Positive Hypocrisy?

Are good, effective teaching practices for dogs equally good, effective teaching practices for humans?

Most "positive" dog trainers would say, "Yes!"  And I am one of them.

Are there dog training practices that are risky, both to the outcome for the dog and the human?

Yes.

How do we discourage their use?

The use of poor and risky dog training practices is a behavior I would like to see disappear, but I disagree with the premise of the question.

How do we encourage the use of safer, less risky dog training practices?

THIS is the right question!

Are strategies like personal attacks, philosophical attacks, and "pushing for acceptance" modeling the behaviors we want to see used in teaching?


Don't we teach that aggression and force are ways to create resistance?  And don't we seek to persuade, to lead, to set a good example?

By "pushing for acceptance", are we suggesting that there are people who would resist training through easier, more effective, and less risky methods?  

Dog owners I meet (and, granted, our perceptions are all shaped by the "populations" we meet) are generally reluctant to use the more objectionable methods, but feel as if they have no alternative.  Or, they live in fear of what will happen if those methods are not used.  Few people I meet find the techniques I dislike highly desirable.

I have certainly met resistant individuals.  Generally, these individuals are "experts", whose ego and family tradition are at stake.  Rejecting "the way it's always been done" is to eat crow, and turn one's back on one's family or tradition.  For these people, creating an opportunity to gradually transition from primarily punishment-based to primarily reward-based training is crucial. 

What are the strategies we know to be most effective?

Emphasizing the desirable.  Listening.  Acknowledging.  Communicating clearly.  Patience.  Persuasion.  Gradual transition.  Show, not tell.