A quote from the video clip:
But the majority of dogs out there, realistically speaking, unless you spend a year and a day, doing 'sitting' for rewards over and over again- for literally, like a year straight- most dogs are not going to consistently get the behavior.
I think it's unfair to knock the method because you aren't interested in putting in the time. That's not a valid argument at all.
This guy has some good things to say, in general though. My issue is that (at least as far as I can tell) people who argue against positive reinforcement training think that the method ends at "positive reinforcement." In reality, that's not accurate. Just like this guy says (I am pretty sure he said it), there needs to be a balance. All PP trainers know this. That's why they aren't really "pure
positive" trainers. They use both positive reinforcement and negative punishment. They simply choose not to employ positive punishment in their training techniques.
When a "Pure Positive" trainer needs to address a problem behavior, they do so by using negative punishment, i.e., they remove the stimulus. They don't ignore it (well, the good ones don't). I would posit that the owners who choose to ignore a behavior in hopes that it will go away simply don't understand the training technique. They don't understand how to apply negative punishment in all situations. Sure, PP trainers will
choose to ignore some minor
behaviors in hopes that the lack of reinforcement will decrease the behavior. However, problem behaviors
are not, and cannot be ignored. It is required that the reinforcement be redirected or removed. It is not ignored. I think this guy has "missed the boat" in his example of asking guest to ignore a dog jumping on them as an illustration of PP training techniques.
I do agree with this guy- there should be a balance. Not everyone can
train in PP techniques. I, for one, have very little patience and often stray from the techniques out of frustration. But that's my fault, not the fault of the training technique.