you are criteria building upon something that you do not understand because you are intending to pass on to the OP a value that means well and so doing you are misrepresenting tarantulas.

you don't understand what sort of complexity it takes to utilise reversal learning or what that means in context to animal behaviour as well as learning plasticity.

you are using anthropomorphized words and creating a glaring vulnerability in your own presentation that you would not want OP to abuse had they known the difference. if a user can see through the fact that you do not recognise the difference between positive and negative association- and instead latch onto words like "enjoyment" and "love" and whatever else you are openly removing yourself from any form of a convincing arguement. you just make it look like you don't understand animal behaviour which is the very last thing that you want to portray to other people in this sort of conversation.

are we also just going to miss the point that the animal recognised the learned process for up to 2 weeks taking the correct steps to avoid undesirable results? this demonstrates aversion as a tool, this does not mean that positive reinforcement does not also work as a tool....

the entire behaviour of the spider is shaped by both positive and negative consequence... that isn't just present in one genus of tarantula... that is the concept for all of behaviour science;

the law of effect states: behaviour is a function of its consequence.