What are we "correcting"?

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. 

Is a dog's psyche so fragile that they can't even take a verbal correction?

janetmichel3009

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, 

Firstly - no I don't think it's too much of a tall order to anticipate many, if not most, undesirable behaviours, some, if not most, of the time.  Come on - it's common sense.  You come home, dog is excited, he hasn;t been trained not to jump yet (or he has, but not proofed against that level of excitement) - it's not really that much of a leap of imagination, is it?? 

I think there ARE ways around this problem without using corrections.  Having an untrained dog is a lesson in being, one, if not three, steps ahead.  You could wear trousers until you have trained and proofed the behaviour.  You could use a crate, and shape calm behaviour before letting the dog out, so he is less likely to jump and more likely to be ABLE to listen, because he is calmer. 

All that said - 

janetmichel3009

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...

I am not in a place where I am able to do that right now.  Perhaps if I'm honest, I'm not in a place where I am WILLING to do that right now!  That takes a lot of energy, and maybe I prefer to channel my energy elsewhere, or mybe I'm just  tad on the lazy side.  But it seems some people on this board ARE willing nd able to pay that amount of attention to their dogs, so it must be possible.

janetmichel3009

and some behaviours simply cannot be ignored... 

Nor am I suggesting they be.  I often wonder why it is that when anyone suggests avoiding correction, there is the assumption that the recommendation is to do nothing. This is not the case.

I don't think it's that OT.  Maybe it's opening people's minds to the possibility that corrections (prticulrly aversive ones) are necessary less often than perhaps we at first thought.  It's getting folks thinking, hey.... just when do we correct?  How?  Why?  What for?  How else could I do that?  Is there a better/simpler/kinder/faster/easier way? 

Chuffy

Firstly - no I don't think it's too much of a tall order to anticipate many, if not most, undesirable behaviours, some, if not most, of the time.  Come on - it's common sense.  You come home, dog is excited, he hasn;t been trained not to jump yet (or he has, but not proofed against that level of excitement) - it's not really that much of a leap of imagination, is it?? 

I like this. Now, perhaps it's my experience with dogs, but I go into working with dogs with the expectation that they will behave a certain way. So that when a dog jumps, or nips, or herds, or barks, etc, I am not surprised. If I am not surprised, I do not jump to punish. I think "Okay, the dog is currently doing A. I want the dog to do B. What do I need to teach the dog so that it understands B"? For me, that generally includes no punishment in the beginning. There are only limited behaviours I will use punishment in, and it's generally just removal of attention - stepping away and turning back for jumping, removing play from nipping puppies, etc.

I don't think it's so much that everyone is good at reading their dogs, I think it's more that people need to lower their expectations in the beginning and not expect perfection right away. Lassie only happened in the movies.

Chuffy

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...

This is generally true, although I think that people should be paying much more attention than they are. I will always say, and stand by my words, that if your dog is not trained, and you are not able to actively train, then use proper management and prevent the dog from doing the problem behaviour. It's quite simple really. If you know your attention will be divided, that's great, but don't set your dog up to fail. Put the dog on a down/stay, or in its bed, or even just in another room or behind a baby gate with a toy. Then, when you CAN devote your full attention to your dog, use that time to train what it is you want. In the mean time, don't allow it to happen until it is well-taught. And if you can't devote time to work on specific training issues, then....what are you doing with the dog?

In living with Gaci, there are certain issues in which I HAVE to devote my full, utmost attention to her when working with her. One example is introducing her to the new puppy Solo. She has no option to make her own decisions, there is no free time with her, she is not allowed to be set up to fail. Period. If I can't be totally, utterly focused on her when she is out with Solo, then she is in the bedroom behind closed doors, with a toy to play with and a chance to rest. The second I set her up to fail, even once, will backtrack all the work and training we have put in, and will reinforce the opportunity to make the wrong choice, which Gaci is notorious for.

So perhaps it is in working with special needs dogs that I have learned how important it is to devote your undivided attention to the task at hand. And if you can't, then don't allow the dog to fail, no matter how minor the situation. Just put the dog away so it can't practice the behaviour. It's simple management. But make sure you do take time to actually work the behaviour or else you will never get the dog's behaviour to change.

 I'm still a fan of the no-reward marker. It's just one more way I can communicate to my dogs. It's an easy way to interrupt behaviour before the dog even does it. I can tell from across the room if Kivi is thinking about pinching something off the coffee table and my little conditioned interruptor that essentially means to him "continue and I won't be happy with you" can serve to remind him that this is an exercise in futility and it might be better to do something else instead. Mind you, there is rarely any food or drink on the coffee table for him to pinch, but he will make do with an empty softdrink bottle or a paper bag. The rule has always been nothing on the coffee table is yours for the taking, but I guess Kivi finds the coffee table pretty intensely interesting even if it almost never pays. No-reward markers for Kivi are not aversive. He will happily try the exact same thing 5 minutes later. Over time, he tries less if my response is always the same, but he doesn't often give up.

Having said that, if I say "AH!" loudly and sharply enough it is aversive. When he was a puppy I did that one time when I caught him peeing inside and hustled him out really fast, but then he wouldn't come inside for the rest of the evening because I'd come on too strong by accident and he didn't know exactly what I was upset about, but figured it must be the kitchen. That's why I like a nrm that I have to teach in the first place. It's not inherently aversive and I need to teach what I want it to mean to him before it will work. For my dogs at least, I don't think it has become aversive once they learnt what it was about. 

I don't feel a need to ever be in a place with training where I don't have my interruptors and ways to tell my dogs I'm not keen on what they want to do. It's a bit weird to me. Once I am in a good place with my animals and they trust me, then why shouldn't I tell them when I don't like what they are doing? They sure tell me when they don't like what I'm doing, and I respect it. It's not like I'm asking them to show me compassion or empathy, just communicating. 

Kim_MacMillan

I like this. Now, perhaps it's my experience with dogs, but I go into working with dogs with the expectation that they will behave a certain way. So that when a dog jumps, or nips, or herds, or barks, etc, I am not surprised. If I am not surprised, I do not jump to punish. I think "Okay, the dog is currently doing A. I want the dog to do B. What do I need to teach the dog so that it understands B"? For me, that generally includes no punishment in the beginning. There are only limited behaviours I will use punishment in, and it's generally just removal of attention - stepping away and turning back for jumping, removing play from nipping puppies, etc.

same here... i think a lot of times people that are "purely positive" and/or have an aversion to corrections make assumptions on the mindset of people that do use corrections. just because i use corrections does not mean i dont understand and accept that many of the behaviours my dogs offer come natural to them. just because i use corrections does not mean i am unkind to my dogs or i dont try to accept them for what they are. it also doesnt mean i punish as an emotional response (thinking my dog is defying me). corrections are simply PART of my arsenal in teaching them appropriate behaviour in the human world. 

i know my dogs arent wrong, and just because corrections are called corrections, it still doesnt make me think they are. in fact, the only time i use the word "correction" is here on the board anyway.

ps: and yes, i DO anticipate behaviour most of the time. this is why i dont really have to use corrections a lot. but as i said, i dont anticipate them ALL the time, and ignoring doesnt always work. (and when it does, i STILL think of it as a correction - it stopped the undesired behaviour)

 I've only given a brief skim to the other posts, but I think there is an indiscrepancy between what correction should mean, and what people use it to mean. When you think of the word, at least to me, at means to correct something. It would mean to take something incorrect, and make it correct. If my professor makes corrections to my paper, he is marking some things as wrong, and showing me what I should have done. When using the term to refer to training dogs, I think the showing what should have been done is where a lot of people drop the ball. People tell the dog he did something wrong, but they usually fail to provide the dog with what he should have done. So, correction, as many people use it, probably means a punishment. It fails to become a correction because they do not then get the dog to do the desired behavior and reinforce that behavior.

Take for example the puppy peeing on the floor. In the first situation, the person only says no, or uh-uh, and interrupts the behavior. In the second scenario, the puppy is peeing on the floor, you interrupt, run him outside, and if he finishes going there, you give him some sort of reinforcer.

In short, the correction requires that the learner, in this case the dog, actually practices the correct behavior. The problem isn't with the procedure, the problem is that people are using the term incorrectly. 

Kim_MacMillan

Chuffy

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...

This is generally true, although I think that people should be paying much more attention than they are. I will always say, and stand by my words, that if your dog is not trained, and you are not able to actively train, then use proper management and prevent the dog from doing the problem behaviour.

Just to clarify - I didn't write that bit!  I quoted it from another post!  I do agree with you, particularly the bit you italicked

Kim_MacMillan

don't allow the dog to fail

Nice.  I like to say: "modify your OWN actions to produce the desired response", but I like your wording better.

corvus

The rule has always been nothing on the coffee table is yours for the taking, but I guess Kivi finds the coffee table pretty intensely interesting even if it almost never pays.

Ahhh, but "almost never pays" is the BEST way to keep a dog doing something.  Fruit machines "almost never pay".  Lotto jackpots "almost never" happen.  It's the possibility that it just MIGHT, maybe, just MAYBE, THIS time, I'll get lucky.... tht keeps us buying tickets

Your NRM sounds a bit like a "leave it" or "don't".  I don't personally think an NRM is the same as a correction, but that's why I don't like the word "correction".  Too many different ways to interpret it!

corvus

I don't feel a need to ever be in a place with training where I don't have my interruptors and ways to tell my dogs I'm not keen on what they want to do. It's a bit weird to me.

Thing is - I don't think corrections re a very good idea while TEACHING.  I don't think they are very effective, or very conducive to learning.  Not usully horribly damaging, or terribly morally wrong.  Just not that good.  And if the teaching is done thoroughly and properly, then the correction is simply not NEEDED later. 

griffinej5

When using the term to refer to training dogs, I think the showing what should have been done is where a lot of people drop the ball. People tell the dog he did something wrong, but they usually fail to provide the dog with what he should have done. So, correction, as many people use it, probably means a punishment.

Excellently put, and is relly simply another word for "re-direction" - no?

Still, if you hve to redirect, the dog still hs had chnce to "practise" the unwanted behaviour one more time.  I noticed this when I was about 12 and got my first dog.  The things he ws simply never allowed to do in the first place were a non-issue.  Being bright, he picked things up FAST, but unfortunately for me, he picked up the "bad" stuff just as quickly as he picked up the things I WANTED to teach.  It's like.... well, it's like  stream wearing a path down a mountain.  Every time it happens, it makes it more likely it will happen again.  Probably something to do with the brain and neurl pathways and what not, but there you are.  I leave it to folks brainer than me to pick up the torch.

denise m

Is a dog's psyche so fragile that they can't even take a verbal correction?

Some dogs, yes. But generally, no. But the point is to be accurate about what you are doing. You don't have to assume that people are saying that you can never "correct" your dog. Just now what you are correcting and realize whether it is actually correcting or not. If you have to do it all the time, it's not really an effective correction and may possibly be more of a cue for change of focus.

Chuffy

Thing is - I don't think corrections re a very good idea while TEACHING.  I don't think they are very effective, or very conducive to learning.  Not usully horribly damaging, or terribly morally wrong.  Just not that good.  And if the teaching is done thoroughly and properly, then the correction is simply not NEEDED later. 

But aren't we always teaching? Isn't it kind of an organic, fluid process? Penny is 13 and she's still learning stuff whether I try to teach her or not, so why divide life with dogs into teaching and not teaching?

I think we're getting a bit mixed up again. My point is, it seems some people are saying they just deal with the things they don't want their dog to do by telling them to do something incompatible. That's fine, but I'm saying that's just not for me. I just have a different approach. If I wanted them to do something else instead I could ask for it and that's all good, but if I go around asking for something else every time they are about to do something I don't think I'll like then life is a bit boring. Take Penny jumping into the duck pond a couple of weeks ago when I told her not to. If I was really bent on her not going in I would have put her on leash and she wouldn't have been able to, and I nearly did, but seeing her cheerfully ignoring me and paddling around with the ducks was kinda funny and got a little kid over to ask me a myriad of questions about why dogs would go into such stinky water and then she couldn't get out and me and the kid had to go and find a spot where she would be able to get out and that was really all a lot more interesting than putting her on leash or the stress of asking her to do something and wondering if she was going to blow me off. I told her I wasn't going to like it and she did it anyway. That in itself is interesting.

This is just the way I do things. I would rather say "I'm not keen on this plan of yours" and be blown off anyway than to ask for something incompatible and get it every time. If she hadn't stayed away from the pond like I told her to I wouldn't have had the fun of talking about dogs to a little boy and his slightly crazy grandfather. On the other hand, she's not allowed to go into the water at the dog park because I know people's dogs have got sick from it. If she ever looked like she was going to do it she would be back on leash quick smart.

What can I say? I like being blown off. There are only a few things in life that aren't voluntary for my dogs and if it goes against their natural inclinations I rely just about exclusively on positive reinforcement.

 

I guess I must be speaking a different language.  As the OP, I just want to say that this thread was NEVER about whether to correct dogs or not.

It WAS about the fact that humans correct dogs for behavior which is, TO THE DOG, absolutely correct, but which humans do not want the dog to do, and the idea that we should, instead of thinking of the dog as WRONG, merely think of him as not understanding our customs.  I believe that if we do that, we are far more likely to EXPLAIN an alternative behavior, and not simply punish for such behavior.  If you reached out your hand to shake mine, and I yelled at you, I'd be punishing behavior that you think is socially acceptable in this country.  Wouldn't it be better for me to take you aside, explain that in my land shaking hands is rude, and tell you what to do instead so that others would not criticize you????

Sorry SD. I do get it and I agree. I just got caught up in trying to explain why I don't have much of a problem with the dogs doing what comes naturally to them in the first place, and why I don't usually "correct" or punish them. 

I did get it. And most of what we are modifying in a dog is behavior that comes naturally to them that might not fit with our society. So, I use what comes naturally to a dog, rewards and/or resource gathering. If he's doing something that I don't want him to do and he is doing it because it's rewarding and that cannot be denied, then I aim to make what I want more rewarding than that. Even when I call Shadow off, it is not a correction. It is a re-direction or re-focus on me and he does it because "off"ing has been so rewarding. Even a dog that is ignoring your command, even with treat in hand, is doing so because what they are doing is more important to them than what you have in your hand. That is what you have to compete with. For some dogs, a job is the most rewarding thing of all, even if that job is guarding or whatever. So, offering them other guarding opportunites is a way of using what their natural reward is to do as you ask. And the bottom line of what any dog does, be it pursuit, guarding, or herding is to gain resources that lead to continued survival.

I'm so lazy, I like to cut to the chase and just be the biggest reward. Any animal, human or dog, avoids displeasure and seeks pleasure. Always and forever, amen.

corvus

Sorry SD. I do get it and I agree. I just got caught up in trying to explain why I don't have much of a problem with the dogs doing what comes naturally to them in the first place, and why I don't usually "correct" or punish them. 

That's ok, I just wanted the discussion to be about the topic, and not just another go round about the quadrants of operant conditioning;-)