the role of punishment

snownose

sillysally

My point is that I do not buy that telling your puppy "Eh, eh" when he heads for the garbage somehow prepares him for social interaction with other dogs.

 

I don't think Carla was claiming that at all.....she feels the same I do.....dogs have a way to communicate with each other as do we with dogs.....

The more I hear about this hands off, never issue a correction or providing a dog a total sterile, articificial and disconnected environment  ....where clicks and treats turn into a dog preferring the click over human touch , the more I am turned against it.....

She may not have been but she was responding to my response to your claim that a pup that is not punished by their owner will somehow suffer socially when they begin interacting with other dogs. 

I'll use Jack as a great example.  I got him at 10 weeks--he was with his mother, half sister, and the remainder of his litter until then.  When he was very young, I did not correct him.  We set him up to succeed and used lots of positive enforcement.  Strangely enough, he is great around other dogs.  he was corrected by older dogs from time to time and he took it in stride--he didn't freak out, he just did what puppies do.  The doggy daycare owner has said that he was a joy to have there.  He is able to play nicely with very small dogs.  He handles himself well when a dog get snarky or growly with him.  He even had a dog go after him to the point that it made contact (and not friendly contact) and he was totally chill about it--he just ignored the dog and avoided him the rest of the time.  It's not even that he is really that submissive--he's just not interested in confrontation.  I don't know about anyone else, but that sort of behavior is what I want socially from a dog.

I actually started increasing the amount of corrections that I used with him as he went into the terrible teens, and I think now that this was a mistake.  If Jack wants something badly enough correction does not matter.  He is stubborn and sneaky--he will sit forever waiting for Sally to be distracted, even for a second, from the nylabone she has that he wants.  If she even just turns to groom herself, he'll snatch it and casually walk away.  She always notices right away and takes the bone back from him, and he just repeats the process.  He has had her correct him strongly before for stealing her food and I STILL have to stand in between them while they eat because the reward he would get for putting his face in the bowl is worth whatever correction she can dish out.

I also think that this notion that people who don't use corrects somehow are "hands off" is silly.  You say you use verbal corrections--how hands on is that?  How is it less hands on to use a marker word or click for good behavior than it is to use an "eh, eh" for bad behavior.  When you suggest that people who use a clicker or marker word or whatever are disconnected with their dogs you are assuming a whole hell of a lot about a whole lot about the relationships that people you do not know have with their dogs that you have not ever met.  Sorry, but we all know where assuming leads and it is no more productive to a conversation than someone assuming that you abuse your dogs because you do use corrections.

snownose

houndlove

On another forum someone posted at the end of their rope with their countersurfing dalmation. They'd brought a trainer in who suggested the following: bait the counter with something tasty then put a booby trap up. As it turns out, the reinforcement supplied by the food was much stronger than any punishment the Counter Monster could dish out and their dog only got more enthusiastic about surfing. Big time back-fire.

 

I can't speak for every dog in this world, but I have no issues....I even have a baker's rack as a food storage area.....a smorgas board for a food thief.......not at my house.....

And THAT is the key--you *can't* speak for every dog--nobody can.  When I read what houndlove said about the counter surfing I asked DH if he thought that something like that would work for Jack.  He laughed.  It would work for Sally, but not Jack.  You could body block and "eh, eh" the dog until you are blue in the face to keep him away from cheese on the counter, and for that moment he will refrain from getting the cheese.  However, the minute he thinks you are not looking that cheese is history.  You could correct him after it, and the next time he would do the same thing.  The reward (or the possibility of a reward) is more worth it to him than the punishment.

Hey, if your method keeps your dogs from counter surfing that's awesome, but dogs are individuals and should be treated as such when it comes to training methods.   

FourIsCompany

mudpuppy

unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

 

But it does work that way. It has worked that way for me. I am not sure what the difference between "information" and "motivators" is, but in this context, I give my dogs information and they are motivated one way or another by that information.

I actually taught mine a command for not pulling on the leash and they got it. All 4 of them. And I used corrections coupled with reinforcement to do it. Nothing that physically hurt them, but correction, nonetheless. I talk to them and gesture a lot, so they know many commands about walking: "let's go home", "stop", "no-pull", "heel", "wait"... and more. And our relationship is such that THEY KNOW that a correction is information that they should take seriously. They actually know my tone of voice when I give corrections. And every correction is coupled with showing what I want and praise or other reward. It's clear. In fact, when my dogs get a correction, they KNOW a reward is on its way as soon as they do the right thing!

I think I give dogs more credit to figure things out, to THINK ... and they live up to my expectations. If they are smart enough to experiment with different behaviors to find out what it is that I want, they are smart enough to figure out what it is that I don't want. And since I don't use pain to punish, there's no need for them to stop experimenting or avoid trying different things.

I understand the theory of +R "only" and I still choose to use punishment (in the form of corrections). It does not have the effect on my dogs that you say it does. I can understand and believe a dog being beaten daily will eventually shut down and stop even trying, but my dogs have never been beaten. That's abuse. If I raise my hand to them, they look at it expectantly, wondering what I have for them.

When you talk the way you do in your post, it sounds to me as though dogs are some kind of vending machines. You put a penny in there and a certain behavior pops out. You wiggle this lever and another behavior materializes. Flip this switch and the dog barks... as if all dogs will behave the same way under these circumstances. I have no such experience and I don't wish to. That doesn't account for relationship, temperaments, environment, nuance. Sure it's a fine foundation, but it's very mechanical and sterile and I don't have that experience with my dogs.

I want my dogs to live their doggy lives and, when I want something from them I will let them know. And when I want them to stop doing something I will let them know. I will let them know by giving them information. It does work that way. It works that way for us.

snownose

Incorrect, the correction is given before the dog can get to the food, and the dog then realizes to just let it be.....it seems to me you don't understand when to use a correction.....

Okay, maybe I don't know what a correction really is, but I don't see that as a correction. I see that as a signal. A correction is like a leash pop when the dog is pulling on leash, or physically moving the dog into the right position when they fail to assume the position you want. Just saying "eh-eh" is, for starters, an abrupt and sharp sound if you do it anything like I do. So first and foremost, it's a distractor, which is why it halts an animal even before they know what it means. Secondly, if you follow it up with, say, coming towards the dog and stepping into their space so they have to step away from the object that had their interest, or even if you follow it up by asking them to come or sit or whatever, they come to learn that the sound means they should pay attention to you because you're going to ask them to do something or come over and walk them back away something or whatever. They associate the sound with some kind of interaction with you. Depending on the interaction, they learn whether the sound is a good one or a bad one for them. My dog does not find this sound aversive. She knows it means I will call her over or take away whatever she's found. My hare does not find this sound aversive, but he knows it means I'm going to come over. If he doesn't want to share his space with me, he moves before I even get up. It's a signal to them that you're going to do something they probably want to pay attention to, not a correction.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I'm not interested in raising a dog in an environment where it isn't exposed to mistakes. Apart from the fact I think that's impossible, I think it's very important for dogs developing good social skills to be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them. However, that's a dog thing. I leave the punishments to other dogs, because I think it's like babies. I don't want to punish a kid for something they don't understand. However, I'm cool with punishing a kid if they are able to understand why I'm punishing them. I'm not confident that a dog will understand my punishments, or why they are being administered, but dog punishments are delivered in the native language. That's not to say I don't sometimes get impatient and angry with my dog, but she doesn't understand it when I'm like that. She just wants me to stop being angry because she can't predict how me being angry will impact on her. I've never seen any evidence from her that she understands an angry state and what to do about it in a human, but she sure knows an angry state in a dog, and she keeps out of the way of an angry dog. That makes me question whether she would understand a punishment, seeing as dogs go largely on your body language, which is much more pronounced in an angry person than a calm person administering a routine correction.

What's important to me is that I avoid doing something to one of my animals that has a lasting negative impression. That means I avoid scaring them but I'm okay with startling them in certain circumstances sometimes. I avoid corrections that might not be understood and instead opt for suggesting behaviour that probably will be understood. I don't want to see an animal cowering from me, but I'm happy enough to illicit an appeasing look or gesture every now and then. I've trodden on my dog's toes, kicked her in the jaw, tripped over her, stepped sideways into her, startled her with loud noises and sudden and violent movements, and dropped things on her or right beside her all by accident and she hasn't found any of it punishing. It's over in an instant and even if I directly inflicted it, she knows by my body language that it wasn't a message for her, just an accident. None of these things have damaged my relationship with my dog. However, I will never forget the look I got from her after 20 minutes of trying to get her to heel using leash corrections. It was a look that said "I thought you were nice." Later, when our relationship was better and I went back to the training with leash corrections, the look she gave me said "Who are you?" What damaged our relationship was me administering punishments she did not understand and that left her with a lasting negative impression. Kick a dog by accident twice in its life and the isolated events won't mean a thing to the dog, but if you're doing something to an animal that they don't like on a regular basis, chances are the animal will never trust you. That's what I mean when I say I don't want to use punishments. I'm talking about things that have a lasting negative effect. Not a punishment so mild it's forgotten a few seconds later. I don't see those punishments having much effect on animals anyway.

Wait, now an eh eh is being seen as a punishment?  Holy cow I'd sure like to see someone raise of litter of pups without ever using an "eh eh, no bite" as part of the correct and redirect.  I'm not sure that can be done, frankly. 

My eh eh isn't a harsh expression....it's issued in  a normal tone of voice, but my dogs, starting when they were pups have become conditioned to that word as a marker.  I too set dogs up to suceed but to me that eh eh or unh uh is a way of communicating that they aren't quite there.

Unless you breed and whelp your own pups you have zero control over how they have lived the first few months of their lives and what they are exposed to.  And a litter of pups trying to claim the ankles/feet/lower legs of a human does require something.  I don't think that it's possible to set a whole litter up to never put teeth on a human when they are that little.  If someone can tell me how that would work, I'm surely willing to listen.

glenmar

Wait, now an eh eh is being seen as a punishment? 

That depends on your intent when you say it.  

A. Is it something added to the environment to decrease the likelihood of a behavior happening again? If so, it is positive punishment.
B. Is it a "no-reward marker"? Meaning "That's not what I want right now, but feel free to offer that in the future"? If so, it's not punishment. It's a marker of the behavior that's the opposite of a click. A click means there's a reward on the way. A no-reward marker means there's no reward on the way, but the behavior is perfectly acceptable and in fact may be offered in the future to get a treat.

As I see it, that's the line that has to be drawn clearly.  And it is very clear, there are just some who wish to smudge it so they can avoid saying they use positive punishment.

glenmar

Holy cow I'd sure like to see someone raise of litter of pups without ever using an "eh eh, no bite" as part of the correct and redirect.  I'm not sure that can be done, frankly.

To be honest, I don't know whether it could be done or not, but I don't have the time or desire to try. And "eh eh, no bite" is definitely positive punishment, unless you wish your dog to offer to bite you in the future... I have always been very honest about my use of punishment. And "eh eh, no bite" is one of the punishments I would be VERY likely to use. Unfortunately, when I say I use punishment, people assume I'm whipping on my dog or something.

glenmar

My eh eh isn't a harsh expression...

That's where a lot of the confusion lies: The connection people make between punishment and "harshness" or pain or anger or frustration. There need be NO emotion behind punishment. If it's something added to the environment to decrease the likelihood of a behavior happening again, no matter how it's issued, it's +punishment.

The proof of something like "eh eh " or "ah" is in this pudding: if you just used that noise and did nothing else and the behavior stopped forever after a few rounds with that, it would be a positive punishment. But, if you use that noise to get the dog's attention and then do something else that redirects the dog or gives the dog an incompatible behavior, or you issue some kind of physical correction at that time, then the "eh eh" sound is not a positive punishment because it itself is not lessening the behavior. It's just an attention getter: "Attention, mom is about to say/do something important, please listen!"

I guess I'd love for someone to offer an alternative to a gentle and loving "eh eh, no bite" when one is dealing with an entire litter.  To me it's even more crucial to get those little jaws under control than leash/crate/potty training before they are placed, all of which I also work on.  But the teeth are what are most likely to get them into trouble in a new home.

I'm completely geniune here.  If anyone can offer me some "no punishment" guides to this, I'm very open to them.

glenmar

I'm completely geniune here.  If anyone can offer me some "no punishment" guides to this, I'm very open to them.

As someone mentioned, you set the dog up for not ever making a mistake......that's where my reference to a sterile environment came from....I simply just don't see that as a viable option.......

As I have already mentioned, I am big fan of noise aversion....I have had great success with it......even down to rescued Huskies that viewed my cats as lunch.....

Rescue/Ronin...rescue/Patches

houndlove

or you issue some kind of physical correction at that time,

After using the "Eh eh", I have no reason to use a physical correction....

corvus

Okay, maybe I don't know what a correction really is, but I don't see that as a correction. I see that as a signal. A correction is like a leash pop when the dog is pulling on leash, or physically moving the dog into the right position when they fail to assume the position you want. Just saying "eh-eh" is, for starters, an abrupt and sharp sound if you do it anything like I do. So first and foremost, it's a distractor, which is why it halts an animal even before they know what it means.

I actually don't view it a correction either, but several members call it a correction.......At my house it means "Stop it, or step away from that".....I usually don't have to follow up with anything.....

I have some questions...

houndlove

The proof of something like "eh eh " or "ah" is in this pudding: if you just used that noise and did nothing else and the behavior stopped forever after a few rounds with that, it would be a positive punishment. But, if you use that noise to get the dog's attention and then do something else that redirects the dog or gives the dog an incompatible behavior, or you issue some kind of physical correction at that time, then the "eh eh" sound is not a positive punishment because it itself is not lessening the behavior.

I honestly don't want to be confrontational, I'm confused... Where are you getting this? Why must the behavior stop forever to be considered positive punishment? Who says that? Are you saying that if, every day, a dog chews his master's shoe and his master, catching him in the act, beats the dog with the shoe, but the dog continues to chew the shoe, that it's not positive punishment?

Do we define punishment as something that is intended to decrease the behavior or something that actually decreases the behavior? What did Skinner say? 

The OP says:

mudpuppy

Definition: for the purposes of this discussion, punishment is something the owner directly applies to the dog in an attempt to get the dog to stop doing THAT forever.

So by that definition, the intent is the deciding factor. In your example, the result is the deciding factor.  

houndlove

It's just an attention getter: "Attention, mom is about to say/do something important, please listen!"

If it's just an attention getter, why not just use the dog's name?  

Houndlove, I see what you are saying about proof is in the pudding, but I don't think the addition of a redirection itself changes an eh from a punishment to an attention getter. I mean, you could leash pop a dog, and then when they stopped doing whatever, direct to an alternate behavior."Stop doing that. Ok, now do this." Part of what matters to attention getting versus punishment is: does the dog learn that behavior X is a no-no, or simply think you'd prefer him to do something else at that moment in time?

The reason I see eh as a punishment (and communication can definitely be a punishment) is that dogs give each other vocal or facial punishments all.the.time. And with Sasha, I can often "correct"  her with a look or a tiny lip twitch. It's neat, how responsive she is to my "dogese." In return, I pay attention to HER body language and yes she punishes me with her body communication. I've learned what physical contact she likes and silikes. Once she gave my daughter a warning snap, scared the pants off her, and lo my daughter has learned to respect Sasha's personal space. (And no, I don't approve of Sasha snapping at my kid, but it happened and it is a good example).

Mama dogs and littermates do the groundwork for us, by setting up the association between growls and facial expressions with scary teeth threats.

I agree that intent is not what matters - what determines punishment is the result.

FourIsCompany

Do we define punishment as something that is intended to decrease the behavior or something that actually decreases the behavior? What did Skinner say? 

The technical definition of a punishment is something that *actually* decreases behavior. Same thing for a reinforcement - it has to increase a behavior. This is where a reinforcement differs from a reward.  

Dog_ma, where is that information? Is it just something that is known? Agreed-upon by the dog-training world? If we're talking about operant conditioning, I'd like to see how Skinner defined punishment, but can't find it.

Wait... I'm finding it now... Be right back... 

Definition: Punishment is a term from Psychological Learning Theory that has a precise meaning; it refers to something that causes a behavior to lessen in intensity. There is nothing that is intrinsically punishing. A thing is called punishing if, when it is applied, it results in the reduction of behavior that you want to reduce.

So, the OP definition isn't actually the psychologically accurate definition. I will remember this definition now. I will have to think of what I do that actually results in the lessening of behavior... Learning all the time.