Cesar Milan - cult?
- Thread starter casablanca1
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2005
- Messages
- 6,125
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
I don't believe we have National Geographic channel, however, I have been able to watch bits of his shows online. I remember one where he was training I believe a Viszla, who was very protective of her chew bones. He put her on a choke collar, had her lay on her bed, and gave her a bone. As she was chewing at it, he carefully watched her body language and went to get it. When she started growling, he gave a little pop on the leash, brought her away from the bone, took it, and then praised her. That's one way to do it, and maybe a good one for some dogs, but there are other ways that don't involve training collars and such. For example, with two of my dogs, they seemed a little wary when I came towards them while they were chewing their raw marrow bones. Not "I'm going to bite you" but "are you going to take this from me?" They are perfectly fine with their dog food....I can stick my hand in their bowls, move their heads away to prevent them from eating, and they don't mind. But I wanted to make sure they'd willingly let me take their raw bones away. They know "drop it" and "leave it," so I sat down next to them and said "leave it!" (or "drop it!" if they were holding it). I was very careful to read their body language. I took the bone, and because they let me, praised them and gave the bone back right away. They were perfectly fine with it.
Cesar's dangerous!
I'm amazed at how easily impressed people are. What ever happened to experience plus education. Most trainers/behaviorist this decade are horrified by the methods Cesar still employs. Although it makes for good TV (all be it edited for the public) it doesn't make it right. Things just aren't done "Cesar's way" anymore because research tells us that it's not only unnecessary to train using punishment, it's down right dangerous for both dog and human. Cesar's "experience" is as a dog walker and groomer, he has no formal education in what he calls "canine psychology"...and to the lay person it may not show....to the trained eye it's a glaring fact. Choking a dog into submission isn't magic, it's just plain stupid. I have to admit that some of the things that Cesar says make some sense but he then follows through with his antiquated methods. He is very likeable but scarey in his ability to influence the public and to the poor dogs who end up delivering fear or retaliation bites on their unsuspecting, inexperienced owners.
I'm amazed at how easily impressed people are. What ever happened to experience plus education. Most trainers/behaviorist this decade are horrified by the methods Cesar still employs. Although it makes for good TV (all be it edited for the public) it doesn't make it right. Things just aren't done "Cesar's way" anymore because research tells us that it's not only unnecessary to train using punishment, it's down right dangerous for both dog and human. Cesar's "experience" is as a dog walker and groomer, he has no formal education in what he calls "canine psychology"...and to the lay person it may not show....to the trained eye it's a glaring fact. Choking a dog into submission isn't magic, it's just plain stupid. I have to admit that some of the things that Cesar says make some sense but he then follows through with his antiquated methods. He is very likeable but scarey in his ability to influence the public and to the poor dogs who end up delivering fear or retaliation bites on their unsuspecting, inexperienced owners.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
Watching TV is entertainment...not dog training. Cesar is entertainment. Unfortunately the same people who have crazy dogs don't get that.
I watch Cesar because there is sometimes nothing else on. (My favorite show is Deadliest Catch - Edgar Hansen is cute.) There have been some disturbing changes as of late.
1. I saw him using a prong collar on a dog.
2. I saw him using his foot (gently kicking?) a dog.
Now I'm no expert, but that is so old school that I think they used those methods on dinosaurs.
My dog is scheduled for obedience classes next month. I could train him on my own. I have trained dogs before, but I need some training in newer and better methods. (The dog is just tagging along as an assistant.
)
Do you know what I think is truely frightening? More so than some of Cesar's methods?
The people who own these dogs have children.
Wonder how that's going for them?
I watch Cesar because there is sometimes nothing else on. (My favorite show is Deadliest Catch - Edgar Hansen is cute.) There have been some disturbing changes as of late.
1. I saw him using a prong collar on a dog.
2. I saw him using his foot (gently kicking?) a dog.
Now I'm no expert, but that is so old school that I think they used those methods on dinosaurs.
My dog is scheduled for obedience classes next month. I could train him on my own. I have trained dogs before, but I need some training in newer and better methods. (The dog is just tagging along as an assistant.
)Do you know what I think is truely frightening? More so than some of Cesar's methods?
The people who own these dogs have children.
Wonder how that's going for them?
B
For anyone that cares one way or the other. Here is a segment on NPR with Cesar. Just scroll towards the bottom and look for listen to segment.
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/04/20.php#10737
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/04/20.php#10737
I'm a little late replying to this thread... but I'm not an active member of this board. I just happened to get an email alert from an old thread I posted in and surfed around a bit and saw this thread.
I just wanted to point out a few incorrect points I saw in this thread.
1. Cesar does NOT offer a quick fix. Yes, he's able to control the dogs pretty quickly, but his fixes are by no means quick. If he leaves and the owners don't commit to the principles he outlines for them, the dogs likely won't get better. The first commitment is 1 hour of daily exercise, which unfortunately many owners balk at. (If you've read his book, you know he spends 7 hours a day exercising his pack, which to me seems crazy!) The second commitment involves setting rules and boundaries for your dog. In many ways this part is no different from the NILIF method. A rule might be that the dog can't get on to your couch until you invite him up. Nothing in life is free.
2. Cesar uses the tools that the owners use. This is why you see so many dogs with choke chains. He feels that if you ask the owner to change too many things at once, they are less likely to change the most important things. He sells a special collar called the "Illusion collar" (named after his wife) that's basically a buckle collar that sits high on the neck and won't slip down, and this is his preferred collar, not a choke chain.
3. He hasn't kicked a dog or been abusive on the show that I've seen. But when a dog is alerting he will tap them, usually with an cupped hand, just to get their attention away from alerting.
There have been some things on the show that I disagreed with (flooding), but for the most part I think it's all been very good. As a positive reinforcement trainer myself, I haven't seen much he's done that would conflict with his methods.
His formula for a balanced dog: Exercise, Discipline (setting Rules, Boundaries, and Limitations), then Affection. I don't see how that contradicts NILIF or any other positive training methods. Keep in mind that he's not a trainer, doesn't tell you how to train your dogs, so the can use the methods you want (I personally like clicker training myself) while applying the principles he outlines.
I just wanted to point out a few incorrect points I saw in this thread.
1. Cesar does NOT offer a quick fix. Yes, he's able to control the dogs pretty quickly, but his fixes are by no means quick. If he leaves and the owners don't commit to the principles he outlines for them, the dogs likely won't get better. The first commitment is 1 hour of daily exercise, which unfortunately many owners balk at. (If you've read his book, you know he spends 7 hours a day exercising his pack, which to me seems crazy!) The second commitment involves setting rules and boundaries for your dog. In many ways this part is no different from the NILIF method. A rule might be that the dog can't get on to your couch until you invite him up. Nothing in life is free.
2. Cesar uses the tools that the owners use. This is why you see so many dogs with choke chains. He feels that if you ask the owner to change too many things at once, they are less likely to change the most important things. He sells a special collar called the "Illusion collar" (named after his wife) that's basically a buckle collar that sits high on the neck and won't slip down, and this is his preferred collar, not a choke chain.
3. He hasn't kicked a dog or been abusive on the show that I've seen. But when a dog is alerting he will tap them, usually with an cupped hand, just to get their attention away from alerting.
There have been some things on the show that I disagreed with (flooding), but for the most part I think it's all been very good. As a positive reinforcement trainer myself, I haven't seen much he's done that would conflict with his methods.
His formula for a balanced dog: Exercise, Discipline (setting Rules, Boundaries, and Limitations), then Affection. I don't see how that contradicts NILIF or any other positive training methods. Keep in mind that he's not a trainer, doesn't tell you how to train your dogs, so the can use the methods you want (I personally like clicker training myself) while applying the principles he outlines.
I don't see how one can call themselves a positive method trainer who uses a clicker and think he's on the same page. I don't think he's abusive particularily. But what he does is lightyears behind operant conditioning training or "positive" methods. He is not taking small improvements and shaping behavior. He is not rewarding to let the dog know he's on the right track. He does not reward wanted behavior period. He emphasises what the dog is doing wrong and corrects it with a dominating yank on the collar or shoving the dog on it's back. He exibits domination cloaked in non-roughness. It's not brutal but it's abrupt and is certainly not in line with today's enlightened trainers who use operant and classical conditioning concepts.
When you "correct" a behavior in 20 minutes by flooding, by force, it most likely will not have a long lasting cure....in many cases. Many behaviors are more reliably "fixed" by gradual conditioning. This is how most trainers with education, years of practice, trainers of animals in all kinds of venues train. Force is never used in clicker training. That's the whole point of shaping behavior and using a clicker....to let the dog use his own head and avoid force in order that he CAN use his own head. It's about rewarding aproximate behaviors and working toward a final goal, not forcing the entire goal in one session.
He wouldn't let a lady praise her dog when it started finally walking nicely, without leaping around. He said the dog was still tense and she had to wait until his "energy" or "aura" something something....In positive method training, if the dog took a few nice steps, it would be rewarded to let it know he was on the right track and go from there, gradually asking for more.
Again...I do not think he's a brute....not in most of the episodes I've seen, but some came close IMO. And I realize he's rehabilitating dogs, not training them for obedience competition. But it's still training. It's teaching the dog how to get use to something it's having a problem with or teaching it not to pull on a leash. It's all training never the less.
I just don't think he's all the TV cracks him up to be. Other people have packs of dogs, rehabilitate dogs, train dogs. They just don't have a TV show. If he helps some of the dogs and the fix is long term....and it keeps them from being pts, that's great. But as far as comparing his methods to positive method training.....no. He is in direct conflict with operant conditioning. (NILIF is great and I'm glad he does that too.)
When you "correct" a behavior in 20 minutes by flooding, by force, it most likely will not have a long lasting cure....in many cases. Many behaviors are more reliably "fixed" by gradual conditioning. This is how most trainers with education, years of practice, trainers of animals in all kinds of venues train. Force is never used in clicker training. That's the whole point of shaping behavior and using a clicker....to let the dog use his own head and avoid force in order that he CAN use his own head. It's about rewarding aproximate behaviors and working toward a final goal, not forcing the entire goal in one session.
He wouldn't let a lady praise her dog when it started finally walking nicely, without leaping around. He said the dog was still tense and she had to wait until his "energy" or "aura" something something....In positive method training, if the dog took a few nice steps, it would be rewarded to let it know he was on the right track and go from there, gradually asking for more.
Again...I do not think he's a brute....not in most of the episodes I've seen, but some came close IMO. And I realize he's rehabilitating dogs, not training them for obedience competition. But it's still training. It's teaching the dog how to get use to something it's having a problem with or teaching it not to pull on a leash. It's all training never the less.
I just don't think he's all the TV cracks him up to be. Other people have packs of dogs, rehabilitate dogs, train dogs. They just don't have a TV show. If he helps some of the dogs and the fix is long term....and it keeps them from being pts, that's great. But as far as comparing his methods to positive method training.....no. He is in direct conflict with operant conditioning. (NILIF is great and I'm glad he does that too.)
Last edited:
So right Doberluv!
I'm so frustrated that National Geographic gave this guy such a platform to take training back decades! I'm constantly having to defend my methods (true operant conditioning) in class because I don't have a TV show. (only about 20 years of education and experience) Someone actually showed up to my puppy class last night with a choke chain around their puppies neck (I don't even allow choke chains in class) and proclaimed "Cesar uses them"!! GGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! Even Martha Stewart is on the "Cesar bandwagon". She had him on the show and proudly explained to millions how when she gets a new dog, she bites it on the snout to "show it who's boss". Why don't people do a little research? The studies are out there for everyone to read and clearly show why Cesar's methods are not only "old school", inhumane and ineffective, but dangerous. Not just my opinion......FACT!
It's good to have you (Doberluv) posting on this thread with substance in your content, I'm at a loss as to why more people don't see what he's doing.
I'm so frustrated that National Geographic gave this guy such a platform to take training back decades! I'm constantly having to defend my methods (true operant conditioning) in class because I don't have a TV show. (only about 20 years of education and experience) Someone actually showed up to my puppy class last night with a choke chain around their puppies neck (I don't even allow choke chains in class) and proclaimed "Cesar uses them"!! GGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! Even Martha Stewart is on the "Cesar bandwagon". She had him on the show and proudly explained to millions how when she gets a new dog, she bites it on the snout to "show it who's boss". Why don't people do a little research? The studies are out there for everyone to read and clearly show why Cesar's methods are not only "old school", inhumane and ineffective, but dangerous. Not just my opinion......FACT!
It's good to have you (Doberluv) posting on this thread with substance in your content, I'm at a loss as to why more people don't see what he's doing.
LOL....you responded fast. I went back and editted my post in the meantime. I remembered one episode with a dog who was leaping up while on the leash, spinning around...just didn't know what a leash walk was about. The dog finally took nice steps along side the owner for a long distance without leaping and the owner wanted to praise him. Ceasar said, "no" because the dog was still not all the way relaxed. Good heavens!
I think some of the terminology like "energy," "balanced" "aura" and the rest of it is hype. It sounds pretty and sort of 60's....(if you know what I mean) But it has nothing to do with the way a dog learns, whether it's a wolf pack or not. (and it's not about a wolf pack anyhow) Wolves don't use force in that way. They don't care whether another wolf walks nicely or not. All they care about is breeding and hunting large game. The rest of what the wolves or dogs do, the alpha couldn't care less about. So to relate all this learning to that is irrelevant IMO.
I think some of the terminology like "energy," "balanced" "aura" and the rest of it is hype. It sounds pretty and sort of 60's....(if you know what I mean) But it has nothing to do with the way a dog learns, whether it's a wolf pack or not. (and it's not about a wolf pack anyhow) Wolves don't use force in that way. They don't care whether another wolf walks nicely or not. All they care about is breeding and hunting large game. The rest of what the wolves or dogs do, the alpha couldn't care less about. So to relate all this learning to that is irrelevant IMO.
Yup! It's like a train wreck....don't wanna watch but you can't look away. My husband laughs when I watch the show, it's like I'm watching a sporting event and my team keeps fumbling and then looses the whole game....I guess I get a little vocal...
I think you're right about his use of words like "balanced" and "calm submissive", I think that's a big part of his mystique....
It also amazes me that he has a dog psychology centre, I had no idea that being a groomer and dog walker required/entitled a degree in canine psychology!
If I see one more dog strangled into submission..er..I mean..calm submission..hahaha, I think I'll scream (or at least drop the NG channel from my subscription). I've written to NG, no response..of course. I've even tried writing to Cesar with the same result. Oh well, it just makes me work harder to prove that things can be done more effectively and with long term result without using Cesar's way.
I think you're right about his use of words like "balanced" and "calm submissive", I think that's a big part of his mystique....
It also amazes me that he has a dog psychology centre, I had no idea that being a groomer and dog walker required/entitled a degree in canine psychology!
If I see one more dog strangled into submission..er..I mean..calm submission..hahaha, I think I'll scream (or at least drop the NG channel from my subscription). I've written to NG, no response..of course. I've even tried writing to Cesar with the same result. Oh well, it just makes me work harder to prove that things can be done more effectively and with long term result without using Cesar's way.
Good analogy.
It's such a shame that just as positive method training is beginning to take hold and more gentle ways of handling dogs are being shown to be so effective, people getting educated, that something like this comes on national television, taking society backward with their dealing with their dogs. I'm sure we'll see more people using the alpha roll, getting their faces bitten off, more jerking the dogs around, more force, less understanding that a dog doesn't do something because he hasn't been trained!!! Not that he's trying to be dominant....no reinforcements for wanted behavior, so the dog doesn't do that behavior. Then it's blamed on domiance, disobediance, no "leadership" the wrong kind of energy. There will be people who use his techniques with their own individual personalities...there will be anger behind it (which he doesn't promote) and stronger people who don't think before they yank, things done in the wrong context....and on and on. When people don't know what they're doing, it's far safer to stick with positive methods....much less room for damaging errors.
It's such a shame that just as positive method training is beginning to take hold and more gentle ways of handling dogs are being shown to be so effective, people getting educated, that something like this comes on national television, taking society backward with their dealing with their dogs. I'm sure we'll see more people using the alpha roll, getting their faces bitten off, more jerking the dogs around, more force, less understanding that a dog doesn't do something because he hasn't been trained!!! Not that he's trying to be dominant....no reinforcements for wanted behavior, so the dog doesn't do that behavior. Then it's blamed on domiance, disobediance, no "leadership" the wrong kind of energy. There will be people who use his techniques with their own individual personalities...there will be anger behind it (which he doesn't promote) and stronger people who don't think before they yank, things done in the wrong context....and on and on. When people don't know what they're doing, it's far safer to stick with positive methods....much less room for damaging errors.
W
First, i'm not a follower of Ceaser, I don't do much of anything that he shows. But I do have a few problems with this post. Are you saying that any forms of compulsion or correction are not involved with "true operant" conditioning?
Or is that the term you just like to use for yourself to describe yourself as a trainer?Just because some lady has a choke chain on a puppy (something that I would probably never recomend and think is a terribly bad idea in itself, but i don't ever recall his show stating that puppies should be put on choke chains? I've watched a fair number of his shows, and the one constant theme that is hammered in ever single episode i've watched is,
#1 getting exercise
#2 setting up boundaries
#3 Be consistent
#4 Be Calm
I don't know how that is setting dog training back decades? I think any show on dog ownership that hammers home those points is a good thing becuase not very many dog owners seem to know those 4 simple things.
The statement that Ceaser's methods are inhuman ineffective and dangerous, well, pushing dogs into a submissive position is dangerous 100%. Inhumane?? well if they aren't starving or beating dogs sensless, i'm not one to jump on the inhumane bandwagon too soon. A few light leash pops and picking up on a collar to break up a fight aren't very inhumane in my opinion. Which in fact what your statement was, an opinion not Fact as you'd like to claim. Ineffective?? Well that's your opinion as well.
Here's a quote from Stephen Lindsay, "properly understood, reward and punishment are morally neutral, the one being neither better nor worse thatn the other. Both outcomes serve equally vital functions in perfecting an animal's adaptation ot the social and physical environment. Lerning to respond and cope appropriately with the treats and trials of life is an important part of normal development for dogs... Although punishment is unpleasant, precisely what aspect makes it so beneficial and useful."
He also says about punishment, "not only is punishment often poorly misunderstood as a behavioral procedure, it is just as often bogged down in dire warnings of serious side effects and, more importantly, the false view that it does not work."
I like this one the best. " .... the pedulum has swung from a stubborn rliance on punishment and negative reinforcement to an equally unnatural extreme in which the use of punishment and negative reinforcement (in some quarters) is shunned to embrace a so-called "positive" approach to training and behavioral control. Extremem positions, whether based on good intention or not, are typically based on irrational beliefs and assumptions,- not scientific knowledge and experience. The adoption of an exclusive reliance on punishment or reward alone reflects a core of misunderstanding about how dog behavior is most effeciently modified."
I'd be willing to bet he's done more research than ALL us on this board combined. ANyone care to tell him he's telling lies, and that you alone have the FACTS?
Because people misunderstand or abuse punishment doesn't make "positive only" methods somehow superior to everything else. and for some of you on here to be spouting that mantra every chance you have, well, is about the same thing as 50 years ago when people told you that you had to force your dog to do everything.
because the writers of new books lace tons and tons of human emotion into the pages of the book to explain why they're "superior", does not make it new, advanced or superior in anyway.
I too am at a loss as to why more people don't see what they're doing.
You're right. Punishment is one important factor in training, regardless of whether we're talking about more forceful training or operant conditioning training. Punishment will indeed tend to stop a behavior from reoccuring. You can remove an exsisting punishment, as in the ear pinch method of training retrievers or you can add a punishment, a leash yank. Positive/negative punishment. There are other effective ways of getting a behavior to be repeated. Punishment does often have serious side effects.
One: Punishment is often only effective when the punisher is present. It does not tend to have a lasting effect. And here's why: Dogs do not have a moral sense of "right or wrong" as we do. They don't stop doing something because they understand that they're doing something "wrong." They do things for two reasons; either it's safe or it's dangerous. When the punisher is present, it is unsafe to engage in this behavior. When the punsiher is not present, it's safe to engage in the behavior. That's as far as it goes.
If a dog has not had a strong history or reinforcement for a behavior, it will not tend to be repeated. Then the owner or trainer who has not given the dog enough practice will punish the dog, mildly or not. This is confusing to a dog who is at this point still guessing which behavior it is he's suppose to be doing. Dogs don't understand our language so they try one behavior. If it's not reinforced a lot, he doesn't know that that is what he's suppose to be doing. So, he tries something else. "woops! ouch! Guess that wasn't it." Until there are many repititions and reinforcements for a behavior, the dog is still guessing. So punishment is confusing and doing nothing but undermining the relationship between owner and dog.
I don't want my dogs thinking on those lines at all. I think it causes a dog to practically stop in it's tracks as far as learning. He's only engaging in a behavior with safe or dangerous on his mind. I want my dog to be thinking in terms of doing something to earn a good thing. It's more forward moving. It has momentum.
I have no problem with a no reward marker. It's very useful. It's a word which tells the dog that what he is doing is not correct....that he should try again. It is not punishment. But it's not a reward.
So, understanding how dogs learn is really important before someone starts yanking necks and expecting entire perfection in one 20 minute episode.
One: Punishment is often only effective when the punisher is present. It does not tend to have a lasting effect. And here's why: Dogs do not have a moral sense of "right or wrong" as we do. They don't stop doing something because they understand that they're doing something "wrong." They do things for two reasons; either it's safe or it's dangerous. When the punisher is present, it is unsafe to engage in this behavior. When the punsiher is not present, it's safe to engage in the behavior. That's as far as it goes.
If a dog has not had a strong history or reinforcement for a behavior, it will not tend to be repeated. Then the owner or trainer who has not given the dog enough practice will punish the dog, mildly or not. This is confusing to a dog who is at this point still guessing which behavior it is he's suppose to be doing. Dogs don't understand our language so they try one behavior. If it's not reinforced a lot, he doesn't know that that is what he's suppose to be doing. So, he tries something else. "woops! ouch! Guess that wasn't it." Until there are many repititions and reinforcements for a behavior, the dog is still guessing. So punishment is confusing and doing nothing but undermining the relationship between owner and dog.
I don't want my dogs thinking on those lines at all. I think it causes a dog to practically stop in it's tracks as far as learning. He's only engaging in a behavior with safe or dangerous on his mind. I want my dog to be thinking in terms of doing something to earn a good thing. It's more forward moving. It has momentum.
I have no problem with a no reward marker. It's very useful. It's a word which tells the dog that what he is doing is not correct....that he should try again. It is not punishment. But it's not a reward.
So, understanding how dogs learn is really important before someone starts yanking necks and expecting entire perfection in one 20 minute episode.
it's different because there is no reward. there is no paycheck. i've heard him verbally praise occasionally, but there's no food reward, no play reward, nothing. the reward is not being corrected. that doesn't seem fair or balanced to me.
i'm not against correcting dogs. i don't think it's a horrible thing for dogs to have consequences for unwanted behavior. but why on earth would a dog choose the right behavior when you're giving them no reason at all to do so?
i'm not against correcting dogs. i don't think it's a horrible thing for dogs to have consequences for unwanted behavior. but why on earth would a dog choose the right behavior when you're giving them no reason at all to do so?
W
That is not true. Thorndike and subsequently Skinner pulled those theories off some loosly done research and found some anecdotal evidence and repeated it over and over again until it became popular among some cirlces. Lindsay goes on to state, "....contemporary efforts to misrepresent its usefulness, the efficacy of punishment is not really in doubt, especially if science is accepted as the final arbiter of the debate. The facts are clear and indisputible: When applied properly (promptly and in the correct measure), punishment works, it works quickly and , in many cases the suppressive effects of punishment are permanent."
Azrin and Holz state, "One of the most dramatic characteristics of punishment is the virtual irreversibility or permanence of the response reduction onc ethe behavior has become completely suppressed. Investigators have noted that the punished response does not recover for a long period of time even after the punishment contingency has been removed."
There's much more than that as well, but your comment simply does not hold any weight with real scientific research. Authors can make it sound good, much like your scenerio does, and it makes us feel warm and gushy as dog owners and trainers, but it simply isn't true.
But i'm in 100% agreement, people must learn how a dog learns to completely train them. And yanking on dogs necks for 20 minutes won't give you perfection in any cirlce.
Azrin and Holz state, "One of the most dramatic characteristics of punishment is the virtual irreversibility or permanence of the response reduction onc ethe behavior has become completely suppressed. Investigators have noted that the punished response does not recover for a long period of time even after the punishment contingency has been removed."
There's much more than that as well, but your comment simply does not hold any weight with real scientific research. Authors can make it sound good, much like your scenerio does, and it makes us feel warm and gushy as dog owners and trainers, but it simply isn't true.
But i'm in 100% agreement, people must learn how a dog learns to completely train them. And yanking on dogs necks for 20 minutes won't give you perfection in any cirlce.