# Positive perceptions; myths and realities



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> This is not the way most people are used to thinking about these terms, and it certainly isn't the way most people talk. That, however, does not mean that you're stupid or inept. I just means you haven't learned this yet. At some point, even our resident "experts" didn't know it yet either. Everyone was new at training at some point.


So true. I think part of the problem is that even our teachers misuse the terms. Or the terms mean something else to us. 

One thing that I kinda prefer (as a total layman and not any kind of expert) is the term "correction" to punishment. Only because I don't necessarily view what I do as a correction as being harsh enough to be called "punishment". Or even if the punishment isn't harsh... I don't know, the word means something else to me. 

A pop correction with the leash corrects a bad behavior. <- I would never say "A pop correction punishes the bad behavior".  

And the correction is anything that will get your dog's attention and stop what he's doing. A pop of the leash is preferable to kicking your dog, pinching your dog, grabbing your dog's ruff or ears, or whatever. 

ETA - Ohw. And back ten+ years ago when I first started getting hooked on dog training, I always saw how I trained (choke chain, pop corrections, firm verbal corrections, using praise and play to engage your dog, understanding dog behavior or reading your dog) as positive or gentle dog training. Heeheee. This was before clicker training took off and before the idea of elliminating all corrections or direction took off. I heard the beginnings of it with Danny when somebody told me that he wasn't going to do anything just for me and I had to load up with treats to cue him. <- If there are other people like me out there who felt like a duck out of water getting back into training with her dog today, it's no wonder there is confusion.


----------



## Maxs Mom (Mar 22, 2008)

HERE HERE!!!!

Another situation. I trained Belle with a group who primarily worked with assertive aggressive dogs with a lot of success. Belle was neither. Just a young energetic lab that we did not understand how to control. I truly liked this group because they taught me a LOT about dog behavior. 

This group believed in verbal "no" for correction, firm and strong if need be. Leash pops in the proper places, they did not allow treats of any form, praise was the only reward, and the harshest collar allowed was a nylon slip. The only time they strongly used the collar was if a dog went after another dog or person (never saw that though). Their rules included, no furniture, no tug toys, no stuffies. You are the 'pack leader' (to use Ceaser Milan's word) and the dog does your bidding. 

Belle was a class star. She never set a foot wrong, she was unflappable in the proofing exercises. She never failed a test ever. However she also completely lost her heart. She was not allowed to be a dog. She became a machine. By the time I realized it, it was almost too late. I had to find something to bring out Belle's "inner lab" again and we found agility. My point is, there were no e collars and not really a lot of 'corrections' yet it still demoralized my dog. Looking back if I had done training like we did with Gabby and Quinn with the e collar, for Belle using it in a fun positive situation where they understand clearly when we use it and why, I think Belle never would have shut down the way she did. I think Belle would be a different dog now. 

Any training method has it's pluses and minuses. You have to know your dog. Unfortunately I didn't know enough with Belle, I do know more now going forward with the new younger generation. Gabby and Quinn get EXCITED to see their "jewelry" come out as it means they get to do what they love. That is positive reinforcement in my book.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Evan, thanks for this table.

I think a big problem with some of our debates is that the common use of "positive" and "punishment" in particular are very different from the technical behavioral terms, and we often aren't clear in switching between them.

For example, when I train my dogs to wait politely at the door, here's what I do:

I've already worked on a "wait" command by non-reinforcing a break and reinforcing a held stay. I then use it when the dog is sitting in front of the door. I begin to open the door. If the dog breaks, I shut the door and don't let him go out. If he holds his "wait," I open the door more and more. When he gives me a "wait" until the door is totally open and he's just sitting there, looking out, he's finally rewarded with being released to go out. Nobody would call any part of that a "punishment" in layman's terms.

However, the technique relies almost entirely on what behavioral science would call "negative punishment." "Negative punishment" sounds really mean, but in behavioral terms, it simply means that I'm taking something away ("negative"—in this case, the reward of running or seeing out the door) in order to decrease a behavior ("punishment" for breaking). Every time I shut the door in order to teach him that breaking won't work, I'm "punishing" him according to BS terms. The positive part only comes once he has the behavior down and I can let him run out the door. At that moment of release, he's positively reinforced for holding the stay.

Many people would describe that technique as "positive training," but in strict behavioral terms, it's largely "negative" (involving withholding and removal of positive stimuli). It's important to understand which kind of terms we're using.

So in strict behavioral terms, being "pure positive" would mean using positive punishment (adding something unpleasant in order to decrease undesired behavior) and positive reinforcement (adding something pleasant in order to increase desired behavior). Nobody trains like that, and I've never heard anybody say "pure positive" and mean that. Most people who say "pure positive" mean "using only positive reinforcement and negative punishment" or "avoiding aversive stimuli." Other people mean "avoiding aversive stimuli whenever possible." So it's confusing.

The question that we often get into that's not about semantics is whether all quadrants are equally powerful in creating precise, durable behaviors and whether you can minimize or even eliminate your use of certain quadrants and still get equally precise, durable behaviors in an equal amount of time. I find there are situations where it's next to impossible to get a dog to stop doing something (sometimes safety-related) without adding an aversive stimulus (positive punishment), so I wouldn't consider myself a "pure positive" trainer (either in BS terms or in layman's terms), but I would consider myself someone who heavily favors P-/R+ whenever it's practical and seeks to avoid P+/R- wherever possible.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Megora said:


> A pop correction with the leash corrects a bad behavior. <- I would never say "A pop correction punishes the bad behavior".


Yes people often have their own ideas about terminology. But, if you are using accepted terminology you need to understand that if popping your dog decreases a behavior (i.e. looking away, pulling, etc) it is by definition a punishment.

I don't believe the word 'correction' has a universal definition like the four quadrants.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

GoldenSail said:


> Yes people often have their own ideas about terminology. But, if you are using accepted terminology you need to understand that if popping your dog decreases a behavior (i.e. looking away, pulling, etc) it is by definition a punishment.


I considered that this morning when I typed my first comment. But I guess it's the way I look at "punishment" and correction. 

The pop (the way I see it) is a "gotcha" and isn't so much as intended to nail the dog for oopsing. It's mainly to get your dog's attention back to a more correct behavior that can be praised and rewarded. It is the praise and reward which increases the good behaviors. Your opportunist golden retriever will learn that being in heel position and looking up gains praise and food.

I think my main issue is punishment is a very negative word in my brain.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

I absolutely believe in using all four quadrants as warranted for the individual dog. I think all have value depending on application and I will use what I think is most appropriate for my dog, my goals, and my situation.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Megora said:


> The pop (the way I see it) is a "gotcha" and isn't so much as intended to nail the dog for oopsing. It's mainly to get your dog's attention back to a more correct behavior that can be praised and rewarded. It is the praise and reward which increases the good behaviors. Your opportunist golden retriever will learn that being in heel position and looking up gains praise and food.


I think the "pop" is an interesting thing to consider. Some people absolutely do it as positive punishment. The dog did something undesired, and they give him a mildly unpleasant surprise in order to teach him not to do that anymore.

Others use a gentler pop simply to remind the dog that they're at the other end of the leash. They're not trying to cause discomfort or show the dog he's wrong. They're trying to get his attention so they can reward him for doing something right.

Some pops fall right in between these two, and it's hard to say if there's an aversive piece or simply an attempt to get attention (like making a silly noise so your dog looks at you). Training moments like these are where the four quadrant description breaks down a little and isn't quite as helpful.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

For a good explanation of the quadrants and other technical behavioral science stuff as it applies to dog training read Excel-erated Learning: Explaining in Plain English how Dogs Learn and how Best to Teach Them by Pamela Reid PhD.


----------



## EvanG (Apr 26, 2008)

The language of OP is not new, generally speaking. But, as it is used to describe dog training, it's new to a great many people. The preference of using "correction" over "punishment" is partial evidence of that. Crossing over meanings because of the street language we're used to fuels misunderstandings.

It's a lofty goal, but I hope to clear up several such misunderstandings common to retriever training dialogue. One key misunderstanding is about the perceived opposition between trainers who categorize themselves as "positive" trainers vs. those who use aversives. The assumption is often promoted as an outright clash between two schools of thought & practice. I contend such is often not the case.

I represent a shool of thought that is open to techniques of training that cover all four quadrants in the OP philosophy. If that is literally so, then the approach must include any techniques that are fair and appropriate for the situation. Further, approaching training this way calls for an open mind, and a fixed focus on what is both fair _and_ effective for the dog.

We who use aversive tools, including e-collars, are often framed as "punishment" or "negative" only trainers. That is not only incorrect, but totally outside the bounds of reality.

I know many of the top trainers, and am familiar with many others who use a training system designed to incorporate aversive tools like heeling sticks, leashes, e-collars, ropes and others. Virtually all follow a "teach-first" flow course that involves nearly all positive work to form behaviors in response to uniform commands. No aversives enter the training cycle until the dog has been thoroughly taught by the most passive measures first.

Saying you use an aversive tool does not exlcude you as a positive trainer. It does mean you're not all-positive, but more explanation of that is yet to come.

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

EvanG said:


> One key misunderstanding is about the perceived opposition between trainers who categorize themselves as "positive" trainers vs. those who use aversives. The assumption is often promoted as an outright clash between two schools of thought & practice. I contend such is often not the case.


I agree with you. Trainers are really on a continuum from those who rely mainly aversives (which I don't think describes any regular GRF participant) to those who refuse to use any at all (and I haven't heard anybody on GRF advocate this extreme either, though there are people who claim to train this way).



EvanG said:


> I represent a shool of thought that is open to techniques of training that cover all four quadrants in the OP philosophy. If that is literally so, then the approach must include any techniques that are fair and appropriate for the situation. Further, approaching training this way calls for an open mind, and a fixed focus on what is both fair _and_ effective for the dog.


The question in my mind is whether we can say that some quadrants have higher potential for abuse and others are generally better at creating durability or precision. As you went into when you talked about the teaching phase, it's generally a good goal not to use positive punishment when a dog doesn't yet know what you might want. You _can_ use positive punishment to shape a behavior, but is it safe to say that you'd generally want to avoid that?



EvanG said:


> We who use aversive tools, including e-collars, are often framed as "punishment" or "negative" only trainers. That is not only incorrect, but totally outside the bounds of reality.


I fully believe this. It's easy for hackles to get up because some people have a strong negative reaction to the idea of an e-collar and often use words that I would consider over the top to describe it. By the same token, my experience has been that sometimes trainers that use the e-collar lump any disagreement in that same extreme category. So if I want to ask a question, there's an underlying assumption that I'm trying to paint it was abusive or cruel, despite my best efforts to say the exact opposite.



EvanG said:


> Saying you use an aversive tool does not exlcude you as a positive trainer. It does mean you're not all-positive, but more explanation of that is yet to come.


It depends which definition of "positive" you use. If we're trying to stick to strict behavioral definitions, nobody is all-positive, and nobody wants to be. It might be better to come up with a more precise term. I would describe myself as preferring to use negative punishment and positive reinforcement wherever possible or practical, and feeling it's a "win" in my training any time I can learn or adapt a technique that allows me to remove P+ or R- from that piece of training. So what would we call that?


----------



## EvanG (Apr 26, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> The question in my mind is whether we can say that some quadrants have higher potential for abuse and others are generally better at creating durability or precision. As you went into when you talked about the teaching phase, it's generally a good goal not to use positive punishment when a dog doesn't yet know what you might want. You _can_ use positive punishment to shape a behavior, but is it safe to say that you'd generally want to avoid that?


Yes. A couple anecdotes come to mind here.

"If you can't train a dog _without_ an e-collar, you shouldn't train a dog _with_ one." (my own saying)

"If you a train a young dog for momentum, precision will arrive. If you train for precision, demanding perfection, momentum will depart." (Rex Carr)


tippykayak said:


> It depends which definition of "positive" you use. If we're trying to stick to strict behavioral definitions, *nobody is all-positive*, and nobody wants to be.


Factually, nobody is an all-positive trainer, and to assert that they are is taking illegitimate license with the language.


tippykayak said:


> It might be better to come up with a more precise term. I would describe myself as preferring to use negative punishment and positive reinforcement wherever possible or practical, and feeling it's a "win" in my training any time I can learn or adapt a technique that allows me to remove P+ or R- from that piece of training. So what would we call that?


Good judgment. We have to be willing to think outside convention or popular notion if we are to elevate ourselves as trainers.

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

EvanG said:


> Factually, nobody is an all-positive trainer, and to assert that they are is taking illegitimate license with the language.


Certainly, but when you say "nobody is an all-positive trainer" are you saying there are no pure P+/R+ trainers (almost certainly true) or there are no pure R+/P- trainers (which many people claim to be)?



EvanG said:


> Good judgment.


A good judgment trainer. I like that.



EvanG said:


> We have to be willing to think outside convention or popular notion if we are to elevate ourselves as trainers.


Absolutely, and it's sometimes quite challenging to do so.


----------

