Word discussion: Correction, punishment

Kim_MacMillan

it would mean to correct, which implies the dog was doing something wrong.

 

I agree with you, too, though I was trying to find a framework for use of the word correction. I don't use it personally. In my thinking, I lead to the behavior that I want, even if it's against what his first choice was. In fact, when I say misbehave, I am introducing a human value judgement. A dog always behaves like a dog. "Misbehaving" is when he is doing something that I, the human, don't want. For example, Sibes often greet by jumping and pawing, what I call the Husky Hug. I don't want him doing that all the time. So, I use rewards to train "off". And he will "off". He will drop his self-decided plan for mine because I have something he really likes. I also put jump on cue so that, when we are rewarding, he is not likely to do it unless asked, as it is not as rewarding if not asked for.

Like Spiritdogs, I agree with and use the scientific definitions of punishment. And a verbal no reward marker as a conditioned punisher. Let's say that when you withheld reward or attention to extinguish a behavior, you said "goosenfrabe" as you did it. After a while, goosenfrabe will signify the loss of reward. It might help later to extinguish behavior as it signifies to the dog that no reward is to be had. I wouldn't use goosenfrabe as it is long with too many syllables and soft sounds. A short, more distinct sound would be better. My wife uses "Eh" in a nasal tone that even bothers me.

I see here that semantics may get the better of us. When I say correction, I don't mean punishment, though it does define some control. When I say punishment, I don't mean physical abuse or a beating, necessarily. In the linked statement, it was said that punishment is often given in anger. That is a human opinion of the action, attaching emotional weight to the word. And is not entirely inaccurate. How many have punished while angry or flabbergasted? But often, when someone says correction, we envision leash or collar pops, something introduced to stop a behavior or "state of mind." If it is a physical thing brought to the dog, even a light leash pop, it is a + P. If you use an NRM, what is it attached to? How does the dog know that it means to stop? When a person "corrects" by saying eh or stop or that's enough goosenfrabe, what was it initially tied to? A leash pop? A body block? Or a loss of reward or attention?

You know what gets Shadow's attention better than his name? A smooching sound I make. And I use it precisely to get attention.

Kim_MacMillan

As the joke goes, I think half of our dogs that we live with think their name is "no" or "ah ah" or "Pssst!", because they hear it so often.

My grandparents had a poodle named Danny. Step-grandpa used to say that his name for a while was Downdarnit.

 I apologize for posting without first reading everyone's input so far. I will catch up on that later tonight. Since I am headed out I at least wanted to get into the conversation.

I will start by saying that I really do not think much in terms of science. I have been out of school for many years and was never really one that could be considered "scientific". Therefore my descriptions of what these terms mean to me may be confusing for the more scientific among you.

Correction is something used to change the dog’s behavior or to redirect the dog’s behavior

Punishment is when you lose your temper or yell or do something that may make you feel good (at the time) but is of no value to the dog at all and may in fact make his behavior worse.

 For instance I do not see a correctly administered leash pop (what I use is light and is just a redirection of the dogs attention) as a punishment, I see it as a correction.

Now if you yank the dog off his feet, or choke the dog then to me this is punishment and is not affective for what you are trying to achieve.

 

 I look forward to reading everyone's responses and have my fingers crossed that this will be a very good discussion.

well dgriego, don't feel alone on this ----- i have catching up to do here too....... might as well chime in on this..... i posted something on the book discussion thread and it really belongs here: the difference between a corection and a punishment, we would have to take one specific case so that we are not crossing apples with oranges -- example: case: you are about to touch something that is really hot and i am standing next to you. 1) i grab your hand and move it away from the hot object and say "watch out, that metal plate is really hot and you could have burned yourself - i just finished welding it 5 minutes ago and it hasn't cooled down quite yet." 2) i grab your hand and throw it back and yell at you "you stupid idiot, i just welded that sucker up and you're gonna burn yourself. don't you see anything that's going on around here." number 1's a correction in my view. it stems from my genuine concern about your safety and i also wish to educate you number 2's a punishment. it's a quick reaction stemming from my negative energy such as anger or inpatience.... and punishment also stems out of revenge. that's how i primarily see the difference.

 Way to start a bunch of interesting discussions just when I've only got one hand to type with!

I have to say I don't really consider anything I do as corrections. Like others, I just reinforce what I want and ignore what I don't. I do, however, punish. I consider ignoring a punishment.  I also growl at my dog when she's bugging me, and if she's being a right twat, she gets sent to bed. If she does something right under my nose that I've told her to leave, she gets "argh!" and sometimes I might chase her off. She doesn't expecially care, but I don't mind because if it's important enough, I make a more serious effort to train the correct response to start with rather than just gruffing at her. I secretly like it when she gets cheeky and does something naughty because she wants it bad enough.

I'd like to also discuss pressure, because I'm not sure what it is. With any animal, you can get it to move by stepping into that invisible bubble it lives in that is its personal space. That bubble changes size depending on how the animal is feeling that day and how you approach. With a relaxed animal, you might not be able to make it move without touching it or having your legs practically touching its nose. But with Kit, sometimes that bubble is 5 metres or more and I can get him on the run from the other side of the room. If I closed the gap, I would likely make him flip out. At times I use that pressure as a kind of correction or punishment. If he's being silly and won't go where I need him to go, and catching him is something I'll only do if there are no other options, I keep him on the move with just enough distance to get him moving but not enough to make him snap and stop thinking. That distance changes from moment to moment depending on where he has stopped, the size of the room, and how I move. Sometimes I need to stop and control the pressure I'm using with just shifting my body weight and nothing more. It's amazing how subtle it can be, but I think that level of subtlety can give you a good deal of control in a tight situation.

Is using this pressure a punishment simply because the animal doesn't like it? He's always got the choice to hold out and ignore the pressure, and sometimes he does, but I wonder if I'm applying force on days when his bubble is large and he moves with little pressure? I guess the question I'm really getting at is to what degree does the animal need to seek to avoid an action from you for it to be called a punishment? In some cases, one of my animals might clearly not like something, but not be motivated enough by this dislike to avoid it. Is it a punishment if the animal doesn't like it but makes no effort to avoid it?  

 

When I was a "small" child, I wanted to touch the stove. As a small child, I was tall enough to reach it. My mother told me not to. She even guided me away a few times. As soon as her back was turned for a moment, I reached up anyway and got my hand burned (mostly ouch, no damage that I can remember). And I never touched the stove again. I was punished by the environment and learned my lesson in a hurry and no other correction or warning was necessary.

lostcoyote

example: case: you are about to touch something that is really hot and i am standing next to you. 1) i grab your hand and move it away from the hot object and say "watch out, that metal plate is really hot and you could have burned yourself - i just finished welding it 5 minutes ago and it hasn't cooled down quite yet." 2) i grab your hand and throw it back and yell at you "you stupid idiot, i just welded that sucker up and you're gonna burn yourself. don't you see anything that's going on around here." number 1's a correction in my view. it stems from my genuine concern about your safety and i also wish to educate you number 2's a punishment. it's a quick reaction stemming from my negative energy such as anger or inpatience.... and punishment also stems out of revenge. that's how i primarily see the difference.

 

But say you didn't understand English or even body language or even tone. You would likely get some sense that one response was somehow worse than the other, but I doubt you would learn anything from either response. In fact, if anything, the 2nd response would be more effective at changing behaviour because it might be more frightening. Wouldn't a dog have to understand intentions to understand the differences in response?

i do not understand how the environment can punish anything....... i also wnted to add to my post that the term, punishment, i believe, ia an anthromorphic construction --- a descriptionj of the way we often disipline our kids with intent (and largely emotional intent at that) behind the disiplinary action.......... i also believe that in a pack of dogs, there is never punishment going on..... but there are corrections going on all the time. they're quick and then they be done with it..... no guilt or hard feelings leftover to dwell upon like us humans do......... now that does not say that humans can not punish dogs..... they can..... they can kick dogs when theire pissed off at the dogs behavior.... they can yell at the dog in an emotional frenzy...... sucks, the dogs doesn't know what's going on for the most part........ but back to the environment........... what happened by burning a hand on a stove is a simple cause and effect..... and sometimes, that is the best teacher of all........ no punishment there, in my opinion, because the environment does not premeditate actions like that.... the environment just IS.

lostcoyote

i do not understand how the environment can punish anything.......

The environment is one of life's greatest punishers, and it's also one of the ones with the least fallout. Cows learn boundaries via visible fences that are electrified. They are punished, by the fence (environment), from touching it again in the future. Dogs that poke a cactus with their nose, is not likely to poke the cactus again.

Another example is a dog learning to be on a table for grooming. A lot of dogs will fumble around and fidget at first. Give them enough moments and they are likely to back up just enough so that one of their feet slips at the edge, not enough to make them fall but enough to startle them. Nothing but the table caused this to happen, and the dog will learn to be aware of its feet on the table in the future. Contrast that to a lady I know who teaches her dog to stand on a table by purposely lining them up against the edge and giving them a small push. The dog is fighting against her hand (opposition reflex), but on the same note gets that same startle when a foot loses balance. But incorporated with this is the fear of falling off, because they are tryign to fight AGAINST something and don't realize they won't be pushed off. Same end goal, but one is totally environmental, one is totally caused by another person.

lostcoyote

i also believe that in a pack of dogs, there is never punishment going on..... but there are corrections going on all the time. they're quick and then they be done with it.....

See, I dont think dogs correct each other at all. I do think they punish each other however.

lostcoyote

no guilt or hard feelings leftover to dwell upon like us humans do.........

You will have to tell that to the dog that develops a strong phobia of other dogs when it receives a particular harsh correction. Or the permanent aggression that develops between two males after just one disagreement. For the most part, no, there are no hard feelings, IF the dogs are educated in doggy citizenship. But if a dog is not, problems can and do occur.

lostcoyote

now that does not say that humans can not punish dogs..... they can..... they can kick dogs when theire pissed off at the dogs behavior.... they can yell at the dog in an emotional frenzy...... sucks, the dogs doesn't know what's going on for the most part........

You are right, that does suck. And that is not punishment, it is abuse. There is no punishment inherent in any of that.

lostcoyote

but back to the environment........... what happened by burning a hand on a stove is a simple cause and effect..... and sometimes, that is the best teacher of all........

What you call cause and effect, we call Stimulus and Response. Same thing, different wording. The stove is the stimulus, the effect is the response. Learning occurs when the response is associated with the stimulus. And yes, I agree with you, environmental punishment CAN be one of the best teachers of all, and it tends to have the least fallout. But it is punishment, punishment does not require premeditation, and premeditation is not all required for punishment to occur.

lostcoyote

i do not understand how the environment can punish anything

 

Mother nature or the environment can be very punishing. The environment punished a kid and his parents this last spring and early summer, when we had all that rain. The kid was playing in a drainage creek during imminent flash flood conditions and his parents didn't have a problem with that. Mother Nature 1, parents 0, and the kid who was 13 paid the price with his life.

I can see that we're always going to have a problem with semantics, as many will reject the scientific definition, regardless.

lostcoyote

i also wnted to add to my post that the term, punishment, i believe, ia an anthromorphic construction --

I can also say that disagreement with your definition of punishment is anthropromorphic. That is, we are humans, using science with definitions we set forth in our language but there is still this emotional context to the word punishment. There's even a popular movie called the "Punisher" which really should be called the Revenge Artist to be accurate.

lostcoyote

what happened by burning a hand on a stove is a simple cause and effect.

My environment at the time included a hot stove that I had even been warned about in words that I could understand from my anthropromorphic mom. But I didn't listen. The stove, part of my environment, caused a stimulus that made me recoil, not touch a stove again. That is, the stimulus stopped my behavior. Classical definition of a + P.

No, the environment doesn't seem to conciously punish people. The environment includes trial and error.When I say Mother Nature, that's a euphemism. Environment can be whatever setting you are in.

I still stand by the scientific definitions. So does a majority of the published authors and trainers and researchers.

Kim_MacMillan

If saying a dog's name doesn't work, which is supposed to be the animal's lifeline, why would an interrupter work any differently? Or, to put it another way, instead of making a new word to do what the dog's name should, why not just focus on improving the dog's response to its name?

In the long term that is the aim - unless, as I have said, the dog is doing something I do not like and I don't trust that I can keep that out of my voice. (Have you had an excitable young dog lunge happily at you 3-day old firstborn?) IMO, a dog should always associate his name with good things.  In the short term, if the dog is not going to respond to his name or a recall I am sure as mustard not going to give him the opportunity to get it wrong.  But whether I use an interrupting noise or his name, I still call it a correction... like Carla said, it is a guide before or during a bhvr whereas a punishment is a consequence.  That is how I see it anyway.

 

Great discussion everyone! And I think I begin to see why there are so many misunderstandings about the words we use. Because we all mean something different when we say them! LOL It's like trying to communicate by speaking 4 different languages!

To me, ideally, correction and punishment  would never have my emotion attached to them because they are both aids to communicating to the dog what I want. Not something I do in anger or frustration. Anger and frustration have no place in communicating with dogs (again, ideally). I strive to keep my interactions with my dogs completely free of these emotions. Now, I'm not perfect and sometimes (usually in an unexpected moment) I mess up, but most of the time, no. I do not allow these emotions around my dogs. Now, in praise, affection and plain old loving, I allow all kinds of emotions. But they're the "positive" emotions: Joy, happiness, excitement, etc. But if I see that my dog has dragged a dead rat into the house (which has happened)? The first thing I do is take a deep breath and realize that I have the opportunity to teach something here. I can take advantage of it or I can blow it by letting my emotions go...

On using the dog's name: (Again, ideally) I use the dog's name only to get his/her attention on me. The only purpose the dog's name serves is to distinguish it from the other dogs. I don't use it to correct or punish. It's always got neutral or positive associations. When the dog hears her name, I want her to look at me with great expectation as an opportunity to please me.  ("Yeah, here I am. Whaddya want mom"?)

FourIsCompany

To me, ideally, correction and punishment  would never have my emotion attached to them because they are both aids to communicating to the dog what I want. Not something I do in anger or frustration. Anger and frustration have no place in communicating with dogs (again, ideally). I strive to keep my interactions with my dogs completely free of these emotions. Now, I'm not perfect and sometimes (usually in an unexpected moment) I mess up, but most of the time, no. I do not allow these emotions around my dogs. Now, in praise, affection and plain old loving, I allow all kinds of emotions. But they're the "positive" emotions: Joy, happiness, excitement, etc. But if I see that my dog has dragged a dead rat into the house (which has happened)? The first thing I do is take a deep breath and realize that I have the opportunity to teach something here. I can take advantage of it or I can blow it by letting my emotions go...

So, our dogs should not see our displeasure?  New thread d'you think?

FourIsCompany

On using the dog's name: (Again, ideally) I use the dog's name only to get his/her attention on me. The only purpose the dog's name serves is to distinguish it from the other dogs. I don't use it to correct or punish. It's always got neutral or positive associations. When the dog hears her name, I want her to look at me with great expectation as an opportunity to please me.  ("Yeah, here I am. Whaddya want mom"?)

 

Yes, I agree with this.  If you are "correcting" as in merely guiding then it is neutral.  But if there are negative connotations, then I prefer to distract the dog another way.

Chuffy

So, our dogs should not see our displeasure?  New thread d'you think?

 

LOL It's not that I think they shouldn't see our displeasure. My dogs know when I'm not PLEASED. Because I let them know that I'm not pleased with "punishment" (Saying No in a displeased (controlled) way, for example) But it's not out of anger or frustration that I say it. It's very measured. I say it to show them that what they did was wrong.

For example, I read or heard a long time ago that if your dog brings sticks, rocks, etc into the house, that you shouldn't shame to dog (Duh) but you CAN shame the stick. AND IT WORKED! LOL When Jaia started going through this phase, he would bring a stick into the house. I would separate him from the stick by calling him over to another area and then I would "spot" the stick and make a production by saying "What? What is this"? (So by this time, because of the tone of my voice, he's watching me with interest.) and I go over to the stick and say, "Bad stick"! And I point at it and stomp my foot a little by it and generally show that I'm VERY displeased with THE STICK (not with him) for coming in the house. So it's totally unattached to Jaia, but mom's displeased at the stick. And then I make a production of taking the stick outside and leaving it while he watches.

Many times, Jaia would then go outside and find the stick and start to return with it through the doggie door. But I'm standing right inside the door waiting for his return and as soon as I see the stick, I say "uh-uh" or "no" (punishment during the action) and he got the idea. He saw my displeasure but I wasn't angry or frustrated at him. Every once in a while, he still brings one in, but I can tell him to take it out and he does. He knows where they go.

Now, B'asia's bringing in rocks.

Beggin your pardon, but if "displeasure" with either the dog or the stick was working so well, the dog would not continue to bring the sticks in at all.

Seems like another means of communication or training might be worth trying. 

 

I agree that dogs know when we are displeased.  Ever have a fight with your SO?  Where are the dogs?  Probably, there are some that will be defensive, or offensive, and some will just go hide behind a chair.  But, they almost invariably react in some way.  I am not sure that's a great training tool, since it does produce a lot of anxiety/arousal.  I prefer to tell dogs what TO do instead of the behavior I don't want, which usually extinguishes quite nicely if it isn't reinforced.  In the case of sticks, they are often self-reinforcing (fun to chew), so ignoring them indoors might not be the correct option, but certainly the dog can be taught to differentiate between "I can chew this outdoors" and "I am not supposed to bring this inside" without a whole lot of "displeasure".  If I can teach Sioux to walk by a piece of liver on the floor, instead of grabbing it, there's hope...

spiritdogs

Beggin your pardon, but if "displeasure" with either the dog or the stick was working so well, the dog would not continue to bring the sticks in at all.

 

And he doesn't. That's what I meant when I said that it worked. I'm cool with the fact that he brings in one once in a two-month period to check to see if it's still unacceptable. I'm OK with a less-then perfect stick obsession.

spiritdogs

I am not sure that's a great training tool, since it does produce a lot of anxiety/arousal.

 

There was no anxiety. Only interest. My dogs totally trust me and when I behave in a way that's unexpected, they become interested, not afraid.  

spiritdogs

I prefer to tell dogs what TO do instead of the behavior I don't want,

 

I know you do. Good on ya.

spiritdogs

In the case of sticks, they are often self-reinforcing (fun to chew), so ignoring them indoors might not be the correct option, but certainly the dog can be taught to differentiate between "I can chew this outdoors" and "I am not supposed to bring this inside" without a whole lot of "displeasure".

 

I don't show "a whole lot of displeasure". Just enough to let them know that it's not a pleasing thing to mom.  

spiritdogs

If I can teach Sioux to walk by a piece of liver on the floor, instead of grabbing it, there's hope...

 

All of my dogs will leave whatever is on the floor or anywhere if I tell them to. It's a simple command. No displeasure necessary. Not that there's anything wrong with that.