Eight Rules for Punishment (and why we shouldn't use them)

Ok here it's the video. The issue was that my dog was literally diving for everything that could fall on the kitchen's floor and eat it. It was so bad that if you were able to step on the piece of food he would actually nip at your shoe for you to release it and growl (forget about even reach it with your hand). It was always a competition to see who would get it first. I tried to use corrections first but after 5 minutes i knew it was not going to work, got Jean Donaldson's book "Mine!" and this is what i did. I taped it with my phone so thats why is sideways and i'm using french fries for the exercise

http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a199/espencer85/?action=view¤t=Clicker.flv

Guess how long it took for my dog to get to this point? He looks pretty happy to me

huski

I don't understand why someone either has to be a purely positive or punishment based trainer.

I tend to agree, which is why I subscribe to the beautiful concept of "Balanced Training", a balance between all the options of motivators/methods/tools that go into dog training... and it's most heavily weighted in rewards and positive reinforcement, but there are times, situations, dogs, environments, etc, etc that warrant other options.

(Edited to clarify the quote I agreed with)

miranadobe

[

I tend to agree, which is why I subscribe to the beautiful concept of "Balanced Training", a balance between all the options of motivators/methods/tools that go into dog training... and it's most heavily weighted in rewards and positive reinforcement, but there are times, situations, dogs, environments, etc, etc that warrant other options.

agreed

Agree as well.

What cracks me up is people preaching to me about the differences between dogs trained "purely positive" (whatever that means) vs. a dog not, as if I don't already own such dogs, and preaching to me about how to train skills and train in situations they themselves have never actually experienced.  Maybe the "purely positive" dogs have been successfully trained this way because these dogs to not do training or work that ever requires them to use their courage and drive and instinctive characteristics to work through stress (both physical and mental)?  My point throughout all of this is that for SOME dogs in SOME situations there actually *is* a time and a place for stress and anxiety.  Not all forms of dog training and work that dogs do are always about doing everything we can to setup the dog for success and make it possible for every breed or temperament of dog to be able to perform every activity.  Not every dog is so weak in the head that he's going to be irreparably damaged by a few pops on the collar during agitation and bite training.

Liesje

Not every dog is so weak in the head that he's going to be irreparably damaged by a few pops on the collar

Agreed, i owned a miniature schnauzer before that will freeze if i used my hands for any type of re direction on her as subtle as it could be. It only took once for me to realize that i should not approach her that way (a little cheese fixed the issue). In the other hand Chuck could care less about it, his psyche is as normal as any Malamute but he still understands what i'm comunicating if i re direct him in some way.

Once again rule number 5 has a lot to do with number 3

miranadobe

huski

I don't understand why someone either has to be a purely positive or punishment based trainer. Although, I think I recall someone on this forum saying that unless it's a life or death situation, if you use punishment you are a punishment based trainer (or traditional trainer, IIRC).

I tend to agree, which is why I subscribe to the beautiful concept of "Balanced Training", a balance between all the options of motivators/methods/tools that go into dog training... and it's most heavily weighted in rewards and positive reinforcement, but there are times, situations, dogs, environments, etc, etc that warrant other options.

I disagree, at least with the notion taht i you use ANY P+ at all then you are a trad trainer.  I don't think that way, and I don't think anyone here thinks that way.

What I am seeing argued is that if you eliminate P+ completely - or as completely as is humanly possible - you see a change in the dog; in his attitude, behaviour and ability to learn.  So ar, everyone here that I know of who has tried this experiment has reported the same.  

That said, perhaps some people see "ability to learn" (how operant a dog is) as less of a priority than other criteria.... having a whip smart dog who igures stuf out faster than you can blink can be a wonderful thing to witness but I imagine it's not ALWAYS a wonderful thing to live with! 

espencer

Ok here it's the video.

My Mac won't play it.   That just keeps happening.

I dunno, I think it's hard. Penny always looked happy when she was being rewarded. She didn't learn fast in the presence of food, but she did if I was just using praise. I never tried anything remotely difficult with her, though. She knew sit, drop and speak and that was about it. I hit a brick wall trying to clicker train her because she was helpless to do anything but sit and stare at me or maybe bark when the sitting wasn't doing the job.

The difference that bothered me was the way she behaved when she thought I was going to punish her. It was so pronounced after I got Kivi, and now Erik. Kivi and Erik are not aware that people can be mean. If I shout at them in frustration they don't care. If I try to interrupt them with a loud noise, they don't really care. They don't care if I use the "this means business" tone. What am I going to do to them? I can't intimidate them into behaving because they are not scared of me in the slightest. I can push them, scold them, grab them, drag them, and hold them back and it won't result in a decrease in any behaviours. Penny cared if I meant business. Why? Because she knew that sometimes I did mean things to her.

The worst was when Penny was getting old and blind and a bit senile. She started shying away from me, cowering, even running away. I will never know if she would have done that if I hadn't punished her all the time or not, but it was heatbreaking.  

huski

I don't understand why someone either has to be a purely positive or punishment based trainer.

I never said someone had to be one or the other. My wording was, "difference between a dog's behavior when he is trained purely positively vs. trained with corrections" notice the wording is with corrections. It does not say with ONLY corrections, but with corrections added to the mix. Nowhere did I say that someone who uses corrections cannot also use positive reinforcement, or that if someone is using corrections I automatically label them as a "traditional" trainer.

huski

Seeing as you are so keen to see people prove themselves, feel free to look at my latest upload on my utube channel. Feel free to laugh at my crappy handling skillz ;)

I am not looking for people to 'prove' themselves. But if someone says "I have a video proving what I am saying is correct!" and then goes "Oh nevermind, I won't post it" sure I may say they should just go ahead and do it (since other people have expressed interest). I really have no interest in watching people's videos.

tenna

"difference between a dog's behavior when he is trained purely positively vs. trained with corrections"

I have one dog trained positive only, and another trained positive probably 90%.  The positive only dog is shy, nervy, somewhat neurotic (the behaviors and severity comes and goes depending on circumstance), lacks confidence, has mild food drive (not enough to make her look really happy and flashy and certainly not enough to pull her through stress from the environment) and very little drive for other typical motivators (toys, tugs, balls, freedom, getting to play with another dog, etc).  This dog was raised and trained by someone who was formerly (until after I took ownership of the dog) a "positive only" trainer who trains mostly by free shaping and doesn't like luring, yet the dog is slow at free shaping and when she does offer behaviors it's not with the same joy and energy as other dogs.

The dog who has been corrected (not trained with corrections) on the other hand is very energetic, social, outgoing, confident, courageous dog who is a joy to train and free shape, loves to offer behaviors and behavior chains, will try new things on his own, does not express any avoidance or helplessness.  His ball drive knows no limit and he also has good food drive.  He is focused when he needs to be focused, but also has no problems working independently (tracks out ahead, herds without me in the ring, does protection work without me line handling or within 50 feet).

I'm not trying to prove me right and prove you wrong but I'm saddened that these recent threads seem to totally ignore the vast differences not only between breeds, but among various lines, as far as how a dog's temperament and drives effect how they train and should be trained.  IMO, to not take this into account is unfair for the dogs.  Nobody knows my dog better than me and nobody knows your dog better than you.  I would never sit here and tell you that your dog would act differently or look happier if you had simply trained it this specific way instead.  That's bull.

corvus

My Mac won't play it.   That just keeps happening.

Try now

 My Mac played it earlier.  It looked like a Flash video so it opened in Adobe whatever plays flash stuff.

Lies, that's great of you. Kudos.

Liesje

The dog who has been corrected (not trained with corrections)

If he has been corrected in an effort to teach him something, you are training with corrections. It doesn't matter if you are doing so rarely and are mostly positively motivating him, you have still trained him with corrections, albeit occasionally. But I don't want to argue semantics, really.

Liesje

I'm not trying to prove me right and prove you wrong but I'm saddened that these recent threads seem to totally ignore the vast differences not only between breeds, but among various lines, as far as how a dog's temperament and drives effect how they train and should be trained.

I am not ignoring anything. I don't care if a dog I owned was a working line GSD or a hound from a shelter, or a Lhasa Apso from a puppy mill. I'd still be training with Karen Pryor's clicker training model. What motivates them might be different, ball drive, sniffing the ground, being allowed on furniture, etc., but I'd still be using clicker training and positive reinforcement, and would not be motivating them with corrections. I have already told you, I understand you train your dogs in SchH, and I do not particularly care that you use aversives on your dog to bring out drive.

Liesje

Nobody knows my dog better than me and nobody knows your dog better than you.  I would never sit here and tell you that your dog would act differently or look happier if you had simply trained it this specific way instead.  That's bull.

I never said I knew you or anyone else's dog better than they did. What I am saying is that I myself, as well as many professionals and owners, have noticed a big difference in a dog's behavior when they stopped using corrections altogether. I am not saying every single dog will act dramatically different if they are mildly corrected once in a blue moon. But I am citing myself and other's experience, and I think that that is perfectly OK to do. I'm sorry if you don't think so.

So you don't think it's possible that those who were training with corrections and noticed a big difference could possibly because their corrections were unnecessary, or too harsh, or ill timed, or any number of things than one can do wrong when training?

I would like to know more about these people and dogs.  What type of training was being done?  What kinds of corrections?  How and why?

Who decides what differences are for the better?  I ask because for what you are claiming, many here could find just as many people who will claim their dog acted happier and less stressed once the communication was more clear, more consistent, and better timed, either by introducing -R and/or +P or not.  I think it has less to do with every little nuance of how the dog is trained, and more to do with how well the handler communicates and how it relates to the dog's temperament.

People can think what they want to think.  I am not about to examine how I train my dogs based on mysterious people I don't know and dogs I've never seen.  Just this week on another board there was a thread lambasting a stranger for posting a video on YouTube that this person interpreted as one dog "attacking" another and the owners laughing about it.  Turns out the dogs were only playing and this person had limited experience with this type of play, thus assumed it was an "attack" an publicly condemned the owners.  Not really relevant to the topic here, but just illustrates that "others" have a wide variety of experience and exposure.  If this person had only told me that there was a video of dogs attacking, I probably would have taken their word for it.  Only after seeing it for myself and discussing it with several others was it obvious that it was not an attack at all.  I would rather base how I train and respond here on dogs I have actually trained or witnessed being trained first hand, and based on that my experience is that the dog's temperament and the owner's clarity and consistency in communicating are the two single most important factors in how well the dog is trained and how happy the dog is while being trained.

If he has been corrected in an effort to teach him something, you are training with corrections. It doesn't matter if you are doing so rarely and are mostly positively motivating him, you have still trained him with corrections, albeit occasionally. But I don't want to argue semantics, really.

I never said someone had to be one or the other. My wording was, "difference between a dog's behavior when he is trained purely positively vs. trained with corrections" notice the wording is with corrections. It does not say with ONLY corrections, but with corrections added to the mix. Nowhere did I say that someone who uses corrections cannot also use positive reinforcement, or that if someone is using corrections I automatically label them as a "traditional" trainer.

So which is it?  Everyone is lumped into one category or no?

Liesje

I have one dog trained positive only, and another trained positive probably 90%.  The positive only dog is shy, nervy, somewhat neurotic

Are you suggesting causality? I hope not.

The nervous dog would not have benefited from punishment, that would only reinforce that the fear because he would have confirmation that the world is a dangerous place. The second dog would also be the same dog, you see if also trained without physical punishment. I also disagree, for a punishment to work, the dog must experience some level of avoidance or else it would not affect behavior.

Let's face it, some dogs can take a beating and walk away psychologically unscathed, others are not so lucky. Unfortunately, you don't always know which is which until it is too late.

I am also never convinced about dogs that have no food drive.  The only dogs with no food drive are dead dogs.

Agree! 

Edit to add: This is in relpy to miranadobe