The "Great Divide" . . . a Different Perspective

Lately I have notable number of blogs and group posts that propose the following two ideas:

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 . . . 

Are +R Trainers Really Big Bad Meanies?

A good measure of conflict has existed for some time now between those who train dogs as exclusively as possible using positive reinforcement (hereafter +R trainers) and those who hold that some incorporation of aversives/positive punishment/correction, is necessary to effectively train dogs (hereafter All Quad trainers).  The points of debate between the two groups have included many long-enduring assertions and objections.

But this past summer I came upon a new one that has left me quite astonished.  The new rallying cry of a particularly vocal segment of the All Quad training community is "+R trainers are MEAN!!"

Now, it is important to note that practitioners of all of the different training approaches include some individuals who are rude and disagreeable, just as there are many practitioners of all of the different training approaches who are polite, eager to engage in discussion in a true give and take, and strive to be objective.  The fact of rude trainers is not strictly a +R training phenomenon.  I do not deny that there are +R trainers who could use some work on their people-skills - but I would say just as firmly that All Quad trainers who could stand to work on the same people-skills exist in at least the same proportion.

However, there is one extra little barb that is inserted into the objection directed at +R trainers, and it is often worded like this: "how can you say you are +R toward dogs when you don't use +R with people?"  

I give the All Quad folks a lot of credit for finding a slam that will really pack a good punch.  This is actually a personal attack (you are a mean, rude, etc. person) veiled as a criticism of the training approach (the trainers use of +R with dogs).  As such, it is very, very clever.  Granted, I would maintain that choosing to use aversives in training does not give a person any more right to be rude to other people than +R trainers, but that really isn't where I'm going with this.  The accusation boils down to, "there is no way you can actually do what you claim to do as a dog trainer because I don't like the way you treat me as a person".  Frankly, that doesn't add up.  But it does come off as if a valid point has been made.

When it comes down to it, we should treat other people with respect because it is right to treat other people with respect, not because one chooses to train a dog in a certain way.  Being a +R dog trainer does not somehow imply that  an individual now has an obligation to be Mother Theresa but that those who incorporate aversives/positive punishment/correction can be as rude as they please!  Choice of training approach has no bearing on this, actually.

Now I am going to say something that might be very controversial, but I feel strongly that it needs to be said . . .

I do not believe a prevalence of rude +R trainers is actually at the root of this particular accusation.  I strongly suspect that something else is happening here.

Sure there are rude +R trainers.  But there are rude All Quad trainers out and about on the online forums, as well.  Nobody is sending out a mass rallying cry against them.

I believe this accusation is actually a response to the fact that there is something that the vast majority of +R trainers will not and cannot, in good conscience, do.

It is a fact that no matter how much an individual All Quad trainer loves his or her dog, no matter how well he or she takes care of his or her dog, no matter what titles and accomplishments he or she achieves with his or her dog, most +R trainers will not and cannot say, "Even though I choose to train in a different way, I am perfectly fine with your personal training choices".

I believe that for those who choose to train using aversives - even to the most minute degree - that stings a bit.  The unspoken implication is there - "I would not choose to do what you do, therefore I am, on some level, not really perfectly OK with what you are doing".

Ouch!

When looking at things from that perspective, the over-exaggerated cry of "+R trainers are mean!" makes perfect sense.  It does seem mean.  Total approval from an entire population of dog trainers is being withheld and the reason why probably doesn't quite make sense.

Many +R trainers and All Quad trainers share a lot in common.  We train and compete side by side, harmoniously, in almost every dog sport.  We use a lot of the same techniques, especially in the early stages of training a dog.  We all want good things for our dogs.  We all have goals and we are all looking for results.  Many of us have put forth a lot of effort to try to understand those who make different training choices, even when we do not agree on this approach or that approach.  I realize it must be utterly confounding that +R trainers will not just make nice and offer a complete and resounding endorsement of at least an All Quad training approach . . .

But that doesn't make the "mean" designation accurate.  It is actually not mean or rude to hold true to one's personal standards.  There are training approaches that All Quad trainers use that +R trainers choose not to use because they do not consider them to be appropriate things to do to a dog.  In doing this, and even in saying so, one is not being "mean" to those who consider such approaches acceptable.  It's not really about them, actually . . .

The fact is that the vast majority of +R trainers are out there training dogs, working with clients and client dogs, helping people learn how to help their dogs overcome behavior issues, coaching competition handlers, and preparing their own dogs for competition.  Most promote +R training to those who come their way for training, many of whom have tried methods that incorporate aversives and have not gotten the results they hoped for.

Of the ones who are on the internet forums, many engage in debate with All Quad trainers in an objective and helpful manner.  If you aren't finding those +R trainers, I would suggest you explore some different groups.

No, we aren't really big bad meanies.  We are excited about +R training, we promote +R training, and we are committed to excellent use of +R training.  Rude individuals best represent themselves as rude individuals, not the entire +R training population.