Reactive Humans? If you aren't open-minded, don't read...

Hmmmmm, interesting.

I won't say that I work differently with small dogs, or that I think they learn any differently, but I work HARDER with big dogs, not because I find them big and scarey but because OTHERS often do.  So I expect greater obedience, greater compliance and to achieve that, I do put in more time.  Does that make ANY sense?

Punishment is punishment to me, weak to strong, physical-mental or combination, and it is a consequence.  When I withhold a treat from the dog because the dog did not offer the right behavior, I actually feel bad for the dog...no desire to take control of the situation...no fear base reaction...just feel bad that I had to correct the dog. 

spiritdogs

Are you willing to challenge your previously held biases to explore what happens when you are "off leash"? 

I'm not sure I understand the spirit of this question. 

Are we using correction and punishment on larger dogs more than on small ones out of fear, rather than anything else.  And, do you believe that big dogs learn any differently than small ones?

 Having a chance to spend a week or so with my sister's Chi, I can tell you that there are times that I'd have more patience with the little dog.  My own reasoning though, was that this little one was a visitor and didn't know all the house rules.

That being said, when I saw her this past weekend at a family gathering, she paid more attention to me than to anyone else in the household.  During dinner, she laid on the floor next to me.  When I went into another room she followed me.

My take on this was that during her stay with me, she realized that being near me allowed good things to happen.  Whether it was affection, a nice long walk, a quick game of tug, or a 5 minute training session.  (yes training is a "good" thing in my house.)  Was I harder on Xerxes while she was with me?  No.

In general I think that the trouble a dog can get into is directly proportional to it's size.  Not too many Chi's will knock over a full grown adult, but a 175lb Wolfhound will do it with ease.  So I think that people in general take that into account with their training methods.  I have an acquaintance with a 12-15lb cute little ragamuffin dog who dispenses training advice at the dog park telling people how to discipline and dominate their large breed/high energy/high prey drive dogs.  Yet he lets his little dog run all over him.   Go figure.

with horses, often the trainers/handlers who are very rough and punishment-oriented are, indeed, acting out of fear.

I've seen some people treat their dogs harshly because they were embarrassed-- didn't want other people to see that THEIR dog acting that way.

glenmar

Hmmmmm, interesting.

I won't say that I work differently with small dogs, or that I think they learn any differently, but I work HARDER with big dogs, not because I find them big and scarey but because OTHERS often do.  So I expect greater obedience, greater compliance and to achieve that, I do put in more time.  Does that make ANY sense?

Makes sense to me.

Honestly, I just don't work with many small dogs.  I avoid them at the shelter.  I don't *get* them so to speak, and there are plenty of volunteers that won't go near anything larger than a cocker spaniel.

However, I don't treat my cats any softer than I treat Kenya.  In fact, I am more stern, more harsh with my cats.  They've been here much longer, so they get away with a lot less.  Kenya is still learning the rules of the house.  If a cat jumps on the table and starts getting in the food, I will say "PSSSSSST!" loudly and shoosh the cat off the table.  I also use a soda can with a dozen pennies in it as a "cat rattle" to train them what surfaces they are not allowed to be on (usually a few shakes and all I have to do is leave the can there, they won't go near it).  The cats just sulk away and give me the stink-eye, but if I said "PSSSST!" in Kenya's face or shook this rattle at her, poor thing would probably roll onto her back or run away!  I've trained her that the rattle means nothing to her (it was a big help preparing for the startle exercise of the CGC) and whenever I PSSST! the cats, I also turn to Kenya and praise her in a nice voice, so she is not affecting by these verbal corrections/punishments, but if I had just started doing them to her, she would become more fearful and submissive b/c she is "soft".

One thing I want to suggest is that is a difference between +P being a primary training tool, and a trainer/owner who is willing to use +P but doesn't see it as the answer to most things.

I think that people who feel powerless often try exert power through physical force.  We see this in relation to dogs, children, and even other adults. As a parent, it makes me cringe that people smack their kids for misbehaving.

On the other hand, there are situations in which force is reasonable.  We all have different ideas of exactly what those situations are, but most people will agree that there is some situation in which force is called for, or at least understandable.

I think there is a great value to introspection, because I find that even those of who don't feel powerless most of the time have moments in which we do, and react more harshly than we might otherwise.  I'm a big believer in personal growth. I find that when I'm feeling punitive, towards anyone or anything, it is because of feeling powerless at that moment.  It helps me to realize this, take a deep breath, and act rather than react.

I've yet to meet a person who was never punitive or reactive at times.  We're all the "them" in the us vs. them.
 

spiritdogs

Paraphrasing, in a nutshell, he said that the notion that we must use punishment, especially with larger dogs, is a function of our own need to be in control of the situation - sort of a best defense being a good offense. And my immediate ding, ding, ding thought was...isn't that exactly what a leash reactive dog does???? 

I can certainly see a lot of relations here, in what you are describing. But I also know some people who work dogs, of all sizes, and treat them all harshly, and have come to learn that there is a lot more to it than fear. People who have no problems beating their kids or wife will have no problems beating their dog. Even people who respect their human families, often think using physical force on animals is perfectly acceptable means of teaching them something. And these things don't have a thing to do with fear (maybe insecurity...but not necessarily fear). I think, the parts that lack in a dog, but are present in a human, make the human side more complex - egos, humans naturally have big egos. We like to think we are the "ultimate" species and power is an almost innate trait in some humans. - they seem to NEED to control something else, and if they can't do it by nice means, by golly they'll do it somehow. And again, there are just some people who see no problems whatsoever in using extensive P+ with their animals, so I doubt they would have any care to try out another way.

I don't think big dogs learn any differently than small ones. Having had extensive experience with Labradors (for 12 years or so), and extensive experience with Mini Schnauzers (now, for the past 7+ of years), I can say they learned in the exact same manner. Learning principles are learning principles, with a little bit of personality quirks and breed-specific tendency possibilities mixed in. But no, not just because of a size difference.

Somebody once told me something I have remembered for a long time, which makes a whole lot of sense to me. And that is, that the larger the animal you are dealing with, the more gentleness that is absolutely necessary to work with them (as opposed to just a choice), because the larger the animal gets, the less "power" you have when something does go wrong. And often there are many animals that when they finally grow up and mature, or just get sick of how they are treated, will learn that it's acceptable to use "force" to prove a point (learned by the human), and will often fight back WITH force. And it only takes one "test" in fighting back for devastation to occur.

Personally I treat all my guys the same, because my philosophy is to be as gentle and uninvasive as possible, but it's still an interesting motto that I keep in the back of my mind.

glenmar

So I expect greater obedience, greater compliance and to achieve that, I do put in more time.  Does that make ANY sense?

It makes sense to me. I know having 2 dogs that many people see as "big and scary" (if they only knew!) it's important that I DO have control over them in public. But that doesn't come from my own need to feel like I'm in control. It's my responsibility to the public and to the dogs to have them behave in a controlled manner. I believe that's the case with small dog owners, too but as Xerxes points out:

Xerxes

Not too many Chi's will knock over a full grown adult, but a 175lb Wolfhound will do it with ease.  So I think that people in general take that into account with their training methods.

That's a very good point. I'm guessing some people would determine their method based on the size of the dog. I can't speak as a small dog owner, but I like to think that my imaginary small dog would be as well-behaved and controlled in public as my large ones are. And I'm pretty darn sure I'd train them exactly as I have my large ones.

Dog_ma

One thing I want to suggest is that is a difference between +P being a primary training tool, and a trainer/owner who is willing to use +P but doesn't see it as the answer to most things.

Thank you for saying this! It's such an important point that doesn't get explicitly stated. I guess I think it goes without saying, but I'm really glad you said it!  

Dog_ma

I've yet to meet a person who was never punitive or reactive at times.

True! Great post, by the way. 

And to answer the questions posed in the OP:

spiritdogs

Are you willing to challenge your previously held biases to explore what happens when you are "off leash"?

I am always willing to challenge previously held biases. I don't agree, though, with the premise that use of positive punishment is fear-based or a function of one's need to be in control of the situation. So, I don't agree that a human discarding positive punishment is analogous to a dog going "off-leash".

spiritdogs

Are we using correction and punishment on larger dogs more than on small ones out of fear, rather than anything else.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, nor can I really speak to the smaller dog issue, except to say that I would have every intention of treating my small dog no differently than I treat my large ones. And, no. I don't use correction and punishment out of fear. If I were afraid, I think it could be dangerous to punish a dog, small or large. Punishment isn't something I think should happen out of fear or any emotion.

spiritdogs

And, do you believe that big dogs learn any differently than small ones?

Couldn't say for sure, but I doubt it.

sd; "Paraphrasing, in a nutshell, he said that the notion that we must use punishment, especially with larger dogs, is a function of our own need to be in control of the situation"

it could equally be argued that +R, -P, and -R are also a function of our own need to be in control of the situation.....

All excellent points made.  I do think that all dogs have reasonably equal intelligence - some are certainly more biddable than others.  I also think that a couple of you missed my point about the "off leash" thing.  I would posit that if some people (those who are fearful, anxious or even embarrassed) simply were "off leash", in other words, would, as an experiment, try using the other quadrants of OC, that they might see less of a need for being reactive themselves in the same ways as before, when they were using mostly +P.  I realize that I am hypothesizing about extremes here, and not offering this as a criticism of any members on this forum particularly.  I just thought that the whole idea was an interesting parallel.

Different slant,,, what if it is retribution rather than reactivity.  I have found in education that retribution is foremost in many discussions of behavior of kids.  When the kid doesnt know what else to do, the focus is on the consequence not the teaching.  I find it very frustrating and often see a similar pattern of behavior in how we work with dogs.

spiritdogs

I would posit that if some people (those who are fearful, anxious or even embarrassed) simply were "off leash", in other words, would, as an experiment, try using the other quadrants of OC, that they might see less of a need for being reactive themselves in the same ways as before, when they were using mostly +P. 

I guess you'd have to ask them.

I don't equate +P with being "reactive" any more than I would consider giving a treat as being "reactive". Because neither is out of fear or loss of control.

I know I use all 4 quadrants and none are in fear or as a need to be in control (like we assume a reactive dog is). Additionally, I think there are some areas in which we can compare dogs and humans but I'm not at all sure this is one of them.

I don't know what the +P -Rs mean, but I can tell you this.  I now have a leash reactive Chi.  It never occured to me that it would be a problem for her to meet other dogs.  But after having her nearly attacked by other out of control dogs she is now leash reactive.  People now try to tell me she is leash reactive because I now pick her up when we see a super-interested dog (be it big or small), but I know for a fact I didn't have that worry until AFTER the leash reactivity started.  In fact, I had been eager for her to "meet" other dogs - something she is not particularly interested in doing.  So I for one don't really believe in the whole "tight leash" thing causing leash reactivity.  I think leash reactivity is caused by fear, aggression or frustration on the part of the dog itself - not the handler.

 I don't know if big dogs and small dogs learn differently, but I do believe there are certain breeds that respond better to certain training methods/props.  One example is that when I am training my Chi to sit or lay down I do so on a soft surface or pad.  I wouldn't worry about that with a Husky or Lab, but my Chi is far more likely to respond initially if he is on soft surfaces.  Then I move out to the yard/grass and he will do it there too.  But if I started there I'd probably never get him to sit.