Do I think there is anything wrong with using clickers and positive reinforcement? No way. I probably have a clicker in my pocket right now. However, there is a lot more to training a real-world dog than just this. You’ve got to understand dogs. Positive reinforcement is easy to learn. Understanding dogs takes a lifetime, and that is hard to learn.
In the 1950’s, partly spurred along by an article, “How To Teach Animals” (1951), by B. F. Skinner, attempts were made to revolutionize dog training using clickers and treats.
The result?
“It is our reluctant conclusion that the behavior of any species cannot be adequately understood, predicted or controlled without knowledge of its instinctive patterns evolutionary history and ecological niche. In spite of our early successes with the application of behavioristically-oriented conditioning theory we readily admit now that ethological facts and attitudes in recent years have done more to advance our practical control of animal behavior than recent reports from American learning labs.” – The Misbehavior Of Organisms, Brelands (1961)
Wow.
So, for all that work and bluster, they found out that they couldn’t do what they claimed they could do. There was more involved in the “practical control of animal behavior” than just clickers and positive reinforcement.
You’ve got to understand dogs. Clickers and treats will only get you part of the way.
The Cult is still trying to prove what was disproven over 60 years ago. There is no need to go over that ground again. Want a clicker? Get one. Very useful tool. Want to use positive reinforcement? Go for it! I do a lot of that, too. If you spend the next 60 years just doing that, does that mean you are more than a novice dog trainer? No. There is a lot more ground to cover, and you are stuck in a rut.
Enjoy the journey. Don’t join the Cult. Learn more about dogs.
Plan accordingly.