Experts versus the rest

[Laurelin]

It is kind of funny that people picked up on my word choice in that post. It was off hand, not much was meant by choosing 'interrupter'. I've mentioned in this thread I do use positive and negative punishment and don't consider myself a purely positive trainer nor do I strive to be one. I do clicker train a lot though!

 

This is what I mean by words having a cultural meaning to them. My old obedience club (did not last long there) was the only place I heard the term correction used. And they certainly meant a PHYSICAL correction, not just a 'hey' or 'no' or a 'lie down'. They were pretty well exclusively referring to a collar correction. I don't hear the term at all in other disciplines.

 

I just find it a little unclear and what the word means depends on who you are talking to. If my dog pulls on the leash and I am to 'give him a correction' what does it mean? In the end I feel it's probably just semantics that most the argument is about.

 

I actually had a conversation with people a few weeks ago that do consider themselves positive trainers and they also use verbal 'no', 'eh-ehs', 'hey', etc. Seems like most outside the extremes are doing similar things then arguing about what it is called?

 

I really don't see the words correction or interrupter used often in real life training- just online discussion. I'm nowhere near an expert. Not by far. Just throwing that out there.

[juliepoudrier]

Try not to get too caught up on quadrants, corrections, interrupters or punishment. Rather try to focus on building relationships, communicating effectively and training without the use of fear or intimidation. I always try to keep in mind that the dog's mistakes are often a reflection of my own, and seeing as how my dog is a dog and I am a person, the onus is on me to fix mine before I chastise theirs.

 

I think this is important. I honestly don't think about how I train unless a thread like this comes along or I am instructing someone else. Otherwise, I do what comes naturally. And an important part of that is being fair and communicating well.

 

J.

[Laurelin]

I think this is important. I honestly don't think about how I train unless a thread like this comes along or I am instructing someone else. Otherwise, I do what comes naturally. And an important part of that is being fair and communicating well.

 

J.

 

I don't think about it either. I honestly do not hear anything about +R, -P, purely positive, correction, etc in any of my sport training. It only seems to come up online.

[juliepoudrier]

I really don't see the words correction or interrupter used often in real life training- just online discussion. I'm nowhere near an expert. Not by far. Just throwing that out there.

 

I wouldn't know about pet dog training, or sports, etc., but the word is used in stockdog training. It's generally not taken to mean punish the dog but to bring to its attention that the behavior its exhibiting is unacceptable.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

I think this is important. I honestly don't think about how I train unless a thread like this comes along or I am instructing someone else. Otherwise, I do what comes naturally. And an important part of that is being fair and communicating well.

 

J.

 

I do think a lot about how I train - that works for me and my dogs. Different personality types and all. If I didn't think about that, I wouldn't be who I am.

 

But being fair and communicating well - my #1 priority. Always.

[Eileen Stein]

mum24dog wrote: "A correction that does not lead to the desired behaviour is not a correction. An interruptor does nothing in itself to correct anything. It simply stops what the dog is doing at he time."

But if what the dog is doing at the time is wrong undesired, then stopping it HAS corrected something. It has corrected the behavior -- changed it from the dog's doing something undesirable to the dog's NOT doing something undesirable.

That is my aim. I don't want the dog to counter-surf, for example. If I see the dog starting to rear up, and I say "ahhp" (a term my dogs early on learn means "Don't do that") and the dog stops, I have corrected that behavior. A couple more instances of this may be necessary for the dog to know not to do it at all ever, and then the behavior has been permanently corrected. The correction has led to the "desired behaviour" -- not counter-surfing. I don't care if the dog sits instead, or lies down instead, or goes to its bed instead, or wanders around instead. I just want to correct its counter-surfing.

But I do agree with Laurelin that most of this is semantics, and I think that a preoccupation with semantics generally gets in the way of good training rather than facilitating it. I was happy to read Sekah's post (#147) about animal behavior scientists and behaviorists beginning to recognize the unhelpfulness of "quadrant thinking" and moving away from discussions using those terms/concepts.

[Root Beer]

The "interruptor" concept is gaining attention, but at this time I am choosing not to incorporate them into my training. I think they can become NRM's far too easily and I personally would not take that risk.

 

When my dog is learning a new behavior, I am only going to interrupt if safety is an issue and I am going to make every effort to do that as neutrally as possible. So, if my puppy got curious and started climbing up the ramp of the dog walk, I would physically pick him up, and set him on the ground. There would be no reprimand. I would do it very much with the fun "I gotcha!" attitude that I use when I scoop him up for some love. I have carried him around a lot and he is very used to it. I would not want to send the message that he should not climb up that ramp - eventually I am going to want him to do it with confidence and enthusiasm. I would only interrupt the behavior at this point because he is not yet trained to do a full height dogwalk (or any dogwalk for that matter!) and I don't want him to become frightened and fall off.

 

If I want the dog to twirl clockwise and he goes counterclockwise . . . so what? It's on me to find a way to clarify what I want. I am not going to interrupt him (as if there would be time - HA!).

 

If I really must interrupt the dog, especially once the behavior is on the way to fluency, (maybe in a class where I don't want to eat up other student's training time) I will either use a trained cue, like a whiplash turn (if the dog is sniffing, for instance, and I want focus), and reinforce the dog for compliance, or I will throw a toy or treat to break the dog's focus on what he or she is doing so I can reset without the dog realizing that there was any problem whatsoever.

 

For me an "interruptor" would basically say, "Hello!! That's super cool, but we're actually doing something else right now" (whatever the dog is doing is probably something I am going to want at some point if we are in a training context). But that's not really the concept that is "out there" right now, so my choice is to just stay away from it.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

Like Eileen I am delighted that behaviorists are moving away from "quadrant thinking" which is bad science, a mind trap and ugly poetry. Thus freed, behaviorists may start making useful discoveries.

 

Donald McCaig

[Laurelin]

I think part of the reason semantics becomes a focus point online is because it is so darn hard to explain all the nuances of dog training in writing. So much relies on being able to see and understand a dog with your own eyes.

[Maxi]

I think part of the reason semantics becomes a focus point online is because it is so darn hard to explain all the nuances of dog training in writing. So much relies on being able to see and understand a dog with your own eyes.

Yes, but does that mean that by discussing semantics, individuals are actually just taking the easy option?

 

If you remove much of the semantics from the discussion, there does seem to be a lot of agreement about consistency and fairness and appropriate whatever to 'adapt' the unwished- for behaviour

[Root Beer]

Dear Doggers,

 

Like Eileen I am delighted that behaviorists are moving away from "quadrant thinking" which is bad science, a mind trap and ugly poetry. Thus freed, behaviorists may start making useful discoveries.

 

Donald McCaig

 

Of course behaviorists come from all modes of dog training - I would say there are just as many dominance based behaviorists out there as there are behaviorists that take a +R approach, and even more who attempt to mix everything together. Some have rejected the quadrant theory model all along. Others still utilize it and will continue to do so (and discuss it when they engage in training discussion), and many of them have helped tons of dogs overcome difficult behavior issues.

[geonni banner]

Dog “Train”

(sung to the tune of “A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes” from Disney’s “Cinderella”)

 

 

A “train” is a ride your dog takes,

everywhere he goes.

If you work the throttle and brakes,

with care you’ll improve how he does.

 

Make sure you’re both on the same “train.”

One you both understand.

It saves on confusion and pain,

and helps things come out as you planned.

 

So choose an express or slow freight.

Just make sure you’re on board.

 

No matter how you choose to get there,

Just pick a “train” that is fair.

Be sure you both enjoy the ride.

 

No matter what the destination,

it is my estimation,

you will get there best side by side.

[ourwully]

This is totally unrelated to any of the previous 162 posts except that it does show how much of a beginner I am! Yesterday Juno had a little red spot on her tummy about an eigth of an inch in diameter and another one about a half inch from it, but the second one had a black centre. She had a rash there before that she licked to the point she needed a cone for a couple of days so I was a little bit concerned. I thought I'd wait a day but this morning the black centred one was still there so I was wondering if it was a tick. I took her to the vet this morning and after a struggle the vet finally saw the red spot and said it wasn't anything to worry about. She couldn't find the black spot so I had a look and pointed it out to her. Well as it turned out it cost me $57 to identify one of Juno's nipples!

 

Thought the thread could use a laugh.

Bill

[Maxi]

Ah Bill,

 

I guess a case of live and learn? At least you know Juno is healthy and has nipples

[juliepoudrier]

Ha ha! If it makes you feel better, I have tried to pull nipples off when checking for ticks and not actually looking at what I was pulling. A neighbor saw a "tick" on my Lark's muzzle and yanked it off before I could say anything. I thanked him for the free surgery since he had just removed a skin tag.... (So don't feel bad. )

 

J.

[Sue R]

That is an interesting term "interruptor". It is clearly a correction, but used by someone who does not want to use that term.

 

Anyway does anyone here really think all those dead horses are going to stand up and start a-runnin'? To me they smell pretty funny already...

 

Is that a "nay" or a "neigh"?

 

I once wrote a paper in college in response to the question of, "What is the definition of ____?" The instructor was looking for the "current" definition of a long-used term. My response was that if you were looking to "redefine" a term, why not just let that definition stand as is, and use a new word/phrase/expression for the definition you are trying to label. I got an A+.

 

Calling something an "interrupter" or something similar that is the same thing that stockdog people have been calling a "correction" all along, because a certain training regime does not choose to use "corrections", is along the same line. Using the same definition ("aht" or other verbal, or placing of body for guidance/pressure) as a "correction" but calling it an "interruptor" is just semantics.

 

And, in my opinion, calling an "interrupter" something that says, "What you are doing is wonderful (or whatever) but I want something else now", is very similar to using a correction to say, "Not that, not now, try something else" which is considered a correction in stockdog training.

 

I know I shouldn't be adding anything to this topic - the horse has been whipped to death yet one more time (and, as Salahunder - sp? - says is beginning to stink). But this is the first time I've noticed the substitution of a different word (or concept) for the same old thing that's been discussed ad nauseum in the past and seeming to be verboten among some trainers here (and elsewhere).

 

PS - I am not intending to point a finger at any individual, but at the idea that calling something by a different name makes it something else, bothered me. I bother easily!

[brndlbc]

Great comments and many valid viable points made on both sides. Thank you to the contributors.

 

Discussing dog training methods is a lot like discussing politics. You are going to have your staunch "Republicans" and hard core "Democrats".

 

Personally, come election time, I don't vote straight party lines

[Tea]

Hum...I would say chickens and turkeys and ducks are very domesticated.

There are some in my field that would venture to say some falcons are.

As we have been breeding falcons in captivity for thousands of years. (It is the skills of falconers that brought back the peregrine, bald eagle, California condor etc. These skills are very old.)

It is just the wild caught hunt better.

 

But a lot of falconers use a tame hack technique for young birds which mimic the wild.

 

not to argue and turn this thread. just a view from here.

[Root Beer]

Calling something an "interrupter" or something similar that is the same thing that stockdog people have been calling a "correction" all along, because a certain training regime does not choose to use "corrections", is along the same line. Using the same definition ("aht" or other verbal, or placing of body for guidance/pressure) as a "correction" but calling it an "interruptor" is just semantics.

 

And, in my opinion, calling an "interrupter" something that says, "What you are doing is wonderful (or whatever) but I want something else now", is very similar to using a correction to say, "Not that, not now, try something else" which is considered a correction in stockdog training.

 

I know I shouldn't be adding anything to this topic - the horse has been whipped to death yet one more time (and, as Salahunder - sp? - says is beginning to stink). But this is the first time I've noticed the substitution of a different word (or concept) for the same old thing that's been discussed ad nauseum in the past and seeming to be verboten among some trainers here (and elsewhere).

 

PS - I am not intending to point a finger at any individual, but at the idea that calling something by a different name makes it something else, bothered me. I bother easily!

 

To me the biggest difference would be that if I were to use something that I would consider an acceptable "interruptor" during training, I would deliberately choose something that my dog actually likes to interrupt the behavior. So, I might toss a treat, throw a toy, move briskly away from the dog to get an excited rush up to me, or cue a behavior that has been highly reinforced. At the very least I would use something completely neutral. So, for me there are absolutely no cans of pennies, or squirt bottles full of vinegar water, or any such "interruptors" (which is not what anyone here was talking about at all, but those are things that some people would call an "interruptor" in pet dog training), and a tone of voice that would convey "something is wrong" is reserved strictly for life situations where something really is wrong (dog is about to eat a pill off the floor, there is glass on the floor and someone might get cut, etc. - not "I wanted you to twirl the other way" or "you sat when I said stand").

 

But when it comes to "interruptor" vs. "correction", Sue, I'm right there with you. And that's why I haven't jumped on the "interruptor" bandwagon. To me it really seems like a glorified term for a mild correction. I know that there are trainers who would vehemently disagree, but I'm still not getting behind the use of this term because that's how I see it.

[Sue R]

[Liz P]

Eileen wrote: "To take the most basic level of training, I would be interested to know how "extreme +R trainers" (which I now gather is the acceptable term for what many extreme +R trainers and others call purely positive trainers) approach housebreaking. I cannot imagine how to train a dog not to eliminate in the house without employing correction to let the dog know that eliminating in the house is unacceptable."

 

I am far from a positive only trainer. I use corrections. I set strict rules. Most of my pups are house broken with positive reinforcement only. They go out often, get praised when they go outside, if I notice the subtle changes in behavior that indicate a potty break is needed I grab the pup and get outside fast. If I can't supervise, the pup isn't loose. Does that work with every single puppy? No, but in my experience it works for most.

 

My current pup, now 6 months old, maybe had one accident in the house. He wasn't corrected for it because I wasn't sure if it was him or his littermate. He was also only 7 weeks old at the time. Very understandable. When I am home I leave the back door open. He has been free to come and go as he pleased since he was 9 weeks old. He has always chosen to go outside to potty. His mother and half siblings were equally easy to house break, as was his great great uncle and various other relatives.

[Eileen Stein]

I've had several pups who had only one accident in the house. I did pretty much what you did, except when I scooped them up mid-pee to take them outside, I used a corrective word. I still don't see how they would have known that they should not do that without the corrective word, but if you didn't need it, that's awesome.

 

Just one more general observation on the "positive" role of corrections. This morning I was calling my 9mo pup away from something he REALLY wanted to be doing. I was maybe 60-70 yards away. I called him, and he began to run toward me. When he wavered, or I could see that the thought had come into his head that maybe he could go back to what he had been doing, I would instantly call "Ahhp!" (Not in an angry tone, but in sort of a reminding tone, or a "Nope, not that" tone.) When I did, he would re-focus on coming to me and then I would call "good dog!" That happened maybe three times as he covered the distance to me, and he got a brief, warm, enthusiastic welcome from me when he arrived. That is the main way I train a recall, and the back-and-forth of it, the call and response or whatever you want to call the dialogue that's going on between us, is really satisfying to me. I just don't see it as somehow a "risk" I am running. I enjoy it, the pup seems to enjoy it, it works well, and it's one of the ways he learns what "ahhp" means (as well as what "That'll do, here" means).

[Liz P]

I guess that I just catch them before they even start to pee, so there is no need for a correction.

[juliepoudrier]

If the end result is the same--a housebroekn dog--I have to wonder why it matters so much. As long as folks aren't rubbing their noses in it, whacking them with newspapers, deciding the pup is taking revenge and similar, I don't see why using or not using a verbal correction when housebreaking is a big deal.

 

Cheers, praise, and kudos to all those folks whose pups never have an accident in the house. To those whose pups sometimes have accidents that need to be interrupted, you're not a failure. Personally I can't leave a back door open all the time to let dogs come and go as they please, nor do I have a dog door (every boarder on the property would be in the house and the cats would likely get out, neither of which is a desirable situation for me). So if there's an accident-in-progress that needs interrupting, then the verbal "Hey!" is likely to happen to stop the activity till I can get the pup outside. I don't think the pup is scarred for life, nor does it make me a bad trainer.

 

Some things are taken way too seriously IMO....

 

J.

[rushdoggie]

If the end result is the same--a housebroekn dog--I have to wonder why it matters so much. As long as folks aren't rubbing their noses in it, whacking them with newspapers, deciding the pup is taking revenge and similar, I don't see why using or not using a verbal correction when housebreaking is a big deal.

I don't think anyone here quantified it as a "big deal."

 

t was said that in some circumstances it could sometimes create a problem (ie puppy decided to avoid humans displeasure by hiding when he pees) and some of disagreed that it would make house training go better or faster to use a verbal correction.