What are we "correcting"?

 well, i dont run around WAITING for my dogs to "misbehave" so i can correct them... that certainly IS a pretty distorted way of looking at dog training. however, i dont believe in that perfect world where i never run into a situation where i need to use a correction... that just seems idealistic.

and what i am trying to say is that in MY mind redirection (life you say, teaching the dog what TO do) is STILL a type of correction. not a bad one. in fact it is a VERY effective way of correcting a dog and it tends to be confidence building in the long run for timid dogs especially. BUT: i still cosider it a correction. it is a way of saying "dont do that, do this instead" i am correcting a behaviour that is not appropriate. that doesnt mean i am "being mean" to my dog or constantly thinking about being alfa, and trying to keep my dog submissive..... 

spiritdogs

So, in my view, we owe them at least the respect of realizing that they aren't doing stuff just to piss us off - they're simply being dogs, and while we want to change some of the behavior, if we did it by acknowledging that they are "right" in their own culture, but we would like them to adopt what's polite in ours, we would think of it more as if we were asking another human to kiss cheeks (as in Russia) instead of shaking hands (as in America).  Once you respect another species as the wonderful species it is, it's that much easier to communicate instead of dictate as if we were the only species on the planet.

i agree that this is a very good attitude to take. i just dont think that using corrections means i think my dog is trying to piss me off.... that is a mighty big assumption to make! 

BUT: i still cosider it a correction. it is a way of saying "dont do that, do this instead"

? I don't say "don't do that" at all, which is indeed a correction, I skip that step altogether. I simply suggest to the dog what to do, preferably before the dog managed to do whatever it is you don't want the dog to do.

The big problem with "corrections" is not that they are "mean", it's that they are ineffective. Everyone accepts dogs don't speak english and can't really read minds, right? so no one has a problem thinking that dogs have to use quite a bit of trial and error to figure out why they got that "good"; you're strolling along, and you say "good dog". The dog happened to at that moment not have any leash tension, was not wagging her tail, put two feet on the grass to get close to a chips wrapper, looked at and then ignored a chips wrapper, and was not barking or eating or jumping up or biting anyone. So why the good? dog has no idea, so dog usually attempts to repeat the various things she was doing or not doing, and after trial and error figures out she often gets a "good" when she ignores a chip wrapper. Ok fine, so she does that more often in future. So you're strolling along, exact same situation, and you say No leave it. Again dog has no idea what exactly it is that triggered the correction. The only way to find out is by trial and error. And the problem with corrections is the dog is demotivated to experiment, there is no "payoff". Experimenting to get a reward either gives the dog nothing or a payoff, thus there is motivation to experiment to get the payoff. Experimenting to get a correction either gives the dog nothing or a correction. So dog is not motivated to experiment to figure out why the correction, so basically the dog has no motivation to attempt to efficiently learn what it is you want the dog to learn. Many dogs who are corrected often simply decide to ignore the uninformative correction information. Others default to "safe" behaviors that they know don't get corrections- the most commonly seen feature of oft-corrected dogs is a reduction in spontaneous behaviors and an unwillingness to offer and experiment with behaviors to see what response they get out of their owner. And unfortunately this reduction in behaviors is often seen as "training success" by their owner, who only sees a reduction in behaviors that irritate the owner, not noticing the overall reduction in behaviors offered and a diminished capacity to learn new behaviors. Gee the dog is learning to not try to eat garbage the owner thinks and fails to notice the dog is just not doing much other than marching solemnly along trying to avoid confusing corrections side effect being dog hasn't tried to eat chips wrappers; no real learning actually occurred. Same effect whether you use verbal or physical corrections. Even worse is when the dog concludes he got the correction for the wrong reason. Let's say you want your dog to potty on the grass strip between the sidewalk and the street only. But you've been correcting the dog for approaching-chips-wrappers in the above scenario, and the DOG thinks he's being corrected for putting feet on the grass and is unwilling to experiment to confirm or deny this impression. Good luck with your potty training. Some people claim it's ok to "correct" as long as you then "redirect" and "reward" the appropriate behavior. Same scenario, you "correct" dog for approaching the chips wrapper, encourage and praise dog for leaving it alone, stepping back on the pavement, and moving on. Well, if the dog thinks he's being corrected for the wrong reason, in this case he thinks he's being corrected for stepping on the grass, well, praising him for getting back on the pavement just confirms in his mind the wrong message. He'll feel fine about eating chips wrappers that are on the pavement, and you'll have trouble with your potty on the grass strip training.

mudpuppy

? I don't say "don't do that" at all, which is indeed a correction, I skip that step altogether. I simply suggest to the dog what to do, preferably before the dog managed to do whatever it is you don't want the dog to do.

that's just splitting hairs... if my dog is jumping up on me and i tell him "sit", then essentially the dog cannot jump up on me, the undesired behaviour is corrected. 

Now hold on, corrections/punishments/aversives are quite effective. It just depends on what you set out to do. I spent several months teaching my puppy that "ah-ah" means I'm going to come and stop him from doing something. It took quite some time, but the aim was not to stop behaviour, it was to teach him what I sound and look like when I don't approve of what he's doing. Communicating displeasure is every bit as useful as communicating pleasure and I don't think it has an adverse impact on dogs as long as you are gentle. My dogs communicate displeasure all the time. We all live in the same house. We've gotta learn how to get along, and that in my mind means knowing when someone likes what you're doing and when they dislike it. That is important information for a social animal.

janetmichel3009

spiritdogs

So, in my view, we owe them at least the respect of realizing that they aren't doing stuff just to piss us off - they're simply being dogs, and while we want to change some of the behavior, if we did it by acknowledging that they are "right" in their own culture, but we would like them to adopt what's polite in ours, we would think of it more as if we were asking another human to kiss cheeks (as in Russia) instead of shaking hands (as in America).  Once you respect another species as the wonderful species it is, it's that much easier to communicate instead of dictate as if we were the only species on the planet.

 

i agree that this is a very good attitude to take. i just dont think that using corrections means i think my dog is trying to piss me off.... that is a mighty big assumption to make! 

I don't recall saying that if we use a correction it means we think the dog is deliberately trying to piss us off.  In fact, I think that dogs rarely, if ever, try to piss us off whether we use corrections or we never use corrections.  Go back and read Kate's post.  I think her understanding of my point comes closest to the point I was trying to make.  Yes, we have to ask our dogs to live within the parameters of human requirements, but we do NOT have to assume that their natural behavior is WRONG, just not within our guidelines, so we shouldn't be shocked when they are confused by being chastised, however mildly, for doing what comes naturally to them.

spiritdogs

Yes, we have to ask our dogs to live within the parameters of human requirements, but we do NOT have to assume that their natural behavior is WRONG,

I don't think anyone here would think that a dog is WRONG for excercising their natural behaviours. We all understand that dogs "naturally" have many behaviours that are incompatible with our co-existence. The need for humans to control/change these behaviours is IMO necessary if we want to continue to share our homes and lives with dogs. Otherwise, I guess we would all be agreeing with PETA and dog and man would just go their separate ways. When we correct a dog it is not out of arrogance. We accept it is natural for a dog to steal food, mark his territory, sniff your crotch, etc. We correct a dog because it is essential if we are going to cohabitate. I'm sure if we were to decide that lions and sharks should become pets, we would be correcting many of their behaviours as well. Even within our own species it is necessary to correct/change many natural behaviours such as aggression or even potty training, but it does not root from arrogance IMO.

Great point Denise.

I separate environmental punishers from social corrections. I'm not just some tree in a dog's environment. I'm living with the dog as a member of my family. It's up to me to effectively communicate which behaviors are, and are not socially appropriate for the life of that dog and the safety of all who come in contact with it.

Dogs are smart enough to understand and comply with social correction as long as your direct, fair, and act like a leader. Dogs are mentally wired to work cooperatively for the good of their social group and survival.

denise m

spiritdogs

Yes, we have to ask our dogs to live within the parameters of human requirements, but we do NOT have to assume that their natural behavior is WRONG,

 

I don't think anyone here would think that a dog is WRONG for excercising their natural behaviours. We all understand that dogs "naturally" have many behaviours that are incompatible with our co-existence. The need for humans to control/change these behaviours is IMO necessary if we want to continue to share our homes and lives with dogs. Otherwise, I guess we would all be agreeing with PETA and dog and man would just go their separate ways. When we correct a dog it is not out of arrogance. We accept it is natural for a dog to steal food, mark his territory, sniff your crotch, etc. We correct a dog because it is essential if we are going to cohabitate. I'm sure if we were to decide that lions and sharks should become pets, we would be correcting many of their behaviours as well. Even within our own species it is necessary to correct/change many natural behaviours such as aggression or even potty training, but it does not root from arrogance IMO.

We "correct" what's "wrong".  We "teach" alternate behavior.  I think that's what many of us are getting at when we describe the human attitude toward normal canine behavior.  What's so hard to grasp here????  In some countries, it's polite to burp if the food is good.  In others, it would be a faux pas, so a good host tells his guest ahead of time that the correct response here is not to burp, but to compliment the chef.  You may hate the analogy, but it would be rude of the host to embarrass or penalize the person who had never been instructed in our customs and burped instead of complimenting the chef.  

spiritdogs

We "correct" what's "wrong".  We "teach" alternate behavior.

Maybe it is just a language thing but the way I see it is that we are all "teaching" our dogs. You teach by offering or showing them an alternative behaviour, some teach by correcting or showing displeasure with the unwanted behaviour, others do a combination. Teaching by definition is not exclusively non physical or non confrontational.

teach
verb

educate, instruct, school, tutor, coach, train. enlighten, illuminate, edify, drill, discipline 

Personally, I don't use the term correction at all in terms of dogs. Maybe it's because I've been schooled in pretty straightforward terms - punishment, reinforcement, redirection, extinction. I think the terminology "correction" is just a different word with the same meanings. The problem is it has a different meaning for every person.

Some people use it to mean they redirect on to something else (get a toy, and distract the dog from the kitty). Some people use it to explain a management situation (no learning is taking place - take the dog by the collar and move it inside, as Liesje explained). Some people use it to indicate a punishment (ie. collar "correction";). Some people actually use it in place of what a reinforcer defines ("correct the behaviour by reinforcing four on the floor";).

That's why I don't care for the word. Because it doesn't have one meaning, therefore I don't find it is at all useful in conversation. All of the above examples have very different outcomes, and actually are observed very differently by a dog. When somebody says "I corrected my dog for ______", it doesn't give me any idea of what process was used, how the dog reacted, how the behaviour changed (or didn't).

In terms of the philosophical basis of the word, that it somehow means dogs are "wrong" and we have to "correct" them, I base my life with dogs to accomodate their needs as dogs as best I can. With that said, they do unfortunately need to alter some behaviours in order to live in modern society. That's just how it is. But I do my best to prevent behaviours where possible, manage others where necessary, so that I don't have to try to humanize them too too much.

For instance, when Zipper first came to my house, the first thing he did was mark on his own kennel. At first glance, you would think *Whoah, what the heck are you doing!?!?!?*. But in reality it made perfect sense. He just moved to a foreign place, where there are two humans, but also two other canine inhabitants. The only thing familiar to him was the kennel he brought with him, so it was totally natural for him to identify it with marking behaviour. What totally enthralled me was the return response (yeah yeah, what others find repulsive I find intriguing). I then found that Gaci had gone on and very discretely marked the two dog beds on the floor in the same room. She effectively understood his meaning, and replied with her own. That's all that happened, and there have been no more markings in the house since. Gaci has never marked before that either. It was pure communication between dogs.

Did I punish any of them? Nope. Should I have? I don't see why. I look at it from a purely normal, natural standpoint and to be honest I understood it completely. Some would have "corrected" the marking behaviour, but the dogs sorted it out quickly so I had no need to intervene.

Another example is when Zipper moved in, he fixated on the mouse cage. It was low enough that he stood there and watched them for hours on end. If the mice were sleeping, he would take his paw and THWAP the cage to wake them up so he could watch them run on the wheel. I did try redirecting him in the beginning, with toys and attention and calling him off, but I clearly realized how important the mice were to him - not the bird, or the fish, just the mice - so I moved them. Problem solved. Instantly. I didn't question why he was so interested in the mice - he's a terrier, beyond that, he's a dog - a predator. Of course he's going to be interested in them. So I didn't waste my time punishing that behaviour, and to be honest I didn't even waste time *training* anything with reinforcers.

Don't get me wrong, I do a lot of training with my dogs. But I also take a quite ethological approach to living with my dogs, in that I spend a lot of time understanding why they do what they do, what results their behaviours have on the environment, and studying that deep-rooted stuff that goes beyond the observable behaviour, beyond the simple laws of learning. I love knowing that all animals learn in the same ways, through the ABC's (antecedent, behaviour, consequence), but I also love knowing what motivates them to do in the first place, what turns those wheels inside that little head, what naturally inhibits them, because going a little deeper often allows you to better work with the animal and gives you a wider toolbox.

ETA: Slight OT, but here's my two cents:

I've often wondered the same thing. I don't hold it against my dogs that they don't inherently know how to function in a human household. You wouldn't expect a badger to come into your home and shake your hand, use a toilet, etc, so why a dog?

Well, I think the fact that they have lived with us for so long is possibly the issue and the fact that the most widely held job for dogs is family companion. People forget that they are a separate species. (Probably not most people on this board, but the general population.)  They forget that we originally teamed up with the dog to hunt and survive (both species, not just us), we respected each others abilities which meant their instincts, and now all we want are family pets. (Again, not us on the board, but the general population.)

To make matters worse, dogs are very good at reading our communication, it's how they were able to domesticate themselves, and integrate into our communities successfully. We are just now getting "good" at reading them, and even then it's something we have to learn. I don't know one trainer or behaviorist that was born understanding dog language. Our brains aided us in opening that door.

Some people are more naturally gifted, but for the most part humans misread dog communication, and think they know what the dogs is saying or doing, when really they don't. (Think of the classic, he wet on the floor because he was angry with me then cowered because he knows he was bad.)

When I communicate with my dogs, I often think of how I feel when I am in France. I speak the language a little -- enough to get by with someone dumbing it down for an "American,", but really, I don't have the foggiest when someone French is speaking at full tilt.

My dogs speak French, I speak English, so we are constantly trying to find a way across the language barrier. I say "we" because it's a give and take. They try to tell me as much as I try to tell them.

There is also a communication barrier between the sciences and schools of thought of the humans in these discussions as well.

Some folks simply think within the parameters of behaviorism, or even radical behaviorism, and don't recognise Social Learning or the other Psychological studies outside of strict behaviorism, others do.

Great posts, Denise and Kim.  Dogs now live as part of our families, in many parts of the world.  Dogs didn't for the most part start out as companions so much as aids to our survival.  We have taken them from their roles of guarding, herding and hunting and placed them in homes where they have none of those duties.  And then we complain that they bark, herd the children and kill the pet bunny.  I wonder what dogs will be like 100 years from now. 

Anne, I FIRST learned the term correction in the context (not surprisingly) of herding.  A correction there is viewed like navigators view the term - circumstances require additional information to be inputted to the system in order for the goal to be reached.  Literally in the beginning, a body block is a "correction" which physically moves the dog off the course they've chosen, and puts them in a more constructive place.  Many dogs who aren't used to any negatives in their lives view even this as aversive so yes, it's a correction in the sense you think of as well, an extinctive type of activity though it's difficult to know whether it's P plus or minus - I'd guess it can be both.

Similarly, if I am teaching a dog to decide to stay in a crate rather than bust out if the door is opened, I'll open the door and close it immediately if the dog takes the opportunity to do what's natural.  That's a correction.  My intention is to make the dog think the next time the door is open rather than follow his or her impulses blindly.  

I don't assign any moral wrong to what dogs do naturally - they just don't work for me and it's my job to let them know where our paths don't run together naturally.  It's a necessary thing for them to learn as there will be many times they have to follow my corrections rather than their inclinations as we work together.

Ted's learning a new skill in preparation for high-level trialing this spring.  Border Collies are bred to gather and fetch stock straight to the handler.  It feels really good once they've learned all the pieces leading up to this.

We're scheduled to run in a trial where Ted will have to push the sheep around a bend while bringing them to me, instead of bringing them perfectly straight.  So we are practicing this now.

There's no way to shape this except by extinguishing all the refusals he'll naturally throw at me.  I am GLAD he refuses to come off balance - we recently had a bit of trouble with his not wanting to hold sheep if they were pulling to one side a bit.  But now he has to learn that yet again, he has to listen to me even if he's in a situation where he's always had full control before.

This isn't just a skill for a particular trial - this comes up all the time and my trainer suggested we go ahead and train for this trial to get him over this problem.  Which is not a problem, of course, just a training hole. But training holes ARE a problem when he refuses to take my commands, and the sheep break into the neighbor's back yard, knock over an expensive can of rabbit feed, try to break their rabbit hutch, and then retreat through the neighbor's dog's dog lot, destroying the fence on the way in AND out.

So it's not just an intellectual exercise.