The war between "positive" and "correctional"

I'm sitting here and the weather reports say that we should get the remnants of Faye shortly.  That reminded me of something.

About three years ago, a tropical storm came through and spawned multiple tornadoes in the area.  We had to head for the basement.  I already had crates down there as part of my long term emergency plan, along with supplies for the babies, dog supplies, lights, radio, batteries, etc.

I was alone, and we had about five minutes' warning. I scooted down with the kids, ran up and asked the resident dogs to run down the basement steps.  It was a full story flight with a landing, old-style - open wood and dark.  My oldest guys ran down with no problem as they'd followed me down many times.  Next the rescues and two puppies I had.  I carried Zhi down of course, but Ann was too heavy, and of course the rescues were all adults.  They refused to go down.  I had treats and they still refused.  I called and called but no one would take the first step.

So, full of apologies but with the storm bending and cracking trees outside, I started grabbing collars and dragging them bumpity-bump down the stairs one at a time.  By the bottom, they were walking on their own.

Why did I have to do it that way?  I forgot something in their training.  Later, I went back and retrained those stairs to make them a HAPPY HAPPY place, and we had not one but two more tropical storms come through that season, more trips to the basement, and so I was very glad I'd gone that extra length. 

What has occurred to me is that P+ is something I use if I haven't planned for the tornadoes.  There's nothing ethically wrong, I think, in stopping a disaster from happening.  But, I plan to see any use of it as a signal that there's a hole I didn't see before, and I need to go back a step and address the hole.

I've heard the argument "Dogs punish each other and it doesn't harm them."  Well, that's maybe true, but something has always nagged at me when I heard that.  Now I have put my finger on it.  We've got an advantage over dogs and should use it, I believe.  It's like the raw feeding thing.  Mother Nature may not provide supplements but she also doesn't care whether the dogs live past reproductive age or what quality of life they have.  If you have pets, what's the point of not improving on what life in the wild has to offer? 

brookcove

What has occurred to me is that P+ is something I use if I haven't planned for the tornadoes.  There's nothing ethically wrong, I think, in stopping a disaster from happening.  But, I plan to see any use of it as a signal that there's a hole I didn't see before, and I need to go back a step and address the hole.

Thank you.  That is all I have to say.  

Chuffy

brookcove

What has occurred to me is that P+ is something I use if I haven't planned for the tornadoes.  There's nothing ethically wrong, I think, in stopping a disaster from happening.  But, I plan to see any use of it as a signal that there's a hole I didn't see before, and I need to go back a step and address the hole.

 

Thank you.  That is all I have to say.  

And I agree with you and Becca. That's the most eloquent statement I have seen in a while. I wish I had written that. And I think a lot of us think that way, even if we didn't come up with the words. We have used physical coercion of punishment in the pinch and then later realized that we can pre-emptively train away from that with other behaviors.

When I would scruff and pin Shadow for jumping on guests, it wasn't working, mostly I think, because it was a reinforcer for him because he was used to wrestling for play. Seriously, put on your stern face, grab a handful of fur, and give pressure and watch him lower and roll and grin at you. And when you release, he will go at it again. What a fun game!

Later, by training other behaviors incompatible with jumping on people and using a motivator to train that, I could simply command the desired behavior and not have to use the "punishment" that wasn't a punishment at all.

That's the nearest example of a training hole I could think of that puts a picture in my mind of Brookcove's words. And this is also the aim of such people as Ian Dunbar who has been teaching for as long as most people here have been alive that you have to start training the dog as a small puppy.  Pre-emptively train to avoid the needs of punishment later on. And be careful of what you reinforce. If you don't want the dog jumping on people, do not allow it as a small puppy, no matter how cute. Literally, people have just loved the little puppy jumping on their legs and they go ooh and ahh and pet the dog. The dog gets up to 50 or 60 pounds and can do some damage, even accidentally and now you grab the neck and trip the legs and put them to the ground and give a stern look and talk about leadership. The dog is confused. WTF? This jumping thing was fine before. I would and get to wrestle and sit in the lap and have everyone pet me. Now, I get body slammed?

So, you raise an excellent point, Becca. Bravo!

brookcove

What has occurred to me is that P+ is something I use if I haven't planned for the tornadoes.  There's nothing ethically wrong, I think, in stopping a disaster from happening.  But, I plan to see any use of it as a signal that there's a hole I didn't see before, and I need to go back a step and address the hole.

So this is the canine training equivalent to "fool me once, shame on you..."  Not that the dog is doing the fooling, but that the mistake/oversight is OK the first time, however failing to do anything about it for the next time is....negligent (not the right word I think but you know what I mean) on the part of the owner.

Yup, I'll buy that. :)  Cheers Becca, you've just clarified a bunch of things in my head. 

brookcove

I've heard the argument "Dogs punish each other and it doesn't harm them."

I am in total agreement about your philosophy, but I wanted to address something. Dogs punish each other, but to different degrees. Some dogs are way too punishing and punitive. Some dams are too punitive with their pups.  Even in dogs, there isn't one method for punishment. Whether you are human or canine, excessive punishment is damaging. From watching dogs, the most effective (and respected) dogs are those who remove themselves as punishment rather than lash out. They save the P+ for Certain Uncrossable Lines, but on whole their interactions with other dogs are based on dignity and restraint.  By dignity I mean a certain sense of confidence and benevolence. Stable dogs don't want to use P+, but they will without regrets if the situation calls for it.

The AA example needs to be stretched further. Lack of judgment. Acceptance. Encouragement. Accountability with kindness. We need more of that stuff all around if we want people to change their behaviors with dogs.

- - -

To address the American justice system - well, its broken pretty badly. Prisons eat our government budgets, we have huge numbers of incarcerated citizens, and crime has not gone away. 99% stick, maybe 1% carrot. And people often leave prison worse off, morally and emotionally, than when they went in. No thanks - I won't be using that as an example for how to manage my dogs. Or my child.  

From watching dogs, the most effective (and respected) dogs are those who remove themselves as punishment rather than lash out.

This is so true.  Zhi is part of what got me thinking about more holistic training now a couple of years ago.  She handles dogs with social problems by making being around her desirable, then removing herself when the dog steps over the line.  I've watched her actually fix dogs with fear aggression directed towards dogs, by giving them the tools they need to stop the fear/fight cycle.  But I've gone a step beyond that to thinking of ways to translate what she does into something I can use, and it's worked very well.  Now my quest is trying to fit these methods into current thinking and use the research that's out there, and the experience of better (more advanced) trainers than me, to expand what I've experienced.

It's raining here - yay!  No good for videotaping though.
 

brookcove

She handles dogs with social problems by making being around her desirable, then removing herself when the dog steps over the line. 

The reward of being with her and the neg P of not getting to be with her. It's amazing what dogs can teach you. So, Zhi uses the extinction process, too. I guess that would make her truly a dog trainer, n'est pas?

Read this please!

http://www.tarheelcanine.com/articles/Obedience%20Training/TempermentPetDogTraining.pdf

 Just a hint - you may get  more responses if you open a new thread for this?

I got THIS far:

A dog that is devoid of food drive and play drive is a hard sell for motivational
training.

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how motivational training works; the writer has already lost credibility in my eyes.  I get the distinct feling that this person is just going to try to justify "traditional" methods, while painting rewards training with a broad and inaccurate brush...

Chuffy

 Just a hint - you may get  more responses if you open a new thread for this?

I got THIS far:

A dog that is devoid of food drive and play drive is a hard sell for motivational
training.

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how motivational training works; the writer has already lost credibility in my eyes.  I get the distinct feling that this person is just going to try to justify "traditional" methods, while painting rewards training with a broad and inaccurate brush...

In that case, would you care to clarify how motivational training works, since I, apparently, don't understand it either?  

paperflowers11

Chuffy

 Just a hint - you may get  more responses if you open a new thread for this?

I got THIS far:

A dog that is devoid of food drive and play drive is a hard sell for motivational
training.

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how motivational training works; the writer has already lost credibility in my eyes.  I get the distinct feling that this person is just going to try to justify "traditional" methods, while painting rewards training with a broad and inaccurate brush...

 

 

In that case, would you care to clarify how motivational training works, since I, apparently, don't understand it either?  

A reward is WHATEVER THE DOG WANTS.  In many cases, that is probably going to be toys or food.  But it is not limited to those, although truly the dog who is motivated by neither is a rare specimen.... Virtually ANYTHING can be a reward.

paperflowers11

In that case, would you care to clarify how motivational training works, since I, apparently, don't understand it either?  

How it works?  On this forum the term used to describe motivational training is Conflict Situation Training because of the emotional yo-yo effect of the reward (worse if its food) offerred, given, and withheld.

DPU

paperflowers11

In that case, would you care to clarify how motivational training works, since I, apparently, don't understand it either?  

How it works?  On this forum the term used to describe motivational training is Conflict Situation Training because of the emotional yo-yo effect of the reward (worse if its food) offerred, given, and withheld.

Just to clarify for new people, DPU doesn't speak for everyone "on this forum".  LOL  The term he references is one used, pretty much as far as I can tell, by DPU exclusively.

Motivational training is simply training which fouses on techniques which increase a behavior.   Motivation can also be avoidance, by the way.

In the sense that is referenced above in the quote about play drive and toy drive - we're usually talking about P+ (rewards used to reinforce behavior).

Working dog trainers often use reinforcers within the context of work to reinforce behavior.  SAR dogs, for instance, are highly motivated by "live finds" and during extended recovery efforts often have to take breaks and do staged live finds to keep their spirits up. 

When we are training a difficult behavior on sheep, we have to take breaks and offer the dog work that is easy to do.  Successful use of their instincts is the  most rewarding thing for these dogs - you'll never see a shepherd out with a toy, treats, or clicker. 

brookcove

Just to clarify for new people, DPU doesn't speak for everyone "on this forum".  LOL  The term he references is one used, pretty much as far as I can tell, by DPU exclusively.

You really have a control issue about you, don't you and I totally understand.  Doesn't matter, new ideas and new ways of thinking always brings about opposition.  Food treat trainers have a lot of practice at that.

I found the article somewhat interesting but not all that new.  I did recognize my fosters in a lot of the dogs described.  Yes, I do agree that temperament is a strong consideration to the training approach selected.  When you have fostered and rehabbed as many dogs as I, it becomes a natural conclusion.

If Hes good enough to host Seminars at NASA Headquarters and on forensic science, you out to read it through before you judge.

Seeing his accomplishment in training I'd have to say theory is theory, but prove it.