I see so many (namely recent) training publications worshiping positive reinforcement training. Also I come across trainers or animal acts that brand themselves to exclusively use positive reinforcement for training. The concept of positive reinforcement is being exploited as a make of excellence or a moral standard. There is definitely a holier than thou attitude going around about using positive reinforcement. Many training products and agendas are built on this thing they call positive reinforcement.
However, there is nothing inherently "positive" about positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement simple means adding something that increases behavior but it does not necessarily imply that this thing is good. For example petting your parrot may be a positive experience (in the sense of good) but it is not necessarily positive reinforcement unless it is used as a consequence to a specific behavior that increases likelihood of that behavior reoccurring.
I don't believe it is even conceivably possible to use exclusively positive reinforcement and not use other operant methods all the same. The trainer may not even realize that punishment or negative reinforcement is being implemented but just through being around the animal these things are bound to happen. If an animal wants to receive attention from the trainer but on occasion bites the trainer which sends him crying to the bathroom, this may inadvertently negatively punish the parrot for biting by losing attention.
Yet, the false impression of exclusive use of positive reinforcement is not even the greatest matter to focus on. In order for a given reward to be positively reinforcing, there must inherently exist a previous state of deprivation. When a parrot has a nut in its beak, you cannot positively reinforce it for doing something by giving a nut. Now I am by no means trying to demerit the effectiveness of positive reinforcement, however, I raise the question if it is really any more moral and deserving special compliments and recognition as some flaunt their shows/training/products? Is it really fair to say that a trainer who claims to use only positive reinforcement is superior to one that does not?
The great caveat of positive reinforcement training is that it requires the trainer to deprive the animal of certain needs/desires in order to concentrate the animal on receiving them during training. It is possible to condition secondary reinforcers such as praise, clicking, etc, however, without maintenance of primary reinforcers, these would eventually go extinct. Some of the deprivation required for positive reinforcement based training can certainly be natural such as morning hunger or excitement to see the owner after a long day apart. Yet, to create a moral undertone around the use of positive reinforcement draws focus away from the fact that good cannot exist without evil. Who is to say that a trainer that brutally starves an animal into training submission (positive reinforcement) is morally any superior than another trainer that beats an animal instead (punishment)? I would like to reiterate that simple the use of positive reinforcement does not automatically guarantee animal welfare or happiness.
Is all of this hype about positive reinforcement merely a marketing ploy? Do you believe that negative reinforcement and punishment also have a place in animal training? Are you more likely to support a book, trainer, show, or product on the basis of them claiming to use positive reinforcement? Do you see any flaws, dangers, or malices in the use of positive reinforcement? Is a parrot better off being trained with a healthy balance of positive/negative reinforcement/punishment rather than positive reinforcement extremism? What other pitfalls do you see in positive reinforcement based training?