The purpose of this article is to challenge the contemporary scientific 

paradigm that advocates the Total Positive Training methods as the only

means of training and states that the use of aversive forms of punishment are cruel

and inhumane.  It is the author’s intent to prove that the proponents of this

movement have based their assumptions on unscientific research and have

mingled the results of such studies with an anthropomorphic (attributing

human characteristics to animals) philosophical thinking, appealing to

peoples’ emotions rather than results derived from scientific

experimentation.

    In order to accomplish such an undertaking, one needs to understand how

this philosophical thinking has crept into the halls of our academic and

scientific research institutions. Although there is no real point in time

when a clear distinction can be made, one can see that the philosophical

influence of John Dewey on education initiated the elimination of absolute

standards. Dewey believed that children shouldn’t be made to attain any standard, 

that the  goal of

education was simply to allow the child to express himself and expand on

what he is and find happiness in being what he wants. The gospel of

self-esteem increased, and with its acceptance we see the development of

individualism born.

     Around the same time a less conspicuous writer and philosopher by the

name of Dr. Zimmerman wrote a substantial piece of literature called,, “The Decline

 of Civilization,” which is now out of print.

Dr. Zimmerman’s assertion was that when a society esteems the rights of the

individual above that of the whole society, it is the beginning of the

decline of that civilization. In order for a civilization to continue to

prosper, no one has any rights greater than the next person. Everyone works

together for the common good of the community. Guess which man’s philosophy

was embraced?

     Dewey’s influence gave rise to the theory in education known as

“Holistic Learning” or  “Outcome Based Education” which essentially says

that the acquisition of knowledge is secondary. What really matters is if

the child feels good about what he is doing and learning. We begin to see

the emergence of a  train of thought that emphasizes the emotions of the

child over the intellect. In his book, “Dumbing Down Our Kids,” Charles J.

Sykes expounds upon why American kids feel good about themselves, but can’t

read, write or add. B. F. Skinner summarized that behavior is determined by

a living organism moving toward pleasure and moving away from pain or

discomfort. Skinner’s observations may have significantly greater

ramifications than he ever imagined, and beyond what he had

intended.

     As our nations’ affluence explodes, we begin to see the rise in the

entertainment industry. Everywhere we look we see the pursuit of pleasure

and entertainment. In Neil Postman’s book, “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” we

can see that the art of public discourse and epistemology (the origin and

nature of knowledge) are taking a back seat to an image center culture

rather than a word centered culture. All of these influences are having an

effect on how we as a society process scientific data, or any information for

that matter. At one time science was considered to be unbiased and

objective. During the 60’s and 70’s we began to see a more subjective study

of animals with the work of scientists like Lorenz and Tinbergen. These

scientists and others have attempted to empathize and understand the animals

that they studied. This more subjective approach is fascinating.  

Understanding the animals’ emotions is helpful in the treatment of certain

problems, however, keep in mind that our sociological influences have created

a tolerant atmosphere where feelings and emotions are replacing logic and

reasoning. With individualism and self-esteem becoming increasingly more

important, we begin to see phenomena known as the “politically correct”

emerge. Since our society has abandoned any real standards, we have adopted

an attitude that if it feels good, do it. We accept every one just the way

they are -- tolerance exemplified.  Or rather, tolerance for everyone  except those 

 who try to raise a standard --a standard for society or a standard for the scientific

community. Perhaps being politically correct is the method employed by which

one can speak without offending and thereby demonstrates tolerance. This

can only be accomplished when “standards” are removed and everyone can be

their own person. This gives way to a permissiveness, and ultimately makes

excuses for unrestraint. “Boys will be boys,” or ”oh, he’s just Puppies; that’s what

puppies do, he’ll grow out of it.” You can’t discipline that dog, you might

warp his personality. Let him express himself and grow into that which will

make him happy. Sounds like a Dewey disciple.

     I think that as we follow the progression, we can begin to see as we

move away from being a word centered culture to an image centered culture

where emotions, feelings and empathizing with the individual, as well as the

animals, has lead to the animal rights movement and humane societies. These

organizations play a significant role within our society today. However, in

that the climate is one that has serious anthropomorphic tendencies, we may

be headed for a deep ditch, one which we may not be able to climb out from...

     The arguments that

seemingly support  Total Positive Training Methods are not based on objectivity but 

opinions influenced by our culture.   They are not scientific. In fact, it was

Dr. M. L. Jones that said, “There is nothing more likely to lead to error

than to begin with the part rather than the whole.”

     During the 40’s and 50’s the use of punishment of both children and animals was 

commonly accepted

and practiced, perhaps to an excess. As training methods evolved and were

improved, positive reinforcement  techniques soon took  a front seat, and

rightfully so. After all, pleasure is better than pain and discomfort and it

was observed that some dogs learned much faster using positive

reinforcement. It seems that we have full come circle; we have gone from one

extreme to another. Remember that if Dr. Jones’ assertion is right, to

emphasize the part rather than the whole will result in error.

    Behavioral Science is a “body of knowledge,” the sum of which constitutes

a measure of truth --truths that can be scientifically replicated within the

parameters of established standards independent of emotional bias and

political correctness. In fact, to be scientific may indeed mean being

politically incorrect.

     This leads me to  a discussion on a book

called, “How Dogs Learn,” written by Dr. Mary Burch and Dr. Jon Bailey. First

let me say that I think the book is excellent and I would highly recommend

it to anyone serious about dog training and behavior. I feel that this piece

of literature may be the most balanced contemporary work that I have read.

However, I take exception to the example used in their book to illustrate

their theories on punishment. The example is anything but scientific and next

to impossible to replicate (which by its nature renders the example

unscientific).Their conclusions are influenced more by political correctness

than scientific standards. I am sure that Burch and Bailey would both agree

that their example is un-scientific as well as nearly impossible to

replicate. Of all the research and experimentation that has been conducted

on the subject of positive and negative reinforcement,  the following was the example

that they, along with other academics, have chosen to use to build their theories

on punishment.

    With that in mind let’s examine this example. I am quoting from, “How

Dogs Learn” written by Burch and Bailey pages 161 and 162. “ In his book,

The Sin of Wages, William Abernathy, an internationally recognized business

consultant, tells a story about trying to demonstrate the difference between

positive and negative reinforcement. Abernathy was teaching a class on

performance management to prison guards, who had a tendency to use plenty of

negative reinforcement and punishment. To demonstrate the benefits of

positive reinforcement, Abernathy took two rats and two Skinner boxes to the

prison. (A Skinner box is designed to teach an animal to press a bar. It can

be set up to offer either positive or negative reinforcement.) He used

shaping to teach the first rat to press a bar in the box to receive positive

reinforcement- a food pellet. Exactly as expected, the rat was pressing the

bar for food in about 30 minutes.

     “The second rat was put in a Skinner box that was set to deliver mild

shocks. To avoid the shock, the rat was negatively reinforced for bar

pressing- pressing the bar would prevent future shocks. Usually, teaching

the rat to press the bar takes much longer with negative reinforcement than

with positive reinforcement. The rat is so busy trying to escape the shock,

it doesn’t engage in the desired responses at first.

     “On one particular day, however, something very strange happened in the

negative reinforcement demonstration. Somehow, as soon as the shock came on,

the rat jumped up to avoid the shock and landed directly on the bar, turning

off the current. To Abernathy’s dismay, the guards witnessed a freak

accident where negative reinforcement worked much faster than positive

reinforcement, perhaps strengthening their belief in management through

intimidation and punishment.

     “Abernathy told everyone to take a break. During the break, one of the

guards picked up the rat that had received the positive reinforcement and

began to play with it. A second guard saw this a decided to play with the

negatively reinforced rat. When he picked it up the rat immediately bit his

finger. He began to swing the rat around, but it would not let go. Finally,

after the rat had been separated from the guard’s bloody finger, one guard

summarized what he had learned in the day’s lesson. “Well he said, you can

get someone to do what you want from negative reinforcement; you just don’t

want to be around them!”

     “This is a true story, and it gives dog trainers something to think

about. When you train a dog that associates you with positive reinforcement,

the dog is usually happy and eager to come to you. When you use a great deal

of punishment in your training, the dog not be as eager to work with you.

We’ve seen many dogs wearing shock collars that are jumpy, nervous and quick

to bite if touched when they don’t expect itTry the punisher on

yourself. Any trainer who considers using aversion punishers such as a shock

collar should first try the shock on himself or herself in order to be aware

of the level of physical discomfort the animal will experience.”The

effective use of punishment procedures, such as time out, requires more

training, and only a certified behavior analyst may implement the more ever

aversive forms of punishment.The bottom line when it comes to ethics is

that our dogs love us. We owe it to them to treat them the same way we’d

like to be treated.”

     As we read this chapter is becomes apparent that the theories on

punishment are being established on an experiment, which by the authors’ own

admission, is freaky. It is not something that can be replicated. By virtue

of standards established by the scientific community it shouldn’t even be

considered. So why was it used to describe punishment? I  believe that there

are sometimes theories that are developed, and then the experiments are conducted to

support those theories. This is known as junk science.  The experiement is rigged  so 

that the results support your theories. The reason I am making

such a bold statement is that in the example you have just read, there are

two glaring omissions that should raise some serious questions as to the

validity of the theories pertaining to punishment. For the authors to make

sweeping generalizations regarding punishment without discussing the

following; raises suspisions.

     I heartily agree with the authors that anyone using a shock collar

should try the collar on themselves to see what it feels like. I can only

assume that Mr. Abernathy heeded the author’s admonition and tested the

collar on himself. Evidently, in the opinion of Abernathy, he felt as though

the shock level was mild as reported. However, the rat must have had a

different opinion by his overreaction.  

There are two points I am trying to make here.  First, animals

and people have different levels of sensitivity to physical stimuli. That’s

why a six month old lab can run full tilt crash into a brick wall, bounce on

the floor ten feet and get up like nothing happened and another Puppies can

scream the first time a gentle leader is worn. Dogs have different

sensitivities to pressure and pain or discomfort. In Burch and Bailey’s

book, why was this example used when the shock (stimulation level) was so

excessive; the very thing that the authors warn against? Is it that the

results that came from this example using excessive stimulation levels

support their theories? Is it calculated to instill fear and apprehension in

the minds of the public  about the use of stimulation and or punishment as a

training tool?

     Secondly, and more importantly, there is a branch of behavioral science

known as Canine Neuropsychology; which is the science of the relationship of

the dog’s brain and the dog’s behavior. There are two sets of structures in

the brain and they share a very important relationship when it comes to

behavior. The Limbic System and the Cerebral Cortex enjoy an inverse

relationship to one another. The limbic system involves the expression and

experience of emotions. The cerebral cortex, on the other hand, involves

various cognitive functions including learning, thinking and problemsolving.

 When an animal has experienced a stressful event (emotional state),

its ability to think, learn and understand is almost non-existent. When the

animal's cerebral cortex is activated, the animal's ability to understand

skyrockets. It’s like a dog that has been hit by a car and is in shock and

experiencing pain. If you go to offer the poor guy medical assistance, he

may very well bite you because he associates you with the pain. So in other

words, if an animal is stressed out because of some form of stimuli (such as

a excessive amount of stimulation) it’s ability to think is seriously

hindered and if the stressful event is excessive it can result in

disorientation and aggression, like the dog hit by a car.  Although the book

indicated that the shock was mild, the reaction of the rat described

demonstrates that the shock was abusive and excessive. If Abernathy’s

objective was to see if the rat could learn from his experiment using the

level of stimulation that he administered, he was either knowingly setting the

rat up for failure to prove his theory to the prison officers, or he didn’t

know what he was doing by using an excessive level of stimulation. By giving

the rat a level of stimulation that put excessive stress on the rat, there

was no way that the rat would be able to learn. The rat’s limbic system was

activitated, which meant his cerebral cortex (ability to understand) was

seriously compromised.  The fact that he landed on the bar was, as pointed

out, a freak accident.  Being that Abernathy is a businessman and not a

behaviorist, perhaps we can overlook his ignorance. Given the fact that Burch

and Bailey are both behaviorists who chose this example to support their

theory on punishment, raises serious questions about their motives for using

such an example. Was their intent to cast a shadow on the use of electronic

training devices or the use of punishment? The authors agree that there are

extenuating circumstances that warrant punishment under the supervision of a

certified behaviorist. I believe their spin on their example is calculated

to appease the politically correct crowd, which constitutes the majority of

the population. Science ceases to be science when it is influenced by people’s

emotions.

     When Burch and Bailey indicated that they see a lot of dogs wearing

shock collars that are jumpy and biters, I can only assume that these dogs

are dogs that are being used in academic experiments with people who don’t

know what they are doing and are using excessive stimulation levels. I have

never met a certified behaviorist that believes in remote trainers, as I

prefer to call them. If that extenuating circumstance materialized, how in

heaven’s name would they be qualified to use such a device without any

experience?  Also, I think that they want to give the reader the impression

that using shock collars make dogs aggressive, and certainly their example

may very well prove their theory. As I pointed out earlier in this article,

the ideas that dominates the thinking in this country are significantly

different from what they were just fifty years ago.

     There are animal rights groups that advocate terrorist activities in

the name of protecting wildlife. My intention is not to sound like an

alarmist, but to appeal to your reason. If you would want more information

regarding these radical animal rights activists, you can subscribe to an

e-newsletter called consumerfreedom.com, free of charge.   

“Pet’s are people too” may be a cute expression, but animals are very different than people in

a number of ways. They have instincts that determine many of their

behaviors. As we move more and more toward ignoring these instincts and

elevating these animals to a human  level, the further we will complicate

our relationship with our pets. Anyone that has ever watched a documentary

on wolves knows that wolves will discipline one another within the pack in

order to maintain harmony. Do you have harmony in your home with your dogs?

If not, perhaps there is a problem with communication. Perhaps your dog

perceives you as a subordinate.

     In July of 2002, I went to a dog training convention at Triple Crown

Training Academy outside Austin, Texas where a new “low stress training

method” was introduced to help dogs learn to stay at home using the Pet STOP

Containment System. Rich Weinssen, a dog trainer in NJ, developed this “low

stress training method”. At this conference there were nine or ten dogs that

were introduced to the hidden dog fence using very low levels of

stimulation. Everyone present at the convention had the opportunity to try

“the shock”, and even the dogs agreed that the stimulation level was low.

. These ten different dogs ranging

from timid to bold, both large and small, learned the boundaries without any

of the problems outlined in Burch and Bailey’s book. Within 10 minutes every

dog, without exception, demonstrated that they recognized the boundary and

remained happy and playful in the process. Our intent at this conference was

not to conduct an experiment but to demonstrate a training method. The

results of this demonstration resembled a scientific experiment because with

each dog the results were predictable and replicable which would meet the

criteria of an experiment. The example used in Burch and Bailey’s book does

not meet any scientific criteria. However, it is being used to support a

spurious theory that will continue to create serious long term ramifications

in the years to come. Rich Weinssen, the developer of the patented training

method can be reached at (973) 442-1000 if you would be interested in

obtaining a video demonstrating the this new “low stress training method

conducted at Triple Crown.

     My concern is that the-over emphasis on the avoidance of employing

punishment as just one component of dog training is creating a schism within

the industry. Many new dog trainers breaking into the field are being taught

one side of the equation, leaving them inadequately prepared to deal with

training and behavior problems. Back in 2001, I attended a seminar conducted

by a nationally known trainer who is very much an advocate of totally

positive training methods. The seminar, which was conducted at a humane

society, centered around a new temperament test being used to determine what

dogs were adoptable and which ones would be killed. After testing 15 dogs,

which employed the use of positive food motivating methods, the trainer

recommended that 13 or the 15 dogs be destroyed. Of the 13 dogs that were

given the death sentence, 12 of them are dogs that I work with every day of

the week. Essentially, these dogs did not respond to the positive

reinforcement testing that this trainer had developed. The use of

discipline, correction and punishment were discouraged as being cruel and

inhumane. To begin with the part rather than the whole is likely to lead to

error.

     Over the past ten years the total positive training paradigm has helped

to make people more aware of the animals’ ability to learn, but it has also

instilled fear in people’s minds about using any discipline at all. With the

plethora of material that has been written about not using discipline, one

would think that there is an epidemic of animal abuse in our country.

Actually the opposite is true. I get calls every day from people who have a

dog that they love very much and have worked with different trainers and are

frustrated that they are not getting any results using positive methods

only. They have been told that different methods of discipline are cruel and

inhumane. Meanwhile the results they get from using one-sided methods are

dismal. Look at the humane societies’ occupancy rate today. Rescue groups and

shelters are swelling. There isn’t enough room to house the animals being

surrendered. Look at the prison system in our country today. It is one of

the fastest growing industries in the United States. Perhaps Abernathy and

the total positive people should ask the question, why? Our jails are more

like country clubs than incarceration facilities. People and dogs will never

learn with love only.

     When a pet owner has a dog that they can’t train because they are

afraid to discipline it because of the junk science that is being peddled,

they will, in far too many cases, end up surrendering the dog to a rescue

group or a shelter. It is a vicious cycle. And if I hear what some shelters

and trainers are saying that advocate positive only, is that it is better to

kill the animal than to discipline it. “There is nothing more likely to lead

to error than to begin the part rather the whole.”

     Positive reinforcement, as well as negative reinforcement, both have

their respective places within the parameters of obedience training and

behavior modification. To emphasize one and de-emphasize the other will

result in frustration in the training process. The use of punishment is not

an ethical issue, as the anthropomorphic thinkers of our day would have us to

believe. The ethical issue is how much punishment is abusive. That answer is

never the same for all dogs. Dogs are individuals as are their owners. What

may be effective for one animal may be inappropriate for another. The most

scientific evidence that will determine what level of punishment is

sufficient to accomplish your training objectives is found in the

relationship between the limbic system and the cerebral cortex as discussed

earlier. Balanced training methods produce lasting results without hurting

your dog and actually help you to bond with your dog.

Contact Information

Tom Beitz is the owner of the Academy for Puppies and Dogs and is an authorized dealer for Pet STOP Hidden Dog Fences. Tom can be reached at (716) 628-0651 to answer your questions or he can be found on the web at www.smartdogtrainer.com . E-Mail: Tom@Smartdogtrainer.com

Copyright © Academy for Puppies and Dogs 2007 (All Rights Reserved)

Copies of this article may be freely distributed provided the original source is cited!