"Correction" usually refers to a punishment procedures.... often a pop on the leash or a zing from an e-collar... or a harsh "no!".
Then why not just call it a punisher? The reason is because "correction" sound nicer. I believe that if you (general you) are going to punish, you should have the courage to admit it at least to yourself. And if you can admit it to yourself, you can admit it to others. I have more respect for someone who states that they use some punishment than someone who dances around the issue with weasel words like "correct" that have no real definition in behavioral or training terms.
I do use the "eh eh" sound and it is merely a "no reward mark" (or more technically correct: an S-delta).
If "eh eh" has become the new "punishment!", then I am exiting the building with the positive-only crowd.
And yet, later in the same post you write:
"A no-reward mark is aversive. It is a punisher (if it has been conditioned properly). Walking away from an attention-wanting dog is bad news from the dog's perspective and bad news is a punisher.
So which is it? It is or it isn't. I will certainly admit that walking away from a dog is a negative punisher. But it also isn't generally a no reward marker. I guess I don't condition mine correctly, because I use eh eh very rarely simply to interrupt a bad idea (not just a wrong choice). No primary aversive attached. And I think you'll find the majority of people talking against some mythical positively only crowd are people who are arguing against a red herring. The people who use primarily positive reinforcement (I suppose you could use primarily positive punishment and still call yourself "positive only"?) will usually admit to occasionally thoughtfully using something in another quadrant.
"In a healthy relationship, a "correction" or "punishment" can be imposed and it is all taken in stride. For example, there are people who can correct me and their are no hard feelings at all... I appreciate the information and attempt to behave better. .
If someone points out to me where the equation went wrong, and gently leads me to an understanding of the right way to solve it, I'd be fine with that. If they yell at me for being stupid and rap my knuckles with a ruler, they are likely to poison any affinity I might have for math. If I make a social faux pas and you correct me for it instead of tell me a better way to handle it, I'm likely to have an aversion to future social events of the same sort, because I am anxious and don't know what to do instead.
"There are others who may try to do the same thing, and the punishment creates problems and fails to improve my behavior.... and my produce unwanted side effects.
Murray Sidman (a radical behaviorist such as myself) wrote a book called "Coercion and it's Fallout" in the 60's).
I'm familiar with it. I'm not sure I'd consider you in the same league as Murray Sidman anymore than I'd claim that Karen Pryor or Bob Bailey is "like myself"
"There are times in which there are competing reinforcers (the running bunny) for which we have no alternative. ).
Odd. My alternative to bunny chasing is a recall. Because my dogs have a great history of reinforcement and I have created a habit, it works, even though my cookie is not as exciting as killing and eating the bunny would be.
" My greyhound walked with me, off leash, to my University of Florida classes in the late 1980's. She would wait outside the building door. No leash. Untrained. Then, I would exit the building and she would be there waiting...and walk back to my apartment with me... through massive crowds of student pedestrians and bicyclists... across a busy main street (University Ave)... all the while, she'd walk so close when in crowds her front shoulder bone would begin to bruise the outside of my knee.
I did much the same with my first "own" dog, an Aussie named Demian back in the early 70s. I'd take him to college with me and he'd wait till I came out, and I frequently walked him on sidewalks near busy streets off leash, and play with him off leash in the park bordering one of the busiest retail areas of Kansas City, MO. I was very young and stupid and he was very lucky to survive my cluelessness. By the way, if you and the dog are in the same space and you are both awake, training is going on. Either you are training the dog or the dog is training you.
" It's a reinforcement problem. A dog driven to smell every scent and chase every insect and mammal to the exclusion of your best edible or toy will be dicey, at best, even with excellent positive reinforcement training. Again, with no training, I could walk my Lucy through a field of squealing bunnies, children, or other dogs and she would be 100% reliable. You wouldn't get that from a positive only trained **** Hound. Ever.
It's a reinforcement issue... a dog with the DNA to seek and find prey or any other happy consequence that isn't in tune with our desires gives us a reinforcement problem.
It depends on your reinforcer. If you've studied behavior, I'm sure you've heard of Premack? Sue Ailsby teaches her stud llamas to walk nicely on the way to breed the girls by Premacking it. Sex is the reinforcer. It does involve a bit of negative punishment, though. Also, "go sniff" is a great Premack for many dogs. Interestingly, if you give them permission to do something it become much less interesting than if you try to keep it forbidden fruit.
" So, I remain unconvinced about the purely positive only philosophy.
Well, I don't think anyone is going to hold a gun to your head and tell you you have to depend solely on R+/-P (as I said, purely positive probably doesn't exist except as an ideal.) But, if you haven't tried it, or at least seen it done well, I'll remain unconvinced by your lack of convincedness (is that a word?)