In 1847, Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that physician handwashing dramatically reduced maternal mortality from childbed fever, yet the medical establishment rejected his findings because they contradicted prevailing theories of "imbalanced humors". Today, dog training faces a similar "Semmelweis moment". While the mid-to-late 20th century saw a revolution grounded in ethology and behavioral science, a recent resurgence of discredited, harsh methodologies—often popularized by media personalities and unvetted online programs—threatens to undo decades of progress.
The Evolution of Modern Methodology
The transition from primitive, purely coercive methods to modern practice was driven by a deeper integration of practitioner knowledge, ethology, classical conditioning, and operant conditioning. Pioneers in the field recognized the limitations of harsh methods and outdated theories, moving instead toward a refined understanding and application of all of these fields. This shift was largely motivated by:
- Scientific Advancement: Integration of foundational work by Konrad Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen regarding species-specific behaviors. Understanding ways to motivate in line with the natural behavioral tendencies of dogs.
- Ethical Constraints: Observations of how extreme "harsh tools" could lead to experimental neurosis or "breaking" a dog, as seen in early Pavlovian research.
- Practical Efficacy: The realization that better theories produced more reliable, long-term results.
The Great Regression: Media and the "New" Old Ways
The 2008 recession created a "perfect storm" for professional backsliding. As individuals sought new career paths, the rise of "celebrity trainers" on television re-popularized outdated theories—such as rigid pack-dominance models, harsh methods that promoted capitulation rather than optimum performance, and methods that were more emotionally satisfying for owners who would rather vent their frustrations on dogs rather than understanding them —that had already been academically scrutinized and largely moved past by the professional community.
This era introduced a wave of trainers who, bolstered by social reinforcement and assumed media authority, began "bending the curve" back toward historical harshness. Currently, online mentoring programs frequently package these discredited theories as "new" or "innovative," effectively ignoring the breakthroughs made between the 1970s and early 2000s.
The Danger of Ignoring Behavioral Foundations
A primary concern in this regression is the dismissal of established principles like instinctive drift. First described by Breland and Breland (1961) in The Misbehavior of Organisms, instinctive drift demonstrates that biological predispositions can override even the most rigorous operant conditioning. No one seems to know the failures of operant conditioning any more, and so we get, what I call, The Quadrant Wars (like Star Wars), where they are arguing about these things without reading the science, and without understanding that Skinner never did understand dogs or ethology. This is one of the main unrecognized problems with the "purely positive" / R+ side of the field. They are causing their own set of harms to the profession because they don't know the science. They don’t understand why critics keep exposing how their theories and methods fail in real world off leash environments and assume that the critics are telling them to be harsh to the dogs. They do not know what they are talking about and they are needlessly exposing dogs to real world harms while promoting their unscientific methods as scientifically grounded.
Modern critics of these foundations often claim that "newer methods" have superseded such findings; however, a Behavioral Assessment often reveals that these "newer" methods actually predate the scientific insights they claim to replace. When adoration for a personality outweighs adherence to the fuller body of scientific and practitioner principles, the animal’s welfare and the owner’s safety are placed at risk.
Moving Forward: Reclaiming the Standard
To protect the integrity of the profession and the well-being of dogs, we should be listening to those trainers who attempted to move us forward towards theories and practices that were grounded in high-confidence, peer-reviewed sciences. It is essential to move beyond the personality-driven models of the present and return to a framework that respects both the science of learning and the biological reality of the dog.
Scholarly Bibliography
- Breland, K., & Breland, M. (1961). The misbehavior of organisms. American Psychologist, 16(10), 681–684.
- Coppinger, R., & Coppinger, L. (2001). Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution. Scribner.
- Lorenz, K. (1952). King Solomon's Ring. Methuen.
- Miklósi, Á. (2014). Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition. Oxford University Press.
- Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. Macmillan.
- Winkler, A. (n.d.). Behavioral Theory and Practice. Rivanna K9 Services. https://rivannak9services.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment