Be it developing protective coloration to mimicking a toxic species to creating the appearance of health through deceptive plumage, 'most all animals evolved to manipulate and deceive.

The appeal, I think, of the NYT article is that it reminds us that we too, are animals and that sometimes the swiftest and most painless route to reaching an objective is not always via verbally communicating with your mate's cerebral cortex.

And do we not already employ many of these techniques anyway? People always respond to behaviors, whether it's a smile or some other cue, so why not use all the tools at our disposal to effect the harmony and functionality in our relationships?

It's amazing to me just how blatantly Broadsheet's prejudices come across sometimes. I wonder what Page's reaction would have been if the article had been written by a man about training the women in his life? Think there'd be so much of "what's all the fuss about?"

For the record, I think the whole idea innocuous. So animal training tips get used in marriage, so what? If they work, go for it, whether you're male or female, dealing with women or men. The reason they work is - we're animals!

I don't see the fuss at all. I think the animal-training paradigm is great!

To me, it's obvious that the real issue here is NOT that you're "training" your partner. The root issue involved here is one of communication. The real goal is to communicate, in the most effective manner, what it is exactly that you want from them.

You may think that you're communicating effectively by saying "please pick up your dirty clothes" over and over, but in fact you're not. But if you *show* them how much it means to you if you *do* pick them up, now that's effective communication!

Take the animal imagery--and the genders of the partners--out of Sutherland's advice/insight and you've got some nifty, mostly common sense tips about more effective interpersonal communication.

I found myself nodding a lot as I read her article--I've used some of those ideas and had others used on me, and regardless of who did it to whom, they've improved our communications in general and our relationship overall.

Some people just don't get it...but I'll bet that wingnut's dog or cat would! ;-)

I too have taken operant conditioning classes, which are all the rage in your basic dog training courses right now. The classes genuinely do teach one how to communicate in a more thoughtful way, and not to manipulate or dominate in any sense. Books on the subject often deliver the message by emphasizing that you and your dog are a team, for example, rather than going on and on about "alpha" roles within a pack.

If someone would please, please undertake a system of positive reinforcement with me here at work, I would be so grateful. I have no qualms about saying that thinking about clickers for a while made me a somewhat better parent. No, you don't "train" your spouse or kids, but you do learn how to communicate across obstacles when you're trying to show an animal what you need.

(Having said all that, I also think the Shamu angle is a goofy columnist essentially trolling for responses... which is what columns do, Broadsheet included. That tone isn't particularly helpful, and oh yes would Broadsheet have had the opposite reaction if it'd been a man "training" a woman.)

It is the opposite of negative reinforcement (aka nagging). If more parents used positive reinforcement, we'd see fewer parents ignoring their children until they destroy the couch or set the kitchen on fire -- which is, when you think about it, just training children that they must misbehave if they'd like to receive any attention. If more parents used positive reinforcement, we'd see more eye contact, more respectful treatment of children, who would then presumably grow up and treat others in a similar fashion.

Don't kid yourselves: we all training others, whether we know it, admit it, or not. Why not influence others deliberately and positively?

Jack Shafer from Slate.com made this comment about the article:

"The Shamu story establishes once and for all that men are the new women. You can now use the New York Times to write the most dehumanizing and insulting shit about them and everybody will laugh in recognition."

Quite frankly I agree. Sadly though I'm willing to place cash money on Broadsheet being more offended and outraged by Shafer's comment than by one of the most demeaning pieces ever published by the NYTimes.