I've been at a loss for topics lately. That, coupled with my evenings getting a bit busier has made me neglectful of this blog. Part of my schedule has been taken up by my helping at the Columbia Canine Sports Center. As followers of this blog know, I received my Dog Training Certificate from Companion Animal Sciences Institute last October. Now, thanks to CCSC, I'm taking that classroom knowledge and applying it to real life situations.
I'm currently assisting in my third class with as many instructors. Each one has something unique to offer and has me constantly thinking about what pieces I want to implement when I start leading my own classes, and what parts can I leave behind. I should preface this by saying I haven't disagreed with any of the techniques, it's just a matter of preferences.
I also spend my time reading blogs, journals, newsletters, articles, research papers, and just about anything else I can get my hands on. Of course I give preference to those people who seem to fall in line with my way of thinking, but I try to read those which I don't agree with when I have time. It helps keep me abreast of the discussions in the field and what the stance is of both sides of any argument. I hope I am open minded enough, that if a viable argument was presented I would incorporate the new found knowledge into my own philosophies and techniques.
So, what this is all leading to: It really irks me when some of these people turn to name calling and trash talk when they disagree with someone. Maybe it's just the sites I frequent, but it's not surprising to me that usually the ones who start casting aspersions are the people who subscribe to force training and dominance theory. Even in the face of hard scientific evidence they refuse to deviate from their beliefs.
Something to consider is the definition of training. In simplest, scientific terms, training is the change of behavior in the presence of a stimulus. So is force training or dominance actually training? By definition, it is. But it is at the risk of flooding or learned helplessness. Not only do these techniques risk damaging the relationship, but the trainee will usually only perform the behavior to the point of avoiding the aversive.
With these techniques, the trainer is not teaching what is expected, but rather what behavior is unwanted. For instance, asking a dog to sit but he stands. A leash jerk is applied, and the dog doesn't learn to sit, but learns NOT to stand.
With a reinforcement training, the desired behavior is reinforced. The trainee is learning what IS expected. Not only will you get the desired behavior, but in the long run the trainee will not only present the desired behavior, but will offer it in better qualities and quantities.
Another argument along the same vein is that there is not just one way to train or teach. I agree completely. I've worked with and trained using target training, marker training, and, I'm loathe to say, dominance training, just to name a few. But at the end of the day I want a dog that is going to do what I ask because he WANTS to, not because he feels he HAS to.
Truth be told, I've gotten into discussions with other reinforcement trainers with whom I disagreed. But I've learned so much from them, even if it was just finding the evidence to backup and reinforce my position. And these people, I've always had very frank, open discussion that did not deteriorate to name calling.
In my blogs, I try to present an overview of the information, then give a list of resources so you can read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions. The information is out there. I challenge everyone to read it and draw your own conclusion, and not just get your information from sensationalized television shows.
