the role of punishment

My eh to a pup is NOT a sharp sound.  It's soft, loving and gentle.  Similar to the way most people would speak to an infant who was grabbing our noses.

My first foster litter came to me around 4 or 5 weeks.  They'd been without momma since they were just a couple weeks old since she developed mastitous.  The second bunch were whelped in my home, but once she stopped nursing them, around 4 weeks, the rescue took her to have her spayed and rehomed.  She actually had very little interest in the pups and seemed relieved to be able to get away from them.  In both cases, I was doing a whole lot of momma's job.

So, in these circumstances, how the heck can you socialize pups, teach them, house train, etc, if you are keeping a door between them and you at all times and making sure they don't make the mistake of taking a hunk out of a human?

I am really open to hearing ideas as to how to accomplish this.

If the sound, in and of itself with nothing else ever added on, decreases a behavior, it's a punishment. If it doesn't, it's not. Unless you make it into a conditioned punisher (much like the sound of a clicker is a conditioned reinforcer) by using that sound and then applying an aversive stimulus enough times. This is what that magical sound of the choke chain clinking is to a lot of dogs--a conditioned punisher.

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.

glenmar

My eh to a pup is NOT a sharp sound.  It's soft, loving and gentle.

It doesn't matter what it sounds like. Does it cause a behavior to lessen in intensity? Does it result in the reduction of behavior that you want to reduce? If so, it is considered "punishment" in the psychological, scientific sense of the word.  

glenmar

So, in these circumstances, how the heck can you socialize pups, teach them, house train, etc, if you are keeping a door between them and you at all times and making sure they don't make the mistake of taking a hunk out of a human?

That's why (I believe) so many people say it cannot be done. There are things puppies and dogs do that people don't want them to do, so they ADD something to the environment that results in the lessening of the behavior.

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. Not environmentally-applied punishment, and not no-reward markers, which are intended to suggest the dog try a different behavior but feel free to continue to perform that behavior again in future (as, for example, you're working on sit and the dog offers a down. You say uh-oh to indicate that wasn't what you wanted; but certainly at times in the future you will want the dog to offer a down).

Just thought I'd bring that definition for the purposes of this thread up front again. 

Like I said, I don't think the "eh" actually is much of a punisher on its own by this definition. Even with my hare, who associates the sound with me getting up to shoo him away from something, might decide that often he doesn't feel like being shooed, so he moves as soon as I make the sound, but if he actually does feel like being chased, he actually pretends to do things he thinks will get the sound. He's really funny. He'll come over and pretend to chew on my clothes, and when I say "ay!" he ducks and gets himself all ready to run, but watches me and if I don't get up, he makes a more serious attempt to chew on my clothes and if I get up then, he waits a few moments then bounces off, sometimes shaking his head the way he does when he's having fun. So while it's decreased the occurrence of the behaviour overall, I don't know if I can really say it's a punishment by any definition, because it's simultaneously increased the occurrence of the same behaviour. So I classify it as a signal. I think it's too grey to call it either a punishment or a reward.

Same with Penny. She takes it as a signal that I'm about to do something she should pay attention to. She decides whether to pay attention based on what she thinks I'll do. If she knows from experience I might take away the neat thing she found, she ignores the sound and eats it in record time. If she doesn't know what I'll do and isn't that strongly fussed about what I do, she stops and waits for me to give further instructions.  That one sometimes leads to good things for her, so I don't think it's the sound that's important, it's what comes afterwards.

Glenda, I wonder if your 'eh' is something similar. Do you teach the pups it means pay attention to mum, or does it mean don't ever do that? I've never really used the sound to say stop that and never do it again. I don't think I have a sound for that. I "eh" as a knee-jerk sound to say "hold it!", then check what they're into and take it from there. It doesn't decrease any specific behaviour on its own. It just tells them to stop what they're doing for a moment. I've only had Penny as a puppy to go by with the teaching a puppy not to bite thing, and I taught her with R- (stop playing when the teeth hurt). Kit tried biting me at one point as well, but thankfully hares are not really biters and when he tried it he didn't have much in the way of teeth, so I was able to pretend like nothing happened. He was looking for some result from biting me, so when it had no result either way, he abandoned it.
 

Well, we could all make up our own definitions of the word so that we wouldn't have to say that we use "punishment", but that doesn't change the fact. I'm surprised to see the scientific among us resorting to various definitions and sloppiness when it comes to this particular word.

There is a meaning in psychology. There is a definition as regards operant conditioning. But it's kind of humorous to see people slink away from that for the purpose of avoiding saying they use punishment. What's the big deal?

I suspect if people who are so down on punishment were to admit that they actually use it, they couldn't preach to the masses about how messed up we are. It's almost like a preacher preaching against sin... And then we find out he's a sinner, too. He just calls it something else.  

Interestingly, I've been using the word correctly all along. I said right away, and honestly, that I use punishment because I add things to the dog's environment that lessen the behavior. Come to find out, everyone does. They just make up their own definition of the word so they don't have to SAY they use it. Or they call it something else like a correction or an attention getter or an interruption, just to avoid "admitting" that they use punishment.

If I had known that was the game, I never would have said I use punishment, either. LOL Just kidding!

FourIsCompany

Or they call it something else like a correction or an attention getter or an interruption, just to avoid "admitting" that they use punishment.

corgipower, you don't claim to not use punishment and you don't "preach" to those who do, so yeah, call it whatever you like. I call it corrections sometimes, too, but not to avoid being seen as using punishment. I'm right up front about that.

glenmar

In the beginning the eh eh or unh uh is PART of unh uh no bite. It is never used alone. As pups get older and start learning to pay attention, yes, the eh eh or unh uh CAN stand alone and becomes "don't do that"

I see. And is that punishment? Is "eh-eh, no bite" OR "eh-eh" on it's own - punishment?  (Does it decrease the intensity or lessen the behavior?) My suspicion is that it does. So technically, it's punishment.  

I've explained why I don't think verbal 'corrections' are a punishment to my animals both with mudpuppy's definition and the accepted scientific definition. I'd prefer to stick to mudpuppy's purely because she made that definition in the original post and I know I find it very frustrating when people change my topic that I want to discuss to something they want to discuss. Mud said she wanted to discuss this definition, so why can't we do that without getting all sneery about how it's not the accepted scientific definition? I'm surprised at you especially, Four, because I remember having an intense discussion with you at some point about scientific definitions and I seem to recall that you were not terribly fussed about sticking to scientific definitions. I'm sensing that because this is mud's post, suddenly it's an us and them thing again. Why oh why can we not just discuss the OP? If you use no other punishment but no-reward markers, than what are you arguing about, even? If you use a punishment that mud described in the OP, let's talk about that rather than skewing it to an unintended topic.

*gets off soapbox*

Okay, I think I'm done. Forgive me for getting a bit ranty. I'm just so tired of discussions coming to a grinding halt because people aren't even talking about the same thing. Mudpuppy has been kind enough to give us a definition for the purposes of this thread. Can we be kind enough to reciprocate by discussing that definition for this particular thread? Please? And can people please remember that there are positive trainers here who try very hard not to be preachy and get a bit offended when somehow positive trainers as a general entity get called preachy and trying to avoid the truth that they secretly use punishments and just call it something else? Those of you that are always complaining about being victimised by positive trainers, you're perpetuating it!

Okay, now I'm really done. Thanks for listening, as if anyone did.
 

corvus

Mud said she wanted to discuss this definition, so why can't we do that without getting all sneery about how it's not the accepted scientific definition?

You can. I'm not stopping anyone from discussing anything in any manner they wish, sneery or not. 

Firstly, I didn't know the psychological and scientific definition of punishment. And I wanted to. A thread called "the role of punishment" is a perfectly good place to ask and discuss that, IMO, even if, for the purposes of this thread, the word had been defined slightly differently.

And secondly, the reason I'm being "sneery" about it   is that I have been lambasted many times by mudpuppy for using punishment, so I think it's important to know what is meant by the word "punishment", not only in this thread, but in all the threads where I have been so highly criticized for using it. Trust me, if I started a thread about positive reinforcement or operant conditioning and changed it from the scientific definition, I would hear about it. Probably from you. And I would expect to.

I am satisfied that I have made my point and I certainly didn't mean to upset anyone, so I will have no need to further delve into the definition in this thread. Feel free (as you always have been) to discuss the role of punishment as laid out by the OP.

corvus

Thanks for listening, as if anyone did.

I did. I always do.  

corgipower

mudpuppy

This is where the "absence of skill" comes in- people who are not skilled in gradual shaping, or who skip proofing steps, are the people who end up with dogs who make mistakes, and then feel they have to correct those mistakes.

There are life situations that don't always allow for the avoidance of using corrections. In those cases, I don't believe that a correction, provided the dog has a solid foundation, is a substitute for skill. In fact, in order to *properly* use corrections, IME, takes a great deal of skill.

You are correct, but I think the point is that trainers with skill are able to very strongly reduce the numbers of such occasions, and trainers with less skill may feel they need to correct more.  In fact, it really is possible to have a dog that is raised from puppyhood to adulthood without correction.  It is also possible to have a dog come to you as an adult and not need correction.  The level of management and prevention that takes can be difficult for any but the most committed (and non-time challenged) owner, but it is possible.  I use as little correction as possible, which for me means very, very little.  For others, it may be more.  But, I find it too bad that so many people come from a perspective of it being so darned necessary.  I agree with mudpuppy that the answer to that may be to look to your own timing, skill level, and knowledge, and try always to improve it so that you don't have to use so much, rather than just asserting its necessity all the time.

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.

This is a solution that trainers do use from time to time.  However, the secret in doing it successfully is to "bait" the dog, but engage the booby trap (usually a box lid filled with penny cans) by tugging a string (from out of sight).  You would do it as soon as the dog even looks at the counter where you just laid the sandwich, NOT once he makes the leap and has the thing in his mouth (which would just teach him that good stuff comes to him when he goes counter surfing).  Again, persuant to the previous discussion, this takes excellent timing on the part of the trainer/handler.  That's why, although I was forced to teach this method, and it is admittedly in my toolbox, I now use another method that I think works better in many cases.  Some dogs, using the booby trap method, become afraid to go in the kitchen.  Then, you have another problem - and I always say, "First, do no harm."

glenmar

So, in these circumstances, how the heck can you socialize pups, teach them, house train, etc, if you are keeping a door between them and you at all times and making sure they don't make the mistake of taking a hunk out of a human?

I am really open to hearing ideas as to how to accomplish this.

I'm assuming you mean when you're working with litters that are around you all at one time. The dam and littermates generally do a great job on the beginnings of bite inhibition - that is, bite inhibition that's suitable for other dogs. I always maintain though that it's not nearly good enough for humans, as dogs have fur to protect their skin (I wonder if dogs like Grey's would develop better human-quality BI than, say, Chow pups, simply by playin with litters). When I worked with litters in groups, I use a lot of redirection onto toys. Give them something to chew, or throw a toy for them to go play with to distract them.

You will find that rare pup that is determined to play with your body part as a toy, and who ignores redirection, in which I find that simply saying "Ouch" and getting up and walking away works well. "Ouch" becomes a conditioned punisher, which is conditioned to the P- of walking away. Then there is that occasional pup that follows you while you walk away, and plays with your ankles, in which case again redirection would be used. And a lot of reinforcement for appropriate behaviours.

I do allow mouthing from pups (hands only please - that is learned early on), my process is first to teach them how to use their mouth on a human, rather than eliminating it all together. So as the dog learns, and as puppy matures, I allow less and less intensity from the mouth until it is a painless mouthing ("somehow mommy gets wimpier and wimpier as I get bigger and bigger!";). If I wish, I will then extinguish the mouthing behaviour after the gentleness is understood, but honestly I have never had to do that (I can think of one dog.....), as most pups tend to grow out of mouthiness.

FourIsCompany

Well, we could all make up our own definitions of the word so that we wouldn't have to say that we use "punishment", but that doesn't change the fact. I'm surprised to see the scientific among us resorting to various definitions and sloppiness when it comes to this particular word.

I hadn't posted yet, so this couldn't have been directed towards me, but in terms of speaking on my own behalf, I have no qualms about calling a punishment a punishment, and I believe I've made that clear in the past. Yep, I have and do use punishments with my dogs. But all punishments that I can think that I do have been P-. I do have qualms about using P+, for a variety of reasons, so I don't use them, and usually it is those types of punishments that I address when I talk about the potential fallout of punishments.

But even P- can have fallout, and I don't deny that. But there is also no question that it almost always has less fallout, and lower risk, than punishments that are applied by people directly. But I never ignore that it too can have fallout, and when I do use the rare P-, I do use it very judiciously. 

But when I use a punishment, I call it a punishment. I don't sugar coat things, and I have no problems calling it a punishment.I don't even call it a correction because I happen to think that term is useless in reference to dogs, especially when almost everyone on the board has a different definition for the word. I do like to stick to words that everyone can understand (that has an established definition).

 The only place I am careful describing punishments is to people who have no idea about OC, because the "general" definition of punishment used in everyday talks (actually, much like what Corgi describes is what the general use is), is much different than the established definition, and you can give people who don't know that distinction the wrong idea when you talk about punishments. The general definition does tend to carry with it connotations that have developed over time (You'd better punish him for that. His punishment wasn't severe enough. Etc). To some folks, unfortunately, punishment means to physically somehow stop a behaviour - there is no P- aspect to it in this generalized definition. If that makes sense. So on a board where you openly discuss the meanings so that people understand the meanings, I have no issues about calling a punishment a punishment. But I will be honest to say that I use discretion when calling something a punishment to people who have no idea about the terminology, at least not until they understand the meaning of it, so that the wrong impression is not granted. Usually people though will come to understand the meaning and differences, and there is no problem.

spiritdogs

corgipower

mudpuppy

This is where the "absence of skill" comes in- people who are not skilled in gradual shaping, or who skip proofing steps, are the people who end up with dogs who make mistakes, and then feel they have to correct those mistakes.

There are life situations that don't always allow for the avoidance of using corrections. In those cases, I don't believe that a correction, provided the dog has a solid foundation, is a substitute for skill. In fact, in order to *properly* use corrections, IME, takes a great deal of skill.

 

You are correct, but I think the point is that trainers with skill are able to very strongly reduce the numbers of such occasions, and trainers with less skill may feel they need to correct more.  In fact, it really is possible to have a dog that is raised from puppyhood to adulthood without correction.  It is also possible to have a dog come to you as an adult and not need correction.  The level of management and prevention that takes can be difficult for any but the most committed (and non-time challenged) owner, but it is possible.

spiritdogs

I use as little correction as possible, which for me means very, very little.  For others, it may be more.  But, I find it too bad that so many people come from a perspective of it being so darned necessary.  I agree with mudpuppy that the answer to that may be to look to your own timing, skill level, and knowledge, and try always to improve it so that you don't have to use so much, rather than just asserting its necessity all the time.