The war between "positive" and "correctional"

BCMixs

corvus

I sure did. I made a split-second decision based on what I perceived to be the quickest and safest way out of the mess. Not just for the dog, but for my hare, who is a lot less forgiving than a dog. Temple Grandin says the worst thing you can do to an animal is make it feel afriad. I wholeheartedly agree with this. So when it came to make a decision on whether Kivi Tarro should be afraid for 10 seconds or my hare should be afraid for as long as it took me to retrain Kivi without fear, I chose cracking down on Kivi. I don't feel very great about putting myself somewhere I had to make that choice, but I do feel good about how I overcame my own aversion to punishment to make the best of a bad situation. So take your judgemental attitude elsewhere. I'm not perfect but no one is and I won't apologise for failing to be perfect. There is a time and place for punishment. It's when you mess up and need to fix it very fast.

 

  I wonder what it's like to be a perfect parent and perfect pet owner who always manages the environment and those creatures in it and never has an event occur that requires a quick and unpleasant response, such as babies putting tongues in plugs (after prying safety plugs loose) or toddling towards a boiling pot.  Must be nice in Perfect Land.  But I'll take the real world anyday. 

Oh no it isn't a perfect land... but more importantly, we are not perfect parents or perfect owners either.  It is that lack which means we require the use of punishment at  times.  We use it in the desperate hope it will patch over our mistakes and not backfire on us.  The more failures on the part of the parent/carer.... the more punishments necessary.  And therefore the higher risk one of them will backfire. 

If I left knives lying around, I would have to punish William for his curiosity when he got too close and attempt to deter him from picking up the next knife he sees lying about.  But if I keep knives out of his reach, we manage with no punishment and he never gets in the habit of touching sharp pointy things.  Perhaps its a poor example, but maybe you see my point

If you (colloquial) are blind to the risks involved in using punishment, you shouldn't be using it at all.  Sadly, those are the very folk who end using it the most... the far thinking and knowledgeable people who can use positive punishment safely and carefully with great awareness, usually succeed in opting out and not using it much if at all, thanks to their forethought, planning, management, etc.  Bit of a catch 22.

When I was almost 5, my mother warned me not to touch the stove. So, I waited until her back was turned and touched it anyway, and got burned. That ended my touching hot stoves career. I learn the hard way and have found the world to be punishing. I got punished for playing in the dirt, I got punished for playing with hot things. These days, I get paid for being in the dirt and handling electricity. Did the punishments work, after all?

It's something I have been thinking about, that punishments sometimes reinforce rather than deter - which means they are not actually punishments at all  When you focus on something, when you draw attention to it.... you make it more likely to continue.  

Case in point, my friend and her 17 mo baby.  SHe puts her in time outs for having tantrums.  (] Result?  The child is having more tantrums... because she is drawing attention to them rather than quickly moving past them on to something else.  She draws it out.

Another case in point - DH punishes Dell if she jumps up.  Does it stop her?  No.  It is very aversive to her and it might stop her in that moment... but it doesn't decrease the beahviour in future.  It INCREASES it.  Catch her BEFORE she jumps and get her to sit? (she has a BEAUTIFULLY trained sit - bum hits the floor in record time no matter WHAT she is doing before she even has time to think about it)  Incidence of jumping decreases.  

Tell a kid NOT to do something.... and you draw attention to it, you spark (get that ron?) their curiosity and make the incidence of that behaviour more likely, not less likely.  If something is "forbidden" it is more appealing.  Case in point - ron2  

 The only way you're going to know if a positive punishment has worked is if it extinguishes the behavior completely.  In my case with Indie, it did.  If he'd continued to tackle me or others from behind in that way, I'd have moved on to something else.  It's not the only approach to jumping I've taken with him, it's the one I used in that moment.  And it only took once, mission accomplished.  In Ron's case, and most others with similar experiences, the hot stove (environment) self-corrects, but for some, it means life-altering injuries or even death from burns.  What's worse?  Third degree burns (or in my case, possible serious injury) or a harsh punishment from a parent?  Should the parent not punish the child in order to protect it because the parent didn't manage the environment or should the parent find a way to teach the child that going near the stove is not something they want to do because of the fear of the consequences from the parent? 

Fear is not some evil thing that is to be avoided at all costs, it's kept us alive for centuries, it keeps society in order, and it has as much a place as reward does.  I don't understand when fear became such a terrible thing.  I've heard lots of people interviewed who've achieved great things in the face of terrible environments such as growing up in poverty.  When asked why they didnt' get involved in drugs or gangs, their answer is invariably "Because my Grandma (Dad, Mom, whoever) would have whooped my a$$ and I was more afraid of Grandma's switch than the gangs!"  Similar to what Corvus said, if your positive deposits in the piggy bank outweigh the negative ones, you're probably on good ground.

FWIW, I was trained in the use of the "dominance down" by the breeders of my terrier.  We built it into his life and I build it into the lives of all my dogs and even my evil cat. What I mean when using that term is different from what another might mean and also different from some of the descriptions I've found on the Internet.  I don't advise anyone to do anything I've shared, I simply share what's worked for me in discussions.  I don't feel a need to exercise parental type supervision or concern for anonymous internet viewers who may or may not be lurking.  If I felt that need I may feel it necessary to warn them not to visit sites with the word whitehouse in them and not to build bombs with instructions they found online or feed their dogs raw meat.  But I think people are generally smart enough to exercise their own brains without needing people from the Internet to protect them or tell them what to do.

ron2

When I was almost 5, my mother warned me not to touch the stove. So, I waited until her back was turned and touched it anyway, and got burned. That ended my touching hot stoves career. I learn the hard way and have found the world to be punishing. I got punished for playing in the dirt, I got punished for playing with hot things. These days, I get paid for being in the dirt and handling electricity. Did the punishments work, after all?

I dunno. You make a habit of touching hot stoves?

Punishment, whether environmentally supplied or intentionally doled out, is feedback. It has it's place. It is easy to overuse or misuse punishment when feeling unsure, but I will never believe that all punishment is evil, all of the time.

Corvus - good on you. I don't think you made a mistake. The nice thing about rarely using punishment is that it makes a big impact when you do. And saving a hare's sanity (and possibly its life) is worth making a Big Impact.

One of the few things I will severely scold Sasha for is aggression towards the cats.  

So, I waited until her back was turned and touched it anyway, and got burned.

You are a man after my own heart.  But please don't read more into that than was intended!  I and my younger son are both the kind of person that if you say, "If you do X, Y will happen" - and we say, "Ah, let's see!"

I'm also the kind of person who gets annoyed when the definitions start getting mushy and then misunderstandings occur as a result of semantic errors or vagueries. 

Punishment: Describes the result of extinguishing behavior.

Positive: A stimulus added.

I use positive punishment quite often in relation to working training.  The context is that I want the behavior to stop now, usually because there's the potential for lethal harm.  Yesterday Ted went into "chase" mode while we were moving sheep through the back yard and ran full tilt into the hitch on my Suburban.  He hit so hard that his right side went numb, apparently, for several seconds.  Punishment by definition is the only thing that extinguishes behavior, and action "gets through" to the brain faster than the more cognitive process involved with the other operant conditioning quadrants. 

If I see something like that coming, I yell.  I wave my stick.  I act very mean.  That's positive punishment.  Or an attempt thereof. 

Okay, but an interesting thing I've noticed, and one that most experienced trainers are aware of.  Positive punishment also has little long term value unless VERY harsh - or else repeated often, precisely timed, and very consistently applied.  Real learning happens much more naturally in the other quadrants.

Back to Ted going into chase mode.  I noted the situation where our communication failed, and revisited it in a safer environment.  He lost control because he got scared the sheep were escaping.  So I set up a couple sheep in front of two open gates, and I showed him he could anticipate their bolting, learning to read the signs that they were trying to set him up and escape.

I used negative punishment (the sheep got away from him when he didn't listen), positive reinforcement (praise when he showed extra courage and greater control when he was right), and negative reinforcement (the sheep relaxed and I shut up when he was right).

Within fifteen minutes the particular behavior that caused the accident was gone, and it appears to be gone for good, as I got confirmation later that day with an "extinction burst" - LOL! - and today I haven't seen it one single time.

Around the house, Zhi had an annoying habit of barking and barking.  Scolding her didn't help.  This was a long time ago, when she was little.  Um, littler.

Then I got this wonderful little pink book about little dogs.  If you raise a hand to a dog Zhi's size (8 pounds), I'm sorry but you have personal problems.  The solution?  Negative punishment.  Zhi barks, I say "Thank you!"  Zhi barks again for no reason, and she gets put on the ground, away from the window (or in the crate if she's barking at something in the house).

Zhi is terrier-persistent, so we still have to revisit this periodically, but usually second barks are half-hearted and with a glance at me.

This has worked for BCs and mixes thereof, Aussies, a Lynnberger, and a Maremma. 

Lynn's gotten full of herself over food.  If she's being a brat, I scold her, but I don't consider that training.  It stops her from bothering the other dog.  It's a sign that her training is not yet complete.  She's learning that she only eats in her "places" at the moment, when I tell her it's okay.  She even does treat-based training in one of her "places."  If she's in her place, I give her a treat.  Positive reinforcement.  At mealtimes or snacktimes, I stand with her bowl until she goes to her place.  Negative reinforcement.  If she tries to eat food other places, it's removed.  Negative punishment.  I do my best to make sure she doesn't get a chance to harrass anyone else eating, until she has the willpower and understanding of her job, to wait her turn.  Management.

When you get more experience training, you start realizing that the tools in the toolbox aren't limited to "physical correction" or "cookies." 

By the way Ron, on that note, don't be hard on yourself.  A famous sheepdog trainer says, "The dogs will teach you, and they are forgiving of mistakes.  When you focus on your mistakes you will not learn, because you are thinking about yourself, not the dog." 

Don't be less forgiving than your dog!

BCMixs

 The only way you're going to know if a positive punishment has worked is if it extinguishes the behavior completely. 

Agreed!  Now,for most dogs and people, you're gonna have to use a punishment that is WAAAAY harsher than the person realises, and I reckon if most pet owners DID realise, they would be keen to abandon the option of P+ pretty much altogether.  Timing also has to be precise. In other words, positive punishment is very difficult to pull off, which is one reason we should all try to avoid it.  ot because it is "evil" or for any other emotionally loaded reason.  But because it has some major practical drawbacks.

To be totally honest, in some cases, I would rather see a harsh punishment used that worked rather than nag the dog,  I await your flaming, 

BCMixs

Fear is not some evil thing that is to be avoided at all costs

Some fear is healthy.  Most people want their dog to be afraid of snakes for example.  But do I want my dog to be scared of ME?  Different question entirely. 

brookcove

Positive punishment also has little long term value unless VERY harsh - or else repeated often, precisely timed, and very consistently applied. 

Sorry Becca - I replied before reading your post... and as always you were far more eloquent than me!

brookcove

If she's being a brat, I scold her, but I don't consider that training.  It stops her from bothering the other dog.  It's a sign that her training is not yet complete.

This is so much more accurate than my description of "failure on thhe part of the human". 

brookcove

By the way Ron, on that note, don't be hard on yourself.  A famous sheepdog trainer says, "The dogs will teach you, and they are forgiving of mistakes.  When you focus on your mistakes you will not learn, because you are thinking about yourself, not the dog." 

Good answer. If I could only train sheepdogs, everything would be alright.

I'm not trying to tick anyone off, it's just a natural talent of mine. And, FWIW, I judge myself more harshly than any of you would care to. The whole idea is to learn from mistakes. I was raised with the notion that some things are beyond redemption, while at the same time all is saved in the blood of an Innocent. I will not allow an innocent to suffer for my sins and I do pay my own billls. And it could be unfair of me to hold others to their words even though it is also done to me ad infinitum.

As for hot stuff, I don't specifically touch hot stoves any more but I have put my hand inside a 3,000 amp energized main switch distribution panel and got pimp slapped from a charge off the neutral.

Is a thing punishing enough? Is it definable as a punishment? I work in a trade where mistakes can be unforgivable and you can die in less than a heartbeat. That is, you can make a mistake and you don't just get hollered at or go to bed without dessert, you die. Have I actually judged Corvus or anyone else or have I caused you to judge yourselves?

Causing the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty has a long precedent. It is still done today. If you take sacrament or are Christian or Protestant of some sort, you are letting an innocent man pay for your sins, mistakes, oversights, lies, etc.

Have I used punishment to attempt stopping a thing when perhaps I could trained something else beforehand? I am most certain of it. And thought I was doing the right thing at the time. And that's not a justification. I may be judged for that at any time.

Chuffy

 

BCMixs

Fear is not some evil thing that is to be avoided at all costs

Some fear is healthy.  Most people want their dog to be afraid of snakes for example.  But do I want my dog to be scared of ME?  Different question entirely. 

The answer for me is that I want the dog to fear ME (or my reaction if you will) when he has taken it into his head that a full body tackle from behind would be a fun thing to do and yes, my timing was darned precise as he was on top of me, it only took me rolling over to get hold of him.  "They" say dogs don't generalize well, but I believe they do generalize some and I've seen no sign of this behavior since that moment towards others either.  That said, he's also received DAILY training in the right way to approach someone because he's going to do therapy work, so that now I've seen him approach people from behind and sit trying to get their attention at the dog park.  

I don't use fear-provoking tactics as a training method, it's a discipline method.  When you screw up bad, you get a big response.  Training for me is teaching them how and why to do things right.  Fear comes in when you do something wrong and usually involves something that if left unchecked would cause substantial physical harm.  Like when I came upon my son sitting and bouncing on his sister's head which he had crushed down into the couch.  Not only couldn't she breathe, her neck was twisted at a severe angle and could have easily paralyzed her for life.  That got a positive punishment!

Causing the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty has a long precedent. It is still done today. If you take sacrament or are Christian or Protestant of some sort, you are letting an innocent man pay for your sins, mistakes, oversights, lies, etc.

That is not analogous.  I can do my best to explain privately why it seems to me that there's a vast difference in the two concepts, if you wish.  The sum of it is that one involves crime while the other involves errors in judgment.  Even in our Western legal system provision is made for differences in these actions.

The point of the sheepdog trainer's comment is that you take your cues from your dog.  Was what you did effective and fair?  The dog will tell you.

If Shadow is showing you some behavior that you feel stems from earlier errors in judgement, take a deep breath, pretend you've never heard of or used P+ in your life, and treat it just as a behavior that needs amelioration.

I get dogs from horrendous training backgrounds here - but it does me no good to emote about it - more importantly it does the dog no good to assume it's a permanent part of the dog's personality.  Regrets aren't of any practical purpose in dog training. 

brookcove

Causing the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty has a long precedent. It is still done today. If you take sacrament or are Christian or Protestant of some sort, you are letting an innocent man pay for your sins, mistakes, oversights, lies, etc.

That is not analogous.  I can do my best to explain privately why it seems to me that there's a vast difference in the two concepts, if you wish.  The sum of it is that one involves crime while the other involves errors in judgment.  Even in our Western legal system provision is made for differences in these actions.

I wouls certainly welcome that. Either pm or email.

brookcove

If Shadow is showing you some behavior that you feel stems from earlier errors in judgement, take a deep breath, pretend you've never heard of or used P+ in your life, and treat it just as a behavior that needs amelioration.

Let's get down to brass tacks, shall we?

It was said before or intimated that there could be a time when Shadow would do something that could drastically alter or, by implication, end Jade's life. Yes, this could happen in spite of the fact that he grew up around cats and a Jack Russell Terrier. This can happen with anything with fangs that can bite. And there's been twice in the last 30 days when he has gone after her, after months and months of nothing. The earlier time he just made lots of noise. The most recent time, he knocked off a bit if fur, though that was probably an accident. But, at the time, it's the sound of an all-out, drag-out "I'm gonna tear your head off and crap down your neck" altercation.

How did I stop it? With "off" which is trained with treats. And yet, at least one will say I am abusing my dog by having trained that with a "basic survival" need, as if hitting him or scruffing him would do any good. And I don't have a truly unique (I mean that honestly) Harlequin Great Dane to handle it for me. And I know I catch you-know-what for that. So be it.

DW handled the second recent disturbance a few days ago. By calling his name. Once he did back off she endeavoured to put him outside, his punishment. But she had to use a treat to get him outside. Is the behavior some part of some long chain that involves scaring the kitty in order to be called off and thereby get a treat? Possibly. The possibility exists at all times that Shadow could have her for lunch, as neither animal is contained and both roam the house, with the exception that Jade is not allowed in our bedroom because of plants in the window that she would knock off.

And if he did injure or kill the cat, what then, is the final outcome? I was not looking to get another cat but DW wanted her. I don't want Shadow punished for being a dog, for being primarily Siberian Husky (I know he doesn't look like Demon from "Snowdogs" or Jack from "8 Below". Big whoopie), a breed long-thought to be prey-driven toward cats. What then? PTS? For being a dog? And I know perhaps some don't quite get what I mean about neurology and personality but suffice it to say that most of what you guys think of as punishments do not work on him. Collar pops do not deter him and on flat collar, he has choked himself and it doesn't stop him as a training method. Scruff and pin do nothing more than hold him momentarily and feel too much like play no matter how much I can re-construct CM's accent. And what about a final outcome? If Shadow where to become unmanagable, attacking even us for interrupting a bit of cat tar-tar, what then? If I couldn't fix it or hire someone to fix it, I will have him euth'd myself. My ultimate responsibility. I am the captain who goes down with the ship. And will be judged and damned for it.

Also, my perspective may be different, as should be evident. I talk more about Shadow than I do about Jade or even my old cat, Misty. I had Shadow before we had Jade.

What's the upshot? Shadow doesn't get free play with Jade. As in, I will call him off every time. Like others, I can't just allow him to accost the other members of the house, I must train as pre-emptively as I can, rather than wait for a problem like a leak in the dam and hope my finger stops it.

ETA: Please excuse any typos. Right now, I have a good excuse. I have one broken finger in a splint and will have to do so for at least 3 weeks.

BCMixs

Chuffy

 

BCMixs

Fear is not some evil thing that is to be avoided at all costs

Some fear is healthy.  Most people want their dog to be afraid of snakes for example.  But do I want my dog to be scared of ME?  Different question entirely. 

 

The answer for me is that I want the dog to fear ME (or my reaction if you will) when he has taken it into his head that a full body tackle from behind would be a fun thing to do and yes, my timing was darned precise as he was on top of me, it only took me rolling over to get hold of him.  "They" say dogs don't generalize well, but I believe they do generalize some and I've seen no sign of this behavior since that moment towards others either.  That said, he's also received DAILY training in the right way to approach someone because he's going to do therapy work, so that now I've seen him approach people from behind and sit trying to get their attention at the dog park.  

I don't use fear-provoking tactics as a training method, it's a discipline method.  When you screw up bad, you get a big response.  Training for me is teaching them how and why to do things right.  Fear comes in when you do something wrong and usually involves something that if left unchecked would cause substantial physical harm.  Like when I came upon my son sitting and bouncing on his sister's head which he had crushed down into the couch.  Not only couldn't she breathe, her neck was twisted at a severe angle and could have easily paralyzed her for life.  That got a positive punishment!

Well, someday when you get to be a better trainer, you won't need the discipline.  Dogs screw up because their humans don't understand how to train them not to.  Simple as that, and once you get the hang of it, you'll wonder at how easy it really is to have a good dog without all the histrionics.  As someone who helped to raise two boys, I can tell you that I was not about to hit kids that were not mine.  But, they always knew that I meant what I said.  I never made empty threats.  If they did what I told them not to do, the privilege that I threatened to withhold was withheld, regardless of how inconvenient it might have been to me or their dad.  No yelling, no hitting, no fear, just respect.  They are both adults now, and doing well - and they do things like come and mow my lawn or paint my living room ceiling, without even being asked.  Had I swatted them around, they would probably have stayed away, given the chance, especially since I am not their mother.  People make empty threats or shall we say, commands, all the time>  Rover, come.  Rover come.  Rover COME DA**IT!!!!  Or, sit, sit, sit, sit, sit SIT (jerks up on leash, pushes dog's butt down).  These are training failures, just as it is a training failure if your child doesn't know that sitting on his sister's head is wrong.  And, that big huge punishment may keep him from sitting on her head in the future, but he may, just as a dog decides not to like you very much, decide to hate his sister.  Doesn't always happen that way, but it's enough reason for me to want to handle things a different way that still works in terms of the behavioral result.  

tessa_s212

Every forum is different. On some forums the word correction is so much of a taboo, you might as well be burned at the steak. This seems to be the general feeling here.

I know exactly what you mean. Fortunately, there is no shortage of venues for the intelligent, civil and respectful discussion of this subject, because it is one of my favorites and I don't discuss it here any more for exactly the observations you made.

There is room in training for many methods and philosophies, and just as in politics and religion, there is no "one true way" that is the best. Just people who think there is. 

Reading this thread literally made me sick to my stomach.
 

FourIsCompany

tessa_s212

Every forum is different. On some forums the word correction is so much of a taboo, you might as well be burned at the steak. This seems to be the general feeling here.

 

I know exactly what you mean. Fortunately, there is no shortage of venues for the intelligent, civil and respectful discussion of this subject, because it is one of my favorites and I don't discuss it here any more for exactly the observations you made.

There is room in training for many methods and philosophies, and just as in politics and religion, there is no "one true way" that is the best. Just people who think there is. 

Reading this thread literally made me sick to my stomach.
 

Actually, I do believe that there are a variety of different training perspectives on this board which have been discussed with intelligence, civility, and respect.  There are always extremes on BOTH sides of any issue and LOTS of people in the middle, but that is what makes it interesting here.  If everyone were on the same page on everything it would be boring and pointless.

What causes discussions to get out of hand is phrases like "burning at the steak," "war between methods," and people describing themselves as "victims" of training methods.  Again, there are no victims, only volunteers.  If someone feels comfortable in their methods and willing to be open to a number of things, then they should have no problem reading the posts of those with strong opinions......