View Single Post
Old March 24th, 2011, 01:21 PM
GalaxiesKuklos GalaxiesKuklos is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: A Rock and a Hard Place
Posts: 22
Originally Posted by Criosphynx View Post
I use one method. The same as everyone uses. Whether they know it or not

learning theory.

I just only use two of the four quadrants of it....ok, three, occasionally.

"positive" trainers vary, in both results and methods.. Can you get reliable behaviors across the board all the time with only PR (as in only reward good behavior, and ignore the rest). No. You need to used Negative punishment (removing som'thing the dog wants) premack (do this thing you don't like, and I'll let you do that thing you like) management and redirections (you are not having access to that thing yet, or "do this instead) none of those things involve physically harming or "making uncomfortable" the dog.

What I do NOT do is physically punish the dog. I do not scold or intimidate the dog.I do NOT use NRMs (no reward markers, uh uhs, "nos" etc) studies have shown these things are not needed to learn, and can impair learning.

I do teach a SOLID foundation. Hand targeting is taught first. Doggie zen and its yer choice next...all behaviors are methodically proofed for distraction and duration (if needed)

Default behviors. My dogs do not need cues to look at me, leave it, loose leash, etc etc...too many people put these things on cue...teach attention as a DEFAULT and you will have a different dog.

I understand the mechanics of every nuance of behavior. THAT is why I can use "PR only" (which never purely is PR) with massive success. I've taken the time to master it...It takes time, practice and skill to develop. Many seminars and books. Many hundreds of hours reading studies and watching videos...6 dogs and counting (first dog was traditional trained, others in between and my 6th dog, my reactive, high drive mess when I got him, has never had one correction in 2 years (hes two) and its as close to "perfect" as I expect from an animal)

There are many methods within the "pr" umbrella. If you can master learning theory, and all its tricks, teach the dog proofed foundation behaviors, and manage while they learn its VERY VERY possible to teach using no force or intimidation, and have reliable behaviors.... the retriever people say you MUST force fetch to get a reliable retrieve. If I can teach a RR to CHIHUAHUAS with clicker training. Labs do not need to be FF.

If zoos can teach hyenas to willingly allow blood draws from the jugular using clicker training...the limits are endless

So my point is don't judge PR trainers when you are viewing the noobs and those that have mastered it. You wouldn't look at kids learning a violin and say, yup, thats as good as it gets.... you'd go to the symphony.
Well said, too bad I can't give you a "like' or "rep" points for this. I find that most people who deride non-aversive training are really admitting to their own incompetence but blaming the tool when they should be blaming the craftsman.

PS. The only thing I would change in your post would be changing method to principle. The principles of learning are universal, the methods are the application of those principles.
Reply With Quote