The Knot: Why We Keep Losing to Aversive Training (And Why Your Best Ideas Won’t Fix It Alone)

I need to tell you something that might be frustrating to hear.

For the past decade, we’ve been fighting aversive dog training methods with everything we have. We’ve published research. We’ve created beautiful force-free content. We’ve pushed for legislation. We’ve built better education programs. We’ve organized campaigns, written articles, spoken at conferences, and poured our hearts into showing people there’s a better way.

And aversive training keeps growing.

Not because we’re doing it wrong.

Not because we’re not working hard enough.

Not because the science isn’t clear or our methods aren’t effective.

We keep losing because we’re fighting a system, not a problem.

And systems don’t respond to single solutions—no matter how brilliant those solutions are.

The Pattern We Keep Repeating

Let me show you the pattern. Maybe you’ll recognize it.

Someone says: “We just need better education! If trainers understood the science, they’d stop using aversive methods.”

So we build comprehensive curricula. We create certification programs. We host webinars and workshops. And some trainers do change their practice.

But then new trainers enter the field with minimal education, grab quick-fix tools under client pressure, get reinforced by immediate results, and the cycle continues. The better education exists, but it’s competing against a system that rewards shortcuts.

Someone else says: “We need to make force-free training more visible! People choose aversive trainers because that’s all they see.”

So we create gorgeous videos showing patient, compassionate training. We document transformation stories. We build social media presence. And some of our content does reach people.

But the algorithm amplifies dramatic before-and-after videos of shock collar “corrections.” The aversive content goes viral while ours gets 47 views. We’re creating great content, but we’re fighting a billion-dollar algorithm designed to reward extreme transformations.

Another person says: “We need legislation! Ban the tools and the problem goes away.”

So we push for policy change. And sometimes we win—shock collars get restricted or banned in certain places. Real progress.

But enforcement is weak, loopholes exist, violations are hard to prove, and trainers just rebrand the tools or move to different methods. The law exists, but it’s embedded in a system that lacks the infrastructure to make it work.

Another voice says: “We need stronger animal welfare laws! Legal protection will force change.”

So we advocate for comprehensive legislation that recognizes dogs’ emotional wellbeing and prohibits methods that cause psychological harm. We push for laws that go beyond physical abuse to include practices that create fear and anxiety. And sometimes we succeed—progressive legislation gets passed that actually protects dogs at the emotional and neurobiological level.

But enforcement requires inspectors who understand behavioral signs of distress, not just physical injury. It requires the public to recognize violations and report them. It requires political will to fund oversight. It requires a culture that values emotional welfare as much as physical safety. The law exists on paper, but the infrastructure to make it work—the trained enforcers, the public awareness, the sustained political pressure—is missing or underfunded.

And the researcher says: “We have the evidence! We just need to show people the harm these methods cause.”

So we publish studies. We present data. We share findings. And we’re right—the evidence is overwhelming.

But when you show someone research that says “your methods cause harm,” their nervous system hears “you’re a bad person.” Cognitive dissonance kicks in. The brain protects itself. Evidence gets rationalized away. We have the science, but we’re fighting neurobiology.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Here’s what I learned after mapping this entire system using Canine Neurobiological System Science (CNSS):

Every single intervention we attempt—education, visibility, policy, research—is necessary.

And every single one, alone, gets absorbed by the system.

Because we’re not dealing with four separate problems. We’re dealing with one interconnected knot where every thread feeds every other thread.

The Four Loops That Create The Knot

Let me show you the system.

Loop 1: The Success Engine (Why it feels like it works)

A trainer uses an aversive correction. The dog stops the unwanted behavior—immediately, right in front of the client. The trainer feels a rush of satisfaction and relief. The client is grateful and impressed. The trainer’s confidence grows. Their professional identity solidifies around being “effective.”

They use the method again.

This loop runs on neurochemical reward. Dopamine. Adrenaline. The satisfaction of control. The social validation. It’s not cruelty—it’s a reinforcement trap that would hook any of us.

Why education alone can’t break this: You’re asking someone to give up immediate neurochemical rewards for delayed, harder-to-see outcomes. That requires extraordinary motivation—motivation they don’t have when the current method “works.”

Loop 2: The Amplification Machine (Why it spreads)

That dramatic before-and-after transformation? It gets posted online. The algorithm sees high engagement (shock value literally generates views). It goes viral. 850,000 views. The trainer gets flooded with client inquiries. Their income doubles. Other trainers see the success and adopt similar methods. More content gets created. More amplification.

This loop runs on algorithmic bias toward extreme content. Social media platforms are designed to amplify drama. Patience and gradual behavior change don’t generate engagement metrics. Shocking transformations do.

Why better content alone can’t break this: You’re trying to out-compete an algorithm that rewards exactly what you’re trying to eliminate. Your beautiful, ethical training content is boring to a machine optimized for arousal and clicks.

Loop 3: The Protective Shield (Why evidence bounces off)

A trainer encounters research showing their methods cause fear and long-term behavioral damage. Their nervous system perceives this as an identity threat. Cognitive dissonance floods in—the psychological discomfort of holding contradictory beliefs (“I’m a good person who helps dogs” vs. “My methods cause harm”).

The brain does what brains do: it protects itself.

The research gets rationalized away. “That study had flaws.” “My dogs are different.” “I’ve seen these methods work for 20 years.” The belief system stays preserved. Professional identity stays intact. Openness to contradictory evidence decreases.

This loop runs on neurobiological self-preservation. It’s not stupidity. It’s not stubbornness. It’s how human nervous systems handle threat.

Why presenting evidence alone can’t break this: You’re triggering the exact mechanism that prevents evidence from being integrated. The more threatening the information, the stronger the defense response.

Loop 4: The Drift Generator (How good people fail)

A new trainer completes a basic certification program. They’re committed to force-free methods. Their third client has a reactive German Shepherd. The trainer tries counter-conditioning. The dog lunges again. The client is frustrated. The trainer feels incompetent and stressed.

A colleague suggests a prong collar. “Just try it.”

It “works” immediately. The dog stops lunging. The client is relieved. The trainer’s stress drops. They feel competent again.

The shortcut gets reinforced. Next time, they reach for the tool faster. They stop pursuing advanced education—why bother when this works? Another well-intentioned trainer has drifted into aversive practice.

This loop runs on pressure converting good intentions into harmful shortcuts. It’s not a moral failure. It’s what happens when underprepared people face complex problems with inadequate support.

Why better entry-level education alone can’t break this: Unless you also change the economic pressures, client expectations, mentorship availability, and professional identity models, stress will still convert people under pressure.

How The Loops Feed Each Other (Why Single Interventions Fail)

Here’s where it gets worse.

These four loops aren’t separate. They’re interconnected. Each one feeds and protects the others.

Example 1: Even if education improves…

Let’s say you create the world’s best force-free training curriculum. Graduates enter the field with excellent skills and scientific understanding.

But they’re competing against trainers with massive social media followings built on viral aversive content (Loop 2: Amplification). Clients choose the visible “success stories” over the unknown ethical trainer. Your graduate struggles financially. Client pressure mounts. Stress increases. Under pressure, they drift toward shortcuts (Loop 4: Drift). The quick result feels rewarding (Loop 1: Success Engine). They rationalize it as “necessary in some cases” (Loop 3: Protective Shield).

Your excellent education got absorbed by the system.

Example 2: Even if legislation passes…

Let’s say you successfully ban shock collars in your region. Real victory.

But trainers still experience neurochemical rewards from other forms of physical correction (Loop 1: Success Engine). Those methods still get amplified online (Loop 2: Amplification). When presented with evidence of harm, cognitive dissonance still shields their beliefs (Loop 3: Protective Shield). New trainers still drift under pressure (Loop 4: Drift). They just use different tools—prong collars, leash corrections, physical intimidation—that aren’t technically banned.

Your legislation got absorbed by the system.

Example 3: Even if welfare laws are comprehensive…

Let’s say you pass progressive legislation that prohibits any training method causing “distress, fear, or anxiety”—not just physical harm. The law recognizes emotional welfare. Real progress.

But enforcement requires behavioral expertise that most animal control officers don’t have. A dog freezing in fear looks “calm” to untrained observers. Proving psychological harm is harder than documenting physical injury. Inspectors need training. The public needs education on what behavioral distress looks like. All of this requires sustained funding and political will.

Meanwhile, trainers rebrand their methods. “Behavioral interruption” instead of “correction.” “Communication” instead of “punishment.” The neurochemical rewards for quick results still exist (Loop 1: Success Engine). The viral content showing dramatic transformations still floods social media with millions of views (Loop 2: Amplification). When confronted with the new laws, trainers rationalize that their specific application “doesn’t cause distress” (Loop 3: Protective Shield). New trainers still drift toward shortcuts under client pressure (Loop 4: Drift)—they just use methods with softer language.

Your comprehensive welfare law got absorbed by the system.

Example 4: Even if your content goes viral…

Let’s say you crack the algorithm. Your force-free training video gets 2 million views. Huge success.

But most viewers have never trained with these methods. They lack the skill and confidence (Loop 4: Drift makes them vulnerable to shortcuts). When they struggle, they see a hundred shock collar ads promising “immediate results” (Loop 2: Amplification). If they do try force-free methods and encounter challenges, their identity as “effective dog owners” gets threatened (Loop 3: Protective Shield makes them defensive). When an aversive method produces instant compliance, they feel validated (Loop 1: Success Engine).

Your viral content got absorbed by the system.

Example 4: Even if the evidence is overwhelming…

Let’s say you publish the definitive study showing long-term harm from aversive methods. Peer-reviewed, large sample, unambiguous results.

But trainers who’ve built careers on these methods experience identity threat (Loop 3: Protective Shield). Their community of fellow aversive trainers provides social validation (Loop 1: Success Engine). Viral content showing “successful” transformations contradicts the research in their feed (Loop 2: Amplification). When stressed trainers face pressure, they still reach for tools that immediately reduce their anxiety (Loop 4: Drift).

Your research got absorbed by the system.

Why One or Two Great Ideas Won’t Fix This

I know this is hard to hear, especially if you’ve poured years into one of these approaches.

Your work isn’t wasted. The education you’ve built matters. The content you’ve created matters. The legislation you’ve fought for matters. The research you’ve conducted matters.

But none of it, alone, can break a self-reinforcing system.

Here’s why:

• Systems have immune responses. Just like a body fights off infection, systems resist change through compensatory mechanisms. When you push on one part, the system adjusts somewhere else to maintain equilibrium.

• Single interventions create local change that gets overridden by systemic pressures. You might change one trainer’s practice, but the economic incentives, social validation, algorithmic amplification, and psychological defenses all work to pull them back or neutralize your impact.

• The loops reinforce each other faster than single interventions can disrupt them. While you’re slowly building educational infrastructure, the viral content loop is creating thousands of new aversive adopters per day. While you’re conducting research, the cognitive dissonance loop is shielding trainers from integrating it. While you’re pushing for legislation, the drift loop is creating new practitioners who’ll find workarounds.

• The system’s feedback loops are tighter than your intervention loops. Neurochemical reward from immediate compliance happens in seconds. Viral amplification happens in hours. Your educational program takes months. Your legislation takes years. Your research publication takes years. The system’s reinforcement cycles are running 1000x faster than your change cycles.

This isn’t a reason to give up.

It’s a reason to change strategy.

What The System Actually Can’t Handle

Here’s what I’ve learned from mapping this at the systems level:

The knot loosens when you pull all the threads simultaneously.

Not “everyone do everything.” Not “one organization coordinates it all.” But strategic, coordinated pressure across multiple intervention points at the same time.

What coordination actually looks like:

When you improve trainer education AND content strategists amplify those graduates’ work AND policy advocates create certification requirements that value that education AND science communicators frame force-free methods as advanced professional practice rather than “soft alternatives”—

The loops stop feeding each other.

Example: Coordinated education reform

• Education lever: Develop comprehensive, accessible certification

• Visibility lever: Systematically amplify graduates’ success stories

• Policy lever: Create requirements that mandate this level of training

• Communication lever: Frame it as professional elevation, not criticism of current practice

Result: New trainers enter a market that values their skills. Their economic viability is real. Their work is visible. They have professional identity and community support. The drift loop breaks because they have confidence, skills, and sustainable practice models.

Example: Coordinated content strategy

• Content lever: Create compelling, emotionally resonant force-free stories

• Visibility lever: Coordinate posting across multiple accounts to game algorithms

• Research lever: Provide evidence-based talking points that travel with content

• Community lever: Build social validation networks for force-free methods

Result: Ethical training becomes visible. Algorithms start showing it to more people. Social proof shifts. Market demand for force-free training increases. The amplification loop starts working in the other direction.

Example: Coordinated policy reform

• Policy lever: Push for comprehensive welfare legislation that includes emotional/psychological harm, not just physical abuse

• Education lever: Train animal control officers and inspectors to recognize behavioral indicators of distress

• Community lever: Organize networks to monitor and report violations, educate public on what distress looks like

• Communication lever: Frame enforcement as protecting professional standards and animal wellbeing, not punishment

• Research lever: Provide clear behavioral markers of fear, anxiety, and stress that can be used in enforcement

Result: Laws protect emotional welfare, not just physical safety. Enforcers can identify violations. The public recognizes and reports psychological harm. Professional community supports enforcement. Compliance has real consequences. The protection loop weakens because non-compliance has real costs—and everyone can identify what non-compliance looks like.

This Isn’t About You Doing Everything

I know what you might be thinking: “I’m already exhausted. I can’t do all of this.”

You don’t have to.

You need to do your work in connection with others doing complementary work.

• If you’re focused on education, you need to know who’s working on visibility so your graduates get amplified.

• If you’re focused on content, you need to know who’s doing research so you can translate findings into shareable stories.

• If you’re focused on policy, you need to know who’s building community networks for enforcement monitoring.

• If you’re focused on research, you need to know who can communicate it in ways that don’t trigger defensive shields.

The system wins by keeping us isolated, each working on our piece without seeing how the pieces connect.

We win when we can coordinate across the pieces.

Not one organization running everything. Not one person doing everything. But strategic connection so our individual efforts support rather than duplicate or contradict each other.

What Happens Next

I’ve built a simple tool to map who’s working on which thread of this knot.

Not to coordinate you—I’m not running a movement or building an organization.

But to make you visible to each other.

Because right now, there are people working on complementary pieces of this system who don’t know each other exist.

• There are educators who need content amplifiers.

• There are content creators who need research translators.

• There are researchers who need policy advocates.

• There are policy advocates who need community organizers.

• There are trainers doing excellent work in isolation who need to see they’re part of something larger.

The system keeps us isolated because isolation makes us manageable.

Visibility makes coordination possible. Coordination makes system change possible.

The Invitation

I’m mapping who’s working on what.

Not to tell you what to do. Not to organize your efforts. Not to create another thing you have to join or maintain.

Just to make the field visible to itself.

So you can see: Who else is pulling your thread? What threads are under-resourced? Where could connection create leverage you don’t have alone?

Co-ordination Map

Fill it out if: - You’re working on force-free education, research, content, policy, or community building - You want to see who else is working on complementary pieces -

You’re open to connection (even if not ready for active collaboration) - You want to understand where your work fits in the larger system

The map is visible to everyone who opts in. You’ll be able to see who’s doing what, where the gaps are, and who might be a good connection for the work you’re already doing.

The Truth About System Change

System change is slow. It’s frustrating. It requires coordination we’re not used to. It means letting go of “my solution is the answer” and embracing “my solution + your solution + their solution might be the answer.”

But it’s the only thing that actually works against self-reinforcing systems.

Single interventions create ripples. Coordinated interventions collapse loops.

I don’t know if this will work. I don’t know if we can coordinate across our different approaches, egos, organizations, and priorities.

But I know continuing to work in isolation—each of us believing our piece is the key piece—definitely won’t work.

The system has already proven it can absorb that.

So let’s try something different. Let’s make ourselves visible to each other. Let’s map the terrain. Let’s see what coordination actually looks like when people with complementary skills can find each other.

The system wins by keeping us scattered.

We win when we can see the whole knot—and each other.

The System Map

Here's what we're up against—all four loops, interconnected:

Each quadrant shows why single interventions fail:

• Top left (Success Engine): Quick results create neurochemical addiction

• Top right (Amplification Machine): Algorithms amplify dramatic content

• Bottom left (Protective Shield): Brain shields itself from threatening evidence

• Bottom right (Drift Generator): Pressure converts well-meaning people

The center shows the truth: They all feed each other. Single fixes get absorbed. Coordination works.

About This Analysis

This systems analysis is based on Canine Neurobiological System Science (CNSS), a open-sourced framework that examines behavior and welfare across 10 interconnected system levels—from genetics to global digital networks. The four loops described here represent major feedback mechanisms that sustain aversive training methods despite individual efforts to change practice. For the complete technical analysis including all variables and interconnections is coming soon.

What thread are you pulling? I want to hear from you in the comments.