I was quite interested in your response on Karen Pryor’s comments on punishment from her website. I’m currently reading Sidman’s, Coercion and its Fallout.’ Fascinating reading. In chapter 2, pg. 45, he says this about punishment:

‘But we define punishment without appealing to any behavioral effect; punishment occurs whenever an action is followed either by a loss of positive or a gain of negative reinforcers. This definition says nothing about the effect of a punisher on the action that produces it.

It says neither that punishment is the oppositie [sic] of reinforcement nor that punishment reduces the future likelihood of punished actions.’

This is indeed one area where Sidman appears to be at odds with almost all other contemporary behaviorists.

After receiving Chris’ email I did some additional research just to be sure that my understanding of this term was supportable. In addition to having a long conversation with Dr Susan Friedman on this subject I also referred to my copy of “Learning and Behavior” by Paul Chance.

What we have here is an example of how science works; ideas are postulated, discussed, and tested. Science is dynamic and the definition of Punishment is a wonderful example of how science progresses and changes as new ideas are presented, challenged, and tested. If science did not operate this way then behaviorists would not be thinking of Punishment at all since B. F. Skinner himself (the “father” of behavioral science) stated that from his experiments Punishment was ineffective. What those that have followed Skinner have discovered through challenge and experiment is that indeed Punishment does work and possibly the levels of aversives being used by Skinner were too low to be effective. The Chance book cites some excellent studies on Punishment and for those who wish to dig deeper into this subject I would highly recommend reading his chapter on Punishment.

The definition of Punishment I use is the one used by the majority of respected contemporary behaviorists and animal trainers:

“Punishment is a consequence delivered after a behavior that serves to reduce the frequency or intensity with which the behavior is exhibited,”  Susan Friedman - “The Facts About Punishment“

“The procedure of providing consequences for a behavior that reduce the strength of that behavior,”  Paul Chance - Learning and Behavior

“The procedure of providing consequence for a response that reduces the frequency of that response” - International Marine Mammal Trainers’ Association - Glossary

“The procedure of providing consequences for a behavior that decrease the frequency of that behavior.” - University of South Florida Glossary of Behavior

The way that science tests these definitions is by challenging them with real behavioral examples; indeed this is what Sidman does in another article where he challenges the definition (The Distinction Between Positive and Negative Reinforcement: Some Additional Considerations). He presents a number of test examples that he believes show that the above definition is wrong. For example he asks “When a parent ends a child’s eating between meals by hiding the cookie jar, has the child’s cookie eating been punished?” The answer is patently no, however I see this as comparing apples and oranges because what the parent did was to change the antecedents of behavior (hide the jar) and NOT apply a contingent consequence to reduce the behavior.

In reading the above article by Sidman it appears that his main argument against the contemporary definition of Punishment is two-fold. Firstly that it is not how Skinner defined it and secondly that the contemporary definition was simply adopted by behaviorists without the proper scientific discussion, debate, and challenge. In the light of the fact that Skinner stated that Punishment was ineffective one can only assume that any conclusions he drew about Punishment after this were flawed or at least based upon shaky ground. Since we now know that indeed Punishment does work we need an update to that part of the Skinnerian hypotheses; the contemporary definitions above provide that update. Secondly, in challenging the contemporary definition of Punishment Sidman is addressing the second part of his objection to the definition and it appears that the majority of contemporary behaviorists are meeting his challenge and successfully defending the definition I gave and those above. Therefore through his challenges he is actually encouraging contemporary behaviorists to fulfill the need for challenge, debate, and test of the definition. This is a good thing since to date those challenges have been answered.

So, I stand by my original article and its definition of Punishment, at least until through its continuing journey science brings a better way of expressing the concepts that we use to describe behavior. And that after all is what these terms are all about; building a common language that practitioners of behavior change (i.e. trainers) can use to communicate clearly with both peers and students.

Chris asked in her email if in the light of the writings of Sidman on this subject it was correct to say that Karen Pryor was “wrong” in her discussion of Punishment. Having read some more and talked with others about this I stand by the point of my article; the terminology of OC and ABA can be confusing even when used correctly, to mix historical and contemporary concepts can only lead to deeper confusion; especially when these concepts are held to be correct by the majority of contemporary behaviorists. I find this especially important in arena that Karen Pryor publishes her writings, the pet community. It is vitally important that those who have respect and reputation in that community communicate in a cohesive and accurate manner the principles and terminology of the science. I still feel that Karen Pryor’s article failed to meet those criteria and yes I believe she was wrong in her definition of Punishment.

My thanks go to Chris Shank for opening this discussion in such an interesting way.

In closing I would like to refer back to my previous articles about Primary and Secondary reinforcers. I was sent a clip from an internet posting that stated that my understanding of these terms was incorrect. I do not propose to reopen that discussion since I believe I clearly stated the correct definitions of those items in the original articles and that the poster of the message continues to be mistaken. I will simply refer anyone who is confused about the terms back to my original articles.

• Food and Weight Management
• The Primary/Secondary Reinforcement Dichotomy
• Primary Reinforcement and History Revisited

Sid.

The article sets out to answer the question:

“Can you teach everything without punishment? By punishment I mean “correction” which I translated to “punishment” in my question …”

When I read this article I have to admit that I was very disappointed in what I read. Here was an article from someone, as I said earlier, that I really respect. Karen Pryor has brought so much to not only pet owners but also to zookeepers around the world with her writings about training and in particular Clicker Training. Her book “Don’t Shoot the Dog” is in my opinion required reading for anyone who works with or owns animals. This article however is so misleading in its use and definition of what is a well defined OC and Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) term that it does nothing to educate the reader and gives a wrong answer the original question posed.

Let’s be clear here, if this article were not written by a well respected trainer it probably wouldn’t matter too much, it would be just another online writer misunderstanding and misstating the science.

Here is the scientific definition of “punishment”:

Stimuli that serve to reduce the likelihood that the behavior immediately preceding it will be repeated in the future.

Now let’s take a look at the definition from the article:

On the other hand, a punishment is something aversive that you do on purpose.

As you can see this is absolutely not what punishment is at all.

The article goes on to say:

But, a punishment does NOT have a predictable effect on the future.

Once again this is completely wrong. From our definition of punishment we know that it has a very well defined effect upon future behavior. Further more, if the stimulus, i.e. the so-called punishment, does not reduce the likelihood a behavior will be repeated then by definition it is not a punisher. Punishers or reinforcers only get to be called those things if they have the defined effect upon the behavior preceding them. Plus, their effect is always judged by the behavior of the subject.

So, why is this so important and why does it disappoint me so much? It comes down to one of the tenets of good training and that is good communication. One of the biggest problems experienced by folks that are new to training is the rather arcane words that are used to describe the process. Several of the well defined terms of OC and ABA come to the science with a long history and emotive meanings. “Punishment” is a prime example; because of its long use in a social rather than scientific context it brings many assumptions to the mind of the reader. It is therefore important that whenever a trainer describes a training process or a technique that they take extreme care to not only define these terms but use them exactly and accurately, in this way the trainer clearly communicates the process and understanding to whoever is reading the article. Consistent and accurate communication is not only required of trainer to subject, it also required of trainer to trainer, and trainer to student. With careless and incorrect use of terms in an article that purports to be a training article comes just more confusion. This was demonstrated by the person who wrote to me asking about this mentioning that the article had been promoted in a discussion group as a “very good” article that would clarify what aversives and punishment are. In fact it does quite the opposite.

In order to be a good educator one really needs to follow the tenet of clear and accurate communication. The science of OC and ABA are still in their “formative” years in the context of the greater public. It is the responsibility of those of us to work to raise public awareness of this science to serve it well by being diligent and careful when we write or speak about it. Using and defining its terminology in a careless and inaccurate way will only serve to further confuse our audience and will certainly not serve our goals of raising awareness and use of these powerful training techniques.

Read this archived article for an overview of the terminolgy, also Dr. Susan Friedman made a similar appeal for clear communication in her Goodbird magazine (Vol 2-1) article “Terminology Tumult: Coming to Terms with Terms”.

Sid.

“… the whole history of the bird is part of the antecedent package.”

“… the behavior we see today was shaped by the experiences of the bird in its past, its history.”

This point was taken up in a private email exchange with the writer taking issue with me about this. Their point was that my statements were discouraging to those who may be considering adopting one of the many older parrots looking for new homes. I thought long and hard about this because it certainly was not my intention. Why, you may ask, has this issue come back to the surface?

We recently adopted a dog (Emma) from the Albuquerque Shelter. She is a Border Collie mix who’s age is supposed to be around eight years although we believe she is probably closer to four or five years old. The staff at the shelter were excellent in their approach to our interest in Emma, she had been identified as a “fear-biter” and this together with her age and lack of interest from other adopters meant that she was less than an hour from being euthanized when we arrived to evaluate her. The shelter supervisor took a long time interviewing us and explaining the issues that Emma was believed to have. We had decided before arriving at the shelter that if a “meet and greet” with our other two dogs went well we would adopt Emma. That meeting went very well through the fence and Emma came home with us. I don’t propose to go through all the details of Emma’s first few weeks with us except to say that there were pretty uneventful in terms of seeing any aggression or biting. In fact we have seen no biting, having been so well briefed we have been able to help Emma adjust to her new life in hopefully the least invasive and stressful way. After less than two months it is like she has been here and a part of our pack all her life … we just don’t have baby pictures!

So in this short story, in my opinion, are all the elements that the best parrot rescues appear to apply and to which the majority should aspire. They first of all watch and observe the birds they take in, they may work these birds so that any fear responses and other behavioral issues are reduced and thereby biting is also placed onto a reducing trajectory. Perhaps most importantly they communicate with the potential adopters clearly and honestly what the issues are and how they need to be addressed. They also assess the level of understanding of the challenges being faced by the adopters. In so doing they fill in as honestly and fully as they can the history of the bird. Only by doing this can they not only raise the likelihood that the bird will adjust to its new life but they also set up the adopters for success.

I stand by my original statement that knowing the history of a bird is an important and valuable antecedent. Consider if Emma had come home and we knew nothing of her “fear-biting” history, I firmly believe that somebody could well have been bitten by taking the wrong approach.

In my opinion there is no truth to the age-old adage “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” Given enough time, skill, and motivation there are no lost causes when it comes to animal training. In the past I have trained wild injured birds for educational programs; is it quick and easy … not usually. Is it challenging … without a doubt. Is it highly rewarding .. again without a doubt.

The choice of whether one acquires a chick or adopts a mature bird is down to the individual person. It depends upon what their motivation is; are they looking to get quick (often not long term) results or are they looking to raise their own skills by taking on the challenge of an older bird. It is as always more about the trainer than the bird. Check out Carly Lu’s Flight Blog for a great success story and a demonstration of how an older bird got enriched and a growing trainer stretched their skills.

Sid.

Now you may think that as someone who flies birds on a daily basis I would be solidly in the “never clip” camp. If that is what you think then I have to assume that your point of view is at one extreme of the argument or that perhaps you have never really thought about it in a non-emotional and logical way.

My position and that of almost every professional bird trainer I know and respect is that the real answer to clipping is not as clean cut, or black and white, as many might expect. There is no always right answer. The truth of the matter is that the choice to clip wing feathers to prevent or limit flight ability depends entirely upon the individual bird AND owner, a unique combination. It is unfortunate that this choice is more and more becoming a “politically correct” question, and sadly a marketing ploy to sell training materials! My friend and colleague Steve Martin wrote an article about this issue a couple of years back, it expresses what I believe is a well considered position, it does it so well that I don’t propose to reiterate the content here, only to encourage everyone to read the article. I support the positions Steve so eloquently expresses.

As I said in the beginning of this article this is a very emotive, maybe the most emotive, issue in the companion parrot community. It is this way I feel because caring owners do become attached to their birds and they are vulnerable to the hyperbole of those at the extremes of the discussion, especially when they are told that their bird will be “happier and healthier” if they don’t clip or “safer” if they do. The problem is that neither extreme view is correct, nor is it based upon facts or science, it is a belief. This reminds me of a quotation that I keep reiterating because it should remind us to be wary of our beliefs as they can, and often do, blind us to the real truth of a situation.

A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses; it is an idea that possesses the mind.

Robert Oxton Bolton

To make a bird owner feel guilty because they have a clipped bird when it is the safest, healthiest way they know how to keep that bird is irresponsible and to insist that they allow the bird full flight is to set them up for potential heartbreak.

To say that anyone who can not keep a bird flighted should not own a bird is the kind of fanatical point of view that may lead us in the direction of the road to legislation prohibiting keeping bird as pets. The animal rights groups will forever be your friends.

Sid

Crate training is a subject that has come up a couple of times over the last few months from a couple of blog readers. I promised that I would write about it and working our pied crow (Corvus albus) Kumbi reminded me of that promise. Kumbi has been in our show from the beginning of Avian Ambassadors, and he was the subject of a paper I wrote and presented at the IAATE conference in 2006. A part of that paper addressed an issue we had getting Kumbi to willingly enter his travel crate after his show segment. This issue caused me not only to focus more of his training time on entering his travel crate but to incorporate entering the crate into his show behavior. Since that time Kumbi finishes his show segment by flying to his crate, opening the door, and entering it.

While everyone probably doesn’t need that level of performance from their bird it is highly desirable that birds are familiarized with their travel crates and are trained to enter and remain calmly in them. There are many different ways to train entry; my preferred method is to start with a much larger crate than the one I plan on using for the bird; I like the plastic dog crates that come in two parts and I begin by using only the lower half of the crate and no door attached. Place it on a large flat surface; if you use a table make sure to cover the surface with some carpet or a large towel so that the bird can stand without slipping and also make sure the floor of the crate is covered too. We want to do our best to avoid things that may make our bird nervous during this training.

If you are using food rewards for training your bird be sure to begin this new training step before mealtime and also set aside your bird’s favorite treat item for the training sessions.

If you have your bird target trained you can begin by targeting the bird closer and closer to the crate. As it becomes more comfortable gradually target the bird into the crate. The goal here is to have the bird willingly target into the crate.

For birds that are not target trained begin by luring the bird closer and closer to the crate until he is standing in the crate calmly.

My preferred approach is not to use target training but to have already trained the bird with a “go there” cue. The cue for this behavior can be a simple finger point to the place you want the bird to go. Begin on a table top or if your bird is flighted use a “T” perch and train him to hop and then fly from your hand to the perch.

Regardless of whether you target or cue your bird into the crate it is important that your bird becomes comfortable entering this “open-topped”, door-less crate. Do not add the top of the crate until your bird is comfortable with this first step.

The biggest mistake that most people make in any training is taking too big of a step before the bird is ready. Equally important is that the training should move ahead at the pace of the bird. Keen observation of your bird, its body language, and response to your cues should be your indicators of when to raise your expectations.

Once your bird is comfortable with this first stage add the top half of the crate; you will almost certainly need to begin almost at the beginning, slowly getting your bird closer and closer to the crate and then finally entering it although the process should go quicker than the initial training with the half crate.

Do not add the door until the bird is entering the crate and remaining calm in there. In fact before adding the door begin to extend the period that the bird has to stand in the crate before they get their reward. When they are remaining in the crate calmly for say a minute or so add the door; initially do not close the door when the bird enters. Continue to reward calm behavior and gradually close the door. If the bird shows any sign of rushing to get out of the door do NOT close the door; open it and allow the bird to exit and then repeat the entry behavior. It is important at this stage to build the bird’s confidence and to communicate that the bird is in control by allowing it to exit when it chooses. Once you are able to close the door reward your bird for remaining calm in the crate; do this through the window slots on the side of the crate.

Now that you are able to close the door and have your bird remain calm in the crate you may think that you are done. However, this is just the beginning; the training must proceed by generalizing the calm behavior when the crate is moved. Begin with simply lifting the crate gently off the table, reward your bird for calm behavior. It is vital at this stage to take small steps to continue to build the birds confidence with being in the crate. The biggest mistake people make is to start carrying the bird around too soon, before they are ready. A mistake at this stage can set your training back a very long way.

As I stated earlier the temptation to rush ahead and perhaps close the door on a bird that is trying to leave can have consequences that set your training back a long way. The tricks are patience and as always good observation of your bird’s behavior.

Happy training,

Sid.

I would warn anyone thinking of watching the video of two things; first it is a heart-wrenching thing to watch a caring, sensitive parrot owner take full responsibility for the loss of their bird. Secondly the owner does use language in his self-admonition that may offend some folks, so viewers beware.

It took great courage on the part of the owner to make and post this video and out of respect for that owner I do not propose to comment directly on the observations I made of the early part of the video where the bird is being flown outdoors.

I truly hope that many people will view this video, not because of any voyeuristic intent on my part or theirs, but in the hope that they will realize that free flying a bird is a huge responsibility. It requires a dedication of time, certainly in the early training, that I believe few companion parrot owners have if they are being honest with themselves. It is certainly not something that anyone should undertake lightly and without a solid understanding of the behavioral principles involved in the required training. To believe that one can fly a bird free safely with only the bond to its owner as the control is self-delusional, disrespectful to the bird, and irresponsible in the extreme. These comments are not directed at the owner who suffered this loss, but at those who would encourage such actions by their own careless, ill-conceived internet writings and videos.

What makes this event even more poignant for me is that this week I had the great pleasure of meeting a small group of people with whom I had previously only exchanged email. These folks regularly free fly their parrots on the beach in Southern California. They do so in my opinion in a way that demonstrates how it should be done and that is with care and attention to the training process. Well done “Raz” Rasmussen, Hugh Choi, and Hillary “Tex” Hankey I applaud your dedication to your birds.

Sid.

I think everyone should be pretty much aware of my approach by this point in the life of my blog however just for the new readers let me say that I place trust and relationship building ahead of everything else when it comes to training. As I have previously said there are methods that can be employed that will override the lack of trust an animal may have in the trainer; their use however depends upon the ethical position of the trainer.

I noted one comment in the thread I was reading this morning that said:

“There is no morality or ethics attached to Operant Conditioning.”

Now I think I understand what the writer was saying but that sentence kind of upset me a little, it tweaked on an important subject, the ethics of trainers and how they affect the choices those trainers make. What I believe the writer was saying was that the science itself does not imply or apply any ethical or moral judgment. When we use the scientific term “punishment” it is simply describing a consequence of a behavior that is likely to reduce the presentation or frequency of that behavior in the future. As far as the science is concerned there is no judgment about the consequence. However, when we come to the application of the science we certainly do find ourselves needing to make ethical, even moral judgments in our choice of strategy.

This is especially true when it comes to the use of weight or food management in the training process. As I have written before, motivation is a balance and one can certainly tilt the balance in favor of an animal performing a requested behavior by reducing its weight through food withholding. The ethical question is whether it is the right thing to do before all other factors, including better trust/relationship building, have been exhausted. In my opinion it is not.

Also, the subject of the discussion, “Trainers who use science and trust building” I think missed a huge and important point. Even the strategies that are thought of as “bad” or inappropriate are using that same science. The use of aversives and punishers is also included in the science. Therefore even the trainer who towels a bird to “break” it, a horrible strategy that hopefully is now way behind us, is using the science (flooding). One simply can not claim that a trainer who uses Operant Conditioning and Applied Behavior Analysis is doing it the right way. It is the ethical choice of strategy made by that trainer that should define them.

One more point pops into my mind too. I keep reading people who say “we train only with positive reinforcement” like it somehow validates them and their strategy. Let us not forget about the ethical choices before we place these folks on a pedestal. For example, think about someone who makes this claim who uses weight management as their primary strategy, they have not built a strong trusting relationship they have simply built a food dependence. They can rightly claim to use positive reinforcement, that’s what they are doing, reward correct behavior with something that increases the likelihood of the behavior being repeated. However, consider this; what if that same bird was capable of performing to the same level with only the smallest reduction in their diet and therefore their weight and that this level was achieved by the trainer taking the time to build trust, confidence, and a good relationship with the bird. By gradually presenting new environments to the bird so that its confidence grew. Which of these trainers would you think is the better trainer?

This same thread brought a couple of other points to mind that I am hoping to expand on in future articles. Right now with spring in the air it is time to go and work some birds.

Sid.

I am not going to mention any names or link to any web sites as on the internet the ranking of names and sites in Google and other search engines relies upon other sites’ links to each site. The more times a site is linked to the better its ranking. Besides which my philosophy is to educate people so that they are capable of recognizing who really understands their subject and who is simply selling snake-oil!

While browsing a Yahoo group this morning I saw a link to some information about parrot training, it was a video being promoted to demonstrate the skills of the expert, unabashed self promotion. Well I can’t argue with that, everyone who has a business knows the power of the reputation of the people involved in that business and what better way to illustrate one’s skills than a video on YouTube!

The video showed two segments of biting birds and how the behavior was fixed “in minutes”. I doubt it was actually fixed at all, but that isn’t the point of this article. The point of this article is to bring attention to the technique used and more importantly to use this to show the linkage between two things that I try to avoid. Firstly Negative Reinforcement and secondly aversives.

So, imagine a bird standing on a perch, a person approaches and immediately the bird begins to lunge towards the person. The person stops and (being directed by an of-camera voice) then steps back as a “click” is heard. This is repeated with the person approaching closer and closer and a “click” just as they step back. After some time (15 minutes according to the off-camera commentary) the person is able to allow the bird to nuzzle their hand without getting bitten.

What is going on here?

To understand one needs to break down the technique into two parts. First, the approach of the person is clearly an aversive from the bird’s perspective. As I said earlier I believe that aversives should be avoided, they do nothing to add to a positive, trusting relationship with the bird. Secondly, the person walking away appears to be reinforcing the fact that the bird did not bite (not that it really had the chance to; the person was way out of reach!). I certainly did not see any behavioral change that warranted a click and retreat. However, if we assume that the trainer perceived some behavior they liked then asking the person to walk away may have reinforced that behavior. So what we have here is Negative Reinforcement. Again, not a contributor to trust between trainer and bird.

I have read one comment that this technique is flooding. In my opinion that is not the case because the aversive (person too close to the bird) was removed. If this were flooding the person would simply have stood there, maybe even gotten closer until the bird stopped the lunging etc..

What this video shows, in addition to not being the best way to deal with a biting bird, is that typically Negative Reinforcement and the purposeful introduction of aversives are inseparable. In order to apply Negative Reinforcement (removing the person) the aversive (again the person) had to be introduced by the trainer.

Finally, just to drive home the point of what a great example of how not to deal with a biting bird this is let me ask you to think about this … was the bird ever positively reinforced? I certainly didn’t see it, once again nothing that happened in these training sessions worked towards establishing a positive, trusting relationship between trainer and bird.

Here is an article written by Dr Susan Friedman and Lee McGuire about biting. It was first published in one of the best resources for how to train companion birds the right way, Good Bird Magazine.

Sid

“… the delivery of the food from a human hand is something that must be learned (human hand delivering food is safe). So if the food is delivered from a human hand, does that then make it become a secondary reinforcer?” – Curtis White.

No, food is a primary reinforcer; what is happening with the above example is the bird is still being reinforced by the food, something it innately wanted. What the bird has learned is that the approaching hand may contain food; its motivation is to acquire the food, and the bird did not have to learn that the food was desirable. The approaching hand may, with some birds, become a secondary reinforcer as a result of being paired with the primary food reinforcer, but I think it is over-thinking the scenario to say that the “food in the hand” becomes a secondary reinforcer itself.

Also the following was received in response to the “Silver Bullet” article:

“I thought that the need to understand history is a concept based on the medical model. If behavior analysis is the study of the functional relations between behavior and environmental events (Chase, P; 1998), should we need to know the bird’s history to change the behavior?” – Cynthia Schutte.

Yes, my statement that one needs to know the history of the bird one is working with was based upon the fact that the behavior we see today was shaped by the experiences of the bird in its past, its history. Indeed a bird’s history is part of the set of antecedents of the behaviors we observe. While we may not always be able to arrange our training sessions to account for some of those particular antecedents there are many times when being able to do so will assist in changing the observed behavior.

For example, suppose that we are trying to train a newly adopted bird; without knowing at least some of the history of that bird how do we know where to start. Suppose, unknown to the trainer, the bird had previously been forced into and out of a transport crate, trying to train this behavior could be problematic. However, given this knowledge we can adjust our training strategy to desensitize the bird to crates.

It is unfortunate that when some trainers do behavior analysis they typically only consider the obvious antecedents, the ones in the immediate environment, forgetting that the whole history of the bird is part of the antecedent package.

It is important to remember that the consequences of a behavior either increase or decrease the likelihood that the behavior will be presented in the future. Those consequences become a part of the bird’s history and factor into the antecedents of future behavior too. If a bird has a history of getting rewarded for approaching the trainer then when the trainer cues the bird to step onto the hand that history will factor into the bird’s decision to make the step. History plays a very important role in an animal’s decision making and a good trainer needs to know as much history as possible to set their birds up for success.

Keep those questions and comments coming and also don’t forget to join the email list so that you will get notifications of new posts to the blog.

Keep Soaring,

Sid.

Please keep the questions for the Training Blog coming, it is your questions and comments that will feed the inspiration for future articles.

Keep soaring,

Sid.