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

Corinthian

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.

Casually?  Lord know!  I do LIVE with this dog.  

Just responding to Tenna's claim.  I know full well what *any* form of punishment would do to this dog, that's not why I posted.  The dog already shows stress and avoidance if you accidentally bump her, or if DH is screaming at a sports team on TV.

The statements I bolded are exactly my point.  You wouldn't believe how many people ask me if the nervy dog was abused.  Ha!  She's could not have grown up in a better environment with a better owner.  But some things you cannot control with training or behavior mod regardless of the method used.  This is just the dog's temperament.  In contrast, my mixed breed who has been passed around several homes and was neglected before we adopted him is a very sound, happy, confident dog. 

Chuffy

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.

It was in a recent thread and I think it was Spiritdogs who said that apart from a life/death situation, if you use any punishment/corrections/aversives you are a "traditional trainer".

tenna

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.

What is your definition of "purely positive"? Again I don't believe everything we do with our dogs can be purely positive. I know I do things to my dogs that they find unpleasant, like removing their reward, in fact I like to build their frustration when it comes to building drive. I agree with Miranadobe's comment about balanced training.

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.

But I am asking you for your opinion. You said that people who use corrections in their training often miss signs that their dogs are happy to work. I'm openly admitting I have used corrections, punishment, aversives with my dog at some point throughout her life so I'm really keen to know if you think there is something amiss with our relationship or if she is showing those subtle signs you are referring to in this thread. You sound like the expert on these things so please tell me if I'm missing something.

Liesje

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

Where have I lumped everyone into one category? I have acknoweledged that there are different trainers who use differing amounts and levels of punishment and that they are not all the same. But they are all still using corrections in their training. That is my point. Nowhere have I labeled anyone a traditional trainer in this thread because they occasionally use punishments or corrections. My wording sounds perfectly clear to myself after re-reading it, I'm sorry if I failed to properly communicate in a way you understand.

Liesje

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?

I'm sure some of them are. But I am referencing Karen Pryor, who has quite a lot of experience in this realm. And I think it is in her most recent book where she talks about owners AND professional trainers (who had been quite excellent at administering 'appropriate' corrections) noticing a huge positive difference in their dogs after taking out corrections. I am not saying that that is going to be true 100% of the time, but it is my experience, as well as the experience of professionals, and I think I am perfectly allowed to use it in my argument against the use of corrections.

huski

What is your definition of "purely positive"? Again I don't believe everything we do with our dogs can be purely positive. I know I do things to my dogs that they find unpleasant, like removing their reward, in fact I like to build their frustration when it comes to building drive. I agree with Miranadobe's comment about balanced training.

Yes, I agree, that even when you use a training model that does not involve corrections, there is something, somewhere in life things will be aversive. But I find that the argument "Positive trainers still use aversives in training because they withhold treats and therefor are punishing their dogs" a bit like grasping at straws. But that's just my opinion. When I say purely positive, I am referencing Karen Pryor's clicker training model. I guess I'll be more specific in the future.

huski

You sound like the expert on these things so please tell me if I'm missing something.

Nowhere have I called myself an expert, and I am openly denying that I am. Tenna = not an expert. I just have an opinion that I am very happy to voice.

tenna

huski

What is your definition of "purely positive"? Again I don't believe everything we do with our dogs can be purely positive. I know I do things to my dogs that they find unpleasant, like removing their reward, in fact I like to build their frustration when it comes to building drive. I agree with Miranadobe's comment about balanced training.

Yes, I agree, that even when you use a training model that does not involve corrections, there is something, somewhere in life things will be aversive. But I find that the argument "Positive trainers still use aversives in training because they withhold treats and therefor are punishing their dogs" a bit like grasping at straws. But that's just my opinion. When I say purely positive, I am referencing Karen Pryor's clicker training model. I guess I'll be more specific in the future.

I disagree that it's clasping at straws. Purely positive to me implies that you utilise strictly positive reinforcement. Purely positive does not easily nor accurately describe your approach to training. I didn't say that purely positive trainers withhholding treats are punishing their dogs, I said it is unpleasant for the dog (it's unpleasant for us when we don't get what we want!) and frustrating - and not positive reinforcement.

Nowhere have I called myself an expert, and I am openly denying that I am. Tenna = not an expert. I just have an opinion that I am very happy to voice.

Then feel free to have a look at my video and voice your opinion, seeing as you are the one implying that those of us who openly admit we use corrections/punishment/aversives are most likely missing something with our dogs. I am interesting to know if you see something I've missed.

huski

I disagree that it's clasping at straws. Purely positive to me implies that you utilise strictly positive reinforcement. Purely positive does not easily nor accurately describe your approach to training. I didn't say that purely positive trainers withhholding treats are punishing their dogs, I said it is unpleasant for the dog (it's unpleasant for us when we don't get what we want!) and frustrating - and not positive reinforcement.

So we will have to agree to disagree - I feel it's grasping at straws, you don't. And like I said, I will be more specific in the future.

huski

Then feel free to have a look at my video and voice your opinion, seeing as you are the one implying that those of us who openly admit we use corrections/punishment/aversives are most likely missing something with our dogs. I am interesting to know if you see something I've missed.

Seeing how I use a work computer that doesn't allow me to watch videos I can't. If I happen to have access to a different computer soon, and I care to remember, maybe I will. But right now, I'm limited by my resources. Sorry.

tenna

Seeing how I use a work computer that doesn't allow me to watch videos I can't. If I happen to have access to a different computer soon, and I care to remember, maybe I will. But right now, I'm limited by my resources. Sorry.

No pressure - how am I to know you are on a computer that doesn't play videos? You were asking espencer to share his video so I assumed you could watch videos.

huski

Chuffy

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.

 

It was in a recent thread and I think it was Spiritdogs who said that apart from a life/death situation, if you use any punishment/corrections/aversives you are a "traditional trainer".

There is a continum of trainers IMO. in practice i am not a permissive trainer at all. If my dogs aren't on the same page as me then nothing happens. They are back in the car. I can hardly ever remembering it happen. That is P-.

We are fairly certain that P- does act differently to other Aversives.

I think that Aussie wise, i am towards the PP end of the spectrum. I am very reluctant to use P+ but will do and have done if the circumstances require.

 Poor training is poor training and causes resentment and confusion. Poor training that is correction based often becomes either nagging or non contingent which can be extremely stressful for the dog.

I have difficulty dealing with the phrase "balanced trainer" because so many in my experience seem to lose the ability to reward very quickly and even more quickly gain the ability to punish. It is one of the key paradoxes of punishment and is identified in much of the literature.

There are a couple of good resources to check out , neither of which i whole heartedly agree with , one is Steven Lindsay "Handbook of Applied Dog Behaviour and Learning pge 302 to 311.

It is intersting that TO (time out) has a similar efficacy to dogs with affiliation to their owners as a shock. It doesn't mean that it is felt as a shock.Notice the need for affiliation. It so often falls down becuse of this lack of affiliation.

Of course Ian Dunbar, who has been around a long time needs checking out. When i went to his seminar he said point blank " All punishment has negative side effects".  He uses strong verbal corrections on some dogs, and he will often do time slice rewards with dogs to "get money in the bank". He will reward for the dog being a good dog at a period in time . His web site is www.dogstardaily.com. There are some great bloggers there including Roger Abrantes and Trish McConnell. She said something about my other breed that is so true (Labs). "The breed with razor sharp minds hidden by goofy looks"

I bring these reosurces up because a huge number of animals have suffered to get the data that these well known trainers are using. It is a shame to go and repeat it all over again.

Huski   you might be interested to know that beagles were the breed of choice for many behavourist experiments. :(

poodleOwned

I have difficulty dealing with the phrase "balanced trainer" because so many in my experience seem to lose the ability to reward very quickly and even more quickly gain the ability to punish. It is one of the key paradoxes of punishment and is identified in much of the literature.

If I understand this, you're saying that balanced trainers, despite using heavy amounts of rewards/positive reinforcement, lose their timing on giving rewards/positive reinforcements fast enough, simply because they also will use corrections in other instances?  Is that to imply that balanced trainers are waiting for a chance to correct before looking for a chance to reward?  That's disgusting, if I've understood this correctly.  Since you have acknowledged that you have found reasons to apply aversives, would you agree that your timing of rewards/positive reinforcement has suffered as a result??  ie, does your experience support this literature you refer to? 

I haven't read the other replies but I liked the article and found much wisdom in it.

poodleOwned

We are fairly certain that P- does act differently to other Aversives.

Yeah, for my dog it's actually a LOT more stressful and causes much more anxiety.   I can even make a video to "prove" it, lol!

tenna

Liesje

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

Where have I lumped everyone into one category? I have acknoweledged that there are different trainers who use differing amounts and levels of punishment and that they are not all the same. But they are all still using corrections in their training. That is my point. Nowhere have I labeled anyone a traditional trainer in this thread because they occasionally use punishments or corrections. My wording sounds perfectly clear to myself after re-reading it, I'm sorry if I failed to properly communicate in a way you understand.

I guess I'm not sure what the distinction even means or proves?  If anyone who's ever used a correction for something is in one category and anyone who has never used a correction for anything is in another....what does this mean?  I mean, people use corrections don't seem to have any problems saying so or giving examples so what is the purpose of this categorization?

I'm with PoodleOwned, there's a continuum.  

This will tick some people off because it means you don't have control, so to speak. A punishment or correction is only such if the subject interprets it as a punishment and connects it with the behavior to be stopped. This time, I will connect it with humans, so, sue me.

At work, we do work orders around campus and have the students learn real work experience in the process, mangle some pipe, skin some wire, break a ceiling tile, the usual stuff. One w.o. involved adding some power in the students' store. One of my students decided to take what he had not paid for and it was easy to catch him. He had so much stuff he "crackled" with every step from the wrappers. I made him put it all back. Or, so I thought. It turns out, later, he kept one and proceeded to eat it, anyway, figuring I couldn't do anything. I filled out a write-up (incident report) and turned it in and also called campus safety. Stealing is, I thought, a level I offense, subject to disciplinary measures including termination (expelled from the campus.) That student is still here. Which means the student is in control. And has learned that stealing doesn't have any consequences. And other students who knew he did this have also learned that stealing is no big deal. So, the punishment of a write-up didn't mean anything. That's one of the issues I have here at this job but it also illustrates my point. A punishment is only a punishment if the subject thinks it is. And that goes for human or dog. And I know people are going to not like that. A person can put so much effort into their collar pop or sound or whatever and in the end, if it's no big deal to the dog, it's accomplishing nothing.

 The point of the article is the contextual nature of the punishment and the subtlety of dog communication which is lost on many humans, partly because we lack the physiology and neurology to react exactly as they do.

miranadobe

Is that to imply that balanced trainers are waiting for a chance to correct before looking for a chance to reward?  That's disgusting, if I've understood this correctly. 

That has been what my experience has been. As one of my friends puts so well, the starting post beckons and it all goes to hell.

miranadobe

Since you have acknowledged that you have found reasons to apply aversives, would you agree that your timing of rewards/positive reinforcement has suffered as a result??

I am very careful that if i have applied an Aversive that i doubly check what i do next. I think awareness is 1/2 the battle. If you look up altruism as a general topic, you will find that in general there are a more than a  few studies around that suggest that humans don't have a whole lot of restraint when it comes to aplying Aversives to other humans provided that there is something in it for them.