Dog Community

J M

Posted : 1/19/2007 5:33:52 PM

I couldn't get the link to work.

houndlove

Posted : 1/19/2007 5:40:15 PM

Hm. There seems to be something wrong with that whole website right now, nothing is coming up. I'll keep trying and report back.

Awsomedog

Posted : 1/19/2007 5:54:30 PM

ORIGINAL: houndlove

[linkhttp://www.clickertraining.com/node/988]"The Myth of Purely Positive"[/link]

I don't know of a single trainer who is "purely positive". It's at best a simple misnomer or misundrstanding, at worst it's a straw man purposefully set up to confuse the argument.

REALLY??? Perhaps then you would care to explain the hundreds of trainers out there that use the term "Positive Reinforcement Only" Go ahead, Google and see. I actually know some in my area. It's not me that's confusing you.

houndlove

Posted : 1/19/2007 6:27:54 PM

Well, the term is used a lot for marketing. But any trainer who removes attention from a dog for a misbehavior is not purely positive. That's a negative punishment. Any trainer who uses a "no reward marker" (and I know there are some out there who don't) is not purely positive. That's also a negative punishment. People throw that term around a lot but it is rarely actually the case that that's what someone is really doing it. There may be folks attempting it but it is a tiny little subset of the "positive training" methodology.

What people usually mean by "purely positive" is that they don't use positive punishment or negative reinforcement but try to stick to positive reinforcement and negative punishment, and for the training of a new behavior do so through positive reinforcement rather than compulsion.

I wish that link was working.

Awsomedog

Posted : 1/19/2007 6:50:05 PM

ORIGINAL: houndlove

Well, the term is used a lot for marketing. But any trainer who removes attention from a dog for a misbehavior is not purely positive. That's a negative punishment. Any trainer who uses a "no reward marker" (and I know there are some out there who don't) is not purely positive. That's also a negative punishment. People throw that term around a lot but it is rarely actually the case that that's what someone is really doing it. There may be folks attempting it but it is a tiny little subset of the "positive training" methodology.

What people usually mean by "purely positive" is that they don't use positive punishment or negative reinforcement but try to stick to positive reinforcement and negative punishment, and for the training of a new behavior do so through positive reinforcement rather than compulsion.

I wish that link was working.

As you stated, there are people out there that actually try to do R+ *only* training, which to me simply can't and doesn't work. If the rest are using it as a marketing tool, which I know that's what they're doing. I call that, lying. And while I also use R+ training with some dogs, I know it doesn't work on all dogs, in all situations. so I switch to what does.

tia2

Posted : 1/21/2007 2:28:44 AM

I think CM is a good trainer. I've held my dogs down in the laying position. (abuse? to make them lay down?) to make my point and it was well taken. No bruises, no 4x4s, no kicks. Firm assertiveness. My animals are fabulous ambassadors for dog behavior today. Applying his tecniques has turned my anxiety ridden rescue into a confident, happy, content dog....I never beat him, or made him cry out or anything..that's what I call abuse and I don't understand why some feel CM's training is abuse? I don't get it. Oh well. I suppose if I sifted through all the fighting I would figure it out, but I just don't have the patience I guess.
What's R+? Am I just WAAAAY late for this discussion? lol

AJ P

Posted : 1/21/2007 10:10:47 PM

I have not been here long, but I've avoided the CM threads altogether from the very start. They seem to begin with a request for information and rapidly degenerate. I would actually like very much to have a discussion about CM/his methods here, but don't dare try; discussions and debates are great things, but they are not discussions or debates when any of the participants pepper their replies with attacks and snide commentary.

This is a great site and a wealth of information, with a GREAT attitude....except when 'CM' appears in a thread. [

] Who could blame you for closing them?

Awsomedog

Posted : 1/22/2007 1:03:11 AM

ORIGINAL: Kiche

I have not been here long, but I've avoided the CM threads altogether from the very start. They seem to begin with a request for information and rapidly degenerate. I would actually like very much to have a discussion about CM/his methods here, but don't dare try; discussions and debates are great things, but they are not discussions or debates when any of the participants pepper their replies with attacks and snide commentary.

This is a great site and a wealth of information, with a GREAT attitude....except when 'CM' appears in a thread. [] Who could blame you for closing them?

If you pm the people who like CM you'll find you can actually have a conversation because they can answer you without all the nonsense that appears in public threads.

tia2

Posted : 1/22/2007 1:58:03 AM

ORIGINAL: Awsomedog

ORIGINAL: Kiche

I have not been here long, but I've avoided the CM threads altogether from the very start. They seem to begin with a request for information and rapidly degenerate. I would actually like very much to have a discussion about CM/his methods here, but don't dare try; discussions and debates are great things, but they are not discussions or debates when any of the participants pepper their replies with attacks and snide commentary.

This is a great site and a wealth of information, with a GREAT attitude....except when 'CM' appears in a thread. [] Who could blame you for closing them?

If you pm the people who like CM you'll find you can actually have a conversation because they can answer you with all the nonsense that appears in public threads.

I'm not sure I understand that reply. "They can answer you with all the nonsense" Can you elaborate?

Awsomedog

Posted : 1/22/2007 2:16:51 AM

Typo (

houndlove

Posted : 1/22/2007 11:55:53 AM

Meaning, they can answer without having their opinions challenged.

AJ P

Posted : 1/22/2007 3:00:04 PM

ORIGINAL: houndlove

Meaning, they can answer without having their opinions challenged.

This may depend greatly on who PMs them.

amstaffy

Posted : 1/22/2007 3:30:30 PM

ORIGINAL: Awsomedog

ORIGINAL: amstaffy

Glenda,
Don't take your toys yet....This discussion is just getting good!

I see that our new member knows the different levels of training in his/her postings and seems to identify with those as both you and I do, different dogs different levels.

Thank you. I think it's my stance on CM that perhaps throws people off. While these days my work consist of behavior modification, I've done a lot of obt over the years and tones of scent and bite work. I to like to use different methods. The only one I don't use is clicker training, no point to it IMO only. But to those who enjoy it, I say, click away. And I (because of working with aggressive dogs) do not believe in R+ *only*, and I stress the word only. But R+ training is great. I also never see a need to hurt a dog to teach them.

You're very welcome.
I am not knowledgable regarding clicker training but have seen some dogs really work well on it so I'm in the same place you are there. I was at a club meeting yesterday where one of our members is training one of her Am Staffs in a clicker class. She noted that she found it's quicker to "click" then to say "good dog" I find that interesting as the reward would be faster thus enforcing the behavior or action that is wanted but my brain can't compute the click treat actions myself...LOL! Maybe if life was slower!

BTW...a little off topic...LOVE the avitar...nice red nose, Your's?

tia2

Posted : 1/22/2007 3:41:55 PM

ORIGINAL: Awsomedog

Typo (

Ahh, good I was hoping that's what you were trying to say! Go rest your brain..lol

Awsomedog

Posted : 1/22/2007 4:08:55 PM

ORIGINAL: houndlove

Meaning, they can answer without having their opinions challenged.

See it however you want, but actually it's so there can be a discussion without the fights. Why does that bother you?

C.M. Debate