Dog Psychology - Relational Counter Balance

Many ask where I fit within the balanced trainer approach ?  The fact is I don’t, at least not the way it is defined by the standard models and ideology.  The main reason is based on the fact that this system is based on a one of a kind relational model.  It came about by asking the tough questions. One of these relates to the physical response and relational disconnect (just released a video on this issue)   While I align more with what is coined “traditional trainers” one of the differences can be found when contrasting relational with corrective influence.  This model does not follow the learning script.  What I show is that the learning model is critically flawed as it relates to its theory regarding how a dog’s decision making process is influenced.   The level of error and risk to the dog and owner is based on several dynamics including need of dog, personality type of owner, influence type within the specific model and methodology involved as it relates to corrective influence.  While these variables all matter to some degree the issue of influence is the most critical.  This is where the relational models interpretation of training as an intervention comes into play.  Considering the role and influence that the owner’s personality type and more specifically the type of bond and connection established plays corrective influence is a important ingredient when it comes to promoting change.  Models which promote an anti-force and anti-dominance ideology put dogs and owners at much greater risk of failure.  These fail rates are ignored, dismissed and buried at many levels within the framework of an ideology which rejects the evidence that a dog’s decision making process is relationally influenced.  The tenants of this belief came from the agreement that the cognitive process could not be measured, trusted or reliable (Skinner 1927) and that physical response would reveal everything.  This was and continues to be the fatal flaw of the science of dog training.