This is THE definitive article on the myth of purely positive dog training IMHO, although there are similar by other great trainers.

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

Thanks for the article
Cant say I agree with it tho

I dont think extinction is punishment - by definition punishment is something that causes the behaviour to be less likely to happen
If you remove reward and you get an extinction burst you are then causing the behaviour to happen more
Sure you can wait until the dog gives up and stops doing the thing you dont want - but often it is used to increase/strengthan behaviours by rewarding for more/better/faster during the extinction burst
Granted it can be frustraiting for some dogs - but punishing? I dont think so

and I teach recals as a chase game and only add the word or whisle when the dog is running towards me full pelt with a giant smile on their face

Brilliant. Thanks Smokey.

You are welcome, I think I will try and find the article by Gail Tamases Fisher on this subject, if not I will type it up from her book.

There are several more around from internationally known trainers and behaviourists.

I agree with Roger Abrantes, just as the pendulum swung from one extreme to another with regard to the word dominance, the same has happened with the word "positive" .

I have always found that in dog training, as in life, extremism is rarely helpful.

I just lov that attention to detail. Very impressed. The mor we all can learn, the better.

Mmm, extinction bursts rarely happen in one miraculous action.

Example:

Dog jumps at person
Person ignores until four feet are on the ground = negative punishment (negative punishment)
Dog stops jumping up and is given a fuss (positive reinforcement)
Dog starts jumping again even more urgently
Dog is ignored (negative punishment)
Dog is rewarded when jumping up stops (positive reinforcement)
Dog jumps up even more urgently and for a little longer
Dog is ignored etc, etc, etc until the dog no longer jumps up at all and is constantly rewarded for his efforts of keep feet on floor to greet

an extinction burst has taken place, but not all in one go (if that makes sense) and most handlers use both positive and negative punishment (some also use positive punishment and negative reinforcement) throughout the process

In the purest definition of the terms, while the extinction burst is taking place, it is being punished. In my opinion, the extinction burst itself is a term that describes the process that is taking place (ie the dog getting more urgent in its demands) and is not a description of the corrective process. It's the actions and reactions surrounding it that fall into the four quadrants of operant conditioning.

I agree with both statements.

Yup I totaly agree and that is kind of what I was saying
To truly say something is punishing for the dog then the behaviour you are punishing would have to decrease
Witholding the click, taking your attention away whatever could be punishment to some dogs - but if when you do it you are getting an extinction burst then what you are doing is not punishment for the dog in the strictest sense of the word

I dont see punishement and reward as black and white - there is a sliding scale - really good rewards on one side and really harsh punishments on the other side
Therefore you have to have a zero point as well - something that is neither punishing or reinforcing
and I see witholding the click as that (with most dogs) the actual witholding the click does not really decrease or increase the overal likelyhood of any behaviours - its what you do next that does that - reward what the dog is offereing at the time and you can stregthen the behaviour, reward something different the dog is offering and you get more chance of that different behaviour, punish by ending the sesh and you may get less chance of the dog offering things

I use the term "non-aversive" when describing my training style and would define it even further as "non physically aversive" as learning can be psychologically stressful to the do in some cases.

BAT, which relies on negative reinforcement, i.e. the stressful stimulus is removed from the dog to reinforce more appropriate behaviours, is not physically aversive but can be mildly, and only mildly, stressful for the dog if done correctly.

I also like this from Roger Abrantes, taken from the whole article.

Moralistic Dog Training (aka positive reinforcement training) distances itself from punishment, dominance, and leadership. They don’t define ‘dominance’ properly either, but use it with connotations of ‘punishment,’ ‘aggression,’ ‘coercion,’ ‘imposition.’ They claim dominance does not exist and regard it as a mere construct of philosophers and ethologists aimed at justifying the human tendency to dominate others. Their view is that we should nurture our dogs as if they were part of our family and should not dominate them. Therefore, they also distance themselves from using and condoning the use of terms like ‘alpha,’ ‘leader’ and ‘pack.’ The more extreme factions claim to refrain from using any aversive or signal that might be slightly connected with an aversive (like the word ‘no’) and deny their using of punishers (which, given the consensually accepted scientific definition of punishment, is a logical impossibility). Their refusal to accept the existence of dominant behavior is motivated by their desire to validate their training morality, but their interpretation of the term is again far from what ethologists understand by it.

http://rogerabrantes.wordpress.com/2...il-over-force/