Scientists are not perfect, they too have limits to their knowledge/experience and will based what they say on what they know, or feel they can prove. But the neat thing about science is it is self correcting. if you think someone came to a wrong conclusion you can release your counter argument pointing out where you feel their data doesn't support their conclusions. you can also release your own study showing another method or approach along with your counter argument or conclusion that your way is actually better.WufWuf wrote:So once again SPARCS ended on a bit of a bum note with several of the scientists saying that "aversive control" is the ONLY way to deal with some problems with dogs, le sigh, I'm sure they don't have any scientific studies to back up that claim.
Like Bendog I would want to hear exactly what is said, but if the word "only" was actually used that should be a HUGE RED flag for critical thinking to kick in. It would be correct/accurate to say can, could, or might work, but a definitive "only" is highly questionable even without hearing exactly what was said.
This is true. but for people who drive by it is important to understand that if an aversive/punishment will achieve your goal, so will a non punishment method (hence my comment about about "only" being questionable).bendog wrote:And the fact remains that punishment/aversive DO work, if used absolutely correctly, that is a biological fact, if not an ethical or scientifically proven in dogs one,
this is actually still VERY open to debate (not talking opinion based debate either) and needs a lot more study. when you talk "speed" for results I think you need to be much more specific about the context. training sit, stay, down type stuff I am not so sure you can claim aversive are faster. If you are talking behavior modification, aversive/punishment can sometimes appear to be faster, but in my opinion for a claim of being "better/faster" you need to do follow ups 1 month, 2 months etc down the road. you also need to define end goal criteria. And you need to take into account behavior suppression verse actual change.bendog wrote: and in some cases work a LOT faster than positive training can achieve.
Breds of dog, puppy verse rescues, did the subject dogs have a history of punishment etc all come into play a bit as well. For example the observational anecdotal evidence suggests that a dog who has never had aversive/punishment will learn/perform quicker on average than a dog who was trained with aversive/punishment methods. Also dog with a aversive/punishment history seem to take to positives training slower at the start than a dog with no history. then of course there is skill of the training in each method.
These are just examples of factors and observations that need to be taken into account in tests of positive verse punishment for speed of results. And why more study is needed before you can really and truly say one is faster than the other.
yep true if you follow the rules and apply punishment correctly then the negative effects are minimized (note minimized isn't the same as there not being any) compared to random punishment. Again for those driving by, the margin for error with punishment is VERY narrow and there are side affects even when "applied correctly". Even many "professional dog trainers" who think they are applying punishment correctly, aren't.bendog wrote:There was a beagle study a while back that also showed that where the dogs could clearly see a link between an action and a punishment, it didn't raise their cortisol levels - much - can't remember details (although it sent stress through the roof when the shocks were random)
There is a punishment based trainer in my town that teaches (in theory) punishment based training, IF you have even a minimal understanding of actual dog behavior and concepts of applying punishment you can easily see that this "professional" isn't teaching it correctly and the end result is not punishment but abuse.