My reasons for "positive" training

[MicheleS.]

Just trying to understand what cue means. I've been doing a little bit of this myself and sorry, I can only relate it to what I know - obedience.

Rootbeer, when I get out my dumbbell for a fetch, I'm thinking that the dumbbell itself is the cue. Am I right? I've taught them the dumbbell is a great thing and my dogs get excited at the sight of it. I'm thinking that I taught the dumbbell as a cue, it means we're going to set up and you're going to be able to fetch it.

Another example of a cue would be when I set up for a jump. My set up, if I train it right, can become a cue. Is that right?

Just asking for my own information, because I sincerely want to make sure I understand.

 

My head spins back and forth while reading this thread I can understand both sides. I think I must sit in the middle. But reading this thread is very thought provoking for me.

[Root Beer]

Just trying to understand what cue means. I've been doing a little bit of this myself and sorry, I can only relate it to what I know - obedience.

Rootbeer, when I get out my dumbbell for a fetch, I'm thinking that the dumbbell itself is the cue. Am I right? I've taught them the dumbbell is a great thing and my dogs get excited at the sight of it. I'm thinking that I taught the dumbbell as a cue, it means we're going to set up and you're going to be able to fetch it.

 

The cue is the word, or signal, that indicates what the dog is to do - and when.

 

So, the dumbell itself is not the cue. If it were, the dog would be welcome to grab it anytime he saw it. The cue would be whatever your signal is for him to go and get it. That can be a word, a physical gesture, or whatever you use.

 

You might have many cues that are associated with the dumbell. You might have a cue for the dog to retrieve it, drop it, ignore it, grab it and toss it in the air, pick it up and go over a jump with it, pick it up and run around the room with it, pick it up in his paws and sit pretty holding it up, run around it, jump over it, pick it up and put it in the trash can, etc. And the cue might indicate that the dog is to do one of these things after holding a sit stay, right away, or later on.

 

That said, of course I would want the dumbell itself to be reinforcing. But even more than the dumbell itself, the act of going to retrieve it. And - this is what I had sort of missed before - even the word or signal that indicates that the dumbell is now to be retrieved can be a reinforcer.

 

Another example of a cue would be when I set up for a jump. My set up, if I train it right, can become a cue. Is that right?

 

Whatever you do to indicate that the dog is to set up would be the cue. That might be "sit-stay". Or "setup". Or a hand signal.

 

So, both the setup itself, and the word or signal that indicates that the dog is to do it can become a reinforcer.

[Root Beer]

The dispute is not about positive reinforcement, which both sides speak in favor of. The dispute is about corrections, which one side favors in addition to positive reinforcement and the other categorically opposes. I don't see much common ground on that point. But then, I don't expect much.

 

Might the common ground be that both sides are using what they understand to produce the best training results, what they hold to be best for the dog (an individual and/or dogs in general), and what fosters the strongest bond between dog and handler?

[Eileen Stein]

Might the common ground be that both sides are using what they understand to produce the best training results, what they hold to be best for the dog (an individual and/or dogs in general), and what fosters the strongest bond between dog and handler?

 

Well, sure. And also that we both have border collies.

 

But to me the first glimpse of genuinely interesting common ground between us is this: "That said, of course I would want the dumbell itself to be reinforcing. But even more than the dumbell itself, the act of going to retrieve it. And - this is what I had sort of missed before - even the word or signal that indicates that the dumbell is now to be retrieved can be a reinforcer." It's not common ground on the "corrections/no corrections" issue. But it seems as if it might be common ground on the "intrinsic rewards/extraneous rewards" issue.

 

I've told the story often of how my first border collie would sometimes stop in mid-retrieve and look at me, for the sheer pleasure of hearing me say, "Bring the [object]" and doing it. I think it's intrinsically rewarding to most border collies to be asked to do something, to grasp what you want and to do it. I love to try to train in a way that uses that, rather than see it go to waste or extinguish it.

[Root Beer]

But to me the first glimpse of genuinely interesting common ground between us is this: "That said, of course I would want the dumbell itself to be reinforcing. But even more than the dumbell itself, the act of going to retrieve it. And - this is what I had sort of missed before - even the word or signal that indicates that the dumbell is now to be retrieved can be a reinforcer." It's not common ground on the "corrections/no corrections" issue. But it seems as if it might be common ground on the "intrinsic rewards/extraneous rewards" issue.

 

I've told the story often of how my first border collie would sometimes stop in mid-retrieve and look at me, for the sheer pleasure of hearing me say, "Bring the [object]" and doing it. I think it's intrinsically rewarding to most border collies to be asked to do something, to grasp what you want and to do it. I love to try to train in a way that uses that, rather than see it go to waste or extinguish it.

 

Yes, we definitely agree there.

[alligande]

This thread like many people has my head spinning I am like many people on this board I train with positive techniques but use verbal and pressure corrections, not when I am training a basic skill like sit, but in day today life, such as the example that was used of no you can't have the food on the floor.

 

When I train agility I do use a purely positive approach, it is a game and when the dog takes the wrong direction it is usually because I have messed up, so I try to not use negative tones in my voice, which if you have heard my rather bad potty mouth is the hardest challenge I am having in playing agility. If I use a negative tone I find my dog shuts down and does not to play.

 

In life skills I have no problem using that same negative tone as it is not a game but a requirement that you do what I tell you.

 

I guess my fundamental question that I have never understood is if our dogs are as intelligent and as easily trained as we all believe, why can they not understand the meaning of NO, I have always felt that my dogs understood what was inappropriate with a well placed No or its equivelant. And if they can understand the meaning of those verbal corrections what is so wrong in using them, we teach ourselves and our children with negative feedback as well as positive.

 

And my final comment is regarding using names in agility, my agility trainer is also constantly correcting me for over using my dogs name, I am supposed to save it for those times when he is determined to go in a different direction, or is flirting with the judge to get his attention, not to use it in the context of Brody Tunnel, Brody Jump etc. In fact when you watch some of the best agility handlers they hardly speak, just provide physical direction and reserve voice for when really needed. In the example that has being used already with the tunnel and jump, I have been trained to use a simple "here" to get the dog re-focused on me.

 

I think the use of the dogs name may come from obediance, I was watching a video of the Monks of New Skete training and they said to use the dogs name before each command to get her attention.

Kristine,

Interesting on the name calling thing. It probably explains why a couple of my students seem to want to preface every command they give a dog with the dog's name first. These are folks who have done agility training (for varying lengths of time, but all did agility before also starting stockdog training). So I, and their dogs, hear a lot of Joe, lie down. Joe, away to me. Joe, walk up. I'm constantly correcting the *human* for overuse of the dog's name!

 

 

J.

[geonni banner]

I'm one of those people who was taught to use the dog's name before issuing a command. I realized while reading the last two posts that I have stopped doing it except in specific contexts. If I'm on the street standing and talking with a group of people and I want to give a command, I use her name first. I think it's because I want her to know that I'm talking to her before I give the command.

In situations where I want her to stop doing something I will often say, "Hey." or even "HEY!" to register displeasure. Then give a command like "easy" ( for when she's grabbing a treat too roughly, playing too roughly with another dog, etc.) or, "Knock it off." (for when she's pestering the cat to play and he clearly doesn't want to.)

 

I do use her name before a long, off-lead recall. I imagine that it helps to focus her and avoid the "Oh, were you talking to ME?" response that dogs sometimes affect when they are having fun and don't want to come in.

 

I also use it frequently when teaching a new command/behavior, or one that she has been taught recently. I do it to separate it from whatever blather is going on at the time (I talk to myself and to the cat) and to put her on notice that the next word I'm going to use will require a response from her. So when I say her name - especially with a particular intonation - it conveys to her, "I'm going to ask you for something, pay attention and think/remember what this means and what you do when you hear it." Sort of like when you say to a very young child, "What do you say?" And the kid thinks and then says, "Thank you/ please/ sorry," etc.

 

For more automatic, well-learned commands like "sit" or "down" or "be still" I don't use her name. She seems to pick these out of the context of ambient talk, conversation; but interestingly, only when they are actual commands. For instance, if I use the phrase "down the stairs" in conversation, she doesn't lie down - even if she's "following the conversation." And thank doG, she doesn't pee when I say "Hurry up" unless I'm looking at her and we're outdoors!

[Root Beer]

I guess my fundamental question that I have never understood is if our dogs are as intelligent and as easily trained as we all believe, why can they not understand the meaning of NO, I have always felt that my dogs understood what was inappropriate with a well placed No or its equivelant. And if they can understand the meaning of those verbal corrections what is so wrong in using them, we teach ourselves and our children with negative feedback as well as positive.

 

I don't think any reinforcement based trainer would say that a dog cannot learn the meaning of the word "no", nor that there are not appropriate times in life to tell a dog "no".

 

Example - when I'm leaving for training class, all of my dogs crowd around, vying to be one of the ones to go. I will say "no, dog's name", and that dog knows that he or she is not going. That dog usually proceeds to go lounge on a piece of furniture to watch us depart. "No" tells the dog "you're not going" and they understand that. So, it's not that they don't, or can't know the meaning of "no".

 

Interestingly, it has become a habit in everyday life for me to tell my dog what I want, where others would tend to say "no". I don't even think about this. If a dog puts paws up on something and I want them off, I say "off". I don't even think about it. If the dog picks up something he's not supposed to have, I say "drop it" or "give it" automatically. When I really started to think in terms of telling what the dog what I want in training, this just naturally carried over into everyday life. And I like that mode of expression a lot. It has become very natural.

 

I think, rather than thinking that a dog cannot know the meaning of "no", there are different ways to view what the dog is actually doing when he jumps up, picks up something he's not supposed to have, pulling on the leash, etc. And no, those who train with reinforcement don't just let it go and do nothing, hoping that the dog will figure out the right thing to do on his own someday. :D Quite the opposite. Those things present opportunities to train the dog to do what is desired.

 

In a lot of ways, it comes down to a different way of thinking about dogs and their behavior and how they learn. Not really a particular problem with "no" in and of itself.

 

I think the use of the dogs name may come from obediance, I was watching a video of the Monks of New Skete training and they said to use the dogs name before each command to get her attention.

 

Interesting!

[Shetlander]

I think the use of the dogs name may come from obediance, I was watching a video of the Monks of New Skete training and they said to use the dogs name before each command to get her attention.

 

Yeah, that is a long held practice in obedience. The name helps get attention and in the ring gives you that much more of a chance to not lose points or blow an exercise.

 

Makes me think of when I first started in agility. I was running my very green Sheltie and being way too encouraging at a trial. The judge saw me later in the day when I was getting scores and gruffly informed me "You don't have to keep saying the dog's name. That's the only one you have in the ring with you." I figure I must have driven her nuts with my nervous dog, nervous chatter and high pitched (due to being nervous) voice saying "Sassy!" over and over and over.

[rushdoggie]

The gulf is not as wide as one might suppose from reading this thread, at least in my opinion, and both sides can learn something by listening to the best of the other approach with an open mind.

 

I know I said I wasn't going to post here anymore but I just liked this and felt compelled to add my +1.

[juliepoudrier]

In a lot of ways, it comes down to a different way of thinking about dogs and their behavior and how they learn. Not really a particular problem with "no" in and of itself.

I don't understand this comment. I don't see how a person who uses "no" versus some other command for some situations is somehow thinking about dogs and their behavior and the way they learn in a different way from someone who always gives a command instead of using "no" or "ah, ah." I use "no" when it makes sense to do so, though more often I would just say "ah, ah!" for those sorts of situations. So for the food on the floor example (though in my case, it's more likely to be someone's meds that have hit the floor, where it's critical some other dog doesn't snag it), I would automatically say "ah, ah!" which would signal to any dog nearby that it should not go for whatever just hit the floor. But if we're out on a walk and Ranger picks up an stick and starts swinging it around, I tell him "drop it." If he drops it and then tries to pick it up again, I may say "leave it" or I may say "ah, ah," it just depends on what comes out of my mouth. If we're working sheep and I give a flank command and he goes the opposite way, I will usually say "lie down" (which would be the equivalent of, say, your "off" as it's giving him a command to do something else rather than the wrong thing he's doing at the moment) and once he's stopped give the flank command again. Occasionally I will say "no" when he takes a wrong command.

 

In other words, I use a whole mix of commands, come of which just happen to me "no" or "ah, ah!" To me, it's all information/communication with the dog. They are words we choose to use to convey something to the dog. I could just as easily (okay, maybe not so easily) say tiddlywink to the dog every time I mean no, and the same information would be conveyed (once the dog made the connection), so I'm just not getting how the word itelf is so critical or somehow indicates a different understanding of dog behavior and learning. Seriously. Maybe that just means I'm completely muddled when it comes to thinking about dog behavior and how dogs learn, or maybe it means I'm positively brilliant when it comes to behavior and training--and my dogs are too, since they manage to understand all the shadings that go into the commands I use, or don't.

 

(And I get it that some folks have experiences in which all they have heard is "no," "no," "no" repeatedly when someone is attempting to train a dog, but in that case of course what you have is an example of poor training and the sort of nagging that can take place no matter what the actual word or command is. Heck, I've seen plenty of inexperienced handlers at sheepdog trials yell lie down over and over and over again to no effect, but observing that wouldn't make me decide that "lie down" is in and of itself is a command to be avoided because of its potential for misuse; it would simply signal to me that the person using the command has a poor grasp of training.)

J.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

An interesting turn in this discussion. Often pet obedience trainers insist on "one command - one response" and often they'll preface the command with the dog's name. Many sheepdoggers, in contrast, repeat commands and many - like myself - use the dog's name in a variety of context's including "come here".

 

I can understand why pet dog trainers would insist on "one command - one response" just to minimize the all-too-usual owner babbling (and begin to establish a better dog/pack leader relationship.

 

But what makes sense as a trainer tactic makes less sense in a more complex/sophisticated and demanding relationship with a dog.

 

Dogs understand contextually and when, in a sweet voice, I tell them what wretched beasts they are, they wag their tails happily. Context is subtle and complicated. I once saw Jack Knox, working a novice's sheepdog on whistles - Jack'd whistle "Come by" and the dog would come by. Only after they came off the field did I learnm that the dog had not been trained to whistles. None. Our dogs are so willing to work with us,if our relationship is sane and clever, they often intuit what we want. (Sometimes, of course, they get it wrong too. If we were having difficulties in the shedding ring, my Luke would often take a sheep off and hold it - whether or no we wanted two sheep.

 

Roy Johnson was one of the more "conversational" handlers. When we were rained out at the Goose Creek Trial in northern Virginia, we went into a horse arena for demonstrations. Roy was working Roscoe and June - a marvelous pair - and was asked to do a brace demonstration.

 

For those of you who've not seen it, during a brace, the handler works two dogs simultaneously, each with its own responsibilities on the trial field.

 

When ROy wanted Roscoe to go "Away to me" he said, "Away to me" and Roscoe went. When he wanted June to go "Comeby" he said "Comeby". He never once used a dog's name but each dog knew when it was his/her command and when it should stand there while the other worked.

 

It was a stunning performance. I had tears in my eyes, watching it. Although I didn't know it at the time, it and the Jack Knox lesson I've already cited began my understanding of Collies, Commands and Intentions.

 

The Jesuits, by the way, focus on the inetnt of an act to determine its moral worth.

 

Donald McCaig

[topnotchdog]

I don't think any reinforcement based trainer would say that a dog cannot learn the meaning of the word "no", nor that there are not appropriate times in life to tell a dog "no".

Example - when I'm leaving for training class, all of my dogs crowd around, vying to be one of the ones to go. I will say "no, dog's name", and that dog knows that he or she is not going. That dog usually proceeds to go lounge on a piece of furniture to watch us depart. "No" tells the dog "you're not going" and they understand that. So, it's not that they don't, or can't know the meaning of "no".

 

I think there are probably multiple uses of the word "correction" floating around on these related threads. But the above explanations of the word "no" leave me wondering...would they not be considered corrections? Likewise/or P+ (however mild)? I am not saying that's a problem, but I find it confusing.

 

I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts here, because clarification might come from more than one angle (i.e. maybe this is *not* what people mean by a correction, etc.).

 

Barbara

[ejano]

You've brought another angle into the discussion..nonverbal communication....say anything you like, with a smile -- also, the dog whether working sheep, in an agility or obedience ring, or in a pet home, is reading you like a book. What you are saying with your body will often override a voice command.

 

Dear Doggers,

An interesting turn in this discussion. Often pet obedience trainers insist on "one command - one response" and often they'll preface the command with the dog's name. Many sheepdoggers, in contrast, repeat commands and many - like myself - use the dog's name in a variety of context's including "come here".

 

I can understand why pet dog trainers would insist on "one command - one response" just to minimize the all-too-usual owner babbling (and begin to establish a better dog/pack leader relationship.

 

But what makes sense as a trainer tactic makes less sense in a more complex/sophisticated and demanding relationship with a dog.

 

Dogs understand contextually and when, in a sweet voice, I tell them what wretched beasts they are, they wag their tails happily. Context is subtle and complicated. I once saw Jack Knox, working a novice's sheepdog on whistles - Jack'd whistle "Come by" and the dog would come by. Only after they came off the field did I learnm that the dog had not been trained to whistles. None. Our dogs are so willing to work with us,if our relationship is sane and clever, they often intuit what we want. (Sometimes, of course, they get it wrong too. If we were having difficulties in the shedding ring, my Luke would often take a sheep off and hold it - whether or no we wanted two sheep.

 

Roy Johnson was one of the more "conversational" handlers. When we were rained out at the Goose Creek Trial in northern Virginia, we went into a horse arena for demonstrations. Roy was working Roscoe and June - a marvelous pair - and was asked to do a brace demonstration.

 

For those of you who've not seen it, during a brace, the handler works two dogs simultaneously, each with its own responsibilities on the trial field.

 

When ROy wanted Roscoe to go "Away to me" he said, "Away to me" and Roscoe went. When he wanted June to go "Comeby" he said "Comeby". He never once used a dog's name but each dog knew when it was his/her command and when it should stand there while the other worked.

 

It was a stunning performance. I had tears in my eyes, watching it. Although I didn't know it at the time, it and the Jack Knox lesson I've already cited began my understanding of Collies, Commands and Intentions.

 

The Jesuits, by the way, focus on the inetnt of an act to determine its moral worth.

 

Donald McCaig

[Root Beer]

I think there are probably multiple uses of the word "correction" floating around on these related threads. But the above explanations of the word "no" leave me wondering...would they not be considered corrections? Likewise/or P+ (however mild)? I am not saying that's a problem, but I find it confusing.

 

Hopefully this will clarify.

 

Say I am doing a Freestyle routine and I cue my dog to put his paws up on my arm. When that move is finished and it is time for him to put his paws back on the floor, I say "off" and he puts them back on the floor.

 

Is that a correction? Of course not. (Unless one considers every cue given to a dog in any circumstance to be a correction, but from my experience, I'd say most people don't).

 

Same if the dog is putting paws up on the counter. Off is just that - "off". Paws up because I said "up", paws off because I said "off". Paws up because the dog decided to put paws up. Paws off because I said "off". Off is just that - "off". It's the same as if the dog was standing next to the counter and I said "up up" to tell him to put his paws on it. Would you consider that to be a correction? I'm giving the dog a cue to get a behavior that I want with "off" - four on the floor. No P+ about it. Mild or otherwise.

 

Same with "drop it".

 

Say I was playing ball and I threw the ball and told the dog "get it" and then the dog returned and I said "drop it" to get him to drop it at my feet. P+? Of course not.

 

It's the same if the dog has my shoe and I cue him to "drop it". It's a trained behavior that has been well reinforced. It just means "put what you have in your mouth on the floor". It's no more a correction than it is when I have him drop the ball while we play.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

The other example seems even clearer. The "no" means "I'm not taking you". It's not even asking the dog for a behavior. They could stand there and continue to make eyes for all I care. Sometimes they do. They usually don't. The "no" doesn't mean "stop asking me if you can go", but "no, I'm not taking you". That's not P+. It's just information. No behavior is indicated at all.

[Root Beer]

I don't understand this comment. I don't see how a person who uses "no" versus some other command for some situations is somehow thinking about dogs and their behavior and the way they learn in a different way from someone who always gives a command instead of using "no" or "ah, ah." I use "no" when it makes sense to do so, though more often I would just say "ah, ah!" for those sorts of situations. So for the food on the floor example (though in my case, it's more likely to be someone's meds that have hit the floor, where it's critical some other dog doesn't snag it), I would automatically say "ah, ah!" which would signal to any dog nearby that it should not go for whatever just hit the floor.

 

Sticking with the food example, would you ever say "ah, ah" to tell the dog to pick up food from the floor? Or to go pick up a stick to play with?

 

There's the difference. And that's not meant to be a value judgment of any kind. It's just to point out one element of difference in point of view.

[juliepoudrier]

Huh? I don't see how that answers my question at all. As you well know from the numerous discussions on this forum, "ah, ah" means "don't do that." I would actually tell the dog "okay" or something similar (or even just point--they have no problem figuring out it's okay to get the food if I say their name and point at the food item) if I wanted it to pick food up off the floor. I don't see how that's so vastly different from your approach, which presumably would be a command to have the dog do something else, perhaps "leave it" so it wouldn't think about taking the food. Trying to imply that "ah, ah" and "leave it" are somehow completely different makes no sense. Both are in effect causing the dog not to do something. Saying that you are actually telling the dog to do something else vs. not telling it not to do something is just weird semantics. It's all information that is processed by the dog to give us the desired result. I don't think the dog places a *value judgment* on the difference between "no" and "leave it." To the dog, the end result is the same: it doesn't get the bit of food on the floor, which it likely wants. Heck, even if you had a "scoot" command, which to the dog means to run into the other room and you use that command to prevent the dog from getting the food off the floor, the end result is the same: the dog doesn't get the food.

 

So I'm not getting the point of your comment above asking if I'd say "ah, ah" to tell the dog to get a stick. If I wanted the dog to get a stick, I'd tell it "get the stick" (or the ball, or the pine cone, or whatever--they know the different words). Heck if Ranger has a stick and I want Lark to play tug with him, I can tell her "pull" and she'll play tug with the stick with Ranger. The only real difference I see between your approach and my approach is that I sometimes tell my dog(s) no. I'm still not making the great mental leap to how that somehow implies a different understanding of dog behavior or learning compared to someone such as yourself, who chooses to always give an alternate command instead of ever saying no. In other words, I'm asking you to explain the learning theory behind your belief that using an alternate command that in itself doesn't imply a negative (because I assume that's what you're getting at) is somehow more appropriate based on dog behavior or the way a dog learns.

 

Seriously. If I say "ah, ah" to prevent the dog from taking the food/pill and you say "leave it" to achieve the same result, explain how that is indicative of a different understanding of how dogs learn, because I'm apparently way too obtuse to get it.

 

J.

[topnotchdog]

It's the same as if the dog was standing next to the counter and I said "up up" to tell him to put his paws on it. Would you consider that to be a correction?

 

No, that doesn't sound like a correction, that sounds like you are cuing him to do a behavior, to put his paws up.

 

The "no" means "I'm not taking you". It's not even asking the dog for a behavior.

 

Sure, makes sense. It is just saying "your behavior near the door is not going to get you anywhere" or maybe "don't do that" or maybe "don't do that, try something else." (in other words your choice, I'm not cuing you to do anything, go sit on the furniture, or make eyes, just "no, you you're not coming with, therefore [implied, otherwise why tell the dog 'no?'] you can stop vying to get out the door now"). Which is what I think at least some people consider a correction. But like I said, it's confusing, maybe that is not what others have meant when they've said correction.

 

Barbara

[Ooky]

Hopefully this will clarify.

 

Say I am doing a Freestyle routine and I cue my dog to put his paws up on my arm. When that move is finished and it is time for him to put his paws back on the floor, I say "off" and he puts them back on the floor.

 

Is that a correction? Of course not. (Unless one considers every cue given to a dog in any circumstance to be a correction, but from my experience, I'd say most people don't).

 

Same if the dog is putting paws up on the counter. Off is just that - "off". Paws up because I said "up", paws off because I said "off". Paws up because the dog decided to put paws up. Paws off because I said "off". Off is just that - "off". It's the same as if the dog was standing next to the counter and I said "up up" to tell him to put his paws on it. Would you consider that to be a correction? I'm giving the dog a cue to get a behavior that I want with "off" - four on the floor. No P+ about it. Mild or otherwise.

 

In the vein of having cues that are intrinsically rewarding like you were talking about earlier, do you have any cues that you think are at least mildly aversive? Like maybe the "you're not going"? Or even "sit" for a dog that doesn't like to? I.e., are there any cues that are maybe not as fun/comfortable as other stuff for one of your dogs and you might give it anyway?

 

If not, is it because you try to make no cues in any way aversive? Do you think this is even possible?

 

On the subject of rewarding cues, I know what you mean! It is powerful. Odin has a doggie dancing cue where I bow and that's the cue for him to bow. I don't know why, but he just LOVES it. He often offers a bow, or some of the common lead up "moves", in the hopes of getting me to cue it! When he bows in response to the cue, it's different than his offers, btw - crisper, more stylized, and held longer (until his release). This was inadvertent on my part though - I think it happened when I was really pregnant and not moving well, so I didn't give cues like that very often, and he really wanted me to.

[geonni banner]

I think there are probably multiple uses of the word "correction" floating around on these related threads. But the above explanations of the word "no" leave me wondering...would they not be considered corrections? Likewise/or P+ (however mild)? I am not saying that's a problem, but I find it confusing.

 

I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts here, because clarification might come from more than one angle (i.e. maybe this is *not* what people mean by a correction, etc.).

 

Barbara

 

FWIW: To me, a correction is anything that indicates a negative response to what the dog is doing/ is about to do. It is usually used to interrupt an action that the dog is engaged in or prevent an action the dog is about to initiate. Corrections are given here as I use them, in order, from the mildest, which does not indicate disapproval - merely a notation of error, to severe – which indicates serious disapproval. I do not presume to know how other people define "correction."

 

Verbal corrections are like:

 

“No.” (spoken softly or in a conversational tone of voice)

Means “that’s not the behavior I asked for/ am looking for.

 

“NO!” – usually reflexive, old programming that happens when the dog is putting itself in harm’s way, or about to do something disastrous, like jump on a toddler or plant muddy paws on my clean clothes.

 

“Shoo!” - I’m not sharing my piece of fried chicken. So quit asking and scram.

(Which is quite different from “Go away”, which means you’re a good dog, but go anywhere you want other than right here. Since it is actually a directive and has no negative connotation, I don’t class it as a correction.)

 

“Off” quit jumping on me or someone else

 

“Leave it” - step back from whatever you’re about to pick up/eat/ chew

 

“hey.”- pay attention to what you are doing – you are too rough/ too hyper, etc. – calm down.

 

“Stop it!” - quit doing whatever you’re doing, (like mauling the cat’s ears)

 

“HEY!” - All stop. – stand by for further orders.

 

Physical corrections are like:

 

Pressure - (in one of the ways that I understand it, such as looming over/toward a dog to move in away, back or down.)

 

Leash correction, with or without choke. Analogous to “No.” I don’t do hard leash corrections if I can possibly avoid it. If the dog is in harm’s way or about to initiate unwanted physical contact with another person, dog, etc. I will try “going up the lead” to grab the collar if possible.

 

Clapping hands “at the dog” – analogous to “hey.”

 

 

Grabbing scruff. Analogous to “hey.”

 

Swat on the butt, Face (both cheeks) grabbing. Analogous to “HEY!”

 

These are corrections that I use. Others will have different words or actions to impute a similar meaning to the dog. I will normally follow up corrections with a positive alternative for the dog. That is, a directive, eg. In the case of a "Leave it!" I would continue with, "Here, chewie, that's good!"

 

I do not use the harsher corrections in a teaching situation, but I feel that they are appropriate in day to day situations in which I want to convey to the dog that the behavior that I interrupted/ prevented is not one I want it to repeat - ever. Like jumping on top of the television. It makes the distinction between a behavior I don't want right now, like, walking out the door, and one that is always forbidden, like biting visiting friends.

[Root Beer]

In the vein of having cues that are intrinsically rewarding like you were talking about earlier, do you have any cues that you think are at least mildly aversive? Like maybe the "you're not going"? Or even "sit" for a dog that doesn't like to? I.e., are there any cues that are maybe not as fun/comfortable as other stuff for one of your dogs and you might give it anyway?

 

Not intentionally. I've poisoned some cues accidentally along the way. I don't use those.

 

Sure, there are some things that aren't as fun/comfortable as others. When we are out playing and it's time to go in, that's definitely not as fun as when it's time to go out. I wouldn't say it's aversive, but sure, less fun. I'd put the "you're not going" in that category. It's not what the dog wants, but it's hardly aversive.

 

If not, is it because you try to make no cues in any way aversive? Do you think this is even possible?

 

I definitely try to make no cues in any way aversive. That doesn't mean that every cue indicates rip roaring fun, but I don't deliberately associate any cue with something that the dog would consider aversive.

 

Is it possible? Yes and no. It is possible to deliberately teach cues with reinforcement attached and refrain from attaching cues to aversives? Sure. Of course, mistakes and unintended things will happen and the dog could make an association between a cue and an aversive that you don't intend. Life happens and all dogs are going to encounter aversives and associate certain things with them. We can only control what we actually have control over.

 

On the subject of rewarding cues, I know what you mean! It is powerful. Odin has a doggie dancing cue where I bow and that's the cue for him to bow. I don't know why, but he just LOVES it. He often offers a bow, or some of the common lead up "moves", in the hopes of getting me to cue it! When he bows in response to the cue, it's different than his offers, btw - crisper, more stylized, and held longer (until his release). This was inadvertent on my part though - I think it happened when I was really pregnant and not moving well, so I didn't give cues like that very often, and he really wanted me to.

 

That is cool! Serendipity!!

[Root Beer]

No, that doesn't sound like a correction, that sounds like you are cuing him to do a behavior, to put his paws up.

 

So, just as "up up" is a cue to put paws up, "off" is a cue to put paws on the floor.

 

Sure, makes sense. It is just saying "your behavior near the door is not going to get you anywhere" or maybe "don't do that" or maybe "don't do that, try something else." (in other words your choice, I'm not cuing you to do anything, go sit on the furniture, or make eyes, just "no, you you're not coming with, therefore [implied, otherwise why tell the dog 'no?'] you can stop vying to get out the door now"). Which is what I think at least some people consider a correction. But like I said, it's confusing, maybe that is not what others have meant when they've said correction.

 

The thing is that in this case, the behavior is considered perfectly acceptable. The dogs are showing me clearly that they want to go. I'm glad to see that kind of enthusiasm. The "no" isn't given to communicate that the behavior is incorrect, but simply that the dog is not going this time. Tomorrow the answer might be "yes" and they all know it.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

Ms. Banner writes:

FWIW: To me, a correction is anything that indicates a negative response to what the dog is doing/ is about to do. It is usually used to interrupt an action that the dog is engaged in or prevent an action the dog is about to initiate. Corrections are given here as I use them, in order, from the mildest, which does not indicate disapproval - merely a notation of error, to severe – which indicates serious disapproval. I do not presume to know how other people define "correction."

 

 

 

I suspect this is as good a definition as we're likely to get.

 

I often hear positive trainers mistaking punishments for corrections. Punishments are always after the fact. Punishments are, like our prison system, a form of revenge- satisfying to some (though not all) punishers but not likely to effect future behavior positively.

 

 

I won't speak of pet dog training here because it may diverge significantly from sheepdog training. Sheepdog work is a constant, rapid mix of corrections and praise - usually tonal. When a dog is pushing his sheep and I say "Lie down" I'm not only saying "Get off your feet", I'm correcting his behavior. Similarly, when my dog is going right and I want left, my "Come by!" corrects his behavior.

 

Spectators sometimes mistake the harshest trial corrections "What are you doing!" "Are you listening!" for the only corrections given but I think many, if not all sheepdog commands are corrections. Each says to the dog "What you are doing is incorrect, do something else."

 

Donald McCaig

[Root Beer]

In other words, I'm asking you to explain the learning theory behind your belief that using an alternate command that in itself doesn't imply a negative (because I assume that's what you're getting at) is somehow more appropriate based on dog behavior or the way a dog learns.

 

Julie, I don't have time right now to reply to your whole post, but I wanted to comment on this separately, anyway.

 

Learning theory cannot explain what is more appropriate. It can explain why use of a reinforcement based approach and cues that let the dog know what to do can get the job done, but it could just as easily explain the mechanics behind use of a negative.

 

This brings up a point that I've said before. Most reinforcement based trainers do not choose to use reinforcement based methods because learning theory indicates that it is more appropriate. The determination that it is more appropriate is something personal. So, when I said "how dogs learn" I don't mean an explanation based on learning theory. Learning theory certainly backs up the fact that dogs can learn through reinforcement. But learning theory cannot explain what training choices are most appropriate.

 

For many of the examples that we have been discussing, much of the difference will lie in the way that the handler chooses to teach the behavior to the dog and what the handler is actually saying when speaking to the dog. The reason why the cue does not imply a negative is because it is "something" and not "not something else" (sorry if that's confusing - I couldn't think of a clearer way to phrase it). Just as "sit" doesn't imply "don't stand" even though the dog is "not standing" as a result of sitting, "off" doesn't imply "not on" because the dog no longer has paws on something.

 

From that point of view I would not choose to teach a dog to sit by teaching "don't stand" and I will not teach the dog to put four on the floor by teaching "don't have paws up" on something. I'll teach "sit" as "rump on the floor" and "off" as "four on the floor". Learning theory has nothing to do with this unless I want to explain why teaching the dog to sit or put four on the floor through reinforcement can produce extremely reliable results. Learning theory cannot explain why I consider that to be appropriate, though.

[juliepoudrier]

Okay, that makes sense. I was getting hung up on your statement that you choose to train the way you do because you have a different understanding of the way dogs learn and of dog behavior, but you have now clarified that what you meant is you make your choice on how to train your dog based on what feels right to you personally. I think everyone can relate to that.

 

FWIW, I wasn't asking about learning theory (in the broadest sense of learning theory--just couldn't come up with a better term last night) specifically, but since you said you based your different techniques on your different understanding of how dogs learn, I took that to mean that you had come upon some observation or explanation of the way dogs learn that is different than how most other people understand dogs to learn and that's what I was asking you to explain.

 

It sounds to me like what you're really saying is that you make your training choices based on what it most comfortable for you--how you prefer to teach--and not necessarily based on some new understanding of the way dogs learn.

 

And just to be clear, I've never argued that terms like "off" as a cue are corrections (although others have argued that). My argument has been that you are simply using a different command to get the same end result. I have also never said that "ah, ah" or "no" are not corrections, because of course they are. I understand that you are choosing not to use any "negative" command for your dogs--I just wasn't seeing how that choice was based on how dogs learn, since IRL dogs teach each other through both positve and negative feedback. You simply choose to use only positive feedback (for lack of a better term) because that's how you prefer to teach and that's what you think is the best for your dogs. Am I understanding better?

 

J.