It`s just semantics, isn`t it? We all try to train using positive / humane methods, I`m sure.
I`m not sure the general public is really that interested in the difference between punishment as in witholding a reward or punishment as in clouting the animal. I think most people see punishment as something nasty. Which really doesn`t need promoting in the context of dog training IMO.

Yes, I think there has been much confusion. Originally the "purely positive" training came I believe from the book and methods outlined by Sheila Booth in her book "Purely Positive Training - companion to competition" and she turned to this because of her experiences with some harsh Schutzhund training she encountered, which broke one of her special dogs.

This has hung around, but when you read the book you realise that some of what she talked about was in fact negative punishment in the operant conditioning sense.

I'm not sure that the general public really get the difference and it could get very confusing for them, because in lay terms they just use "punishment" and anything else could be a big case of and "Eh?"

However, mostly if anyone calls themselves a "positive trainer" people tend to understand what is meant, whether in the dog world outside. I tend to use the term "reward based" but if anyone else has a good term that makes sense, do say!

Wys
x

My trying to get back to sleep brain was thinking about this last night (hate it when head wont shut up)
Agree with the others above about general public just not getting it if we go to arsey about OC terms

But - to go all arsey about OC terms
I was having a think about not rewarding being punishing - and actually I dont agree
(not that it makes a blind bit of difference to dogs what the terms are - but its just a bit of fun)

The natural state for dogs is not getting treated
Currently my dogs are not getting treats - and that is clearly not punishing
My thoughts were non treating could be seen as a null/zeroth state

If not treating was to be considered a punishment in OC terms it would have to cause behaviours to be less likely to happen

I was thinking of that in terms of Mias training over the past couple of days

Shaping clicker sesh to get a nose touch on a gym ball

So I dont reward her for paws on the ball and she tries something else
nose touch - its rewarded
I reward that a couple of times then I withold the click looking for a firmer nose touch
She does the usual nose touch then looks for the click, dosent get it so tries a firmer touch

Then the next day I was shaping her for front paws on a box for some rear end awareness - the first thing she offers is paws on the box

So in the first sesh she had reward witheld for a nose touch and paws on
But the nose touch she clearly wasnt punished with as she tried a harder/better nose touch - rather than punishing it was more an extinction burst which then rewarded made it far more likely to happen
and with the paws on for that sesh we moved the focus away from paws - but the next time paws were still offered

So witholding treats was not punishing to her

Also that would suggest that every time a dog does a behaviour without being rewarded for it then they are being punished - which would make a long behavior chain impossible because each step would be making the behaviours less likely to happen - for example a nice long heelwork with sits and downs and returning to position
doing the work without rewards for every step becomes rewarding in itself, getting to move on to the next trick/position is rewarding in itself

As I said - for the dogs the terms we use are not important - and for the general public it would just be confusing
So I really dont see the problem with using a term that people understand - a simple word

Why are people so negative about positive?

Short answer, people are NOT negative about positive, they are negative about when people make inaccurate claims and statements about what they are doing because the word "punishment" has now joined "dominance" in the dictionary of "words that must never be expressed by any dog owners/ trainers/behaviourists/vets"

This is a message which has been reiterated in ALL bar one of the seminars I have attended this year by those who are FAR more qualified/experienced etc than any on this forum.

And I happen to agree with them.

The one person who diverted from this was Emily Larlam however she DEMONSTRATED and stated that some of what SHE does is regarded as punishment by many handlers in Sweden.

Go figure.

Oh gosh Ben, you've just reminded me of a discussion on here once and also one I had with trainer Bob Bailey (via email).

(BB as many will know, was working with the Brelands and Skinner, who was the "discoverer" of Operant Conditioning).

I have only read your post quickly so I may have to go back and re-read.

Whilst obviously I agree we use negative punishment by withholding a treat; I tend to think that withholding treats in some senses is not always punishing. But for me it's "when and how are we doing the withholding?" and the circumstances for that need to be explained. Certainly it's not in the sense that we are walking about with say, sausages in our pockets (not during an actual training session) and the dogs nearby are not getting the sausages.

Bob Bailey said to me (and scientists agree with this statement) that you cannot measure what is in a dog's mind, you can only measure behaviour and what a dog does. Therefore, he explained, you can't say that a dog feels disappointment etc for OC purposes, but you can say a dog's behaviour is being diminished or ended in certain circumstances of training.

I agree of course about what negative punishment is, in OC terms it is "punishment" plain and simple; however, I think the thing is when exactly are we withholding it and under what circumstances exactly? some have tried to say that we are doing it simply when having treats in our pockets and dogs are around us, and that I do disagree with. That explanation for me doesn't wash with what BB, and ultimately Skinner, has said.


I may have got the wrong end of the stick of what you wre saying, hope not!

Wys
x

SB
I suppose some people may see punishmenbt and dominance as the same kind of thing
That is not something i think - although I think often people use dominance as an excuse for punishment
I am not against punishment, I try and look for ways to train that minimise them where possible - but I am well aware they exist

However I dont think you have much of an argument by simply saying better qualified people say so
When my dad was doing him MSc maths paper on one of the questions he got a different answer from the rest of the class
He was marked as wrong, his proffessor said he was wrong and the rest of the class was correct

He disputed the result

A whole summer of explinations and the top maths minds in the country working on the problem and in the September my dad got the results - he was correct and everyone else was wrong

So if your only argument is others say Im wrong then I dont have anything t o debate with you on

I do not think anybody suggested that dominance and punishment were the same thing? I do not think any body has alluded to that?

Neither do I care who or how many others qualified or not "support" my view or not, I merely used them as an example.

My argument does not rely on this.

My argument is and always has been is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to train any sentient being without using ANY punishment at some time or other.

Nobody has convinced me otherwise either in theory or by any practical demonstrations.

If and when that occurs (and by training I do not mean just train a particular trick without the use of any punishment, that is easy) I am quite prpared to change my mind.

No behaviourist or dog trainer I have spoken to has made the claim that you can teach without punishment apart from Emily Larlam and she demonstrated that she DOES actually use punishment during her seminar and admitted that what she does is considered punishment by some.

So I do not feel alone, and even if I did, like your father, I would not give a toss!

Wys
Yes in some respects - but I was thinking further

Of course in all things it depends on the situation and the dog - some dogs can be getting choked on a prong collar and not care - so it is not punishing to them
Other dogs even feeling slightly that they have made the wrong choise is so punishing to them they shut down and give up

But I think there are many times when witholding the treat isnt considered punishing by the dog

Like in the shaping Mia to nose touch the ball
If I had done something that she considered as punishing to her for using her paws then the next day she would remember that and be more timid of using her paws on the next object - but she wasnt - it was the first thing she tried

I see witholding treats like playing 'hot and cold' with a child. When they walk away from the prize and are getting told 'cold' it is communication
The kid understands to try a different direction - but the next game they are still totaly confident to try the same direction again
Compare to putting their hands in the fire, they are much less likely to do that again - and they will even be timid of fires in different places

The same thing can be punishing/not punishing depending on the context
'If you eat all your sprouts then we have ice cream for pudding'
Is different from 'if you dont eat them sprouts then there is no pudding for you'

I see witholding the click as 'if you get the thing I am thinking of you get this yummy treat' and judging by the way Mias tail is wagging the whole time while she is trying to figure out how to manipulate the click out of me then she agrees

life has punishments, I never said it didnt
However I thought the thread was about people using the term 'positive trainer'? I think it is possible (although unlikely) for a trainer to train a class specific behaviours without the use of punishments
- unless of course you believe the fact there is treats in the class that are not being stuffed into the dogs mouth all the time punishing I dont - even for labridores who would try and convince you otherwise

It is about positive training, and that was precisely my point, you cannot be a "purely positive" dog trainer.

Each time I put a lead on my dog at the end of a walk, I am punishing it.