Misconceptions about positive training

I haven't been reading all these threads very closely, but the one thing that jumps out at me is the "old school" folks ridiculing positive training by assuming that every trainer's response to every behavior is to croon "gooooooood poochie" and feed it a treat. Are you guys serious?!

Those of us who choose to train using positive methods are not idiots when it comes to dogs, contrary to what some of you would think. In fact, on the whole I think people who use reward-based methods to train dogs wind up becoming far more aware of their dog's behavior than those who simply smack a dog or yank it around for "misbehaving".

People say that positive trainers can't deal with the kind of human-aggressive dogs that people like Martin Richling or Cesar Milan do. Bogus. If a dog will put up with rough and unfair treatment from a stranger like the dogs on Cesar's show do, they're really not severe cases IMO. I don't want to start a CM debate, I just use him as an example because he's one individual that most on this board are familiar with.

Reward-based training is a science and an art, and it requires a good understanding of how dogs learn. It also requires a great deal of self control on the part of the handler/trainer, when dealing with dogs that have severe aggression problems. So many of our unconscious little body movements can set off a truly aggressive dog.

Without a chain around its neck, a stick to hit it with or a collar to zap it with, the rehabilitation of a dog with aggression issues lies solely with the trainer's ability to get through to the dog. Can CM or Richling do that? No tools (clickers included), no leashes, no beating sticks or ecollars . . . hell -- how about no treats? I've found that a good trainer is able to work with a dog based on the rewards in his environment. When you take everything away, what matters is the ability to connect with a dog and speak clearly to them, and people who have to yank on leashes and beat dogs with a stick are doing so because they don't have the ability to connect with the dog using any other method. Physical correction is most often a crutch that people use when they can't think of a positive, pain-free way to elicit or eliminate a behavior.

So if you think positive training is waving a cookie in front of the dog's face in order to bribe it into compliance, you don't know squat. Try to learn a little bit about what you're slamming before you go telling everyone that it's useless.

/end rant (sorry)

THANK YOU!
Exactly.
I completely agree, and tried to explain, but you did a far better job than I did. I couldn't word it at all.
:hail: :hail:

Good post

Ditto. Good post.

Great post!:hail:

It wasn't misconceptions about positive training, everyone knows that works well.

It was misconceptions about other "methods" and then extorted. Just to let you know.

I love thee, Gracie. :hail:

Good post RD. Yup...operant and classical conditioning based training, using the science of learning and a knowledge of canine behavior and their nature takes a WHOLE lot more imagination and creativity than smacking around a dog. It's easy to see behavior that we don't like and jump on it. But creating ways to get behavior we DO like without resorting to such foolish mistreatment and abuse is what good trainers are all about. That intimidation causes a lot of side effects, as we can see in many dogs handled that way. And for anyone to say that +R doesn't work....well, that's just ignorant. Of course it works.

You can argue about opinions but there's no sense at all in arguing something that is fact. It works because it is using the laws of learning behavior. All animals with a brain stem learn this way.

Good post!

good post.

When those so call methods have been discussed and written in the users' own words, there is no confusion. Hitting a dog for any reason, half drowning a dog for digging (written in plain English) and other abuse.....all written down in black and white....how can there possibly be misconceptions. Either someone does it or they don't. Those "methods" are considered abusive to most behaviorists and trainers and owners who believe in using the science of behavior and training, proven methods which do NOT involve that type of treatment. No one here extorted anything. It was all admitted to by Richling himself, among his followers. It's in his book. It's in these posts. No misconceptions.

Very well put, RD. I can't tell you how many times I repeat myself:
Positive does NOT mean permissive. Food is NOT the only reinforcer available to a trainer. A reward that comes after a behavior is NOT a bribe.

It's the same misconceptions that the positive people have about those who use negative reinforcement. It's not all beat your dog, choke 'em hang 'em high for every little infraction.

No Dan...negative reinforcement is very much a part of "positive methods." Read some of the links I put up in a couple of these threads in the training forum. That would give you the bare minimum of the low down.

I realize that a quick, unsevere collar correction isn't as painful or shutting down as a violent one or hanging, unnecessary, but not always cruel. But some these troll-like creatures that have come on this forum very recently are creating NO misconceptions of what they're about. They've admitted it themselves in their own words. And what they're talking about is over-the-top abuse. OK? There is no misconception about striking a dog with a stick. I'm sorry, but no one can ever ever sway my mind to thinking that's training or that is OK to do to an animal.....NO misconception. NO question.

It is not the same misconceptions about positive method training. Positive methods are misunderstood and carried out incorrectly. But that does not create the damage that a physical correction, if strong can do. No way. And there are reasons why strong physical corrections are not generally used by positive method trainers. There is a whole subject on the fall-out of strong punishment which I, for one have researched and studied extensively for 7 years. Striking a dog is inexcusable abuse. There is NO reason to hit a dog EVER.

No, it isn't. Ever watch Brian Kilcommons? But, the other trainers, who give "balanced" a bad name are certainly out there, just as there are positive trainers who don't understand their method as well as they might. I don't mind calling a spade a spade in either case. But, having tried both methods (I'm very old, there were no clickers in the 1960's, except in Cracker Jack boxes maybe), I can tell you that positive works, and it works better (and I have been using it on all breeds for at least 7 years professionally), so long as you understand and use it properly.

Oh Dan we know. I have lots of friends in the Obed world that use a 'balanced' approach. They use prong collars and toys (some cookies) While I don't think the corrections are helping, I don't think they are abuse.

What MR and some of his followers said (all in black and white for all to see) is abuse.

LOL there is a 'clicker' trainer in my area..she trains one click means sit, two clicks means down..:yikes: :yikes: So there are people who suck using any method.

Great post. i used to train using physical corrections, i'm not proud of it but I've seen both worlds. I never beat Buster to solve basic problems but i am NOT proud of how he learnt many of his early behavioural manners.
His housebreaking, early heal work etc wasn't the best way to teach him.
His DA used to be SO much worse. Since i swiched to PR training, our bond is so much better and he loves to learn.

evidence of how much using only PR training i could show you right now.
He used to pull constantly, he used to not be bale to be within 30m's of a dog in or out of its yard without going skitz. Just today i let him off for a run, he was about 100m's away from me near a house fence, a dog came out and started barking at him, instead of running up and down the fence at it, he simply turned around, walked over to a pole and sniffed it before coming when called. That is HUGE for him, he didn't even have to stress about it.

Last week i had him sitting beside me, a dog came out and started barking at him through a fence, i told him to stay and he just did, this dog was quite close and he whined but didn't move.

And then about 2 weeks ago, a person was walking a dog across the road, he started getting stressed and i told him "no" and he stopped, it was actually in a pretty close vicinity to him before he stopped listening. Listening completley wouldve been better but this is another huge jump for him

He is progressing in leaps and bounds since I strated training like i am now.

And there is a LOT I am still learning but PR training is just how it shoudl be. Your dog should not want to work for you, they shoudl want to work with you. They demonstrate time and time again how forgiving, compassionate and intelligent they are and soem people still believe that beating them to teach them out of normal dog behaviour is the way to go. makes you wonder who the more advanced species is.

I also use Harry as an example, my mums ex way of traning was very old school, you hit a dog if it mucks up, you haul it back to heal and you "rub its nose in it" if it is still being housebroken. I am just so grateful that we got Harry after he moved out, that method ruined buster, he still flinches when i make a sudden movement around him soemtimes, he's still very uncertain of himself. But he is a very Human Submissive dog wiht his owners. Harry however, i don't doubt for a second, knowing his personality now, that if anyone ever treated him like that then the "trainer" would come off a lot worse then him. He's very smart and he just needs things explained, not forced upon him.


I could go on and on. So here is my part 2 cents, and part Buster Brag.

I really hope I can be a great trainer one day, I'd loved to be able to fix up agro dogs, I feel awful for Buster every time I see him geting stressed.

I don't think that all correctional training is abuse, i do count busters upbringing as abuse and he is a nervous dog because of it, i've even discovered a loud yell can shatter him so i have to watch myself wiht that. I don't think all people that use choke chains, prong collars etc are abusive, i know people can use them properly, but so many people don't.

A lot of people seem to think that people that train using PR think "la di da, my dog can sit for a cookie" and when told to sit in an emergency situation won't do so, i believe that this training forms a great bond wiht your dog. its time we stopped thinking of them as a lesser species that should be beat into submission and more of a dog that has helped our species becoem the dominant species.
Truth is, good PR trainers recognise it ISN'T all black and white, ofcourse there will be grey areas because dogs are organisms with thoughts a feelings and emotions. what works for one dog won't necasarily work for the next.

I think most people who are now advocates of PR used to use the more "balanced" approach, so we know that it's not all like that Richling character. But, like a couple of others have said, I"m not exactly proud of some of the things I did with Conrad when I was using a more Monks of New Skete (not the revised edition, either) typed approach. Not proud at all. I don't feel that I was abusing, but what I was was a nag. Nag nag nag my dog. Because the definition of a punishment is something that stops an unwanted behavior, if you have to do it more than a couple of times you're clearly not punishing (the behavior is not stopping) you're nagging.

Primarily though, more than the physical stuff what I remember my relationship with my dogs being like back then is totally different from the way it is now. It was adversarial, not a partnership. The whole concept of having to "show the dog who's boss" creates this competition, even if you have a soft dog who in no want even wants to be boss (which I do), that mindset is insidious and it creeps in around the edges all the time. I have always loved Conrad to bits and pieces (even when he was in the midst of his uncontrolled separation anxiety issues), but training with him was not fun for either of us and when I was training with him I felt that anger come up because the foundation of the entire enterprise was "Show the dog that I'm boss!" That is not a mindset that fosters partnership. There's way too much ego involved in that situation.

Positive training gets the ego out of the equation. Instead of showing the dog who's boss, you communicate and motivate. If the dog isn't responding, you either did not communicate well or motivate well (or both)--it isn't about the dog defying you or challenging you or making fun of you behind your back, it's just about the processes of communication and motivation.

All I can say about the matter is:

Some folks evolve and learn to use gentler methods.

Some folks are still stuck in the stone age where hitting an animal to make it comply is fine with them.

I see no misconceptions.

If I can teach my dog to sit by praising her, why would I WANT to hit her instead?

It doesn't seem like a misconception to me, nor a difficult choice.

Abuse is abuse. Whether it be in the name of "correcting" or not.

I worked for a very barbaric vet who felt the need to alpha roll and scruff shake any animal that did not comply with him. All it got him was - either the dog submitted out of fear (usually all the while peeing himself or expressing his anal glands) OR the dog reacted by returning the aggression, which usually got him even rougher treatment (helicoptering the dog for one).

I could handle these same dogs without any force......because they did not see me as a threat and I worked with them at a different level.

Sure, I could've used his tactics, but for what purpose? To scare the bejeezus out of the dog and possibly make him fear bite me? And WHY, when a gentle voice and positive treatment for complying worked so much better and it was certainly MUCH less stressful for all involved.

I cannot think of a more true statement.

I grew up with the "dominance theory" in my household. It was applied to our dogs just as much to us kids. (But that's a whole other thread.) I practiced it with the family Akita. It worked. He behaved.

I got my pharaoh hound and saw that these methods would work too, but I also saw that in my PH's eyes He wasn't learning what to do, he was learning what NOT to do. I never beat him though.

I learned that positive training-play training, to be exact worked so much better for both of us. The sessions were shorter, and we both were so much happier and held less stress afterwards. I think I learned more than he did though. I saw that this dog wasn't just learning, he was having fun learning. His eyes were (and are) glowing with pride that I could understand him and that he could understand me. Even better is that his "jackpot" reward is the simplest thing in the world: we run 40 or 50 feet together. Yeah, that's a jackpot. Wow, who knew?

I don't advocate hitting, striking, choking or otherwise hurting a dog. That has a way of coming back and biting you back. (Pun intended.) I do understand that at certain schutzhund levels, striking a dog when he's on the sleeve is necessary to proof sleeve behaviors. I don't like it, but I understand it.

On the whole I'd rather have a dog that wants to work with me and help me solve the problem than a dog that wants to work for me and looks to me for default behaviors each and every time.

Negative reinforcement is where a negative thing, such as an irritating sound is removed and results in a desired behavior. You say "nah" in a nasal, fingernails-on-chalkboard tone. After you stop the dog performs the obedience. This is different than a correction, such as a collar pop or any thing else that physically impacts the dog to stop a behavior. The latter is positive punishment. The removal of desired rewards to stop a behavior is negative punishment, such as ignoring when the puppy is jumping on people. The attention they desire is withheld until they stop the unwanted behavior.

Positive reinforcement, the reward or desired object or attention is given for the completion of the desired behavior.

Ian Dunbar, the long-time leader in PR training has in his bio creds for dealing aggressive and problematic dogs. Yes, people who use PR can handle dogs with issues. PR is not about bribing or even trying to be "equal" with the dog. It is about operant conditioning and allows the pet, initially, to obey because we lead them to a good place. Done often enough, it becomes classical or pavlovian.