Joined
·
2,415 Posts
A nice - as usual - article by Eileen Anderson: But It Worked for My Dog!!
There are trainers who do not use negative reinforcement even with horses. Not even bridles/bits, and they seem to have good results. Just because something is the norm doesn't mean it's required, or even the best.Though I come from an equestrian background where negative reinforcement is more the norm in training, so perhaps that colours my thinking.
Posted via Mobile Device
Nobody thinks it's the only way to train, just that works with the least risk for the dog.Hm. I personally don't believe positive reinforcement is the only way to train, I believe there should be a mix of positive and negative methods. Though I come from an equestrian background where negative reinforcement is more the norm in training, so perhaps that colours my thinking.
Posted via Mobile Device
To compete in pretty much any discipline you must use a bridle/bit, which is by definition a tool of negative reinforcement. Leg pressure is also a tool of negative reinforcement, I don't see many trainers trying to go wo that. You can train horses using mainly positive methods, but it is simply not possible to use all positive methods, nor, IMHO, is it ideal. Again IMHO, for dogs, it is ideal to use mainly positive methods w some negative reinforcement. JMO. YMMV. It is ideal for horses, IME, to use mainly negative reinforcement w some positive reinforcement. I am a professional horse trainer/riding instructor. This is what I do for a living.There are trainers who do not use negative reinforcement even with horses. Not even bridles/bits, and they seem to have good results. Just because something is the norm doesn't mean it's required, or even the best.
See, this is where I get confused on the "positive vs. negative" debate.To compete in pretty much any discipline you must use a bridle/bit, which is by definition a tool of negative reinforcement. Leg pressure is also a tool of negative reinforcement, I don't see many trainers trying to go wo that. You can train horses using mainly positive methods, but it is simply not possible to use all positive methods, nor, IMHO, is it ideal. Again IMHO, for dogs, it is ideal to use mainly positive methods w some negative reinforcement. JMO. YMMV. It is ideal for horses, IME, to use mainly negative reinforcement w some positive reinforcement. I am a professional horse trainer/riding instructor. This is what I do for a living.
Posted via Mobile Device
Exactly. At some point consideration moves beyond effectiveness to ethics.Nobody thinks it's the only way to train, just that works with the least risk for the dog.
Alexander Nevzorov. Mark Rashid. Carolyn Resnick. Klaus Hempfling. I have seen some of their work, and it amazes me - it really does seem like communication, not trick-training, and often enough the people aren't even touching the horses, or at least touching them minimally. What do you think about their methods and results?Wanted to edit but it was too late: horses trained using mainly positive methods are often "trick trained," meaning they are not truly trained in partnership w the handler, but are just performing tricks on command,
Kind of like a leash and collar/harness, eh? I've seen people ride horses without any kind of headgear, using only their legs and balance and even when I was in 4-H 45 years ago, we were told that we should let the horse know what we wanted by the rein against its neck, not by pulling his mouth. We were encouraged to try hackamores as well.o compete in pretty much any discipline you must use a bridle/bit, which is by definition a tool of negative reinforcement.
As do I. I know leashes are negative, but I have to use one - am I being horrible and mean to my dog? Sometimes, when I really have to move along and he still wants to sniff everything, I tug on his leash to reinforce "Let's go". I'm imposing my own timetable on to him, and maybe that's not fair either.See, this is where I get confused on the "positive vs. negative" debate.
See, this is where I get confused on the "positive vs. negative" debate.
If you're looking at the quadrant, not all positive is good. Positive reinforcement is good, but positive punishment is not so much. I do believe that negative reinforcement has it's place in training as long as it's not aversive. IMO, I'd rather it be an issue of "aversive vs. nonaversive" instead of throwing positive and negative around.
I'm not a horsewoman as such, but I grew up on a ranch surrounded by other ranches - bits are an example of negative reinforcement but I wouldn't say they are aversive necessarily - though there are some out there. Same with leg pressure - properly applied, it's not aversive, but kicking the daylights out of a horse sure is.
But, I don't claim to be a professional trainer by any means, so maybe I'm interpreting it all wrong. That's my disclaimer, haha.
Hm. I personally don't believe positive reinforcement is the only way to train, I believe there should be a mix of positive and negative methods. Though I come from an equestrian background where negative reinforcement is more the norm in training, so perhaps that colours my thinking.
Posted via Mobile Device
I think if everyone was honest we'd all admit to using both sides of the quadrant, both the positive side and the negative one. The question really is which of the 4 we use.