What are we "correcting"?

Pit_Pointer_Aussie

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.

 

This, in fact is NOT OT - this is exactly what I meant.  I think that "finding a way across the language barrier" implies a mutual respect that we do not seem to have if we assume that dogs are "wrong" rather than merely uneducated.  So, again, it isn't as though we have to correct anything, it's that we have to find a way to communicate our preferences versus their customary behavior.

cor⋅rec⋅tion

[kuh-rek-shuhn] - noun

5. a quantity applied or other adjustment made in order to increase accuracy, as in the use of an instrument or the solution of a problem: A five degree correction will put the ship on course.

 Social learning is just another aspect of behaviour. It works because dogs are social animals and thus driven to avoid conflict, but they can also learn from each other to benefit themselves.

I don't understand how you can separate social learning from operant conditioning or classical conditioning.  

brookcove

cor⋅rec⋅tion

[kuh-rek-shuhn] - noun

5. a quantity applied or other adjustment made in order to increase accuracy, as in the use of an instrument or the solution of a problem: A five degree correction will put the ship on course.

In the context of "correct" or "incorrect", how do you view a dog's innate behavior?  I really think this discussion has been occurring on two different planes.  If I had titled the thread "What are we altering?" no one would have had such a hissy fit over the definition of that word, now would they?  I'm thinking there are only one or two people who actually "got" what I meant.  Now, in the context of your definition, I have no problem with the term correction and what it means, only that it is humans and not dogs that consider their natural behavior to be a "problem".  What I have been driving at is that we use dogs for our own purposes, and it is within the context of that that we think their behavior is "wrong", when in the context of the natural world, they would have a set of behaviors that work for THEM, and, therefore, which are "correct".  Am I getting through to you now???  This thread was not about whether to use correction in training, it was about the nature of behavior and our own perception of it as "right" or "wrong".  To the dog, it's right, to us it's wrong, so we make the decision to *alter* it. Oye.

corvus

 Social learning is just another aspect of behaviour. It works because dogs are social animals and thus driven to avoid conflict, but they can also learn from each other to benefit themselves.

I don't understand how you can separate social learning from operant conditioning or classical conditioning.  

You can't, and no one ever said you should try.  All mammals learn through these processes.  The discussion that I was trying to have is about the human need to alter dog behavior that, to them, is quite natural and appropriate.  Think of it this way... A human infant hugs its parent to greet.  Human infant goes to live among dogs.  The dogs prefer to be sniffed, rather than hugged.  So, they assume the infant is "wrong" in its behavior, and they "correct" it to make the infant greet as they prefer.  It's really a discussion about interspecies communication and how we make assumptions about dogs being wrong, when in fact they are right, and we simply don't like their preferences so we change them to suit our own.  Being the dominant (yeah, hate that word, but in this case we are) culture, we get to choose and they don't.  But, just because we get to choose doesn't mean that we need to assume that the dog is wrong, being "disobedient", or a PITA, for trying to greet us the way he would greet another dog.  Often, humans (no one here, obviously) don't bother to understand the *why* of dog behavior, they just consider it in their own terms. 

Anne, I guess you get to see a broader range of dog owners than I do. The typical dog owner I know, first and foremost have family pets. They all have pretty good basic training. They sit, come, lie down,  are social, are housetrained, not aggressive, not destructive. Their training methods are generally positive R but not 100%. They do not strike, kick or physically abuse their dogs.

When I talk with these owners the vast majority of them are very knowledgeable about dog behaviour. They know why dogs mark, hump, like to chase, sniff bums, chew, need to be social, etc. They can read and understand the most basic of body language, not so much the subtle stuff. So from my experience I would disagree that "Often, humans (no one here, obviously) don't bother to understand the "why" of dog behavior". I think the majority do. Now, to the extent which they consider these bahaviour when it comes to allowing or discouraging them is very individual. I know people who allow their dogs to dig up their yards, hump other dogs and/or chase small animals. I know other people who allow none of that, but is has little to do with their lack of understanding. 

What is the difference (in the end) if you don't allow your dog to hump - whether you understand the significance of it to the dog or not?    

I can see this from two angles because Willow came to us at around 2 years old and had never lived in a house before.  She did not know how to act in a house at all.  And, everything in the house scared or concerned her.  So, when she growled or lunged or just generally did something that she could do out but not in we altered her behavior. We gently showed her the ropes of indoor living.  We set some boundaries and rules.  That to me was altering her behavior. 

Once, she clearly understood said rules and was comfortable, if she reverted back to her doggie self, well then that was when she was given a correction.  A verbal correction, but a correction non the less. 

So, to answer the question, for me, I'm correcting her if she "forgets" her rules or manners.  We aren't holding it against her, but we are correcting it. 

And, sometimes, because I'm such a fan of "canineness" itself  I have to "force" myself to tell her something wasn't right rather than just kiss her face and call her cute! 

willowchow

I have to "force" myself to tell her something wasn't right rather than just kiss her face and call her cute! 

I know exactly what you mean! 

denise m

Anne, I guess you get to see a broader range of dog owners than I do.

Possibly.  I get everything from the really dog savvy peeps like we have here, to the ones who got the dog from a pet store and think it should automatically know that the toilet is outdoors.  The latter are the ones who might want to understand their dogs' behavior, but simply don't.  And, some just want the results, like now, and don't really care about the dog' s motives.  I think that when we understand why dogs do things, and accept that the behaviors are *normal* for dogs, it encourages us to be more humane in how we treat them.  I guess you could think of it this way - we've certainly come a long way from when humans thought that animals had no capacity to think at all and did everything by instinct.  Now, we know that they do a lot by instinct (just as we do), but that they do have the ability to feel, think and learn.  Otherwise, you'd never see a dog tease another dog with a toy to make them play, or be able to guide a blind person down the street, or mourn the loss of a pack mate.  I was not saying that all correction is inhumane, by the way, although we certainly know that some is.  Just that it makes more sense to realize that dogs are "correct" when they exhibit their own socially acceptable behaviors, and that our wanting to change those behaviors doesn't make the dog "wrong" for having exhibited them in the first place.  It's not wrong for dogs to jump up on us to greet, because dogs greet by sniffing the side of the other animal's face - it's just not the way WE want to be greeted.  That's all.  A difference of customs, you might say, rather than simple rudeness;-)

Right, but if they've been taught that jumping up is unacceptable and still continue to do it that is rudeness and in our house that would be stopped. 

willowchow

Right, but if they've been taught that jumping up is unacceptable and still continue to do it that is rudeness and in our house that would be stopped. 

If they've really been taught, they would not be doing it.  Many times, the continued jumping up behavior is the humans' fault.  They may intermittently allow it (those people who say, "Oh, I don't mind..." - every time someone allows the dog to jump, they teach the dog that it's ok to jump), or they may be punishing the dog repeatedly to no avail.  Remember, a punishment, to be effective, would have to be sufficient to insure that the behavior stops.  Otherwise, all you are diong is annoying your dog, and he's still jumping up.  Dogs have no concept of what is "rude" to a human, only what is rude to dogs.  Jumping up or boisterousness is less rudeness than it is just a training failure - the dog simply has not been sufficiently proofed in the new, alternate behavior.  Training sometimes takes time, and a progressive increase in the ability to perform under distraction.  The three D's - distaraction, duration, distance

Am I getting through to you now???

I understood what you were saying in the first post.  I disagreed.  There's a difference between not understanding, and disagreeing - just as there's a significant difference in correction as you were assuming it always applied, and how I pointed out it often might apply from the dog's point of view.  Just as they don't see "right" or "wrong" in what they do, they also don't see "natural" and "unnatural" in what we ask them to do, the changes we ask them to make to their behavior. 

The natural thing for Ted to do is go out, run the sheep down until they are tired, corner them, and start picking off the weak ones for breakfast.  The natural thing for Min to do is to widen her patrol out to everything she can hear and smell, which is about a two mile radius in some directions.

What you seem to be saying is that somehow Ted and Min are experiencing minor trauma because I have to modify their natural behavior to suit my needs.  Ted can't have my sheep for breakfast, no matter how natural it is, and I can't even let him try - I have to stop it every time it goes down that road.  That takes a correction.  I'm modifying the direction his action is taking. 

Just like a correction on a ship, the less time you allow the dog to be "off course," the easier it is to get the dog back on course.  I might be able to simply show him the right way to do something, if I notice he's floundering a bit, rather than having to block, chase, shout, etc. later on if he actually gets into situations where he's chasing and biting.

Min's supposed to stay in the fence.  She didn't understand that when I first got her.  When I let her of, she dragged a long line, and if I caught her going over the fence, I went out, caught her, and kenneled her.  Ie, I took her from her job.  She let that happen to her about half a dozen times and now she stays in the fence.

I don't think "natural" versus "unnatural" - I think difficult versus less difficult all the time and carefully consider that while training.  I don't logically try to think it through - I assume if I get a refusal, it's because the dog is having trouble with what I ask - there's something hard about it and we have to go back a step to where it's easy again. 

Yesterday someone cam and looked at a foster and she was wavering on whether she wanted to try her.  Jetta was unusually nervous with the new person, who had brought a new dog also, plus the people next door were having a get together and were cooking food, lots of little kids running around (she loves kids), PLUS the kids from the neighbor on the other side were staying over.  In spite of everything she acted like a champ - she just wasn't as enthusiastic as usual - I showed her agility stuff, her flyball stuff, her little tricks and she kept wandering around and acting  "meh" and stressy.

If it were just me and Jetta I'd have given the whole thing a pass and worked on something super simple but the person had driven two hours to see her and it was pretty much now or never.

So I was walking to the car with the person and she was talking sort of maybe-maybe-not - I had laid my bag of roast chicken and beef where I thought Jetta couldn't get into it, on the inside of the open trailer.  Not only was it off the ground quite a ways, but there was also a little box of steel and wire to hold mulch and whatnot.  While we were talking, right in front of our eyes but almost too quick to see, Jetta levitated into and through all the obstacles, snagged the bag of treats, and zipped back out of the trailer.  In another microsecond she was about 100 feet away across the yard.

Instead of screaming and chasing her, I laughed and grinned at the visitor.  "Okay, let's see what Jetta remembers.  She's only had this lesson ONCE - THIS MORNING."  Jetta had just come in for a landing and was starting to shake the bag open.  I said, not mean, just firmly, "Jetta drop!" (remember too I was all the way across the yard)

She did!  I started telling her what a good girl she was and she waited by the bag for me to run there and give her a piece.  Lots of pieces.  BIG pieces. 

My visitor immediately started talking about when might be a good time for her to give her a try.  See, the whole time the one thing that had really impressed her was how extremely food oriented Jetta was.  That's a natural thing.  But, in her time here, I've taught Jetta to value something else -  being a team player. 

Sure, you can say it was an OC thing - the "lesson" that morning was actually when she stole my Arby's roast beef sandwich and I asked her to "drop" when she was extremely close to me.  She figured since I was asking her to do SOMETHING that she'd be getting a treat anyway so she dropped what she had in hopes that something better was coming.  She was right, of course - she'd only tasted the bread from the sandwich and I gave her a big chunk of meat after I picked it up.

But when Jetta first came, she had no concept that people did anything other than keep her from doing stuff, hurt her (probably), and sometimes inexplicably petted and loved on her. That's a natural state.  What I hope to do with dogs who come here is give them an additional level for understanding what we want, another tool besides observation/experience and reaction.

spiritdogs

They may intermittently allow it (those people who say, "Oh, I don't mind..." - every time someone allows the dog to jump, they teach the dog that it's ok to jump), or they may be punishing the dog repeatedly to no avail.  Remember, a punishment, to be effective, would have to be sufficient to insure that the behavior stops.  Otherwise, all you are diong is annoying your dog, and he's still jumping up. 

I can see what you are saying Anne.  But, a dog can be taught correctly not to jump up and still get excited and forget themselves.   They aren't machines.  If I have to remind her of what she's been taught I don't see that as a failure. 

spiritdogs

, a punishment, to be effective, would have to be sufficient to insure that the behavior stops.  Otherwise, all you are diong is annoying your dog, and he's still jumping up.

This might be where the confusion is.  I correct her, verbally.  I don't punish her.  To me, for a punishment to be effective she'd need to understand what she did, what she didn't do and what the punishment actually is.  That just doesn't seem reasonable to ask of a dog.

brookcove

What you seem to be saying is that somehow Ted and Min are experiencing minor trauma because I have to modify their natural behavior to suit my needs.  Ted can't have my sheep for breakfast, no matter how natural it is, and I can't even let him try - I have to stop it every time it goes down that road.  That takes a correction.  I'm modifying the direction his action is taking. 

Nope, not saying that at all.  In fact, we probably agree more than you think.  All I was saying is that dogs are not wrong for doing what comes naturally, but, that it's ok for us to want to modify that behavior.  What I do think is that we owe them the respect of not considering natural behavior to be wrong, even if we do want to alter it.   It isn't wrong, except by our standards, which, of course, we ask our dogs to live by.  But, to them, it's just being a dog.  I think perhaps that "alter" or "modify" is a better terminology than "correct", because the latter implies that the dog is wrong, but the former implies that we simply prefer the dog "when in Rome, to do as the Romans do".