Word discussion: Correction, punishment

Kim_MacMillan

espencer

 The Difference Between Punishing and Correcting Your Dog

Within that:

In my mind, there is a huge difference between correcting and punishing a dog. To me, punishing often comes from frustration and anger. In other words, there is emotion behind a punishment. Correcting the dog is just reminding him that he broke the rules, boundaries, or limitations and setting him back on the right track. It’s done simply, instantly, and without emotion.

Dogs don’t punish each other. When one dog does something out of line, the others don’t get emotional about it, they simply correct each other or they snap each other out of the offending state-of-mind. Again, it’s the natural consequence of a follower that’s not respecting the rules, boundaries, or limitations.

Another incorrect understanding of the definition of punishment. And another definition of correction that is quite similar to that of punishment, albeit described a bit more commonly. That's why we need to have established definitions, so that these misunderstandings don't happen.

 

(emphasis added)

I can always use sock puppets to explain it  

i can see where you are coming from - descfribing the environemnt through the eyes of operant conditioning quadrants...... however, as far as mother natures goes, it could give a rip... it just IS........... does the sun punish us? heck, it's one helluva inferno.... moreso than earths mother nature........ but it's far enough away to provide the right conditions for life to exist here on earth... so given operant conditiong quadrants, you would p;lace the sun as a positive reward as far as earth, the receiver goes...... but i don't view it that way at all.......... why? because it lacks the conscious intellect to decide whether to punish or reward in the first place. it is what it is - a helluva inferno at close range and a yellow star at distant observation points........ same with a hurricane.... it can rip through florida and tear up the landscape.... but it doesn't say, when approaching a land mass, something like "geeee, those people 100 miles to the north were really bad last week, so i think i'll just veer north and punish them."............. i do believe, that the terms herein are completely RELATIVE to the person's point of reference...... nobody's right or wrong.... just a different point of view i think.

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.

i'd like to see a video made of this sometime..... hehehehe

lostcoyote

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.

Well, in my view, if the second option stopped the person from repeating the action, then yes it would be punishment.  It was ALSO unfair and abusive - but you must understand, when "we" (and by "we" anyone who is either scientifically minded, or a total dog nerd or both) say "punishment" it means ANYTHING that decreases that behaviour. 

So yeah, thrashing a dog is punishment.  It's not FAIR punishment however.  And there IS such a thing as "fair punishment" (again, from the point of view of a nerd like myself).  Fair punishment to me is what a "correction"is to you - most of the time.  Confused yet??

I say "most of the time" because I ALSO think a dog should be given fair warning so that he can choose to AVOID the... shall we call it a consequence?  I see many dog-people that do not do this.  They think: the consequence should happen within an eye blink of the behaviour.  And so there is no warning.  And if you are taking the dog's own species as your guide, watch them very closely and you will see that they do give warning.  Dog to dog interactions are NOT as immediate as they sometimes appear.  That is why it is very rare to have a "true" case of "biting without warning".  There is ALWAYS a warning, whether it is to another dog, another human, or another species altogether.  Where possible, IMO your "corrections"/"fair punishment" should be the same. 

If you need to stop a dog doing something NOW - then you would use an immediate "correction" (MY definition).  In other words, you SIMPLY stop him as quickly, kindly and safely as you can - no need, possibly no time for a warning, but thats OK because it was not a negative consequence.  Just management. 

To sum: I see correction as being about management and punishment to be more about training/bhvr mod.  And while hitting, yelling etc. ec. are sometimes punishment, they are also abuse and I would never advocate doing that.

espencer

Kim_MacMillan

espencer

 The Difference Between Punishing and Correcting Your Dog

Within that:

In my mind, there is a huge difference between correcting and punishing a dog. To me, punishing often comes from frustration and anger. In other words, there is emotion behind a punishment. Correcting the dog is just reminding him that he broke the rules, boundaries, or limitations and setting him back on the right track. It’s done simply, instantly, and without emotion.

Dogs don’t punish each other. When one dog does something out of line, the others don’t get emotional about it, they simply correct each other or they snap each other out of the offending state-of-mind. Again, it’s the natural consequence of a follower that’s not respecting the rules, boundaries, or limitations.

Another incorrect understanding of the definition of punishment. And another definition of correction that is quite similar to that of punishment, albeit described a bit more commonly. That's why we need to have established definitions, so that these misunderstandings don't happen.

 

(emphasis added)

I can always use sock puppets to explain it  

Edit: I think I get it now.

"punishing often comes from frustration and anger. In other words, there is emotion behind a punishment. "

The first part - true.  Many owners do punish in this way.  But that does not mean ALL punishment is emotional, or that ALL punishment is abuse.

lostcoyote

i can see where you are coming from - descfribing the environemnt through the eyes of operant conditioning quadrants...... however, as far as mother natures goes, it could give a rip... it just IS........... does the sun punish us? heck, it's one helluva inferno.... moreso than earths mother nature........ but it's far enough away to provide the right conditions for life to exist here on earth... so given operant conditiong quadrants, you would p;lace the sun as a positive reward as far as earth, the receiver goes...... but i don't view it that way at all.......... why? because it lacks the conscious intellect to decide whether to punish or reward in the first place. it is what it is - a helluva inferno at close range and a yellow star at distant observation points........ same with a hurricane.... it can rip through florida and tear up the landscape.... but it doesn't say, when approaching a land mass, something like "geeee, those people 100 miles to the north were really bad last week, so i think i'll just veer north and punish them."............. i do believe, that the terms herein are completely RELATIVE to the person's point of reference...... nobody's right or wrong.... just a different point of view i think.

I can see what you mean (I think) but this post is based on the assumption that punishment = emotional.  You can indeed receive punishments from the environment.  I recall one member (cant remember who sorry) described how their dog knocked over an ironing board and it came down with such a clatter that the dog never went near that corner again.  That was a punishment - because it stopped the dog repeating the action. It doesn't mean the ironing board had a vendetta against the dog.  It doesn;t in fact matter that no one really cared whether the dog went in that area or not.  The dog stopped going there; the thing that caused that was a punishment.

There are two definitions floating around here

The scientific: Punishment = anything that decreases the likelihood of a bhvr being repeated.

The common, garden or lesser spotted definition: an improperly applied "correction" (or consequence) that is emotional and uncontrolled.

lostcoyote

can see where you are coming from - descfribing the environemnt through the eyes of operant conditioning quadrants...... however, as far as mother natures goes, it could give a rip... it just IS...........

I'm not sure why you're getting the impression that it's operant conditioning vs nature. Operant conditioning is natural, it applies to all living species capable of learning. From a planaria to the greatest mammals. It's about as natural as it gets. Just because we've given definitions to operationalize certain phenonema, doesn't make it unnatural. It's a definition, nothing more. Just like how you would define any other word in the English language. I'm not certain why people get so offended when people use such commonly established terms.

lostcoyote

does the sun punish us? heck, it's one helluva inferno.... moreso than earths mother nature........ but it's far enough away to provide the right conditions for life to exist here on earth... so given operant conditiong quadrants, you would p;lace the sun as a positive reward as far as earth, the receiver goes...... but i don't view it that way at all.......... why? because it lacks the conscious intellect to decide whether to punish or reward in the first place. it is what it is - a helluva inferno at close range and a yellow star at distant observation points........ same with a hurricane.... it can rip through florida and tear up the landscape.... but it doesn't say, when approaching a land mass, something like "geeee, those people 100 miles to the north were really bad last week, so i think i'll just veer north and punish them.".............

The sun cannot punish the earth. Or, to put it more specifically, the earth cannot be punished BY the sun. Because the earth is not a living organism. Things ON the earth can certainly be punished by the sun, in the form of environmental punishment. If you stay out in the sun all day long, and receive a bad sunburn, chances are you'll be a bit wiser next time you're out in the hot and bright sun. That's environmental punishment, AND negative reinforcement for that matter. The human will go out in the sun unprotected less frequently in the future (if they see it as punishment...some people evidently don't learn from it - it's all in whether or not it changes behaviour. Chances are they'll at least be a little wiser for the next three or four days), and they'll be more likely to increase their sun safety.

Inanimate objects cannot be punished, because they dont' behave. They don't HAVE behaviour. They aren't alive. However that doesn't mean that a living organism cannot be punished BY inanimate objects. After all, the definition is simple - it's how the organism responds to a particular stimulus (and a stimulus is ANYTHING that can be perceived by the senses).

lostcoyote

i do believe, that the terms herein are completely RELATIVE to the person's point of reference...... nobody's right or wrong.... just a different point of view i think.

It's obvious that these terms, as they are currently used, are relative to a person's point of reference. And that's also why people cannot have proper discussions on the forum, because nobody really has a clue as to what anybody else is talking about. How can you talk about something when you have no idea if what you mean is what somebody else means?

If I said to you "I need some new thongs soon, my current ones are getting too small". What would you think I was referring to? Would you ask outright? Or would you pick based on what you thought a "thong" was? Because depending on where you live, and your culture, that could have completely different meanings! I could see the conversation going drastically adrift from the original sentence. That's what happens with just about every discussion regarding corrections and punishments end up being like, a total mismash of misunderstandings and miscommunications.

As for who is right or wrong, it's hard to say. I would hate to tell people they are "wrong" for how they define a word, but there is an established meaning for them already in the realm of dog behaviour, I would hate for people to have come to their own meanings about words to fit what they would "like" them to mean, rather than taking the definition that has been understood for decades and fit it into their current understanding. Words have definitions for a reason. To make communication easier. If I suddenly started defining my own words, simply because I didn't like how they were already defined, I wouldn't be able to communicate with anybody but myself, since I'm the only one that understands it.

Kim_MacMillan

That's what happens with just about every discussion regarding corrections and punishments end up being like, a total mismash of misunderstandings and miscommunications.

 

That is precisely why I started this thread.  Hopefully, if ever I say in future "I would punish the dog for X" several people here would NOT jump on me and accuse me of abusing my dog!  Conversely, I now know why some people get upset about "the P-word".  Plus, I am hoping that it will be a learning curve for any unsure of the "jargon" associated with operant conditioning and an opportunity to question and become clearer about what nerds like me mean by certain terms.

lostcoyote

descfribing the environemnt through the eyes of operant conditioning quadrants...... however, as far as mother natures goes, it could give a rip... it just

Exactly. Punishment doesn't necessarily come from a sentient or sapient entity. I work outside in the blistering heat and freezing cold. You'd better believe the sun is punishing, if you are forgetful enough to be out there all day without sunscreen and a hat and plenty of water. You can get frostbite if you don't dress warmly enough. And Mother Nature doesn't care if you have two braincells firing or not. Sometimes, the punishment is just enough to caution you for future occurences.

 

now here's the fun part::::::.......... not everyone will CHOOSE the operant/scientific definition of punishment in discussion........... and even the OP post did not define the terms for sake of this topics discussion per operant theory........ btw, i view punishment as a subset of corrective means and ways.

 

 

For me punishment is a "thing",  A penalty imposed for doing something wrong. When I punish my son for doing something wrong and not permitted " I do something" -- I take something away, I give him a timeout, I take TV or Video time away,  etc.  But am I "correcting  him by issuing a punishment"??  

 But when I correct my son, I am not punishing.  Lot's of time I am showing or telling him the "correct" thing or way to do something.  Whether it be how to act in public or how to do his math.  Offering improvements to correct the mistakes or for doing something the wrong way.

lostcoyote

now here's the fun part::::::.......... not everyone will CHOOSE the operant/scientific definition of punishment in discussion........... and even the OP post did not define the terms for sake of this topics discussion per operant theory........ btw, i view punishment as a subset of corrective means and ways.

Well, perhaps you find it fun, but personally I enjoy to know what the heck others are talking about. Like I said, the day we start choosing our own definitions for words, the day that all possibility for coherent discussion collapses. Because you cannot hold a conversation where people define words to their own whim and glory. That's why we HAVE language and definitions, so that people know what we are talking about when we talk. If we don't have some sort of established meaning for words, language as a whole is totally useless.

Perhaps that's why I find that animals communicate so much better than people ever will. Because they don't have language and the problems it brings to mess everything up. And they say humans are the 'higher' beings because we have larger cerebral cortexes. Pfft.

luvmyswissy

 

 

For me punishment is a "thing",  A penalty imposed for doing something wrong. When I punish my son for doing something wrong and not permitted " I do something" -- I take something away, I give him a timeout, I take TV or Video time away,  etc.  But am I "correcting  him by issuing a punishment"??  

 But when I correct my son, I am not punishing.  Lot's of time I am showing or telling him the "correct" thing or way to do something.  Whether it be how to act in public or how to do his math.  Offering improvements to correct the mistakes or for doing something the wrong way.

I like this analogy a lot! 

I'm not sure why you're getting the impression that it's operant conditioning vs nature.

OC is a human construction used to categorize certain action/reaction mechanisms found in the ways animals learn.... you said it yourself when you stated that "It's a definition, nothing more." without humans around to categorize and define everything, it's merely behavior & learning mechanisms at play.

Just like how you would define any other word in the English language.

well, let's look up the definition of the word, punishent. how many definitions are there?... i found 4 of them at dictionary.dot.com 1)severe handling or treatment. 2) the act of punishing. 3) the fact of being punished, as for an offense or fault. 4) a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc...... and this does not even include the operant conditioning use of the word.

I'm not certain why people get so offended when people use such commonly established terms.

i have not seen anyone here getting very much offended. hmmmmmm.... i am also not sure why it is insisted upon that the words must conform to operant conditioning definitions.... since the OP just wanted to know how people see the difference between punishment and correction and leave the defining up to the respondants..... it was never insisted here in the OP that we use the OC scientific definitions..... and i am using common english language use of the words as found in any american household that has kids in school (and i am a scientist by training) (and a parent too)

Inanimate objects cannot be punished, because they dont' behave. They don't HAVE behaviour. They aren't alive. However that doesn't mean that a living organism cannot be punished BY inanimate objects.

if child A gets mad at child B and decides to punish child B bynthrowing a rock at chilb B, was it the inanimate object (the rock) that punished child B or was it child A's action (and intent behind the action) that was serving up the punishment? it is in my opinion that when it comes to punishment, that there are 2 animals (humans) with intelligence involved in the action/reaction mechanism of punsihment... and the very act of punishment involves a conscious (or emotional) decision on the part of the one delivering the punishment........ lets look at your sunburn example again:

Things ON the earth can certainly be punished by the sun, in the form of environmental punishment. If you stay out in the sun all day long, and receive a bad sunburn, chances are you'll be a bit wiser next time you're out in the hot and bright sun. That's environmental punishment, AND negative reinforcement for that matter. The human will go out in the sun unprotected less frequently in the future (if they see it as punishment...some people evidently don't learn from it - it's all in whether or not it changes behaviour. Chances are they'll at least be a little wiser for the next three or four days), and they'll be more likely to increase their sun safety.

to me that is not punishment at all. the sunlight is not premeditaing punishment. it is merely reacting with skin causing celluar damage. now the human that got burned might CALL it punishment per human construction but to the sunlight, there is no conscious effort to teach anything at all...... consider 2 people laying out in the backyard side by side. one person has really white skin while the other person has a very dark complexion...... they both receive the same level of sunlight... yet the fair skinned person gets burned and blisters up..... the sunlight was not differentiating that the light skinned person should have known better and put on some lotion..... the sunlight JUST IS well, sunlight reacting with skin and in one case, causing damage while in another case (under the same consitions of exposure) not causing damage..... it is the human psychology that is calling it punishment or in your example, defining it to be..... but as you said, it's merely a definition..... and a relative one at that.