How do you tell if something is too punishing?

Honestly, I don't understand the need to "punish" at all.  I've got a dog whose not the best behaved girl around and I barely raise my voice.  It can't be that you guys have to really punish them??

willowchow

Honestly, I don't understand the need to "punish" at all.  I've got a dog whose not the best behaved girl around and I barely raise my voice.  It can't be that you guys have to really punish them??

I don't raise my voice at all, but there are punishments that don't involve pain or raised voices and are so mild that they only have a marginal effect on the likelihood of a behaviour happening less often in the future and only in certain circumstances. I'm talking about those as well, whether they are technically punishments or not. Do you have a way of telling Willow you don't like something? If so, what makes you choose that method?

This thread is not about whether you punish or not. It's how you decide whether to punish or not and to what extent, including very mild things like nagging. If you don't punish, tell us how you came to that decision and what you do instead. 

Four, I read Kim's post about CP and I'm beginning to suspect it's this kind of thing that has us all divided about dog training on this board. These minor things that are considered punishment by some and just communication by others. I wrote a rather lengthy reply on that thread (the Training and Behavior chatter thread, for those looking for it). I've always been kinda shaky on whether that kind of thing is punishment or not. I really think that it's dependent on what the dog wants to do and how much they care about doing it.

I nag Penny when she's barking. It makes very little difference. You can hear me in the latest video on the behaviour interpretation thread. "Peeee-en." I do nag her when I want her to do something, though, and if I'm persistant about it, she will acquiesce to get me off her back about it. She's like "Fine, I'll sit by you and stop barking. Happy?" "Yes Penny! Thank you." *patpat, strokestroke, goodgirl*

It's funny to watch Pyry give in to nagging. He walks at the pace of death, head down, practically scuffing his feet in the dust, stops halfway to check that you still mean it, then continues plodding so slowly he's almost walking in one spot. He seems to think it's important to make token protests about things he doesn't really want to do, but will do it if you keep asking and he hasn't got anything better to do, or can't be bothered to  put up a serious protest.

Hi Minga, and welcome to the board. I had a very similar experience with Penny when we were both young and it turned out collar pops were way too aversive for her. She'd give me those "Don't hurt me" or "I thought you liked me" looks. 

I think it's important to always keep an eye on your dogs and assess whether something you do is stressing them. My problem when I was young was that there was one and only one way to train a dog and no one told me to watch the effect it had on my dog and whether her trust in me changed or not. 

By definition (as defined by the impact the consequence had on the behavior) punishment stops the behavior immediately and reduces the likelihood that behavior will happen again under similar circumstances.  So, if behavior is stopping punishment is occurring.  It is all about the behavior of the animal.  I think the major issue comes from the emotional baggage that is attached to the word punishment. 

GoldenAC

To the main question, I have decided that in formal training I will not use any aversives. 

That's an important distinction too. When I'm teaching "a behaviour" - whether it's cleaning up toys, leave it, walking nicely on a leash, or to sit, I don't use any aversives or P-. It's all about the R+ for getting the behaviour. And until the behaviour is very, very well understood in various locations and times, and the behaviour is on a VRS, I won't use any P- whatsoever.

corvus

I don't raise my voice at all, but there are punishments that don't involve pain or raised voices

I wish people could "get" this. In true operant conditioning, it's not even the subject that is punished, it's the behavior. So, looking at it from the subject's point of view (the rat's or the dog's) the behavior is punished and there's NOT emotion attached to it. BTW, If I raise my voice, I'm out of control or angry or frustrated, and that's no time to be giving a punishment.

corvus

Four, I read Kim's post about CP and I'm beginning to suspect it's this kind of thing that has us all divided about dog training on this board.

I'm with you. This is ONE thing. There are a few little things we disagree on, but the major rift is an illusion, I'm convinced. And I, for one, refuse to continue feeding the fantasy. More than ever, I'm seeing that we're more alike...  blah-blah-blah.... I think that's cool.

willowchow

Honestly, I don't understand the need to "punish" at all.  I've got a dog whose not the best behaved girl around and I barely raise my voice.  It can't be that you guys have to really punish them??

I remember that you've talked about giving verbal "corrections" on walks. That in itself is a form of punishment. Just so you know.

Edited--to answer more---

If telling her to knock off her poor behavior is punishment, then that's about as punished as she gets.  I personally, don't feel that it is punishment because one it doesn't change the fact that she will probably do the same thing again tomorrow. And, two, she barely cares sometimes.

But, it stops the problem for me right then.  I've never used choke chains or collars or anything else but my voice to teach her anything.  That started because of her temperment at first but then as she adapted and changed I found that either due to her breed or her individual personality that she didn't really need them to understand and listen at least well enough to function within my lifestyle. 

Thanks, Willow. I've found this thread to be enlightening. It's nice to have a thread about punishment for once that concentrates on things we have in common rather than things we don't agree on.

So if something stops behaviour in the instant, but doesn't reduce the likelihood of it recurring further down the track, is it a distractor or a punishment?

What do people do if their dog does something really bad? Do we need to let the dog know that that behaviour is real bad and unacceptable? Do you need punishment for that? I remember reading the bit in Culture Clash where she talks about what to do if a puppy "talks back". She advocated going mental and running around like a mad person shouting and waving your hands about in order to frighten the dog into never trying that again. I really don't want to use fear to teach my dog about anything. Well, not fear applied by me. I'm happy enough to let Jill scare the bejesus out of Penny because Penny steals some of her food right from under her nose. Doesn't seem to teach her much, though, but to make sure Jill is down the other end of the yard before she steals her food. 

mrv

By definition (as defined by the impact the consequence had on the behavior) punishment stops the behavior immediately and reduces the likelihood that behavior will happen again under similar circumstances.  So, if behavior is stopping punishment is occurring.  It is all about the behavior of the animal.  I think the major issue comes from the emotional baggage that is attached to the word punishment. 

I agree.  

And I will always opt for using reward and/or redirection if I think it will be effective. I think that's my criteria. Effectiveness.

It would be effective for someone to murder their enemies, but not exactly kind, or without consequences.    Even if we judge what we do by effectiveness, there are certainly limits beyond which we decide not to go.  

I'm glad that someone brought up "one trial learning".  If you live with herders very long, you find that a lot of them are in this category and so the punishment, if any, that you use, needs to be chosen very carefully - since, if they make a wrong association, it may stay with them a very long time, and be something that could ruin a relationship, or the dog's ability to perform his "job", whatever that is. 

spiritdogs

It would be effective for someone to murder their enemies, but not exactly kind, or without consequences.  

Uh... okay. Are you arguing that effectiveness shouldn't be a criterion? Fortunately, we're not talking about murdering anyone and my dogs aren't my enemies, so I don't really see the correlation, if there is meant to be one. If effectiveness doesn't matter to you in your use of punishment, that's fine. It matters to me.

spiritdogs

Even if we judge what we do by effectiveness, there are certainly limits beyond which we decide not to go.

Who is "we"? 

FourIsCompany

spiritdogs

Even if we judge what we do by effectiveness, there are certainly limits beyond which we decide not to go.

 

Who is "we"? 

corgipower

Hitting my dog over the head with a baseball bat might very well be effective,

True. I didn't say, though, that I would use any punishment as long as it was effective. I said a punishment must be effective for me to consider using it. Big difference.  

corgipower

Yea, an extreme example, but then again, so is murdering friends.

Exactly. Completely extreme, out-of-left-field extreme. If context means anything to anyone, reading the rest of my post, we find phrases like...

"I naturally want to use the least amount of punishment possible."
"I will always opt for using reward and/or redirection if I think it will be effective."
"the first thing I do is think: What is going to be the most effective way to deal with this? What's causing this behavior? What's driving him (or her) to do this? Can I reduce that motivator? Is there something I can do differently that would take the motivation away? I analyze the heck out of the situation and come up with a plan."
"I always couple the punishment with redirection and reward, which I try to make much bigger than the punishment."

I wonder why this would lead someone to think of murdering enemies and baseball bats. I'm telling you, there's some (deliberately?) warped thinking going on here, IMO.

corgipower

Where the limits are is by and large a personal choice, but there are clear boundaries that *none of us* ~ and many people that aren't on the forum ~ would never cross.

Oh, I agree. I guess I don't get the point of iterating that. It's kind of like saying, "We love our dogs." Uh...Yeah.

FourIsCompany

What is going to be the most effective way to deal with this?

corgipower

Yes, but sometimes the *most effective* isn't the best choice is the point I was trying to make.

Again, context is everything. The "most effective" way to deal with a situation would certainly NOT be to cause pain and alienation, loss of trust, or cruelty, would it? So murder and bats are, I'm afraid, out of the question, for even if I were willing to use them, they would NOT be the most effective way to get what I want.

(I cannot believe this conversation... It's like freaking twilight zone...)