I only read the linked summary. I think the lecturer and the objecting instructor are talking about two different things. The instructor's thesis is that posi

I only read the linked summary. I think the lecturer and the objecting instructor are talking about two different things. The instructor's thesis is that positive reinforcement is more effective. I'm assuming that this was a measured, long term result, e.g. students that were positively reinforced did better on final tests or other summarizing measurements. The objecting instructor is talking about single instances "in the seat," not measured over time. "More often than not, the next maneuver ..." I'm assuming that a student's performance will be somewhat more random than an experienced practitioner's performance. So there would be a tendency for regression to the mean in isolated instances, and a small enough sample of instances would not be enough to predict final measured proficiency. Also because of the way the objecting instructor phrased his objection, I'm assuming that he hadn't checked his observations against the final summarizing measurements. This is how I made sense of the conflict between the two people.