For Spiritdogs- a late night thought

brookcove

but I was writing a response in the "wars" thread and thought this:  that positive punishment is always a response to a failure - either to manage, to communicate properly, or a breakdown in the learning process....

...When we are forced to step in with a stimulus to extinguish behavior, our response should immediately be, how can we change this so that we don't have to repeat that?

Up to now I've let small corrections slip by without thought, but it makes me realize now, that every positive punishment should be a message to me that I've got to back up, evaluate, listen to the dog, and plan a new strategy... 

I would not use the words "failure" and "always".  In managing a behavior, it is given that a mistaken by the human will be made, thats the nature of managing.  If the situation is dangerous, the only human response is punishment to immediately stop what's going on.  I had two 80lbs dogs start fighting in my car while I was driving the expressway, I had two males start fighting over a female in season, I had DA foster tackle and attack another foster....these examples are unexpected and I found that an extreme emotional response by me (not physical) was enough to stop the behavior.  In such cases my response/reaction does not have intention of extinquishing similar future behavior.  Thats the "immediate" response and my afterthought is to examine and try to determine the root cause of the exhibited behavior and not do behavior modification techniques for what I see on the surface.

Many training facilities use reward/punishment base training to get desired behavior and also teaching language.  To me, on the surface, the reward/correction is a consequence to the behavior or non behavior offered.  But since the reward/correction are opposing, the emotions connected with the consequence strengthens the opposing emotion, ie pleasure versus displeasure.  The dog's willingness to offer the correct behavior may be because of the reward or avoidance of punishment, only the dog knows.  To me again, this conflict is how the dog learns and it does not matter if the correction is a leash pop or a "no" or the reward is food, toy, or affection, this opposition is present in both traditional and reward-only base training. 

Having fosters that come to me with emotional baggage has taught me to be keenly aware of how the dog copes with stress.  This is why I search for alternatives to the traditional and reward-base training methods, where both uses conflicts in order to train.

Excellent post, Becca.

And like others, not only do I see punishment as a judgement of myself, but also, how effective is it? And just to be fair to statistics, there might be a dog that responds better to what we call punishment than other dogs though I would debate whether it was actually a punishment to the dog. Truly, a dog defines what is punishment or reward, even though that might irk some other humans.

You know, Ed (Xerxes) sent me this clip this morning, and I was going to post it somewhere else, but I think maybe it belongs here.  When you adopt a philosophy of scrutinizing your own behavior before assuming the dog is at fault, you become a better trainer, just as you become a better rider when "it's never the horse, always the rider".  DPU has part of the equation correct when he assumes that dogs have needs and wants - but the skillful trainer will know when to use environmental rewards, and will not assume that the withdrawal of them is not just as powerful as that prong collar would have been, but without the pain.  Just as you would not give in to a petulant child, you need not give in to a petulant dog, but "not giving in" does not have to mean that you use physical punishment, or that you frighten the dog.  Establishing a NRM (no reward marker) can tell the dog that he has not performed the required behavior.  Whenever possible, a good trainer does that instead of letting the dog get into a situation that's over his head.  I find that the hardest part about training is getting the people to realize that a dog isn't born knowing what they want, and it takes time to teach them.  You wouldn't expect a three year old to do algebra, but he might be able to get a good foundation by learning to add 2+2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOW0IKO_zfM 

spiritdogs

DPU has part of the equation correct when he assumes that dogs have needs and wants - but the skillful trainer will know when to use environmental rewards, and will not assume that the withdrawal of them is not just as powerful as that prong collar would have been, but without the pain. 

My equation is complete.  Satisfy the NEEDS that controls urgency of WANTS that results in no unacceptable BEHAVIOR.  If I am reading the above statement correctly, the "skillful trainer" is working backwards where there is so much risk of other behavior problems occurring.

My newest foster had a jumping on people problem.  My guess was the dog was deprived of needed attention/affection in the past.  To stop the dog from jumping on me, I stooped to the dog's level, the dog sat, and I gave the dog a lot of attention.  This was my standard ritual when arriving home from work.  If the dog would approach me at any time and it looked like the dog wanted my attention, I gave the dog what it wanted, stooped and then gave affection.  Jumping on me immediately stopped because since I stooped the dog had no reason to jump.  In this process, which took a very short time, the dog learned a new way of greeting and that greeting was much more enjoyable and lasted longer.   Temporary accomodations to the dogs do wonders and I have the patience and the willingness to do this.

When I took this dog to the foster dog showing at Petsmart where she would meet a lot of new people.....there was no jumping, she nicely sat before people with her tail going 90mph.  There was one guy (and there is always is one) that approached Asia and the guy patted his hips signaling for the dog to jump up.  Asia just sat there wagging her tail.  I was so proud of her I ran up and gave her a big hug and pets galore.

Now contrast this way with how the Danes handle it.  The Danes are tall and Asia jumps up on them with her paws raised high.  The Danes sound a warning and when the behavior continues, Asia gets a headbutt.  At first their method seem to be working but it has now turned to being part of play with Asia.  I know the Danes' action is going to escalate and I am interested to see how much force the Danes have to apply to effectively stop this jumping behavior.  For this particular behavior, I think the Danes can only use force, but they have surprised me in the past, so I have to wait and watch. 

Now contast these two ways with Ian Dunbar approach.  Before the jumping starts take the dog out of the context of the dog's WANT and give a "MAKE THE DOG" command by telling the dog to 'sit'.  The dog still wants to greet but is roadblocked from naturally expressing its emotions by a conflict.  I see problems down the road with this approach. 

*sigh* I guess I'll always have a problem when the use of +P is labeled as "bad" or a "failure" by human morality and ego, when it is simply one of the four quadrants of OC.

Science is still science.

brookcove

I think I realized what you were saying in that other thread.  Not to punish the expired equine (ha, "punish," get it?) - but I was writing a response in the "wars" thread and thought this:  that positive punishment is always a response to a failure - either to manage, to communicate properly, or a breakdown in the learning process.

With a slight tweaking, I agree. I don't agree that P+ indicates a failure. I do believe it indicates a point of weakness behaviorally, and one that is usually best addressed through fiddling with the set up.

"Failure" suggests something regrettable, and I don't think the use of P+ is automatically something to regret. Nor does P+ need to be avoided at all costs.

every positive punishment should be a message to me that I've got to back up, evaluate, listen to the dog, and plan a new strategy.

Yes!  

spiritdogs

"it's never the horse, always the rider". 

 In agility training, the same idea always applies.  When you are running a dog and the dog does not do the "right thing" it is always the handlers fault.  You should hear the debates on agility lists as to whether it can ever be the dogs fault.  For example, if your dog does not hold a sit or down on the table even though the dog has always held on the table before.  Is the dog "blowing off" the handler, or is it a matter of proofing?

Luckily, almost all agility training and trainers are completely positive reinforcement trainers, since  a trainer does not want to de-motivate  the dog with any negatives.  The worst that typically happens to a dog is that it is removed from the course.  A lot of time is spent by the handler trying to figure out how to handle the dog so that it does not make mistakes.  And if the dog does the "wrong" thing, then the handler has to figure out how they misdirected the dog.
 

Angelique

*sigh* I guess I'll always have a problem when the use of +P is labeled as "bad" or a "failure" by human morality and ego, when it is simply one of the four quadrants of OC.

Science is still science.

That's true - science is still science.  But, we shouldn't forget that science is merely the explanation of phenomena, and does not speak to the morality of its applications.  +P works, but often because it causes pain, fear, or consternation.  My philosophy is that if you can get the same result by using the other three quadrants, why would you resort to those?  Sure, it's just science, but if you could ask that dog that has just been corrected by that e-collar whether he would have preferred to have been taught a proper recall by getting a few treats and staying on his leash a bit longer...well, my guess is that he would opt for roast beef and a thirty foot training lead.

spiritdogs

Sure, it's just science, but if you could ask that dog that has just been corrected by that e-collar whether he would have preferred to have been taught a proper recall by getting a few treats and staying on his leash a bit longer...well, my guess is that he would opt for roast beef and a thirty foot training lead.

Actually I think the dog would preferred no Conflict Choices at all and go with the Needs Training method defined by the belongingness want behavior.  A dog will naturally will come to its caretaker and when that happens the human should use that opportunity to reinforce the recall.  This is what I would consider Pure Positive Training.

DPU

Satisfy the NEEDS that controls urgency of WANTS that results in no unacceptable BEHAVIOR.  If I am reading the above statement correctly, the "skillful trainer" is working backwards where there is so much risk of other behavior problems occurring

I'm not sure if I can agree with this.

In another thread, I have pointed out that twice in recent memory Shadow has gone after Jade in a "rough" tone. It could be play, it may not be play. So, rather than assume he is wrong, what have I done differently? Well, the training has mostly trailed off. We don't train as heaily as we used to train. I haven't carried or pulled out the clicker in months. And lately, I'll mix the little training treats in with his food. No witholding of the "need" for food, high value treat or not. Has he now decided that he can do what he wants because it doesn't require anything of him to get whatever?

As for punishing him, how much would he view me as another dog who could headbutt him? When he was young, he was eager to follow Duke, the JRT. Duke could never physically dominate him and a headbutt from Duke would tickle Shadow's lower leg. Duke could lead because Shadow would follow and Duke knew where the good stuff was. Duke led without ever once being able to physically overpower Shadow.

ron2

DPU

Satisfy the NEEDS that controls urgency of WANTS that results in no unacceptable BEHAVIOR.  If I am reading the above statement correctly, the "skillful trainer" is working backwards where there is so much risk of other behavior problems occurring

I'm not sure if I can agree with this.

Sure, I can see this.  I start from scratch with every new dog, starting with the lowest basic needs and work up the ladder, trying never to jump ahead or intermingle a low level survival need with a high level social need.

DPU

spiritdogs

Sure, it's just science, but if you could ask that dog that has just been corrected by that e-collar whether he would have preferred to have been taught a proper recall by getting a few treats and staying on his leash a bit longer...well, my guess is that he would opt for roast beef and a thirty foot training lead.

Actually I think the dog would preferred no Conflict Choices at all and go with the Needs Training method defined by the belongingness want behavior.  A dog will naturally will come to its caretaker and when that happens the human should use that opportunity to reinforce the recall.  This is what I would consider Pure Positive Training.

A lot of dogs will naturally gravitate to their caretakers, but what's your answer for the ones that don't?  Allow me to sign you up for Bulldog or Afghan Hound rescue.  No hate mail please - I know there are some wonderfully obedient members of those breeds, but admittedly more humans have trouble with them than with Border Collies on the "I love to be obedient" rating scale.

Two words - Premack Principle 

admittedly more humans have trouble with them than with Border Collies on the "I love to be obedient" rating scale.

And I can't tell you how many times we talk to BC owners who are shocked and floored when their previously perfectly trained, perfectly proofed (and completely happy, DPU) BC, dashes pell-mell through a car or house window on some previously unsuspected whim (be it squirrel hunting, or chasing a passing horse, or bike, or running from a loud noise).

I think I'm having trouble getting my head around DPU's system because the dogs I deal with get notions that are to dangerous to simply allow - and those are the ones that are primary in their heads.  The rankings of needs you mention are from a human perspective.  You for your pack have decided that X is primary, Y is secondary, and so on.  It's true a lot of times, but many dogs I deal with are here because their priorities are screwed up  - not because of anything people have done, but because it's the way they are put together mentally.

I just heard about a dog I placed last year.  When he came here, he hated people so much that he'd tear window frames apart to get out so he could run away and not come back until he was absolutely starving.  Within a week of arriving, he could be walked off leash anywhere, stayed loose in the house and yard without incident, and when not around sheep or ducks had a great recall/sit/down/etc.

Working training blew all that out the window again, and we had to work him through a period where he had to learn to accept that people were part of the picture in working training.  That took about nine months.

Finally, I just heard that he's now so good that when the person who took him from here fell ill, there were two handlers - top handlers in the Border Collie world, one has even written a book that is a Bible to herding dog trainers - who both wanted him badly.

I don't see how DPU's approach would have gotten this dog anywhere but on the rescue trash heap.  This dog didn't want his "survival" needs met, or to be part of a social structure.  He wanted someone to show him how to put to good use the crazy thoughts that were spinning in his head and making him tear off screen doors, peel apart kennels, bust open crates, and run around the countryside for days on end.