It was your term. You said:

I was simply listing other types of negative marker and asking if you saw them too as 'just a communication'.

With your head examining you upper colon I can understand your confusion.

You are "anti", anti-training, anti-communication, anti-learning. The only pro stance you take is one of pro-violence; the millan way.

It is really quite pathetic that you feel it is OK to lie about the episode to prop up your failing arguments.

http://www.clickertraining.com/node/988


I think most people at one point use punishment. However where the problem lies is that in Millan's way of thinking - and his followers - punishment is about pain, threats, coercion, intimidation.

It is important to note that just because something is aversive to the dog, it is not by definition a punishment. No doubt we are all familiar with people who apply aversives without results.

http://www.clickertraining.com/node/1395



Dunbar makes it very clear, punishment doesn't have to be painful or scary to be effective.

No that is NO punishment, just interacting with your dog, UNLESS your dog reacted as a threat, which i dont think many if any dogs would



You seem abit hung up on Clicker use. One of the "best & Easiest" ways dogs learn is operant Conditioning, Which Clicker Trainers use, however not all ways of operant Conditioning use the clicker, & the clicker is defintally not the only means of positive reinforcement .

(im saying this because any members of the board that read some of the posts may think that positve reinforcement = clicker, which it does not only = )

It's interesting the way we all put our own interpretations on things even with clear 'specifications'.

I would most definately say that issuing a threat (ADDING SOMETHING TO YOUR TRAINING TO PUNISH) is positive punishment.

Also the whole area of communication seems to be a little open to individual interpretation. Take for example clicker training.

You might view a click as simple communication - letting the dog know that it's done what you want and is about to be rewarded.

However, I know with my dogs that the sound of the clicker followed by a treat is WAY more desirable than just a boring old treat. And it's because of this that many conclude that the sound of the clicker eventually becomes a positive reward in it's own right.

Those that take that line of reasoning would no doubt conclude that a negative marker isn't just communication, but is in fact positive punishment (ADDING SOMETHING TO YOUR TRAINING TO PUNISH). Your intention might not be to punish, but how does the dog interpret it...?

I know a lot of people say that negative markers shouldn't be used as they shut many dogs down and you can never tell up front what dogs will react in this way. I know my girl reacts badly to them. They help our boy to learn faster. Are they only positive punishment when used on my girl....or maybe it's always positive punishment but positive punishment is a good thing when used in the right circumstances with the right dog.

So many different valid ways of viewing the same thing.

It depends on you and your dog as to whether a negative marker is punishment of not

Which is why I am moving more on to 'try again' rather than 'no' because many people dont just say 'no' it becomes 'NO'

In the example I gave with the weaves then yes in the strictest form of the definition then yes it is a non adversive punishment (thanks for that promethian) it is something I am doing to make the behaviour less likely

another time I am using it is in free shaping, when Ben is on the right track I can be saying 'yes yes yes yes' until he does the thing I want to click him for, I can v gently say 'no' if I can see he is heading in a way I dont want at that moment - it tells him to try something else - it does not make that behaviour less likely in the future it is just letting him know that is not what I want at the moment, Like when I am teaching him to cross his paws and at the moment I want him to only hit the target with his right paw, if I see his left paw going up I gently say 'no' and he tries something else, if I feel the need to say 'no' again then i make the exercise easier by moving the target closer to the paw I want

I'm sure you're the expert on examining colons, so I'll take your word for anything to do with that subject I've often thought you talk a lot of the waste that passes the colon

The only "anti" I am, is anti rude little men that hide behind a computer screen, insulting women. You do your best though. If you try really hard, you might manage to get another thread locked

I only know about people like you, who refuse help getting their head out of their colon. Another 'anti' is your virulent anti-men attitude. It is misandry at it's finest, there must be a pathological issue as to why you derive such pleasure from insulting men via the net. Anti-fact, anti-science, hell you are anti so many things it's hard to keep track.

Your posts are like the rantings of a mad-man. Seriously, give it up *yawn* I've been married to a real man for 18 years and have four fine Brothers and a fine Son. It's not men I have a problem with, it's poor excuses for men, like yourself, that make my skin crawl.

You stick to examining colons. I think that's where you are in your comfort zone

The echo reverberating from the inner walls of your intestine make it difficult to understand. I guess I must have misunderstood the part about not bothering to respond. Stop insulting men, women, children and minorities, you are a poor excuse for a human being.