A few months ago, I had a micro-war with a famous local trainer in one of the FB groups.
It started because someone was looking for a trainer to help them with dog aggression, and this trainer, who positions themselves as using strictly reinforcement-based methods developed for skill learning, claimed they could apply the same approach to aggression. To support this claim, they brought up successful trick training as evidence.
I found this inconsistent and pointed out the flaw in using trick training as evidence for aggression work, anticipating a defensive response that would, in turn, highlight the gap between those two domains. Since then, I’ve done some digging on force-free trainers in general, and this one in particular. It is not my intention to make a public shaming post, so I am not naming names. Instead, I’ll use a metaphor to describe the limitations of the approach.
Given: It is a pleasant summer day, and a person has to cross a narrow and shallow river. There is no bridge in sight. The person has no physical limitations or disabilities.
Easiest solution: walk through or jump over.
Problem: the temperature drop between the outside air and the river’s chilly water is significant, and the person strongly dislikes discomfort. So both solutions are rejected—not because they are impossible, but because they are unpleasant.
Chosen solution: threshold management. Every time the person gets a little closer to the river, they reward themselves with a potato chip. A step closer—another chip. Progress is slow but carefully controlled.
Three attempts and two potato chip packs later, they are standing close to the water. Time to work on desensitisation, which is meant to make the transition from warm air to cold water as smooth and unnoticeable as possible.
One toe in—but that proves too much and sends them back to before threshold work even began.
A few more hours pass, and one toe is finally in. It is getting dark, and there are no potato chips left, so the person decides to move along the riverbank looking for a better crossing point, trying to make the process feel meaningful through a series of left-sided cartwheels (the right side is weaker).
Thirty-six hours later, the river is crossed.
But the person is still afraid of cold water.
They have not developed any real coping mechanism. They have no better tools for the next river than they had for this one. And there is always a next river. Meanwhile, whoever was waiting on the other side is still waiting.
Now the point.
Threshold management, desensitisation, and reinforcement are extremely useful tools. They work well for teaching skills in controlled environments and for many low-to-moderate intensity behaviour problems.
The issue is what happens when they are treated as sufficient for problems that are high-arousal, unpredictable, and not easily solved through incremental comfort-based exposure.
Because at some point, no amount of potato chips, careful thresholding, or elegant cartwheels replaces the need to actually confront what is on the other side of the river.