Aversive? Punishment? Tomato? Potato?

The difference between aversive stimuli and punishment could be considered semantic. For me, the two terms reflect the subjectivity of what I will call The Unpleasant.

It's not that I think different people view The Unpleasant differently. Most people agree that The Unpleasant is... well, unpleasant. Thank goodness, except for a few pockets of inbred idiotry (mumble mumble Vick cough ghetto mumble mumble), we are mostly rid of the idea that dogs don't feel.

But what exactly they feel and how they are affected by it is a topic of some debate: Is The Unpleasant aversive or a punishment? Is there a difference? Does it matter?

Whether a dog calls a given Unpleasant "aversive" or "punishment" seems to depend on what kind of information he receives. For example, consider the experience of wearing an ordinary flat collar.

Initially, the majority of dogs find the sensation objectionable. This experience is "aversive". The dog does not like it, and wishes it would stop, but has no ability to affect its occurrence. Eventually, most of these dogs learn to deal with the sensation, whether it becomes an unrecognized baseline in the brain, or whether each recognition of irritation is met with a sigh of resignation, these are dogs who have learned to deal with an "aversive", and generally are not worse for the wear.

Once in a blue moon, there is born a dog who finds the insult, the indignity, the crushing weight, and the endless irritation beyond his ability to endure. This is the dog who pitches a royal fit, with prize-winning acrobatics, and vocalizations of either "Murder!!" or heartbreaking sobs.

Although most people, and, as we have mentioned above, dogs, would agree that wearing a flat collar is hardly abusive, and generally a reasonable expectation for a dog, THIS dog does not see it that way. His perspective is unwittingly enhanced by well-intentioned humans who remove the collar -- or sufficient wiggle-ry to exit the collar -- that give the pup the impression that this "punishment" is somehow associated with his behavior. THIS dog is being "punished". It is important to recognize that future experiences that result in this "punishment" will be viewed by the dog just as any other punishment would be. In the dog's mind, this is not "punishment", this IS punishment.

Where is this discussion coming from?

I find a terrible lack of either understanding or admission of the functionality of tools such as the Easy-Walk harness, the Halti, the Gentle Leader, the Calming Cap, muzzles. Placed on a dog of a certain extreme of personality, these tools are so Unpleasant as to be torture devices. Placed on a dog of the opposite extreme of personality, they lack sufficient Unpleasantness to be effective. Placed on a dog of the ideal middling personality, these tools are absolutely NOT non-aversive. When they are fitted and functioning properly, it is the Unpleasantness that effects a behavior change.

There are no mystical calming acupressure points on the bridge of canine noses or sternums, any more than there are mystical communicative points to be touched by certain TV dog shushers.

Causing a dog to shut down via Unpleasantness, whether alpha rolls, prong collars, or eye-popping pressure to the bridge of the nose -- well, if you are going to use it, you should at least admit what you are doing. I'm not saying there isn't that 1 in a million dog out there. I'm sure he's out there somewhere, and I'm ok with you doing what you need to if it ultimately benefits him within a reasonable time frame. I'm not thrilled, but ok, if you don't know what else to do, it beats euthanasia.

Still, I have to ask: Is training really about techniques? Click and feed and yank and crate and blind and muzzle and poke and roll? What then should we call the process of establishing a rapport, meeting the dog's needs, and asking him to meet mine? _I_ will call THAT dog whisperering, no matter to what else the term is (often mistakenly) applied.