Training by Ommission

[Boxergirl]

It's like hitting my head against a wall, trying to discuss something with you. Never have I said that I do not correct and never have I said that correcting will ruin a dog. Please do not attribute things to me that I have not said.

 

[marke]

It's like hitting my head against a wall, trying to discuss something with you. Never have I said that I do not correct and never have I said that correcting will ruin a dog. Please do not attribute things to me that I have not said.

i'm sorry , you really strike me as a very nice person , no i don't attribute them to you , honestly the first i ever heard of purely positive training was on this message board , from glascowdogtrainer ......... there are actually two post in this thread where the folks claim to have raised their dogs without corrections .... to me that means they raised their dogs without ever correcting them ........ i've had enough dogs that i do realize how simple their reasoning is , and how simple their rules are among themselves ..... it doesn't take much to correct a pup , i have to wonder if some of these folks have ever watched dogs correct themselves ? i imagine they'd have to tell them they're doing it wrong ......

 

[Boxergirl]

i'm sorry , you really strike me as a very nice person , no i don't attribute them to you , honestly the first i ever heard of purely positive training was on this message board , from glascowdogtrainer ......... there are actually two post in this thread where the folks claim to have raised their dogs without corrections .... to me that means they raised their dogs without ever correcting them ........ i've had enough dogs that i do realize how simple their reasoning is , and how simple their rules are among themselves ..... it doesn't take much to correct a pup , i have to wonder if some of these folks have ever watched dogs correct themselves ? i imagine they'd have to tell them they're doing it wrong ......

Thank you. It did seem to me that you were addressing me directly. I had a very good video posted called Corrections in Clicker Training. It addressed all the issues we are discussing. It's no longer available to watch for free and it's a shame more people didn't see it. We are all more alike than we think. And with the exception of possibly Glasgow, I really don't know of anyone that considers themselves "purely" positive.

 

[sjdavenport]

I also never said that I am "purely positive." The very fact that I said I use no reward markers excludes me from that group. I said I don't use "corrections" aka punishments or physical reprimands including prong collars, e-collars, scruffing, squirt bottles, bonkers, etc. Which is what Sean O'Shea considers a correction. Which is what this post was about. In my understanding, it was stated that if you don't correct (punish) an unwanted behavior, then you MUST be ignoring it and therefore reinforcing it. I disagreed, and that's the only reason I replied. There are other ways to deal with an unwanted behavior. I didn't say people who punish their dogs are wrong, that it's abuse, or that it damages dogs. I just said you don't HAVE to do it that way. I choose to do it another way. It works for me. I acknowledge that your way works, but I'm saying that it's not the only way. I have the proof sleeping in their beds in front of me. Don't tell me how to train my dogs, and I won't tell you how to train yours. End of story.

 

[marke]

i wouldn't tell you how to raise your dog no more than i'd tell someone how to raise their kids ..... having done both , it works exactly the same , consequences , good and bad ....... folks been successfully training dogs/animals for at least 10,000 yrs , it was possible because they learn just like us ..................

 

[Hiraeth]

Well, to me correction is to show the correct way to do something. There are many ways to do that that don't require physical "corrections" or even words. It's my opinion that most people that say correction actually mean punishment. I mean really, call it what it is. If it's a harsh enough "correction" to be "believable" then it's a punishment. Nothing wrong with coming right out and saying it.

I think this is at the heart of many of the issues and misunderstandings between trainers who use corrections, trainers who use punishment, and trainers who don't. The terms are used to cover a wide variety of behaviors. Beyond that, the meaning of the word is chosen by both the trainer performing the behavior AND the dog who is receiving the correction/punishment.

For instance, I think repeatedly yelling "no" at a dog for performing an undesired behavior is punishment. It's not showing the dog the correct way to behave, it's adding something that's negatively reinforcing or aversive to a situation to make a dog less likely to perform an unwanted behavior (+P). However, many people think yelling "no" at their dogs is just a simple correction.

Simultaneously, some hard dogs completely ignore being yelled at and are totally not influenced by a strong "no". To these dogs, being yelled at is neither corrective nor a punishment. On the other hand, some soft dogs are totally shut down by raised voices (like mine) and would find being yelled at to be incredibly aversive.

And beyond that, I have met many people in my canine communities who don't view things like scruffing, smacking or alpha rolling their dogs as punishment. And I view all of those behaviors as abuse.

So, when the definition of correction/punishment is so multifaceted, it's always going to lead to misunderstandings.

But, to try to clear it up for anyone reading this - correction is showing the dog a "correct" way to behave. This does not include yelling "no", or even using NRMs. Punishment is adding something negative or *using the removal of something positive* from a situation in order to decrease the likelihood of a behavior. Not giving a dog a treat because it incorrectly performs a command is (a mild) punishment. Ignoring a dog for jumping on you or performing other attention seeking behaviors is (a mild) punishment. Yelling "no" is punishment.

Anyone who thinks they know even a small amount about dog training should know the four quadrants of operant conditioning and should understand how to use each quadrant to get the desired results from their particular dog.

 

[Hiraeth]

I don't crate any of my dogs either. None were trained with corrections. I stopped crating my corso at 6 or 7 months. All are completely trustworthy in the house. No countersurfing, no chewing, no garbage eating. Our trash can lid actually got broken in our recent move, and we haven't gotten around to getting a new one, so we've been without a lid on the trash can for a month now. The dogs are home alone all day. No one has touched it. It can definitely be done.

Same. I've started leaving Titan out at 7 months of age and have gradually increased the amount of time he's been left alone. He's never destroyed anything except for de-stuffing one of his own toys. He is tall enough to reach on all of my counters with ease and I accidentally left a loaf of bread out just last week. It was still there when I got home.

Hiraeth & sjdavenport - when teaching your puppy a "Place" command... what did you do when the puppy left the "place"? once the puppy understood the command, did he then NEVER test the limits again??

My place command and my stay command are two different things. That being said, the times Titan has left his place, I've simply called him to me, rewarded him for obeying my command and coming to me, and then asked him to go back to his place, at which point I've jackpotted him for going and then I've asked for a stay and jackpotted him for staying for a short duration. Then I increase the duration work. I haven't pushed him too far yet, but the longest he's stayed in place with me throwing food randomly on the floor around him is fifteen minutes before I released him to pick up the food.

In general, I think a big issue with the communication between various members here and dog trainers in general is that many of us have the "I could train your dog better than you have" or the "my methods work better than yours FOR ALL DOGS EVER" mindset. Won't lie, I have often thought I could probably take many dogs here who are trained with moderate punishment and I could train them just as effectively without using any punishment whatsoever. And I'm sure many people who use punishment think they could do exactly what I do with Titan. But that's not a mindset that's helpful to anyone and it shuts down communication and learning opportunities because instead of viewing each other as peers, we view each other as inferior/superior. And that goes both ways between both positive trainers and people who use punishments.

 

[Joao M]

In general, I think a big issue with the communication between various members here and dog trainers in general is that many of us have the "I could train your dog better than you have" or the "my methods work better than yours FOR ALL DOGS EVER" mindset. Won't lie, I have often thought I could probably take many dogs here who are trained with moderate punishment and I could train them just as effectively without using any punishment whatsoever. And I'm sure many people who use punishment think they could do exactly what I do with Titan. But that's not a mindset that's helpful to anyone and it shuts down communication and learning opportunities because instead of viewing each other as peers, we view each other as inferior/superior. And that goes both ways between both positive trainers and people who use punishments.

I agree 100% with you on this
Reading these discusssions (here and in another US forum) and coming from another country and culture, I find two things as regards raising a dog in the US, if you don´t mind me saying it with a bit of exaggeration :

a) Raising a dog in the US is rocket science and you almost need a PhD for it. You have so many theories and concepts and argue so much about it that I imagine it gets very confusing for new dog owners that try to find "a good method to raise a dog";
b) The "concepts" vary from region to region/ one person to the other: What is considered "correction" for some is considered "punishment" for others; what may be considered totally normal or even recommended for some is considered aversive/abuse for other. The dialog gets complicated;
And I will give you a couple of examples mixing (continental)Europe/US cultures so you see how diff things are and how complicated it gets to understand diff concepts:
1- crating a dog/puppy during day time while the owner is working is considered a normal education procedure in the US; in my country it is considered an aversive/very aversive method; in central Europe, an Austrian (if I´m not mistaken) court has considered "crime of animal abuse" to crate a dog 3-4 hours a day, 5 days a week.;
2-slapping a dog (or even a child for that effect) in the butt is considered perfectly acceptable in most European countries as part of education but is considered abuse in most (if not all) US States.Just my 2 cents

 

[Joao M]

Let me add another thing:
When I sarted working as a trainee 23 years ago there was an office employee that always explain what she did (basically registrations at the commercial registrar) as something extremely complicated and that what the law referred had nothing to do with what happened in "real life". She was trying to be "smart" and make herself needed by "selling" as very complicated a simple task. She created artificial difficulties to be the only one that could overcome them.
Sometimes I wonder if a similar thing isn´t happening in the dog world...

 

[Iulicris88]

I totally agree with you Joao M! The cultural differences between Europe and US are huge. I keep reading about the absolute necessity of crating and I'm like, how is this any better than chaining the dogs and is it really the only solution? I know some people will get offended by this, but it's just my personal opinion. Raising your voice or telling no or, God forbid, slapping your dogs ass is considered extreme punishment by some people. To me, it's just something normal that might be necessary in certain situations. And guess what, I've never had fearful or aggressive dogs. I also think that in Europe people tend to give more freedom to their dogs as they are often left unsupervised into the house or a fenced yard, if there's one. I feel that people have forgotten that dogs have lived long, healthy lives before the invention of crates and fancy kibble and all the theories about proper training and what screws a dog up.
Anyway, my point was that what some people find aversive in training their dog can be considered perfectly natural by others and vice versa.

 

[Boxergirl]

More important than what *I* find aversive is what each of my dogs finds aversive.

 

[Hiraeth]

More important than what *I* find aversive is what each of my dogs finds aversive.

Completely agreed. And unfortunately, that is NOT a consideration most people make. I can't even count the number of times I've heard "my last dog wasn't scared by yelling/smacking so this dog shouldn't be either" or "this is the way I train my dog and my dog deals with it just fine so yours should, too".

 

[Joao M]

I agree considering the statement (like all) goes both ways: neither we can be "aversive" with dog B just because that worked with dog A nor we can be "positive only" with dog D just because that always worked with dog C.

 

[Hiraeth]

I agree considering the statement (like all) goes both ways: neither we can be "aversive" with dog B just because that worked with dog A nor we can be "positive only" with dog D just because that always worked with dog C.

I don't think anyone on this forum is a "purely positive" trainer. As BoxerGirl argued earlier in this thread, many people read "positive" as "permissive". And there's a big difference. I'm a positive trainer, and my dogs work harder to earn permission to walk out my front door and get into the van to go for a walk than most people's dogs work in a week. They're asked to perform for a paycheck (treats/rewards/meals/going outside) countless times per day.

I am very permissive when it comes to some things. I don't care if Titan steps on me, sits on my lap, shoves his toys in my face, etc. Just doesn't bother me. But the things that do bother me are things I train very hard to avoid - pulling on the leash, poor recall, door rushing, counter surfing, begging. Instead of "correcting" or "punishing" for those behaviors, I train behaviors that counter the behaviors that I don't want to see, and proof them in tougher and tougher environments with more distractions. I never have to yell at my dogs, or tell them "no", because my training is solid enough, and proofed enough, that they rarely perform behaviors that are incorrect.

When they do perform incorrect behaviors, like when Little Dog broke his sit and rushed out the door last week, I realized that I had let my duration stays slack, and I proceeded to work harder on duration stays all this week. He didn't get punished for breaking his sit - he got rewarded for coming back to me when I recalled him.

A dog needing frequent corrections is the sign of poor, mismanaged, or inefficient training.

 

[Joao M]

I don´t think anyone on this forum is an aversive trainer also.
We just like to use fancy words

 

[Hiraeth]

I would disagree. I have seen many aversive things recommended on this forum, like digging fingernails into puppy gums to stop them from nipping. When someone's FIRST response to an undesired behavior is to cause the dog pain to stop the behavior, they're an aversive trainer.

 

[marke]

I would disagree. I have seen many aversive things recommended on this forum, like digging fingernails into puppy gums to stop them from nipping. When someone's FIRST response to an undesired behavior is to cause the dog pain to stop the behavior, they're an aversive trainer.

to start , that is a ridiculous thought , and would be an even more ridiculous practice ...... it's why nobody who doesn't know should listen to any of this stuff without looking into it beyond a single source of info ........... as far as , as you all like to put it , "causing a dog pain" to stop a behavior makes you an "aversive" trainer , how do you know it doesn't make you a "balanced " trainer ...........

 

[Boxergirl]

There are actual definitions of behavior modification and psychology terminology. Aversive conditioning is defined as the use of something unpleasant to stop an unwanted behavior. That's pretty straight forward. As for the term "balanced" - I'm skeptical of any trainer that calls themselves balanced. I feel like it's become the new buzzword but it doesn't really mean anything specific except to the person who's saying it. That's why I think using the terminology correctly is so important. It's not using fancy words, it's having a concrete definition so that the term means the same thing to everyone.

 

[Hiraeth]

There are actual definitions of behavior modification and psychology terminology. Aversive conditioning is defined as the use of something unpleasant to stop an unwanted behavior. That's pretty straight forward. As for the term "balanced" - I'm skeptical of any trainer that calls themselves balanced. I feel like it's become the new buzzword but it doesn't really mean anything specific except to the person who's saying it. That's why I think using the terminology correctly is so important. It's not using fancy words, it's having a concrete definition so that the term means the same thing to everyone.

The only people who don't like using correct terminology and repeatedly rally against definitions are the people who lack enough knowledge about the topic to have a reasonable and educated discussion about it

 

[Joao M]

Well...nevermind