What are we "correcting"?

willowchow

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.

Where's Kim MacMillan when I need her???  Positive punishment is something that is applied to reduce a behavior.  (That doesn't mean that it has to be nasty.  A citronella collar is pretty benign in the general scheme of things, but it's still a positive punishment)  Negative punishment reduces behavior by removing something good.  An example of this is when you yelp and leave if a puppy nips your pant leg.  Hardly inhumane, right?

When I say "punishment", I am speaking in terms of operant conditioning.  So, if the dog perceives your verbal correction as a punishment, and it is insufficient to reduce the behavior, the punishment was unsuccessful.  

So, you are saying if a dog forgets themselves and jumps up or does some other type of unwanted behavior that it's all the owners fault, that the training was unsuccessful.  It couldn't be the dog just got too excited. 

I really have issue with the once the dog is trained that's it, it's perfect forever.  To me, I'll never completely feel that a dog will never break a command or forget what it's been taught.  I'll say it again, they are not machines.

So, you are saying if a dog forgets themselves and jumps up or does some other type of unwanted behavior that it's all the owners fault, that the training was unsuccessful.  It couldn't be the dog just got too excited. 

well yeah. the owner failed to "proof" the behavior against extreme excitement.

willowchow

So, you are saying if a dog forgets themselves and jumps up or does some other type of unwanted behavior that it's all the owners fault, that the training was unsuccessful.  It couldn't be the dog just got too excited. 

I really have issue with the once the dog is trained that's it, it's perfect forever.  To me, I'll never completely feel that a dog will never break a command or forget what it's been taught.  I'll say it again, they are not machines.

Dogs aren't perfect any more than we are (in fact it astonishes me how many owners think they should be), and I never said that once a dog is trained, that's it perfect forever.  I agree completely that dogs are not machines.  But, if a dog is repeatedly forgetting himself, than mudpuppy is correct - the owner probably has not done a good enough job proofing that particular behavior against distractions.  A well trained dog doesn't have many lapses, but an owner who doesn't know how to proof correctly is likely to have a dog that has many lapses...

Sorry Anne, my last post was directed at Angelique, who is always talking about social learning as if it is something separate to other kinds of learning. I still don't get that.

I still don't like the word "correction". I guess it applies in the way Becca has explained, but perhaps that's not the way some people train. Personally, my goal in training is to live in harmony with my dogs. That means that they should understand when I like what they're doing and that when I am happy they get rewarded, and they should be able to pick when I am not happy with them and that when I am unhappy, they don't get rewarded and sometimes get punished. I rely heavily on classical conditioning because I don't need precise things. It's not a big deal in the majority of cases if my dogs don't do what they are asked. I forgive incessant barking when excitement is very high. Telling off my young dog when he has forgotten the rules in his excitement usually ends in a playful wrestle or thump on the side when he sits as asked or is reminded of the rules and does the right thing. When my dogs don't do what I asked them to do, I do blame myself, but that doesn't mean I slap my own wrist and leave the dog to it. This afternoon Kivi decided to go and harrass Kit. I used the "Don't do it" tone and he knows that means stop what you're doing and do whatever you're asked and instead he decided to go around me and do his own thing. He got shouted at. He was afraid. That he did it in the first place was my fault, but I've left myself no other option but to punish. Chasing the hare is strictly off limits and the absolute worst thing you can do in my house, with the possible exception of chewing laptop cables. I think that most people fall into this trap over a lot of things. They don't teach the dog what TO do and end up having to resort to punishments or corrections. It's easy, though, and it often works. When it isn't very effective it at least makes you feel better.

So from my perspective, the answer to this question of what are we correcting is that we are correcting natural behaviour that doesn't make us happy. I'd rather think that I wasn't correcting anything at all, but punishing behaviour that makes me unhappy. So maybe my perspective got lost a bit in the wording because I don't really think I'm correcting anything as such.

I have no issue with punishing natural behaviour that makes me unhappy. I'm afraid I care rather more about them following the house rules than they do about doing what comes naturally to them, so I win in the end however I need to. One hopes I avoid punishments as much as possible.

Lapses don't bother me much. There are a few golden rules in my life and once they are learnt we don't have many lapses. Everything else was a suggestion rather than an order. With Kivi, though, I was tolerant for a while when he was a baby. I gradually increased my expectations of him as he grew older so that he wouldn't find it very hard to meet them as a youngster.
 

spiritdogs

 Another thread made me think of the word "correction" and what it really means.  As someone who thinks of behavior as behavior, neither right nor wrong, just the activities an organism performs, I find the term "correction" to be a bit misleading.  Are we saying that what dogs do naturally is wrong?  Personally, I think that if we use that line of reasoning, then dogs should be just as entitled to think that we are obnoxiously rude for shaking paws when we greet one another.  Kind of makes me wonder what our opinion would be if a dog decided to shove us or scream "get off" when we took his paw to shake LOL.

I guess what I'd like to see is less of an opinion that dogs are in some kind of involuntary servitude, and more of an idea that we are merely educating someone else, in this case our dogs, as to the customs that are the norm in our land.  It may sound silly, but if we did think that way, it would be much easier to educate, rather than castigate, our dogs for their lack of understanding.  After all, do any of us really believe that dogs are out to tick us off???

I wished I'd thought of that. I haven't read through all the pages of replies. There will still be times we may correct or punish a dog but it would be after he knows what we are asking. But he has to know what we are asking, first. We lead the dog because he chooses to follow us. Let me hurt some biblical feelings and point that we do not have dominion over all animals. Some, like the dog, follow us, which is different than having dominion over.

In one sense, we are simply creatures coexisting and to truly understand them we have to quit assuming that we are superior. Because we are not. In some ways we have superior abilities, in some ways they have superior abilities.

I can also take this the other, ultimate stewardship. God gave you dominion over the animals and every time you physically correct your dog with something stronger than a word, God is going to wallop you with a 2 X 4, later. There may also be a difference in philosophies. Notice that one recognizes dog for the unique creature that he is, symbiotic with Man. The other brings a sense of punishment and judgement with it.

I've got a co-worker who thinks he has to correct his dog and I ask him, does the dog know what he did was wrong? A correction or punishment is only good if several things happen simultaneously.

A) The dog has to know what it is that you wanted and purposefully ignore you and even then, it's not always necessary to punish. What about a dog that won't recall to you because the building your in is on fire and he can smell it before you can?

B) The punishment or correction needs to happen at the instant or within a second of the problem happening. Are you really, really that fast? I doubt it. With the number of people that can't manage a clicker, I don't see how the punishment timing could be any better. Unless you're talking about a verbal sound you make, which is a redirection of focus on you and not a true correction or punishment, so quit thinking of the "hey there" as a correction, you are deluding yourself. The dog has to connect the punishment with the undesirable behavior in time. If you can say "eh-eh" just as you see the first muscle flinch of a launch, then you have the timing to mark a reward.

C) The dog has to identify what you are doing as a punishment or correction. Some dogs are physical and and play rough and whatever you think is a punishment is play to them or inconsequential. And it really doesn't matter if you are thinking that you are punishing or correcting. If that dog doesn't think so, then what you are doing is useless. I know that will hurt some feelings and sorry about your luck but the dog decides what is rewarding or punishing, not you or me. It doesn't get any more basic than that and it can't really be argued against.

And lastly, and I know this will hurt some more feelings so, I'm going to do it anyway. When you train your dogs with nothing but corrections and punishments or even what you imagine to be social constraints, such as where they walk determines their social status and behavior, the actual aversion that you apply is not training something, it is only stopping something. When the dog does what you want to avoid the aversive, that is negative reinforcement. I could really care less who has a show and who doesn't, that is the fact that can't be denied and no amount of hullaballoo or even quasi-Quantum Mechanics hocus pocus is going to change the fact that the dog actually learns by reinforcement, negative or positive, period, paragraph, and new book. If dogs learn by reinforcement, they should learn what we want by us leading them with the reward they want. Simply cut to the strongest reinforcement.

 Always understand these processes. Dogs do what they do becuase it is reinforcing, either as pleasure, or survival, or both. If the dog is ignoring your commands, it is because it is rewarding to do so. I can't make it anymore basic than 1 + 1 = 2.

 The things I have mentioned do not take away from the spirituality or personality of the dog. In fact, it is designed to augment, access, help express those things. What does you dog want most? It will be different for some dogs. Dogs are not automatons. And they are not born knowing English or what we want. Yet the first thing people do is yank and crank them. Some will say, no I don't. Really? Did you spend some time associating the collar and leash with reward? Or did you just put it on and start dragging them around. You were yanking and cranking with realizing it. With a creature entrusted to you by God or by a symbiotic relationship in the animal kingdom, however you want to look at it.

"So from my perspective, the answer to this question of what are we correcting is that we are correcting natural behaviour that doesn't make us happy. I'd rather think that I wasn't correcting anything at all, but punishing behaviour that makes me unhappy. So maybe my perspective got lost a bit in the wording because I don't really think I'm correcting anything as such. "

Corvus, I think this part here is the most important part of your post, and I couldn't agree more. I don't try to "change" their natural needs, or modal action patterns/instincts, etc. Because in reality, these are most often the things to get corrected in the first place.

- jumping up to lick face
- nipping at hands
- running to greet another dog
- hunting small animals
- doing breed-specific patterns
- barking as communication
- Pulling on leash, because a dog's pace is naturally faster than a person's

In reality, most (aside from serious behaviour problems) "corrections" are focused towards what is really entirely appropriate dog behaviour. These corrections stem from the fact that we either are not in control of, or have lost control, of a situation. It's really all about control. No, that's not a bad thing, we have to control some of the actions of our dogs, so that they aren't hunting the cat, they aren't injuring us by pulling, and that they aren't herding the children unnecessarily, or alarm barking (which they have likely been bred to do in the first place!). Some of these things don't fit into our lives, and in some cases need to be channelled.

I don't try to change my dog's need to hunt, nor do I try to change their need to alert me to somebody entering the house. When it comes to behaviours that have a strong ethological foundation, those are also the last behaviours I am likely to punish. Unfortunately, these are also the last behaviours that are likely to disappear due to extinction, so it leaves you in a bit of a predicament if you have to control the situation. That's where, for me, the teaching comes in. Teaching cues for certain things, teaching an alternate behaviour and making it become automatic, using management and common sense, using classical conditioning, etc.

Don't get me wrong, if my dog is barking after the few normal barks that would indicate a stranger, I might use a "hey you" or a "quit it!". But it's not a punishment, because it's not really indicating any permanent change in behaviour, and they are no less likely to bark the next time. It's a temporary interrupter, really it's almost just a type of redirection albeit a verbal one, also a cue to say "I have heard you, acknowledged you already, now it's time for me to deal with these people, thanks".  

It's the same way I never punish my dogs when they show a predatory interest in something. In my experience unless you use electrical shock, for life, punishment isn't overly effective with such a strong behaviour pattern, because just one chance at performing even the first couple of sequences (eye, stalk, chase) of the pattern is enough to totally renew it. So I simply channel it. I teach a strong focus cue, and reinforce the heck out of it. Ironically, such a strong handler focus is at the moment affecting teaching obstacle focus for Gaci....lol. Teach a really strong recall, making it more classically conditioned than taught as a "trick". Using lots of management - if I don't have a good control of the environment, Gaci will never be allowed off-leash. It just ain't gonna happen, because her prey drive for small moving animals is so strong, and she is so much faster than am, that if the back-up stuff doesn't work, there's no way I'm gonna catch her, and it's not her in any way "disobeying" me, because I know, and can tell, that if she doesn't respond, it's because she actually didn't hear me, she's gone hind-brain on me and is no longer thinking but reacting.  

But on the other hand, I give her outlets for her predatory drives. We use chase games, we tug, we use destroying toys, killing the squeakers, shredding the whatever, because if her need is fulfilled, and she releases that inner tension of needing to "hunt" often she will be a lot less apt to seek out every small animal she can. Because for her just the seeking is enough to fulfill her drive, and she's happily exhausted when she comes home from a walk after checking every nook and cranny. So I do let her perform her "seeking behaviour", without allowing actual chase of an animal, as the rate at which she actually finds something is quite low.

So I really love that statement you made, because it does fit in, in a way, with my experiences.

 I have troubles with this whole "a punishment or correction has to do x, y and z to be effective" thing. I guess I look at it in a different way. Most of the time all I'm trying to achieve is to interrupt, but sometimes what I want is to teach my dog that what they just did is far from pleasing to me and I will never like it. That's not to say they can't choose to do it anyway. I've had my say and the ball is in their court. If I was that keen that they didn't do it I'd manage so they couldn't. Recalls are still super important and I invest a lot into teaching a good recall, but I'd rather not depend on it, at least until it is really realiable.

The way I see it, I give my dogs choices. You can do what I don't like and I will be cross with you and not want to interact with you, or you can do what I do like and I will give you cuddles and make a fuss of you. Once they learn what their choices earn them and my signals for "that is something I won't like" and "that is something I do like" they usually end up doing what I want them to do. If I can't compete, then I look for ways to make my way a better choice for them than their way. If I still can't compete, I manage. Most of my training I do with warnings and consistent consequences. The "I don't like that" signal and then no reward, or ignoring, or whatever. Or the "I approve" signal followed by praise, affection, games, or treats. Over time they learn degrees of approval or disapproval by my tone. It's an organic process. I just try to be consistent and react to them and let them figure out how I work and what that means to them.

spiritdogs

Are we saying that what dogs do naturally is wrong?

Er... yeah.  Pee on my carpet?  Bite down on my fingers?  Nick food from the kitchen?  Attempt to drag me across seven counties?  From where *I* am standing, those are wrong

I hate the word "correction".  "Correction" can mean a dozen things.  It can mean  mild sound aversion; it can mean tugging on the lead; it could mean physically moving or redirecting the dog (example: leading him away from the rubbish bin); it could equally mean yelling at or striking the dog, or yanking so hard on the lead his feet come off the floor.

If a puppy bites me, I might grunt at him (no, not that) and shove a chewie in his mouth (THIS!) I have "corrected" him.  I haven't castigated.  I have educated.  If a teacher marks a pupils worksheet and corrects the mistakes, showing the student where he went wrong and how to achieve the right answer, that is educating.  Not castigating.

I do believe that our thoughts and the words we choose shape our philosophies and our actions too, but it all depends on how YOU interpret those words.

For example, I went riding with a friend the other day who hated carrying a whip.  She admitted she didn't mind so much if she thought of it as a "riding crop".  I have carried a whip before and it didn't bother me so much, because for me, "whip" was not so much a loaded term.

Kim_MacMillan

In reality, most (aside from serious behaviour problems) "corrections" are focused towards what is really entirely appropriate dog behaviour.

A succinct sentence that captures why I started the thread.  We "correct" what, to the dog is normal behavior.  If the bootie was on the other paw, maybe the dog would tell us off for hugging him, and tell us to please do the obligatory butt sniff instead.  I'm NOT saying that we should just let dogs pee on our rugs, but that we should understand that their behavior is not the result of any desire on their part to be *disobedient*.  In other words, their behavior isn't wrong, it just isn't what WE want them to do.   They are just doing what comes naturally, and, to me, the way you "correct" (what I really mean is *alter*) that behavior is through training, or *translation* if you will, that tells the dog what is expected in our society, versus his.

spiritdogs

Kim_MacMillan

In reality, most (aside from serious behaviour problems) "corrections" are focused towards what is really entirely appropriate dog behaviour.

 

A succinct sentence that captures why I started the thread.  We "correct" what, to the dog is normal behavior.  If the bootie was on the other paw, maybe the dog would tell us off for hugging him, and tell us to please do the obligatory butt sniff instead.  I'm NOT saying that we should just let dogs pee on our rugs, but that we should understand that their behavior is not the result of any desire on their part to be *disobedient*.  In other words, their behavior isn't wrong, it just isn't what WE want them to do.   They are just doing what comes naturally, and, to me, the way you "correct" (what I really mean is *alter*) that behavior is through training, or *translation* if you will, that tells the dog what is expected in our society, versus his.

Perfect and succinct. As usual.

spiritdogs

If the bootie was on the other paw, maybe the dog would tell us off for hugging him, and tell us to please do the obligatory butt sniff instead. 

Some dogs do just that, and then are deemed as reactive or aggressive. Then we "desensitize" them to it to "teach" them that it's okay, that humans are allowed to hug them if they wish. Dogs correcting humans for inappropriate human behaviour simply isn't allowed in our society. Funny how the world works.

mudpuppy

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.

Sure, I think this is better by far.  Perhaps one day I will be good enough never to need to use a correction ever. But it in the meantime, when I slip up, when I don't manage properly, when I don't overlook anything, when my life is perfectly ordered and nothing unexpected happens ever.... then the mild corrections I spoke of will disappear from my repertoire.  More power to you for being in that place already.

janetmichel3009

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. 

Ahhhh, but you see, if you can read the dog, you can see the jump coming and ask for the sit BEFORE he jumps.  If he DOES jump, you are better off turning away, or moving away, so that he is not rewarded (with your attention; even saying "sit" is attention) for jumping.  Someone hs probably alredy said that.  I am a bit behind.

most of the time, yes, i can see a jump coming. but with 2 dogs it isnt ALWAYS possible and turning away when wearing shorts for example got me some nasty scratches on the back of my legs... if my dogs' reason for jumping was attention and me saying sit was giving them that attention, then theoretically they should be jumping even more.... not really the case... i guess every dog is different, but this is just my experience.

anyhow, still, it really isnt practical advice to tell someone that when their dog is giving an undesirebal behaviour, the owner should have seen it coming... simply not everyone IS good at reading their dogs, also i dont know in what world it would be possible to pay attention to your dog to that degree to ALWAYS anticipate a behaviour... and some behaviours simply cannot be ignored... 

anyways... kinda going OT here....