I don't understand why...

mudpuppy

I'm not sure what "ah ah" means to your dogs. It sounds like it could be cue not a correction. Difference being cues are information/instructions/communications  and corrections are motivation-to-never-do-THAT-again.

This is what I find frustrating, because "correction" means so many different things to different folks.  Mudpuppy; what you describe above is a punishment as far as I am concerned.... something which decreases behaviour. 

PERSONALLY, I see a correction as information.  If a puppy is mouthing your hand and you gently redirect onto a suitable chewtoy, thats a "correction" in my book; you have corrected his action.  "Not that - THIS".  Like a teacher might cross out a word and write the correct spelling in red ink.  It is not necessarily a punishment or negative experience for the dog.

DPU

I picture the dog owner lurking in the dark, peeping around a corner, watching, and when the event happens-giggling.   Trickery, deception at its worst that no dog should be exposed to.  

That explains a lot... no wonder you despise us all so very much. 

 For the purposes of clarifying my own posts in this thread:

To ME, because this usage helps me to think about/organise the way I train, a correction is anything that stops an unwanted behaviour, a cue is anything that starts a wanted one.  In neither of those categories are all examples delivered by me - Ben can be cued or corrected by the environment or by other dogs.  However, I don't see the corrections I give as being negative, as has been said they are simply information.  Saying "leave it" to Ben when he starts towards something he should not have is no different to saying "stop that please" to my DH if he starts tickling me while I'm doing the washing up.  DH doesn't walk away with the feeling that I am angry at him, he does not lose his trust in me..it's just information.  And yes I am aware of the differences between humans and dogs, but in this instance the comparison is apt within the human/dog dynamic in my house. 

DPU

Trickery, deception at its worst that no dog should be exposed to.   I am sure the dogs know the owner is behind it and there goes the trust.

*shrug* I suppose that really depends on one's personal worldview and interpretation of "trust".  My dog trusts me to keep him out of trouble by whatever means necessary as much as is humanly possible.  If that means setting up an environmental correction, so be it.  It's been a very very long time since I have had to do that.  I don't believe that a dog trusting a human means that the human has to kowtow to the dog so that the dog trusts because it gets whatever it wants, but then I believe the dog has to fit into MY life, not the other way around.  I realise that not everyone would agree with that.  

Benedict

To ME, because this usage helps me to think about/organise the way I train, a correction is anything that stops an unwanted behaviour, a cue is anything that starts a wanted one. 

I think thats a good definition.  A correction COULD be a "positive punishment" (something presented which decreases the behaviour), but it could also be a cue to stop, or a recall, or gently leading the dog away from whatever it is he is doing or simply giving the dog something to do instead, like sitting or going to his "place" (his bed or crate for example).

Chuffy

A correction COULD be a "positive punishment" (something presented which decreases the behaviour), but it could also be a cue to stop, or a recall, or gently leading the dog away from whatever it is he is doing or simply giving the dog something to do instead, like sitting or going to his "place" (his bed or crate for example).

Absolutely, and on any given day some or all of those very examples might occur in my house, or outside it.  Sometimes a correction (by my definition) just is what it is...it's information for Ben to "stop that, go do something else".  This is particularly the case when we're out on a walk, and since I view walk time as Ben-time I am not inclined to give any more commands than strictly necessary to keep him safe.  So if we're hiking and he goes to sniff a dead bird carcass, I say "leave it".  Under my definition, that's a correction, it stops the unwanted behaviour.  I don't tell him what to do instead, though, I let him choose.  If he again chooses something inappropriate the process repeats.  Here's the thing, though:  if I am to have any confidence whatsoever in my own ability to train my dog, I HAVE to allow Ben to make choices for himself so that I can evaluate further training steps on the basis of how appropriate his choices are.  He doesn't always make good ones, he's a dog and he's ruled by his nose for one thing, but a lot of the time he makes good ones and I don't need to step in at all.  This is my very distanced approach to training, I step in where necessary to either lay ground rules (when he was a puppy, basic training and ongoing offshoots of that) or to prevent/distract/correct where there is a collision between what I think is the wrong thing to do, but he thinks is right.  

ETA:  IMHO, this "minimalist" approach which is even now still forming in my head and will no doubt be further refined by Ben and future dogs, does have one distinct advantage:  when I open my mouth to give a command, he knows I mean it.  I talk to him all day like a crazy person, but my "command tone" is distinct and since I don't micromanage every second of his day with commands (and I have witnessed owners that do and I really dislike that) he knows that when he hears that tone I am not commanding him for the sake of it.  It means something, and he trusts me to keep him safe, to show him what is right.

Hmmm... would just like to add though, that there are right ways and wrong ways to give a correction in my opnion.  I think to constantly give the dog a "no" signal is unfair and unkind.  Very little correction should be necessary as it is up to the human to set the dog up for success.  Also, if the dog DOES go wrong, then you need to wind it down a notch and make it even easier for him to succeed if possible.   And as often as physically possible, there should be an opening for the dog to do the RIGHT thing which he can then be reinforced for.

Chuffy

Hmmm... would just like to add though, that there are right ways and wrong ways to give a correction in my opnion.  I think to constantly give the dog a "no" signal is unfair and unkind.  Very little correction should be necessary as it is up to the human to set the dog up for success.  Also, if the dog DOES go wrong, then you need to wind it down a notch and make it even easier for him to succeed if possible.   And as often as physically possible, there should be an opening for the dog to do the RIGHT thing which he can then be reinforced for.

Again agreed, but the personality of the dog often comes into play here.  For Ben, reinforcement when on a walk comes from simply being allowed to continue.  It's when he's happiest.  So a "no" signal from me (a "leave it";) followed by Ben redirecting himself and having his ball thrown again, or being allowed to chuck himself into the river...that IS what reinforces him.  Praise from both me and the environment.  It's also very rare that I need to correct him at all, when out on a walk.  Inside the house things are a little more structured out of necessity. 

ETA again (I need another cup of tea):  I'm perhaps not being clear, in that I don't just open my mouth to speak to Ben when I need to correct or redirect, I'm simply saying that there is a distinction for us between commands and ordinary interaction.  Praise for doing the right thing happens very often, in forms that Ben understands, but I am not a "do this, now do that, now do that other thing" kind of trainer.  I allow Ben to make a lot of his own decisions where safe to do so and then I respond appropriately to those, either by praise "yes you made the right decision there, feel confident in making that same decision next time" or by redirecting/correcting "don't do that next time". 

And would also like to add that, because I think the dog should be given an opening to do the right theing and then reinforced whenever possible, it is even more important to set the dog up to succeed in the first place.... a lot of smart dogs know that if they jump up for example, they will get your attention.... and you will tell them to "sit" and then pet them.

I'm not a "do this don't do that" person either, but at the same time I think it is more beneficial to prevent the dog from making a poor choice if possible.... especially with self-rewarding behaviours. 

Chuffy

And would also like to add that, because I think the dog should be given an opening to do the right theing and then reinforced whenever possible, it is even more important to set the dog up to succeed in the first place.... a lot of smart dogs know that if they jump up for example, they will get your attention.... and you will tell them to "sit" and then pet them.

I'm not a "do this don't do that" person either, but at the same time I think it is more beneficial to prevent the dog from making a poor choice if possible.... especially with self-rewarding behaviours. 

Again no argument from me LOL.  I think I am just not expressing myself very well today, I'll have a think on it and maybe try again later.  

 I feel like I am stating the obvious here, but I am just trying to express that a correction is not always "punishment", it's not always evil or abusive.... there's a right way and a wrong way.

Most people over use them IMO though, in that I am in agreement with the OP. 

spiritdogs

 ...the first question that many people ask is "How do I correct (name the bad behavior).  Or, how do I stop my dog from (name the bad behavior).

One of the best group dog training classes I attended is where the instructor asked the participants to describe any dog behavior problems they are experiencing.  She did it by asking us to fill out the form at the beginning of the class.  At the end of class, the instructor collected the forms.  At the beginning of the next class, the instructor handed out written instructions on techniques to address the individual's dog behavior problems.  She gave the dog owner choices and included choices that were outside of the instructor's beliefs.

This may help you cope with your frustrations.  And, by the way, I don't think it is "many".  I think if you examine your total exposure to particpants in the class, there are only a few that may pose this question.  I think because the questions cause frustration, you exaggerate the occurrences when in fact it may be in the minority.

DPU

[Trickery, deception at its worst that no dog should be exposed to.   I am sure the dogs know the owner is behind it and there goes the trust.

Meh--I doubt that.  Horses, which are actually more intelligent that dogs, are exposed to environmental corrections all the time in the form of electric fences.  The horses can watch people install the fence, get zapped, and still have no issues dealing with the humans that care for them.  I've been outside the paddock when horses have gotten zapped (filling a water trough or something) and none of these horses seemed to connect the zap in any way to the people.  In their minds, the fence is a biting fence, so it is just best not to touch it.  And horses are prey animals--they remember things that have frightened them or caused them discomfort because in wild their survival depends on it.  If they thought that a human was behind the zapping, it is doubtful that this would be a fact that they would ignore.

 OK I have sorted out my thoughts on this.  The following is, of course, JMHO.

I have no issue whatsoever with issuing corrections as I defined them several posts ago.  To repeat:  a correction is anything that stops an unwanted behaviour, a cue is anything that starts a wanted one.  Sometimes those 2 go hand in hand, sometimes they are separate.

HOWEVER, the above finds its validity within the larger concept of it being necessary, to me, that all interactions with my dog must have meaning.  Of course, they are all going to have meaning for him (you get what you reinforce) so the challenge is for me to arrange everything so that the meaning he absorbs is the meaning I want him to have.  As I type this, Ben is snoring on my feet.  No interaction there, right?  Wrong.  He is comfortable, he trusts me, he knows I am not going to make any sudden movements or decide to kick him in the head.  There is a base level of understanding between the two of us.  In this instance I am not setting him up to succeed, there is just simply no chance of failure, but if I need to move and ask him to get off my feet, the meaning is clear that he has to do that.

I try not to be a nagging dog owner in the same way I try not to be a nagging wife.  It is more my style to observe the choices that are made and determine the best way to a) reinforce those choices when Ben has made the right one or b) eradicate the notion in his pretty little head that the choice he made was ok, when it wasn't.  It's a bit like grand-scale clicker training.  He offers behaviours every second and 90% of them are "white noise behaviours".  Neither here nor there, they neither matter nor don't, they just are the middle 90% of a spectrum, and at one end are 5% of behaviours I really do want and at the other are behaviours I really don't.  It's my job to make sure he understands where any given behaviour falls on that spectrum, in a way that means something to him, but it his job to offer behaviours.  I want and need to watch him make those choices because those are what send ME signals about what he needs to be learning.  Very, very often, and especially in the case of these "white noise behaviours", the reward of doing something right is not to be interrupted to be told he's doing something right, but simply to be allowed to continue.  He doesn't need his concentration - or simply his fun - broken to be told he's doing the right thing, the lack of pressure from me and the environment tells him that.  He needs his concentration and fun broken when he's doing something wrong, as soon as he stops the pressure ceases. 

Active training is a different story, because I am requiring constant action/obedience, so in turn he gets constant information and is always set up to succeed.  Not an awful lot of that is really necessary in our house these days, and his reward for not needing to be micromanaged is....me not micromanaging him.  Basically everything I use my "command voice" for these days relates to Ben's safety, like a "sit!" so he's not in my face while I'm getting something out of a hot oven.  Other forms of communication, such as praise from me or the environment for doing the right thing, normal Kate-is-a-crazy person chatter and active playing between myself and Ben all have a different dynamic than commands and those take up so much of his waking hours that making a bad choice is very rarely as exciting as making a good one.  It wasn't always like this, but he is now 99% of the dog I have been working towards for 2 years, and this philosophy, in progressive stages of development, is how I got there. 

Well, here's my thoughts. I mostly agree with Spiritdogs. Most anytime I have had a problem with Shadow it was due to lack of training, either from his former owners or myself. I have a magical secret I have learned from reading her posts in how to have your dog deal with any "new" situation that you haven't thought of. It's called "watch me." If you can't get the dog to divert attention on to you in any situation, you haven't completed training and no amount of collar yanking will accomplish that. You accomplish that by being worth more attention than whatever else is out there. I know that's going to hurt some feelings out there and I can't help that. Sorry about your luck.

And I don't think Spiritdogs was trying to insult anyone here but it's been all too easy lately to take umbrage and find offense. Maybe it's the summer heat. I wish someone could tell a blonde joke so that I could be offended. I think she was actually talking about people she has met in person in her classes. So, unless you live in Mass. and go to her place of business, it is doubtful she is talking about you.

And her points are valid. And scientific. For an organism doesn't learn by punishment but by reinforcement. Punishment or correction merely stops something. Avoiding the agitation is neg R and behaving for the reward is pos R. An organism learns be reinforcement, period, paragraph, and new book. And I know that will hurt some feelings, too. And punishment or correction doesn't always stop what it is supposed to stop.

Now, let the "beatings" continue.