Curious

[Cosmolo]

LP, i was just re reading the original post- do you really think that the dogs who have corrections in their training only work out of fear? What type of fear- of the correction or the handler? If a mother gives a pup a correction for mouthing too hard while playing for instance, does the pup not do it again because they are fearful of- the mother? the correction? Or because they want to keep playing and know that the hard mouth results in an undesirable consequence that ends it? Do you think dogs feel fear the same way we do? Or it is just avoidance of consequences the same way your dogs avoid not receiving the reward?

Sorry, off on a little tangent..

[Erny]

I have shared the same thoughts as Cosmolo here.

Giving a well-timed and sufficiently effective correction to a dog is not about making it fearful. It is about showing it that it has a choice and that it is in control of that choice. The choice to behave in a certain way, or another. It is the dog understanding that choice and knowing it is in control of it that actually produces confidence that it knows what to do that will be to its advantage.

I will use a somewhat extreme analogy here - extreme because I do not suggest by any stretch of imagination that the level of pain in this example is what signifies an "effective correction"................

We all know that if we put our hand on a hot stove top will cause major injury. But do we walk around the stove top in fear? I don't, because I have learnt that I am in control of whether I can avoid that correction or not. I simply need to not put my hand on it.

This example, as I say, is extreme. There are many examples of other and more mild aversives many of us experience in life that might serve as examples of effective corrections. Eg. I consistently receive a 'shock' after having alighted from my car (when I'm wearing rubber soled shoes) when I go to shut the door. I commonly end up swinging it shut but using my sleeved forearm. I'm not scared of my car, though. I am in control as to whether I receive a correction from it, or not.

An effective correction is one that delivers a level of unpleasantness necessary for the dog to want to avoid the behaviour it was corrected for, the next time. This can be as mild as a verbal correction, or simply the unpleansant (but not painful) sensation of an e-collar. A mix of reward for the dog performing a behaviour that is "wanted" further serves to make it clearer to the dog which behaviour is the most advantageous to it.

[leopuppy04]

LP, i was just re reading the original post- do you really think that the dogs who have corrections in their training only work out of fear? What type of fear- of the correction or the handler? If a mother gives a pup a correction for mouthing too hard while playing for instance, does the pup not do it again because they are fearful of- the mother? the correction? Or because they want to keep playing and know that the hard mouth results in an undesirable consequence that ends it? Do you think dogs feel fear the same way we do? Or it is just avoidance of consequences the same way your dogs avoid not receiving the reward?

Sorry, off on a little tangent..

Hmm... perhaps fear is not a good word.... it was one that popped into my head at the time ;)

No - I don't think that they have fear of the handler or that they have a fear that will affect their work ethic. I firmly believe that dogs trained 'traditionally' work just as much for the teamwork with the handler, the opportunity of rewards etc,etc as any dog trained another way.

But I do feel that they are fearful of making errors though. I think that they are concerned of what would happen should they put a foot wrong... not in a bad way - but in a case of shaping it may cause them to be concerned of making 'alternative' choices in case it is the wrong one. For example - a dog *knows* sit - but sits wide.... or sits slow - some may correct that so that the dog learns to sit fast and in the right position.... but how do we know that we corrected the dog for being lazy as opposed to being sore/ thinking about something..... does that make any sense?

In terms of correcting because of mouthing etc - ie: in a way that a mother does - no - I don't think that that has any bad consequences on the individual dog, because we haven't asked the dog to do anything, we are merely responding to it's behaviour.... I guess this is where I confuse most people as I am all for corrections in terms of manners, just not in 'training' ie: I was actually working with my dog to sit/drop whatever. No I don't mean in a formal obedience sense - even in terms of obedience around the house - i'd rather take a more 'neutral' approach.

Having said that - there are some instances (ie: police dogs) where correction is a must as we can't have the dogs 'questioning' what they are supposed to do. That could be the difference between life and death etc. So yes, these dogs need to know that there are no grey areas. But in all honesty - I don't mind if my dogs question - sometimes you come up with something fantastic instead.....

Does that make ANY sense???

ETA: to avoid further confusion - I *am* talking physical corrections here - I will of course 'correct' my dog if they don't do as asked by placing them into that position etc :D

Edited June 13, 2007 by leopuppy04

[Erny]

Leopuppy .... it sounds to me as if you are discussing "reliability" and the level each individual requires of their dog?

You are saying you are happy with what you achieve in your way, but recognise that others have reasons for achieving more reliability in the same/similar skills?

ETA: I work to avoid giving corrections unless I know the dog has an understanding of what behaviour is required.

Edited June 13, 2007 by Erny

[poodlefan]

Leopuppy:

But I do feel that they are fearful of making errors though. I think that they are concerned of what would happen should they put a foot wrong... not in a bad way - but in a case of shaping it may cause them to be concerned of making 'alternative' choices in case it is the wrong one. For example - a dog *knows* sit - but sits wide.... or sits slow - some may correct that so that the dog learns to sit fast and in the right position.... but how do we know that we corrected the dog for being lazy as opposed to being sore/ thinking about something..... does that make any sense?

I do see elevated stress levels in some dogs performing higher level obedience exercises.. in particular scent discrimination. I do not know if it is merely performance related stress,or uncertainty as to what is required or that the dogs are trained using aversives. The most stressed dogs I've seen are those trained in the lower levels that they don't do anything their handler doesn't tell them to.

Edited June 13, 2007 by poodlefan

[leopuppy04]

Leopuppy .... it sounds to me as if you are discussing "reliability" and the level each individual requires of their dog?

You are saying you are happy with what you achieve in your way, but recognise that others have reasons for achieving more reliability in the same/similar skills?

I guess so. I am not saying that my dogs are not reliable in any way though. 99.9% of the time if I give them a command they will instantly respond. But I am saying that I do understand that dogs trained for particular services don't have that option. You can't exactly tell a police dog to 'search' for that bomb and have them go - ummm... not today.... whereas in the pet home/ performance home - if we have a dog that says no I won't 'search' today it is not detrimental.

Now I know some people are going to say - but what if my dog is about to get hit by a car etc,etc.... yes, I understand that - but I DO think that the way I train is sufficient for them to respond in that scenario - I have living proof as it happened to me a few months ago and they DID respond. IMO - that is not about the method of training, but rather the proofing. Regardless of how the dog was trained, they can refuse a command - you just need to proof it so that they know obeying you is their best option.

I guess i'm talking more in the sense of tricks etc - If I ask my dog to sit - I dont' want it to think I can't move a muscle as I may later as it to 'wave' etc. A perfect example is Leo will sit infront of people and if really excited move his front feet..... I want to capture that and put that on cue.... but I don't want them to think that we *can't* do anything but sit here dead still..... LOL - I am terrible at explaining myself - I'm sorry!!!

Again - in terms of complex tricks - we usually will not correct our dogs - so I guess I just carry that over to the 'simpler' things also...

[Kelpie-i]

Sorry to butt in here....but just my 20c worth.

Rhapsodical78:I'd also like to add that many studies have been done to show that training only via inducive methods can result in an unreliable response. This is why corrections are still used in many of the professional fields, such as police work. It's also shown to be faster.

Inducement methods are used for teaching purposes only, as are compulsion (guide, show, place) methods and marking/shaping methods. Neither have anything to do with punishment both + or -. We need to be very careful when using terminology to ensure that the words we are using are in line with whatever is being discussed ie teaching methods or maintenance methods. Otherwise we all start getting confused. ;)

Cosmolo: do you really think that the dogs who have corrections in their training only work out of fear? What type of fear- of the correction or the handler? If a mother gives a pup a correction for mouthing too hard while playing for instance, does the pup not do it again because they are fearful of- the mother? the correction?

We should try not to compare a correction that comes from a human to one that comes from the dog's own species. Two different species communicating in two completely different ways.

Yes, the dog does develop varying levels of fear towards both the handler and the correction. A correction is a correction and is designed to provide a level of discomfort and sometimes pain to increase/decrease behaviour. What do you think the dog is thinking? It's the law of learning...something is uncomfortable/unpleasant, you avoid it. Do you fear it...of course you do.

Edited June 13, 2007 by Kelpie-i

[Guest rhapsodical78]

Rhapsodical78:I'd also like to add that many studies have been done to show that training only via inducive methods can result in an unreliable response. This is why corrections are still used in many of the professional fields, such as police work. It's also shown to be faster.

Inducement methods are used for teaching purposes only, as are compulsion (guide, show, place) methods and marking/shaping methods. Neither have anything to do with punishment both + or -. We need to be very careful when using terminology to ensure that the words we are using are in line with whatever is being discussed ie teaching methods or maintenance methods. Otherwise we all start getting confused. ;)

Not true. Incudive methods refer to those through which the dog is induced to do something while compulsive methods refer to those that compell a dog to do something. Inducive: R+ and P- (i.e give reward, deny reward). Compulsive: P+ and R- (i.e correct dog, remove undesirable stimuli). According to the NDTF these are the correct terms.

Edited June 13, 2007 by rhapsodical78

[Guest rhapsodical78]

Now I know some people are going to say - but what if my dog is about to get hit by a car etc,etc.... yes, I understand that - but I DO think that the way I train is sufficient for them to respond in that scenario - I have living proof as it happened to me a few months ago and they DID respond. IMO - that is not about the method of training, but rather the proofing. Regardless of how the dog was trained, they can refuse a command - you just need to proof it so that they know obeying you is their best option.

Unless your dog is 100% proofed then there's still a chance they won't obey you at a critical moment, whether or not you have found that they've responded well in the one instance you mentioned.

[Guest rhapsodical78]

I have shared the same thoughts as Cosmolo here.

Giving a well-timed and sufficiently effective correction to a dog is not about making it fearful. It is about showing it that it has a choice and that it is in control of that choice. The choice to behave in a certain way, or another. It is the dog understanding that choice and knowing it is in control of it that actually produces confidence that it knows what to do that will be to its advantage.

I will use a somewhat extreme analogy here - extreme because I do not suggest by any stretch of imagination that the level of pain in this example is what signifies an "effective correction"................

We all know that if we put our hand on a hot stove top will cause major injury. But do we walk around the stove top in fear? I don't, because I have learnt that I am in control of whether I can avoid that correction or not. I simply need to not put my hand on it.

This example, as I say, is extreme. There are many examples of other and more mild aversives many of us experience in life that might serve as examples of effective corrections. Eg. I consistently receive a 'shock' after having alighted from my car (when I'm wearing rubber soled shoes) when I go to shut the door. I commonly end up swinging it shut but using my sleeved forearm. I'm not scared of my car, though. I am in control as to whether I receive a correction from it, or not.

An effective correction is one that delivers a level of unpleasantness necessary for the dog to want to avoid the behaviour it was corrected for, the next time. This can be as mild as a verbal correction, or simply the unpleansant (but not painful) sensation of an e-collar. A mix of reward for the dog performing a behaviour that is "wanted" further serves to make it clearer to the dog which behaviour is the most advantageous to it.

Good response, erny. I agree. *gives treat*

[leopuppy04]

Now I know some people are going to say - but what if my dog is about to get hit by a car etc,etc.... yes, I understand that - but I DO think that the way I train is sufficient for them to respond in that scenario - I have living proof as it happened to me a few months ago and they DID respond. IMO - that is not about the method of training, but rather the proofing. Regardless of how the dog was trained, they can refuse a command - you just need to proof it so that they know obeying you is their best option.

Unless your dog is 100% proofed then there's still a chance they won't obey you at a critical moment, whether or not you have found that they've responded well in the one instance you mentioned.

But in my eyes - that doesn't come down to the method used, but the level to which you have trained :D. It stands exactly the same whether you correct/praise or click ;)

[Erny]

But in my eyes - that doesn't come down to the method used, but the level to which you have trained :D. It stands exactly the same whether you correct/praise or click ;)

I don't agree with this (highlighted section).

It does come down to the "method used" - it much depends on the dog and whether it sees a greater value in "disobeying" than "obeying" and what method best creates that balance.

Of course, the "level" of training contributes in all factors. But the method for one might not be sufficient for another.

Edited June 13, 2007 by Erny

[MonElite]

But in my eyes - that doesn't come down to the method used, but the level to which you have trained :D. It stands exactly the same whether you correct/praise or click ;)

Are you able to give several examples of very highly trained dogs that have very high drives and are hard headed, that have only been triane with pure positive methods?

[leopuppy04]

But in my eyes - that doesn't come down to the method used, but the level to which you have trained :D. It stands exactly the same whether you correct/praise or click ;)

It can come down to the "method used" - it much depends on the dog and whether it sees a greater value in "disobeying" than "obeying".

Of course, the "level" of training contributes in all factors. But the method for one might not be sufficient for another.

I dunno - I still see this level at the trainers discretion. It is up to the owner/trainer to find out how to make the BEST value obeying. To me - it is irrelevant how it is done - once you have found what motivates a dog - you are half way there :D

[Erny]

Inducement methods are used for teaching purposes only, as are compulsion (guide, show, place) methods and marking/shaping methods. Neither have anything to do with punishment both + or -.

I agree with Kelpie-i here. These methods are used to show the dog what behaviour we expect of them ..... what will achieve them things they like. In general practice, these methods are used so that the dog can build word association with the commands we attach to the actions. Once this is accomplished, we generally work towards weaning off from having to induce or physically compell the dog.

Having said this, there is one fine line I'd like to contribute my thoughts towards and that relates to the "guide, show, place" method of training. In this (apart from showing the dog what WILL achieve it something it would like), the dog's freedom to do anything other than what we want is removed. When the dog complies, freedom is restored (ie dog is released).

So we have a situation here that is a negative reinforcement (keeping dog in position until there is no resistance) OR a positive reward (releasing the dog because there is no resistance), depending on which way you wish to look at it. But then, if the dog IS resisting, the compulsion remains or increases. I can see here where this then can be perceived as a positive punishment. But again ............. it's a very fine line.

Edited June 13, 2007 by Erny

[Erny]

I'm sorry Leopuppy ..... you've lost me. I interpreted this

LP :

But in my eyes - that doesn't come down to the method used, but the level to which you have trained . It stands exactly the same whether you correct/praise or click

to mean you were suggesting that the same result can be achieved with every dog regardless of the training method you use but that it is the level the trainer trains to that makes the difference.

If that IS your meaning, I disagree.

But then, on your last post, it seems we both might be now saying the same thing? It is a matter of working out which method of training that best suits the dog.

In some cases, what MOST motivates the dog results in behaviours that are completely intolerable.

Edited June 13, 2007 by Erny

[Guest rhapsodical78]

Inducement methods are used for teaching purposes only, as are compulsion (guide, show, place) methods and marking/shaping methods. Neither have anything to do with punishment both + or -.

I agree with Kelpie-i here. These methods are used to show the dog what behaviour we expect of them ..... what will achieve them things they like. In general practice, these methods are used so that the dog can build word association with the commands we attach to the actions. Once this is accomplished, we generally work towards weaning off from having to induce or physically compell the dog.

Having said this, there is one fine line I'd like to contribute my thoughts towards and that relates to the "guide, show, place" method of training. In this (apart from showing the dog what WILL achieve it something it would like), the dog's freedom to do anything other than what we want is removed. When the dog complies, freedom is restored (ie dog is released).

So we have a situation here that is a negative reinforcement (keeping dog in position until there is no resistance) OR a positive reward (releasing the dog because there is no resistance), depending on which way you wish to look at it. But then, if the dog IS resisting, the compulsion remains or increases. I can see here where this then can be perceived as a positive punishment. But again ............. it's a very fine line.

All I can say is that the NDTF notes I have in front of me contradict that. So in the end it's a semantic argument and different people use different terms. I don't know if you've done the course and still have the notes but it's all under the 'Motivation Matrix' chart supplied.

You may be getting confused with 'Compulsion Training', which involves physically manouvering the dog into position.

[Arya]

I do see elevated stress levels in some dogs performing higher level obedience exercises.. in particular scent discrimination. I do not know if it is merely performance related stress,or uncertainty as to what is required or that the dogs are trained using aversives. The most stressed dogs I've seen are those trained in the lower levels that they don't do anything their handler doesn't tell them to.

PF this is a bit off topic but the elevated stress level thing, particularly with scent discrimination. I've noticed this lots at trials with scent discrimination. Dogs barking, dogs running in circles before getting down to doing the job. Dogs looking worried and uncertain. Do you think this could be a confidence thing with regard to learning to scent out objects? I wonder this because I do believe it's extremely easy to rush teaching this exercise and for the dog to lose confidence because of it. I spent absolutely ages teaching my dog scent discrimination. She will also do a trick of scenting out letters from a group of letters to spell stuff as an extra to the regular UD stuff. But... when I was teaching I noticed if she was uncertain she would grip the articles so tightly she'd almost break them, so I went back a step when this happened and made it easier. Result... lots of slow improvement and now a dog who does these easily and also helped a lot for confidence in using nose in seek back.

So do you think with that particular exercise it is the exercise itself, or the fact that we are asking the dog to work alone without directions from the handler beside them?

[leopuppy04]

I'm sorry Leopuppy ..... you've lost me. I interpreted this

LP :

But in my eyes - that doesn't come down to the method used, but the level to which you have trained . It stands exactly the same whether you correct/praise or click

to mean you were suggesting that the same result can be achieved with every dog regardless of the training method you use but that it is the level the trainer trains to that makes the difference.

If that IS your meaning, I disagree.

But then, on your last post, it seems we both might be now saying the same thing? It is a matter of working out which method of training that best suits the dog.

In some cases, what MOST motivates the dog results in behaviours that are completely intolerable.

The latter interpretation is correct ;).

It IS a matter of working out what best suits your dog, as well as motivation etc. At all costs - no matter what method we use, I am sure all of us are training so that we are the best thing to the dog and 'obeying' us is the best thing that they can possibly do.

What I meant in my first post, is that 'compliance' is dependent on the level you have trained IF you have first found out what is highly motivating for the dog. For example - saying that everything else is in place - if you have only trained the dog to come off lead in the back yard, why should it when there are more distractions..... it doesn't matter what method is used to initially train the come, but a matter of proofing and 'reminding' that yes, indeed, no matter where we are - WE (the trainer) have the best rewards on offer :D

Does that make more sense?

Edited June 13, 2007 by leopuppy04

[Erny]

You may be getting confused with 'Compulsion Training', which involves physically manouvering the dog into position.

I have done the NDTF course .... and I am familiar with the matrix you refer to. I am thinking beyond the basic foundations of what the course teaches though, and I don't believe I am conflicting with it.

"Compulsion" training method is what I was referring to in my post above. If you can clarify where you believe that what I am saying conflicts with what NDTF teaches, perhaps I can work out where you don't understand what I am saying. ;)