How do you tell if something is too punishing?

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?

Well, I've always considered it a distractor--I'm just trying to get her to refocus herself and walk without making a scene--and not a punishment.  But, apparently, it is a punishment based on what I'm learning here. 

Since being involved in these threads recently and learning what I'm learning, I find myself noticing the different interactions I have with the dogs during the day. I'll say to myself, "Now that was a conditioned punisher, because if she doesn't comply, there will be further punishment action, but if she does, there will be praise." I seem to have an inner dialog going on. I think it's good, in a way, because it makes me more aware of how much and what kind of response the dogs are getting from me. But I don't think I would want to be that conscious all the time of the specific effect of every single action. That seems too "manufactured" for the organic relationship I like to have with them. It's interesting, that's for sure.

FourIsCompany

I think it's good, in a way, because it makes me more aware of how much and what kind of response the dogs are getting from me. But I don't think I would want to be that conscious all the time of the specific effect of every single action. That seems too "manufactured" for the organic relationship I like to have with them. It's interesting, that's for sure.

I think it's likely because a lot of this is new to you, and as you become more and more familiar with the terminology, the "inner voice" will eventually go away too. *G* Kind of like how when you learn to drive, you're conscious of every little thing you need to do, and all movements are very carefully done. Now I'm sure (if you drive) that you think very little about most things that you do, and even often can "zone out" while driving. The same thing can happen here, though, and it did with me in the beginning too. Believe me, I don't spend much time at all thinking "reinforcer" or "punisher"....I just do it *G*. The only time I think about it is if I have a specific issue I might not have addressed before, and then I sit back and plan it out a little and think about what is reinforcing and what is not. Other than that I likely think of those terms very very little!

FourIsCompany

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...) 

Well, perhaps if you simply saw the humor in the "murder" statement (jeez, I even used a smiley), and weren't always so defensive, you would have taken my post pretty much as corgipower did.  "We" refers to the colloquial we, not to anyone in particular.  But, then, you knew that, I suspect.  If this conversation is in the twilight zone, freaking or not, it is you who put it there.  The rest of us were having a discussion on the topic at hand.  Funny, you embolden your font on the word "effective" and think that no one notices the emphasis...

You don't always have to punish a behavior to extinguish it.  You can cease to reinforce it, or remove a reinforcer, or you can train an alternative behavior that is incompatible with the behavior you don't want the dog to exhibit.  Or, yes, you can punish it - the question is how, and whether you risk creating a problem that is worse than the problem behavior.  Example - countersurfing.  You can elect to booby trap the counter, which might, instead of just teaching the dog not to countersurf, make him afraid to even go into the kitchen (pretty unproductive, if the door to the potty area is in the kitchen).  Or, you can elect to clear your countertops so that there is never anything up there that reinforces the dog for sniffing around.  Or, you can train the dog that when he is in the kitchen, he is on his mat.  Personally, I prefer the latter two choices.  But, since most people don't start preventive training early enough, they usually resort to the first.  If it works, and they can live with it, fine.  But, it's always helpful to understand that there are sometimes unintended consequences to punishment, and, like reinforcement, it is often the dog that determines what constitutes punishment.  An example of that is the person who, when the dog jumps up, yells "off" in a loud voice, or pushes the dog off.  The person might consider that a punishment, but the dog might actually consider it a reinforcement (ha, got your attention, says the dog).  So, he continues to jump up and the ignorant human can't figure out why. 

spiritdogs

Well, perhaps if you simply saw the humor in the "murder" statement (jeez, I even used a smiley)

Riiiight!   The old "I was just kidding" defense... In that case, I used a smiley, too, so it's all in jest! I LOVE jokes about murder.

spiritdogs

Funny, you embolden your font on the word "effective" and think that no one notices the emphasis...

I think no such thing. I do hope they'll read more than the one word I highlight, however, and take it in context.  

I don't know who the rest of your post is addressed to, but it doesn't apply to me.   

Kim_MacMillan

Now I'm sure (if you drive) that you think very little about most things that you do, and even often can "zone out" while driving. The same thing can happen here, though, and it did with me in the beginning too. Believe me, I don't spend much time at all thinking "reinforcer" or "punisher"....I just do it *G*. The only time I think about it is if I have a specific issue I might not have addressed before, and then I sit back and plan it out a little and think about what is reinforcing and what is not.

Kim, I actually hope I do zone out again. I like the way things are and since I'm finding out that I actually do VERY little punishing (I can't remember the last time I did it) I don't see any need to change anything. My dogs are extremely well-behaved and most of what I do with them is reinforcing what they do, I don't see any need NOT to zone out and just be me. The only time I want to think about it is when there's a problem. Then I want to get conscious about how I address it.

You know, I've been harping on forever about never punishing that hare of mine, but I'm beginning to suspect I routinely punish him more than I do any other animal in the house. He's so jumpy that walking past him often puts you within his comfort zone, so he gets up and moves away. When I've used "oi!" with him, I've taught him that means I'm going to get up and get into his comfort zone, and he doesn't want that, so he moves before I do (unless he wants me to chase him, which doesn't happen much now that he's older).

With an animal so touchy about his personal space, I think that getting too close can be a punishment. Not all the time, but often. However, I've noticed with him that he's VERY resilient with stress. Walking past him too close might induce a moment of stress that causes him to hop away from you, or maybe just to crouch low and make like a clump of grass, but the very moment you're out of his comfort zone, he relaxes and carries on as if nothing happened. I always thought an animal like a hare must be able to shoot from calm to adrenaline melt-down in less than a second, but then they must be able to come back down to calm just as quickly, otherwise they'd all die of stress at a very young age.

So, the point I'm getting at, is that resilience to punishment is another thing that might come into your assessment of whether a punishment is too punishing. It's a natural state for Kit to want to keep people out of his comfort zone, and he will try to avoid being uncomfortably close to people. It seems like it must be a punishment if he works to avoid it, even if doesn't always, but at the same time, it is a natural state and as such, I think he has inborn mechanisms to cope with it quite well. Sometimes I watch him still his own compulsion to put space between us, which I think is quite fascinating. You can see him about to get up and move, then stop and think for a moment and decide instead to just wait until the person has passed. So is the action less punishing than his behaviour indicates, or is he actively overcoming the punishment, or was it punishing at all in the first place? Perhaps he's just running on instinct about his comfort zone and because he's a creature that would naturally react to an encroachment on his comfort zone several times a day, it's actually not something that usually comes into the OC quadrant for him?

FourIsCompany

"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."

Someone else went through the same thought process you are talking about and was told they were overanalyzing. FWIW, I think you have a good though process.

FourIsCompany

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.

Those are both effective punishments. They stop future recurrence of whatever behavior is to be stopped. The point of bringing it up, I think, is to ask where does it stop? What is too punishing? And correlative, if punishments, even ever increasing punishments, are not working, shouldn't another method be employed? And if that other method could be employed effectively, why bother with the punishments. I read a neat little quip from a known trainer. It was the requirements of using a shock collar. By the way, the technical term for a shock to a living organism is electrocution. Anyway, it goes like this.

To properly use a shock collar, you must have:

A clear understanding of Learning Theory. A clear understanding of dog behavior and signals. A clear understanding of the function of the collar and the physiological and psychological effects of its use. If you have those 3 things, you don't need a shock collar.

I apply that viewpoint to +P and -R, both of which require an aversive stimulus.

I have gone to the extreme by bringing what Frawley would do in extreme cases. In some cases, what he does is, imo, too punishing.

For others, scruff and pin is too punishing, at least from the human viewpoint. Poking and kicking the dog, ala CM, is considered too punishing by some. By kicking, I don't mean a 30 yard field goal attempt, but the kick is there. His idea of a tap.

Might the dog define what is too punishing? Nowadays, we define housetraining by shoving a dog's nose in it as either ineffective, or inhumane, which might carry the connotation of being too punishing.

ron2

Might the dog define what is too punishing?

corgipower

Yes and no. Something that is too punishing for a softer dog might go unnoticed by a hard dog. However, dogs can also be quite stoic and adaptable, and just because a dog doesn't cringe and cower, that doesn't necessarily mean that the punishment wasn't too much

Absolutely excellent point, and succinct, as well.

OK, I have a question for anyone. 

Today, I bought some special treats, junky yummy stuff that she never gets.  I couldn't help it I flipped out when I saw 50 calorie packs for dogs! 

Anyway, I asked for a command (that she knows very well).  I didn't get the command for whatever reason.  So, I put the treat away.  No treat for her, she blew it.

Was that punishment?

willowchow

OK, I have a question for anyone. 

Today, I bought some special treats, junky yummy stuff that she never gets.  I couldn't help it I flipped out when I saw 50 calorie packs for dogs! 

Anyway, I asked for a command (that she knows very well).  I didn't get the command for whatever reason.  So, I put the treat away.  No treat for her, she blew it.

Was that punishment?

willowchow

Anyway, I asked for a command (that she knows very well).  I didn't get the command for whatever reason.  So, I put the treat away.  No treat for her, she blew it.

Was that punishment?

IMHO, it sounded like a non-event. Evidently, the treats didn't interest her, at least at this time. But it wasn't +P. At most, from a perspective, it could be -P for non-compliance, at least in the mind of a human. But in the mind of Willow, it may have been nothing at all.

For info--she definately wanted the treat. 

I wouldn't say it was P-, unless the result is a decrease in ignoring commands. That is one of the tricky, tricky things about OC terms.  The results define the terms.

But, you might be able to describe an increase in Willow's knowledge, which would fall under the auspices of social learning theory. Social learning theory works with increases in knowledge, whether or not that knowledge changes behavior.

willowchow

For info--she definately wanted the treat. 

I'm baffled, then. How did you know she wanted the treat? And did she know the command? She may have done it before but did she know now? That is, there may have been another primary condition of the command in the past and if she didn't see that thing as part of the cue this time then the command didn't make sense. Or, she is simply deciding not to listen, in spite of a treat she wanted. Then putting the treat away, at least from the human perspective, was -P for non-compliance. What else did she do?

There are times when Shadow won't take a treat. And it has to do with the context of the situation. So, I will change one condition of the situation, such as increasing distance from the other stimulus, until I have his attention enough for him to want a treat. Done enough times in various situations, part of his repertoire includes a greater tendency to listen to me.