When you say "negative punishment" are you using it in the way Miles uses it? Taking something desirable away? I'm hesitant to think dogs easily understand that sort of feedback properly (since you can't explain to them what they did wrong, and you also often can't take something away immediately after they've done something they shouldn't.

I doubt you really understand what the positive and negative term mean in context of operant conditioning. In all of 4 quadrant, negative punishment in dog training is the least utilized one from my experience because it's a lot of work to target the misbehavior correctly. Also it's plain wrong to say that positive reinforcement is more rewarding than negative reinforcement for a dog. The proof is very straight forward: untrained dogs choke itself by still pulling the leash hard to eventually reach their goals. Easy meal is not always the most satisfactory. Some challenges, obstacles to reach the goal enhances the final achievement. Dogs have predatory and territorial instinct. They want to work. They can also get bored by the tasks. Why trainers move away from dogs during teaching recall? Would untrained dogs with good prey drive prefer a toy with treats over a smelly squirrel running? Why make such effort chasing squirrel to eat it when there is easy meals available? To build drive, motivation to the max it would involves negative reinforcement as much if not more than positive reinforcement. Chewing on toy, eating treat are the end of stage of predatory sequence that's when drive, and motivation got past its peak. You don't build strong enough motivation, drive during the play/engagement with negative reinforcement then that motivation would fizzle out against strong competing motivator and distractions.

@@jamie_miller My bad, I accidentally mixed up the two. I meant positive punishment to correct behavior, not negative. Adding something undesirable after they've done the said behavior as dogs can understand that for the most part.

@@lukeryuzaki2328 Right, I used negative in the wrong way. However, I would think positive reinforcement is heavily encouraged and used during dog training and corrections, same with positive punishment (which I meant to say). Both positive and negative reinforcement will work with a dog. Teaching them how to sit, reinforcing that behavior with a reward is easiest when training them for individuals as the dog understands if they continue doing this behavior it's good. That's heavily apart of dog training, rewarding good behavior with a treat or "good boy". Negative reinforcement is good in different cases. If the dog is stubborn and refuses to sit until you put them in a sitting position and force them into it, then yes, that'd work too. I believe it'll depend on the dog itself on which training method works best, it seems quite evident in training styles that positive reinforcement works just as well though.

@@akitaxx Positive reinforcement is popular because charlatans can easily mislead inexperienced people with words out of their true context. Also without deep understanding and experience with difficult dogs, it sounds like positive reinforcement is easy to ultilize. There are many dogs that lack drives, or being fearful that they don't find the reward worth the risk (of their phobia). Negative reinforcement would work on more dogs with all kinds of level of drive than positive reinforcement. Lack of food drive? Lack of play drive, prey drive? You can teach those dogs with leash work the same as those with high food drive, high play drive, prey drive. The more advance the training is, the more important negative reinforcement becomes in the training system. Incentive/rewarding only can do so much with motivation. Giving a guideline via negative reinforcement is the key to precision, and full commitment even if negative reinforcement is either used standalone, or in sequence with positive reinforcement. The wide spread common issue with only positive reinforcement use even for easy to train dogs is that dogs offer multiple unrequired behaviors before offering the correct desired behavior. For example, a dog in drive (highly aroused) hearing sit command may spin arọund/take a step back, before sitting. With negative reinforcement, dogs are taught to remember exactly what behavior stops the pressure. There is no confusion. The teaching and confusion is clearer and works better with introduction of distraction and/or competitions motivators. Even without using punishment, dogs know that they're not doing it right since they're still getting nagged by the pressure. Whereas using positive reinforcement only, guess what smarter dogs learn to do what they desire then come back and take the reward. A trained dog graduated from a full quadrant training course, may be easily passed as positive reinforcement only trained dog; because after all the training, the need of negative reinforcement and punishment is visibly much less frequent. You can often see most reward. Some skilled of force free, positive reinforcement trainers actually use negative reinforcement and punishment. Just because they don't use the "evil" tools on softer dogs/breeds, it doesn't mean they're purist like they claim if one really understand negative reinforcement and the two punishment quadrants. Verbal punishment is very effective on some sensitive breeds. Those dogs perceive verbal punishment harsher than some slighter physical punishment. In short, it's not even a secret that at a higher level in training, negative reinforcement and punishment are common. Unless somebody never use a leash, and do every training session in acreage space in the wilderness. Nobody can claim they're training with positive reinforcement only. The force free is bs, since not only they use leash, they often use a very annoying tool for dog in the name of gentle head halter to sleazily applying negative reinforcement and punishment.