Purely Positive - What Does it Mean?

Let me preface this by saying that I do not like the term "purely positive", and I generally avoid any use of it.  In fact, I find it to be moderately aversive, in spite of the fact that my own training approach could technically be termed as such.  However, because it is a term that is used commonly, both by those who choose to incorporate correction into their training, and by the general pet public, I believe that consideration of the term is in order.

In behavior theory speak, the term "purely positive" is used to designate dog trainers who train, almost exclusively, using positive reinforcers (incorporating limited use of negative punishment where needed), and who deliberately avoid all use of positive punishment and negative reinforcement.  In common speak, "purely positive" means that the trainer uses things that the dog likes as rewards to help the dog learn, and avoids things that the dog finds unpleasant, aversive, or painful.

But in actual practice, I find that "purely positive" tends to be used much more as a statement of what the trainer is not doing - correcting the dog - than a clear description of what the trainer actually is doing, which can be quite systematic and effective.  This tends to give the incorrect impression that the "purely positive" trainer is actually not doing much of anything!

One of the main reasons why I find the term aversive is because I have heard it thrown in the face of primarily positive reinforcement based trainers (hereafter designated as +R) as an attempt to discredit their training methods, based not on actual results that the trainer may or may not have achieved using +R methods, but on the often repeated mantra: no training can be purely positive all the time.

Technically, that is true.  No training can be "purely positive" all the time.  Sometimes an approach that the trainer intends to be reinforcing to the dog turns out to be aversive to a particular dog.  And there are times when an individual trainer may not pick up on that.  Accidents that are aversive to the dog happen - things fall over, paws get stepped on, trainer timing is sometimes off and feedback to the dog can be unclear, etc.  And, there are times when restricting the dog's access to something that he or she might want is necessary.  In other words, even when the trainer is committed to a +R approach, everything is not pleasant for the dog at all times.

+R trainers are well aware of all of this.  The aim of +R training is not to make everything pleasant for the dog at all times, but to facilitate canine learning, primarily, though methods that employ the use of positive reinforcement.  This is an important distinction.  I would say that the vast majority of trainers, regardless of training method chosen, ultimately want to make life as pleasant as possible for their dogs.  And it is a fact that there are times in the learning process, and in life itself, when the dog will experience times of difficulty and frustration, and when he will not always have what he wants.  And while +R trainers do make a deliberate choice to avoid use of training techniques that use aversion to teach concepts and behavior, they also know that training is a discipline that often presents challenges to the dog along the way.  In other words, of course, no training is "purely positive" all the time, in the sense that no training is 100% pleasant to the dog at all times.

This, however, does not change the fact that there are many, many good +R trainers out there who get excellent results.  I propose that the effectiveness of +R training methods should be judged on the basis of the actual results that competent +R trainers produce, and not on implications associated with a term that does not precisely describe this type of training to begin with.

Another reason why I avoid the use of the term "purely positive" is that the term is used to mischaracterize +R trainers as "cookie pushers" who lack any clear purpose, structure, or use of intellect in their training.  I often hear things like, "a dog won't stop for a cookie when he is busy chasing a squirrel".  As if +R trainers are outside, pointlessly calling "cookie, cookie, cookie" while waving a hot dog in the air, as the dog is tearing away full speed and then call that a training method!  There are certainly those who have that impression when they hear the term "purely positive"!

+R training is highly structured, the methods that fall under the umbrella of +R have clear purpose, and +R trainers know how to develop training plans that take the individual needs of the dog into account.  A good +R trainer would no more recommend the above approach than he or she would recommend that a skydiving instructor should wait until the skydiving student is falling from the plane before explaining how the parachute works!

Finally, "purely positive" is often understood to mean, simply, "never say no".  For many the term is synonymous with "let the dog do whatever he wants and when you like something he does, give him a cookie, and ignore absolutely everything else".  So, if the dog is running toward a busy street, ignore it; if the dog is about to eat a fully cooked chicken that is sitting on the counter, ignore it; if the dog poops all over the house, ignore it; if the dog is bullying other dogs in the house, ignore it.  This is absolutely not what happens when one trains using +R!  

In reality, the +R trainer would view these scenarios more like this: if the dog is running toward a busy street, use a well trained recall to call the dog back; if the dog is about to eat a fully cooked chicken that is sitting on the counter, use a well trained leave it cue to indicate that it should be left alone; if the dog poops all over the house, go back to training 101 and teach the dog to go to the bathroom outdoors (unless it's a medical issue, of course, in which case, consult a vet); if the dog is bullying other dogs in the house, assess and address the situation to ensure the well being of all of the dogs.  And while the +R trainer will choose to use positive reinforcers to teach the excellent recall, the well-understood "leave it", and a combination of positive reinforcement/negative punishment to teach the dog where to defecate and how to behave appropriately around the other dogs, the idea of that the "purely positive" trainer is sitting around letting it all happen is simply false.

I believe that this misconception has developed from an incorrect understanding of the free shaping training technique.  Yes, when one is free shaping, the trainer allows the dog to do anything he or she chooses and then clicks and gives a treat when the dog does something that the trainer wants.  Through this process, the dog learns what is being clicked frequently and begins to offer that behavior, and then that offering is "shaped" into a concrete behavior that is put on a cue.  This can be done to teach basic behaviors, tricks, and sport skills.

It is important to note that free shaping is done within the context of training sessions, not throughout life in general.  Free shaping should be done in situations where the dog is going to be safe no matter what he or she should choose to do, like a living room or other training space.  Free shaping is not done with the untrained dog off leash next to a busy street.  And, of course, if the dog is going to do something that is unsafe during a free shaping session, the dog is not left to do that unsafe thing in the name of shaping!

In reality, dogs who are trained through +R methods learn to ignore cars that they would have formerly chased, they learn to recall off of squirrels and other exciting things, they learn to greet people and other dogs politely, they are housetrained, they learn what is theirs to chew and what is not a chew toy, they learn to walk politely on loose leashes, etc. etc. etc.

+R training is all about the dog learning how to be a good citizen in the human world, how to be a polite member of a human household, how to carry out a set of tasks to assist us with our work, or, sometimes, how to be a skilled and  competent participant in a human-made dog sport.

"Purely positive" expresses none of this, and implies a good deal that is actually not true.

I am all for abandoning the term entirely in favor of finding more precise ways of describing what +R training is really about!  The more people come to understand +R training as a diverse, effective, and highly substantial training discipline, the better.

Dog Training as Morality?

This is a re-post from my other blog, but it fits in with the overall topic of this blog, so I am re-posting here.

Training methodology and philosophy are often a hotly discussed and debated topic among those who train dogs with any degree of seriousness.  Particularly among those of us who enjoy discussing training on internet groups and lists.  The debates can get quite emotional at times, complete with indignation and hurt feelings flying high and fast.

I understand the intense interest in the subject.  I definitely have a philosophy that influences my own training and handling choices.  I enjoy discussing this with others of like mind.  And sometimes I enjoy discussing it with people who are not of like mind, especially on the rare occasions when the debate is objective and logical, and assertions are backed by fact.

Some have compared training philosophy to religious practice.  As a seriously active and practicing (and even professional) Catholic, I do see a great many parallels between the two.  They are not exactly the same, of course, but there are certain similarities.

For example, although this would be considered a very unpopular assertion, I actually think of training philosophies as a type of morality.

Did I really just say that?  Yes, I did.

Just a few days ago, in my classes at school, my students learned this definition of morality:

Morality - what we ought to do and who we ought to be, according to God's Law

A training philosophy really is what an individual trainer holds as what he or she ought to do (to and for his or her dog) and who he or she ought to be (as a trainer and handler).

For example, just as I hold, as a Catholic Christian, that I ought to respect the property of others and so I ask to borrow something rather than take it without permission, I hold, as a dog trainer/handler that I ought to give my dog an active role in the learning process and so I use training techniques that provide opportunities for the dog to have input into his or her training.

I believe that this is one of the main reason why training debates among those who adhere to different training philosophies are often so heated and emotional.  The discussions aren't just about methodology, nor about what "works", nor what is the fastest way to train.  Dig down a little bit deeper and it is clear that we really are discussing the manner in which each of us believe that a dog ought to be treated and handled.

Few people are going to take kindly to a perceived implication that the manner in which he or she believes that a dog ought to be treated or handled is considered to be "wrong" by someone else.

Moreover, it is culturally unacceptable, at least in this country, to come right out and say, "I don't choose to train or handle in this way [insert methodology here] because I consider it wrong to treat a dog that way".  We have to dance around it, try to find a way to express it that sounds like that isn't actually what is being said. 

But, when it comes down to it, when one looks at things from a moral perspective, there are going to be some choices that one considers to be right and other choices that one considers it to be wrong.  And, when it comes down to it, there are training choices that each individual trainer considers to be right and other choices that one considers to be wrong.  If that were not the case, we would not be having these debates at all.

The whys and wherefores of those choices will vary from one trainer to another.  Some will base the rightness or wrongness of a particular approach or method on behavioral results alone, some on the speed of the effectiveness of the technique, some on the effect that the technique has on the dog's confidence and attitude, some on both the dog and handler's enjoyment of the training process, some on the track record that the method or approach has had with other handlers in certain types of competition, some on the role that the dog plays in the learning process, some on what has been tried and found successful by themselves, some on what is being taught or promoted by a particular trainer, some on what has traditionally been done in a particular discipline, etc. etc. etc.

But in the end, we are all making choices for our dogs that are driven by what we hold to be right and wrong for our dogs and ourselves, and I don't consider this, in itself, to be a bad thing.  Perhaps if we were to acknowledge this more openly, we could find ways to make our discussions of training, and our own training philosophies, more objective, logical, and fruitful.

Why Debate?

I have been known, from time to time, to get involved in debate over dog training topics in various online forums and discussion groups.  The main point of disagreement in the vast majority of these debates has been the use, or lack thereof, of "corrections" in training.  And I will freely admit that I generally enjoy those debates.  Sometimes they degrade into flying accusations and personal insults, but when the discussions happen with a mutual desire to understand the position of the other side, I find them to be fascinating conversations.

One observation that I have made within the context of these debates is that there are almost always participants who object to the very discussion itself!  These folks tend to jump in with, "why are we having this discussion again?" or "nobody will ever change their mind, so why bother to talk about this?" or something to that effect.  I always wonder why, if they object discussion of the topic out of hand, those particular people choose to get involved with it, but since they always do, these are questions that bear consideration.

Why have the debate?  Why participate?  What motivates those who do so?

Why have the debate?

It is true - there are those who are set on their particular position.  I will readily admit that I am one of those people.  No matter how many times somebody tells me that they prefer to incorporate correction into their training, for whatever reasons they care to share, I am not going to choose to do so.  And I recognize the fact that many of those who incorporate correction into their training are not going to choose to learn +R based ways to train in place of use of correction based on anything that I have to say about the matter.

Should we not, therefore, separate into our particular "camps", do what we understand to be best, and leave it at that?  I would say . . . no!

First of all, we do not live in isolated bubbles.  Typically, we train in the same training centers, we compete in the same venues, those of us who teach classes are colleagues with those who choose different training approaches.  Many of us work with students who have worked with instructors who promote different approaches.  And, of course, when we choose to discuss training online, there are always members of a particular group who have a different point of view.

In addition, I firmly believe that, in spite of the differences that exist, there is much that we have to learn from each other.  I consider it to be a good thing to understand the motivation behind why a trainer would choose a method that I personally would not, even if I cannot, in the end "agree" with their personal training choices.  I believe that it is beneficial for those who do not have a good understanding of what +R based training is actually capable to consider the possibilities even if they cannot "agree" with my personal choices.

Sometimes a particular criticism that is made by those who choose to incorporate correction inspires me to learn to train smarter and train better.  While I am not personally a "high level" trainer, I do want to be the best representative of those who choose to train primarily through +R based techniques that I can be.  Having an awareness of valid criticisms of the practices of +R based trainers can give me information that allows me to avoid those types of errors.

Why participate? What motivates those who do?

I would imagine that the reasons why people get into these particular debates is as varied as the individuals themselves.  Some are looking to change people's minds.  Some are crossover trainers who want to share something good that they have found.  Some are intensely interested in the subject and just want to discuss it.

Personally, I find that I get drawn into this debate when a misconception about +R based training is being promoted in some way.  When I read things like: "+R based training doesn't work when (insert situation here) . . ., "+R training kills dogs", "+R training produces a dog who can never do anything without food", "+R trainers are really punishing their dogs, but they just don't know it", "+R training produces dogs who cannot handle pain/stress/difficult situations", and the like, I end up jumping in to try to provide clarification, present an alternate point of view, or even dispute the claim.

I am well aware of the fact that doing this annoys or even angers those who promote those misconceptions, that there are those who are not going to be open to consideration of another perspective, and some who are going to hear what they want to hear instead of what I am actually saying.  But I am also aware of the fact that there are those who are open to consideration of a different point of view.  They are not typically the most vocal participants in these debates - often they choose to lurk altogether.  But I know they are out there.  And I am convinced that those who are open to consideration of objective facts have a right to hear both sides of the argument so they can make their own informed training choices.

When I participate in training methodology debates, my comments really are for the eyes and ears of those who are open to learning the facts.

Also, I am intensely interested in the subject and I want to discuss it.

In Conclusion

There have been times when I have regretted entering into these debates.  I have been accused of lying, of creating straw men, of saying things that I never said or implied.  I have been told that my dogs do not actually know things that I have trained, that I have ruined my dogs, and that I am not qualified to have a position on this matter because I have not earned a title in a sport in which I do not participate or accomplished a goal that I personally do not have with my dogs.

In spite of that, I still believe that this topic can be debated objectively and in a manner that does not include accusation, innuendo, or personal attacks.  And when it is handled in that manner, it is a debate that I thoroughly enjoy taking part in.  I always learn something about those on the "other side" and learning is always worthwhile.

Tessa enjoying a gorgeous spring day

Not a Protective Bubble

One of the most bizzarre objections that I have heard toward those who do not incorporate correction into training is that the dog will not be equipped to deal with the negatives in life if the handler never makes the dog deal with negative experiences through handler applied correction.

This objection incorporates two erroneous presumptions.

1.  +R based training somehow insulates a dog from everything difficult, negative, or bad in life.

2.  Handler imposed "correction" is the only way for a dog to learn that life is, at times, unpleasant.

Reinforcement based training does not, in fact, cannot, insulate a dog from the challenges of life. Certain vet visits are painful or, at least, uncomfortable. The dog still has to learn to put up with things like nail clippings and baths (for those who, by nature, do not like such things). Dogs who are trained through reinforcement do not get everything that they want all the time. In fact, when reinforcement based training is done properly, dogs learn that there are frequent times when they will not get what they want, and that they need to exercise self restraint.

Dogs who are trained through reinforcement still get accidentally bumped into, called off of things that they would rather chase or investigate, experience fear of something at some point if not many things, and deal with boredom, frustration, and loss.  They experience injury, illness, and every manner of life that is unpleasant that any living creature on this earth experiences.  The fact that the handler is not adding to that by incorporation of further discomfort into training has no bearing on the fact that every dog will experience, and hopefully learn to cope with, the difficulties and challenges of life.

+R based training is an approach to teaching concepts, behaviors, manners, skills, and whatever else the dog needs in order to successfully accomplish what his or her owner/handler desires. It's purpose is not to insulate the dog from the typical, and atypical, experiences that life throws their way.  There actually is no need to attempt to add to a dog's experience of "the negative in life" that by applying leash pops, electric shocks, prongs, verbal reprimands, expressions of dissatisfaction, etc. etc. etc. when one is teaching concepts, behaviors, manners, skills, etc. 

Life does that job quite thoroughly.  Primarily +R trained dogs do not exist in some kind of protective bubble that prevents them from experiencing anything negative, difficult, or challenging in life. That really isn't even possible. 

But . . . Not All Corrections Are Abusive

If you frequent online discussion groups and forums long enough, you end up hearing quite a litany of objections toward +R based dog training.  Some of these objections are grounded in legitimate issues.  The quality of instruction in +R based dog training can vary from trainer to trainer and area to area.  Some of the objections to +R based dog training have been around since an earlier time and many do not realize that the discipline has grown, changed, and improved in many ways.

However, many of the objections are based on flat out misconception.

One of the most frequent objections that I hear to train using +R based methods, directed specifically at those who choose not to incorporate corrections into their work with dogs is that "not all corrections are abusive."  Concluding, therefore, that since they are "not all abusive", they should be used.

 

Is Anyone Saying They Are?

The first aspect of this objection that I would like to consider is this.  Do most +R based trainers really claim that all use of corrections in training is "abusive"?

Based on discussions that I have had with other +R based trainers, I would say "no".  Most +R based trainers would not actually claim that all use of corrections in training is "abusive".We are certainly very much aware of the fact that corrections, and many of the more popular corrective training devices, can be used, and are, in fact, used by some trainers in abusive ways.

 

And we do tend to vociferously object to such practices.  We do hold that there are better ways to achieve the desired results, even when working with dogs with more serious issues, and we do not just sit back and approve of the use of methods in training that are abusive, harsh, painful, and potentially very harmful to the dog.

 

Somehow, there are dog trainers who add the fact that +R based trainers speak out against abusive training methods to the fact that we choose not to incorporate correction into training and they think that the sum total of those two facts equals, "all use of corrections in training is abusive".

 

In reality, that is faulty math.

 

Of course, there are corrections, both verbal and physical, that are more mild, that work by causing a more moderate level of discomfort to the dog, and that can effectively communicate information to certain dogs in certain circumstances.

 

And while it is not my personal choice to employ the use even of those more mild corrections, of course I would not call their use "abusive".

 

"Not Abusive" is Not a Reason

 

If I were going to consider incorporating corrections into my training, I would need a clear and concrete reason to do so.  I would need a lot more motivation than the acknowledgment that not all use of correction in training is abusive.  "Not abusive" is not a reason.

Certainly, "abusive" is a clear reason not to, "not abusive" is not a reason to do so.

Suppose I were to try to convince someone who did not want to use a clicker in training to use one.  If I were to say, "it's not abusive", is that going to convince someone who is opposed to the idea?  It's not likely.  I would need to present real reasons that would lead one to think about the clicker in a different way.

I have been involved with training dogs since 2002, and I have managed to accomplish some things through +R based training that some say cannot be done without corrections.  I have successfully rehabilitated a fear reactive dog.  I have helped an untrained and completely undisciplined adolescent Border Collie become the best behaved dog in our household.  I have trained my dogs to recall reliably to hike off leash in the woods.  And I could go on . . .

In all that time nobody has ever presented any compelling reason to me to abandon the +R based approach that I have chosen in favor of a training protocol that incorporates corrections.

That is why I stick with a +R based training approach.  I find the discipline of +R based training to be enjoyable, an inspiration of creativity and outside-the-box thinking, effective, and absolutely fascinating.

I would need a lot more than "not abusive" to be convinced to consider incorporating corrections into my training.  After all, what I am already doing is not abusive.  And . . . it is so much more than that!
 

Speedy, the first dog I trained.  He started off fear reactive, and I learned

how to help him through desensitization and counter conditioning.

He went on to enjoy a full and happy life, playing off leash on the beach

every summer.  He also enjoyed participation in several performance sports.

Why a Blog?

I am a +R based dog trainer.

This means that I choose to train dogs primarily through techniques and methods that employ the use of positive reinforcers and good consequences to facilitate canine learning.  These ways of training do not include the deliberate incorporation of physical or verbal corrections.

This is currently a topic of hot debate in online groups and discussion forums, and I often have responses to those who object to this kind of dog training in those formats.

While I often do discuss those objections with those who make them in the formats where I read them, very often there is more that I don't say for various reasons.  Therefore, this blog will serve as a place where I can express my responses, thoughts on the topic of dog training, usually +R based dog training, freely, honestly, and openly.

I do not claim to be an expert dog trainer.  I certainly am not.  

I do not aspire to training feats worthy of high accolades.  

First and foremost, I love my dogs and I enjoy training them and participating in certain activities with them.  I have a great interest in Positive Reinforcement Based dog training and I have gone out of my way to learn as much as I can about it.

Some say that only highly skilled and extraordinary people can successfully train through reinforcement.  But I am an ordinary person and it works for me.  So, while not an expert, I am an average person who uses this sort of training on a daily basis.  That is the only point of view that I am coming from, or claim to come from!

One last point.  I am not starting this blog to be negative or to criticize anyone else.  It is a vehicle for my own self expression about something toward which I have a high level of interest.  There are people out there with whom I do not agree.  Much of what I write is in response to what some of them say and write publicly.  It is not intended as a personal slam or insult, but as my honest response.  I believe that discourse, expression, and learning are very positive things.  And those are the exact intention of this blog!

 

This is Tessa.  She is a former stray who was semi-feral when I adopted her.

Through +R based dog training, she has become a confident and happy member

of our household.  She has lovely manners, and enjoys running with me as my

Agility partner