1. There is a divide between trainers who strive to refrain from incorporating correction, in the form of positive punishment or negative reinforcement, into their training = +R trainers, and those who train using techniques based in any of the four behavior theory quadrants = All Quad trainers (who refer to themselves as "balanced". I say "All Quad" because I consider it a more precise descriptor.)
2. This divide is bad and any statement or point of view that acknowledges or highlights the divide is "divisive" and so should not be expressed.
I agree completely with point #1. There is a divide between +R trainers and All Quad trainers. And while the point of view of different trainers on corrections is at the heart of the divide, there are other significant factors that make it even more pronounced than that.
However, I disagree with statement #2.
I do not believe that it is realistic, nor even beneficial, to pretend that the divide between the different trainer populations does not exist. I do not even agree that we should, necessarily, attempt to erase the divide!
I propose that both +R and All Quad trainers should acknowledge the divide, seek to understand the divide, and even embrace the divide!
It actually exists for a very good reason: we are different.
What?
Yes, it is a fact that individual trainers are different from one another. Some examples . . .
- A trainer who chooses to put a prong collar on a dog to train loose leash walking is different from a trainer who uses a food based method to train that skill. There is a difference, even when the end result of the training looks very much the same!
- A trainer who considers electric shock on a remote collar to be a "stim" or a "tickle" that the dog will actually enjoy working for is different from a trainer who considers the use of electric shock to train dogs to be aversive. There is a difference.
- A trainer who uses a clicker to build duration of focus and attention in the face of distraction is different from a trainer who uses a verbal reprimand to do so. There is a difference, again, even when the end result looks identical!
Furthermore - and this is critically important - "different", in and of itself, does not mean "better" or "worse". "Different" is not a value judgement. It means precisely what it says: different. Or, not exactly the same.
+R training and All Quad training is not the same! Yes, there are many methods that both groups use and do, in fact, agree on. Yes, there are some techniques, and elements of training philosophy, that both groups do share in common. But the differences that exist are quite significant!
Also, speaking in terms of "difference" does not imply "hate". For example, the statement, "I use food to train a recall" does not mean "I hate those who do not use food to train recalls". It simply means, "I do it this way". Even if I were to go so far as to say, "I do not use a long line and a prong collar to train recalls", I am not saying "I hate people who use long lines and prong collars to train recalls". Yes, I am saying, effectively, "I do something different from what you choose to do". Again, straightforward acknowledgment of difference is not a statement of hatred.
Why Acknowledge Differences?
I am convinced that honest and straightforward identification and understanding of the real differences between the two "camps" would actually have the potential to result in more respectful, cooperative, and fruitful discussion between the two groups.
If we are able to speak of the differences as differences, with an understanding that we are not the same, and that we are not going to agree on everything, the door would be open to mutual listening between those who hold different perspectives, and to a better understanding of where those who take another approach are coming from.
What About Common Ground?
I am all for finding common ground between trainers. However, attempts to do so tend to disintegrate into bickering, flying accusations, emotions gone wild, and very little agreement in the end.
Starting, instead, with, "we differ in these ways" can create a foundation of, "these are the different points of view where we are coming from". With that established and out of the way, common ground can serve to bridge the divide that we are now well aware of.
A bridge, after all, does not close a divide. It connects the two sides. Our common ground can connect us, but only after we have come to know and understand the reasons for the divide that needs to be crossed.
The divide is real. I propose that we start there . . .
The divide is real. I propose that we start there . . .
To be truly fair I feel the statement "+R training and All Quad training is not the same!" should be stated as such 'Incomplete OC and Full OC training is not the same even though both camps utilize +R' to be accurate and unbiased.
ReplyDeleteHi boct - thanks for stopping by!
ReplyDeleteAnd thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clarify that there is nothing "incomplete" about +R based training. There are countless +R methods that serve to facilitate canine learning from start to reliable and complete end result.
The most fundamental difference between +R training and All Quad training does not lie in one or the other being "complete", but in whether or not the trainer in question considers the application of aversives in training to be necessary in order for dogs to learn.
The All Quad trainer holds, at least to some extent, that a dog is not capable of learning unless the he or she experiences a trainer-imposed bad consequence (which can certainly vary in degree) for certain choices and actions, at least at some point in the training process. The +R trainer holds that this is not, in fact, necessary in order for learning to take place, and that dogs can learn through the process of being taught - clearly, systematically, and consistently - what is desired.
Rest assured, +R methods are complete and effective!
Therefore, I stand the objectivity and accuracy of my original statement!
And yes, both types of trainers do utilize +R. We do share that in common, especially in the early stages of training where behaviors and concepts are first introduced to the dog. However, I would maintain that the final completion process of building fluency, facilitating generalization, and the creating the reliable end result through +R is unique to the +R trainer.