques.  Even in these venues, new behaviors are initially trained using positive techniques with high value rewards that build drive.  Corrections are introduced when the behaviors are proofed, after the dog understands the behavior and can be expected to do it.  Some trainers will train certain behaviors using aversives or compulsion but most of the best do not.  Sure it works, but why would you do it?

JD_Shelties

buster the show dog

JD_Shelties

.....I now have a training assistant who is still in college studying animal behavior and pre-vet. I have no idea how else to explain her other than a "positive training overload." If she is around she's constantly correcting/questioning me ....

Perhaps you could point out the irony here....

LOL Yes!!! I really could, couldn't I...

Well, seriously, next time she corrects you, ask her, nicely, why she doesn't just ignore you when you do something she doesn't like, and wait for you to figure out all on your own what she does like. Ask her if she thinks that she could teach you by only clicking/giving you chocolate when you happen to do what she approves of, without "torturing" you by using any other form of communicating her desires to you. If you are a better person than I, and can pull off a conversation like this without getting sarcastic, you might actually get into a constructive dialogue about the value of rewarding desired behavior, but the pit falls of using that as the exclusive tool.

buster the show dog

Well, seriously, next time she corrects you, ask her, nicely, why she doesn't just ignore you when you do something she doesn't like, and wait for you to figure out all on your own what she does like. Ask her if she thinks that she could teach you by only clicking/giving you chocolate when you happen to do what she approves of, without "torturing" you by using any other form of communicating her desires to you. If you are a better person than I, and can pull off a conversation like this without getting sarcastic, you might actually get into a constructive dialogue about the value of rewarding desired behavior, but the pit falls of using that as the exclusive tool.

That is perfect though, thank you. I'm going to practice this in the mirror.

 ROLF!!!  I absolutely LOVE this answer.

 For me, "positive" means two different things that go hand in hand.  One, am I approaching the issue via a "least invasive, minimally aversive" method and two, am I in a positive mindset - as in, am I acting confident that whatever I'm doing will work.  I am SURE that dogs pick up on the latter. 

I don't think it's possible to have too much of either of the above unless it leads the owner/trainer to be at a complete loss as to what to do when the first doesn't work.  I try to be as positive as possible (in both respects) when training my dog, but have no shame in admitting, for example, the way I handled counter surfing.  After trying for some time to reward him for not doing it, I left him alone in the kitchen for about 90 seconds and came back to find tooth marks in the handle of a very sharp knife.  I rigged a motion sensor alarm on the kitchen counter and it solved the issue quickly and permanently.   My point is that ignoring a dangerous behaviour is, well, dangerous, and an open mind is needed to handle such situations.

I'm glad your assistant tries positive methods first, they should always, IMHO, be the first port of call but there are times, with some dogs, when they aren't enough and it's important that she learn that.  I don't mean that when those methods don't work one should immediately jump to the other end of the spectrum and do something unnecessarily harsh, just take a good hard look at the training spectrum and decide how far towards the other end you need to go.  For that to work, you need to acknowledge that there is a spectrum. 

All other things aside - it's highly unlikely I would take training advice from anyone who has never owned a dog, especially one who accepts money for it.  

JD_Shelties

Okay so let's think about that then... I understand many different ways to use ignoring verses correction. EXAMPLE... for "Leave-It" we could just show the dog the forbidden treat, cover our hand on top of it, wait for the dog to stop biting and scratching at our hand, mark/reward.

Here's how I did it. Neg P, when Shadow would mouth, I would ignore him and curl my hand inward and away from him. When he quit trying to mouth and I would return to giving affection. In conjunction, I trained "off" with treats. Pos R. Ranging from the nothing little treats I can buy at the store to whatever cooked meat I have (the mother lode, the jackpot) for breaking off mouthing, stopping jumping on people, chasing the cat, snarling at other dogs and breaking off in mid-snarl.

Punishment does not train an animal, reinforcement does. And yes, your aquaintance could learn some things about applying to +R to humans. And maybe she thinks she is. You say she is going to school for this behavioral analysis, as it were. And that you are a trainer. Where did you study and are you certified and did you mentor with another trainer?

I get accused, sometimes, of being similar. That I solve everything with food treats. Well, I've solved a lot but not, technically, everything. It sounds as if your friend hasn't learned to apply +R to human interactions. That is, she needs to learn that it is rewarding to others when she shuts up. I learned this of myself a long time ago and use it to my advantage.

"Ron, you haven't said anything."

"I know, I'm being nice."

I will be honest and say that I see that type of mindset in people who are new to *positive training* ie - learning about OC and how it works. Many books convince you you don't need any form of punishment, that extinction alone is all you need. A lot of vet students feel this way as they are first learning. It's kind of like the second-year university student diagnosing all of their own problems once they learn the symptoms *G*.

She says she uses ignoring in training - that is negative punishment, generally, unless the behaviour is not related to her, which, while used well is quite benign, for some dogs can be quite crushing. She being new though, likely doesn't know that. She just knows what the literature tells her will result in a certain behaviour.

I don't think that there is such a thing as too much positive, though. As long as the dog still learns boundaries, rules, etc, then I say if you can do it with no punishments at all (which she isn't if she uses ignoring the behaviour), and get very reliable, strong behaviours, then you are one heck of a trainer! 

I will be honest and say that I see that type of mindset in people who are new to *positive training* ie - learning about OC and how it works. Many books convince you you don't need any form of punishment, that extinction alone is all you need. A lot of vet students feel this way as they are first learning. It's kind of like the second-year university student diagnosing all of their own problems once they learn the symptoms *G*.

I find that a lot of my talk in the early days was to convince myself. The paradox is that now that i have been around for a while, trained a couple of dogs to titles, I am much more relaxed in my skin AND use nearly no corrections of any kind because I don't need to. I set firm boundaries, I expect good things and i have a real ball with my dogs. Sometimes I pick up with people that training is all boundaires and stuff all fun.

At the same time, I now don't have apolexy if I see someone correcting their dog but do insist that people in my class don't without thinking about a few things. They hardly ever do

:)

PoodleOwned