# Maybe a pointless question.



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

How do dogs figure out corrections are a result of their behavior and not some random bulls*** that happens?


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Repetition, consistency and timing?

Could you elaborate on your question? It seems like common sense which makes me think there's more to the question than I think.

If not, this example comes to mind: If every time you touch a hot stove, you get burned, eventually you figure out it's not a good idea to touch the stove. If the burn is severe enough, you'll only try it once. If it's mildly uncomfortable, you might explore the possibility that the stove is not the stimulus but something else until you figure out that is the only exclusive behavior that produces the burn (e.g. you can wear the same shoes and stand in the same spot at the same time of day but you only get burned when you touch the stove). The severe burn may prevent you from replicating any of the conditions of the instance you were burned ...kind of like when you over correct a dog with an e-collar and it's afraid to go back to a certain area of the training field because it associates that spot with the correction.

That's just how I look at it.


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

Never met a stove that gave a correction.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Chad Sloan said:


> Never met a stove that gave a correction.


I bet some two year olds have.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Chad Sloan said:


> Never met a stove that gave a correction.


For the purpose of your understanding, substitute getting burned by the stove to getting spanked by mother. I've seen more than one child test the waters and figure out pretty quickly that reaching for the stove produces the spanking ...but I grew up in a traditional Italian family where the wooden spoon ruled so maybe I can handle that type of learning.


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

My spankings didn't usually come with explanations.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Chad Sloan said:


> My spankings didn't usually come with explanations.


Did you know what they were for?


DFrost


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

Just some bull**** I had to put up with for a while.


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

dog chases prey into hole in ground.
dog sticks head in hole in ground not knowing there are lots of tree roots in the hole
dogs head get hung in hole 
dog struggles and finally pulls his head free 

will dog put his head back in hole? If not why?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Brian Anderson said:


> dog struggles and finally pulls his head free
> 
> will dog put his head back in hole? If not why?


depends on if he is a meathead or not...


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


> depends on if he is a meathead or not...


no shit!!! LMAO


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

I'd be more inclined to ask if yes why?


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

Chad Sloan said:


> I'd be more inclined to ask if yes why?


there ya go! I know it looks like a smart ass comment. But really it does address your original post in a kinda contorted way...


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

usually corrections are pretty clear to a dog I think, given after the dogs is somewhat taught what to do and what not to do...and often given with some sort of verbal cue...either a command that was not followed, or a word that relays to the dog, that he did, or is doing something wrong.

I give a dog credit, to assume he is thinking about the whats and the whys sometimes....


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

I give a dog credit

This is something that a lot of us DO not do for one reason or another. You can read a lot of the commentary here and see clearly that lots of people aren't giving their dogs enough credit for actually working WITH them instead of just working.


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

I guess I should let holes and stoves train my dog from now on then.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Chad Sloan said:


> My spankings didn't usually come with explanations.


Chad,

I think you have to pay extra for an explanation


----------



## Anita Griffing (Aug 8, 2009)

Ariel excellent post. I don't think Chad wants to understand it though.
Anita


----------



## Anita Griffing (Aug 8, 2009)

http://elib.tiho-hannover.de/dissertations/salgirliy_ws08.pdf

This is a good pdf on corrections if you can get through it. I 
apologize if it has been posted before. I like their comparison
of correction where the dog knows it is you compared to when
the dog thinks it is from the environment. I don't agree with
all of it (hard to get a controlled group even within the same
breed or department; too many variables in handlers and trainers IMO)
...but it got me thinking about more things..
Anita


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Anita Griffing said:


> Ariel excellent post. I don't think Chad wants to understand it though.
> Anita


I noticed. That's why I'm saving my typing skills for other people who don't want to hear what I have to say. :lol:


----------



## Steve Estrada (Mar 6, 2011)

I think it's pretty basic, "cause and effect"! The spanking thing I won't even go there, unless it was for stimulation


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

That's kinda my question, how do you get it across to a dog that getting smacked in the head is the effect of his being an @sshat rather than the effect of you're being an @sshat? Spankings schmankings. The sum of spankings I got growing up is probably nowhere the number of spankings I gave myself.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Simple cause and effect with proper timing on the effect can be a great teacher. 
As to the dog getting it's head stuck in the hole...Hell yes it will go back in if it's a good working terrier. I've dug out many a good earth dog that had it self jammed up. Even cut down a tree to get one out when he crawled up the hollow and got jammed in chasing a ****.


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

Bob Scott said:


> Simple cause and effect with proper timing on the effect can be a great teacher.
> As to the dog getting it's head stuck in the hole...Hell yes it will go back in if it's a good working terrier. I've dug out many a good earth dog that had it self jammed up. Even cut down a tree to get one out when he crawled up the hollow and got jammed in chasing a ****.


dangit Bob you spoiled my "catch" on my point LOL ...but its all good


----------



## Brian McQuain (Oct 21, 2009)

Chad Sloan said:


> How do dogs figure out corrections are a result of their behavior and not some random bulls*** that happens?


 
If it didnt make sense to a dog, then it probably wouldnt work.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Chad I am with you brother. I am not very satisfied with the answers given either. They just do not make sense. A hot stove, yes I get that a kid who touches a hot stove knows not to touch it. And yes that works with that one very isolated incident. But what if the kid gets burned by the stove for everything he is not suppose to do? ....how do they know? I think this is a very relevant question. I think sometimes a dog gets a correction and gives a behavior that looks as if the dog has pin pointed the exact reason it got corrected...and I think sometimes they do. I have corrected my dog for something once, maybe twice and it never tried it again. I think for whatever reason the dog had paired that particular behavior with the correction. But other times, I think the dog has guessed, in an effort to avoid it from happening again, or shut off the correction at that particular moment. But I think it's the whole the dogs think in picutes Idea. They may have got it right that time. But what really happened in the dogs head is a bunch of pictures of what caused the correction got put in thier brain. They do not really know that it was that one picture.

And this is just another Idea about correction I have. I notice a lot of dogs when first introduced to correction are very quick to respond to it. Overtime the correction becomes less effective. I used to believed this was due to some desenstization to pain.... a good indicator that others think this is sharpened pinch collars and e-collars. They get corrected for leaving the handler to go get the dumbbell before they are told...correction. Dog responds. He may have one picture in his head. One of him leaving and getting a correction. So, he knows that. Then later he gets one for not outing his ball. Now 2 pictures in his head. Then he gets one for not looking at his handler in heeling. 3 pictures in his head on what gets him a correction. The he gets one for not downing when told. 4 picuters. than 4 more in Protection. maybe the handler corrects his dog in tracking at the scent pad and on articles. We now at minimium have 10 pictures in the dogs head on what causes him to get corrected. 

And all these corrections happen with other behaviors, at different times, at differnt places. the bank of pictures is now a filing cabinet full of pictures associated with a correction and we leave up to the dog to know which one of his pictures are correct and which ones are not. Which I believe is impossible for the dog, and has to be extremely overwhelming for them.

Back to picture #1. He is sure if he just waits, he can avoid a correction. he knows he needs to out, cause that gets a correction...and the whole reason a correction in theory works is because the dog is trying to avoid getting one. So, if I keep correcting for every little behavior I believe deserves one. I think what can happen is the dog can to start to second guess why correction #1 happened. he may never in his life leave early ever again. But he has started to question if he can really avoid getting corrected. He did avoid it at the dumbbell, but it happened at the out, then it happened in the heel, then the down. What the dog really wants is zero corrections. he wants to avoid them entirely. But we have put so many pictures in his head about what gets a correction he starts to wonder what actually causes a correction. At first he thought it's my behavior....and by giving so many corrections in so many spots we have destroyed that association. The dog no longer believes it's because of his behavior or at best is not very sure it's because of it's behavior. So either he just becomes flat, and mediocrely reponds to correction...or if he is strong he amps and just keeping working and thinks, I will just take it.

So I am not so inclined to say how dogs know his behavior cause the correction? but to ask how can we keep it that way? And how can I proof the dog against varibles that I do not want the dog to associate with corrections? I think at first corrections are very clear, it's us in search of that perfect routine that muddle the picture so much that he cannot make sense of it anymore.

One theory I have been working with is only correcting behavior for one thing at a time. And do not use it on anything else until that one behavior is absolutley the way we want it. and then we move onto another and do the same thing.

Now this is really an idea have that is very infant. I have not addressed problems like...what if we are working on behavior #2 with correction and only doing one at a time...what if behavior #1 goes to shit. what would be the ramification of using the correction there again.... So they are very, very new ideas I am playing with. But I think the answer is just training one thing at a time and making sure it is perfect (at least in the terms of our own criteria...I do not if there is such a thing as a perfect behavior)...

I hope I explained my idea in clear enough terms. That one is hard for me to take out of my mimd and put it into words. 

I got the idea from capturing behaviors in Clicker training. if we are capturing a behavior a dog does naturally when we are trying to teach it. We can only capture one behavior at a time. I think correction may work on the same princpal. If we are capturing a behavior we do not want with a well timed correction in order for the dog to know it's that behavior we do not want, we can only do one at a time.


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

James Downey said:


> Chad I am with you brother. I am not very satisfied with the answers given either. They just do not make sense. A hot stove, yes I get that a kid who touches a hot stove knows not to touch it. And yes that works with that one very isolated incident. But what if the kid gets burned by the stove for everything he is not suppose to do? ....how do they know? I think this is a very relevant question. I think sometimes a dog gets a correction and gives a behavior that looks as if the dog has pin pointed the exact reason it got corrected...and I think sometimes they do. I have corrected my dog for something once, maybe twice and it never tried it again. I think for whatever reason the dog had paired that particular behavior with the correction. But other times, I think the dog has guessed, in an effort to avoid it from happening again, or shut off the correction at that particular moment. But I think it's the whole the dogs think in picutes Idea. They may have got it right that time. But what really happened in the dogs head is a bunch of pictures of what caused the correction got put in thier brain. They do not really know that it was that one picture.
> 
> And this is just another Idea about correction I have. I notice a lot of dogs when first introduced to correction are very quick to respond to it. Overtime the correction becomes less effective. I used to believed this was due to some desenstization to pain.... a good indicator that others think this is sharpened pinch collars and e-collars. They get corrected for leaving the handler to go get the dumbbell before they are told...correction. Dog responds. He may have one picture in his head. One of him leaving and getting a correction. So, he knows that. Then later he gets one for not outing his ball. Now 2 pictures in his head. Then he gets one for not looking at his handler in heeling. 3 pictures in his head on what gets him a correction. The he gets one for not downing when told. 4 picuters. than 4 more in Protection. maybe the handler corrects his dog in tracking at the scent pad and on articles. We now at minimium have 10 pictures in the dogs head on what causes him to get corrected.
> 
> ...


When a young pup does something that mama doesn't like. She will correct him strong and fast getting incrementally more aggressive on each re-occuring transgression. The puppy learns quickly that ___________(fill in the blank) brings retribution and possibly pain and unpleasant feelings. That same principal is in play with your proper timing and level of correction for __________.

Thats it ... I dont think its anymore complicated than that. As far as the use of the clicker and how it relates. One could 
assume that a correction is in effect a positive mark.....in reverse. If the dog can learn from a positive mark.... then ....


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

James Downey said:


> Chad I am with you brother. I am not very satisfied with the answers given either. They just do not make sense. A hot stove, yes I get that a kid who touches a hot stove knows not to touch it. And yes that works with that one very isolated incident. But what if the kid gets burned by the stove for everything he is not suppose to do? ....how do they know? I think this is a very relevant question. I think sometimes a dog gets a correction and gives a behavior that looks as if the dog has pin pointed the exact reason it got corrected...and I think sometimes they do. I have corrected my dog for something once, maybe twice and it never tried it again. I think for whatever reason the dog had paired that particular behavior with the correction. But other times, I think the dog has guessed, in an effort to avoid it from happening again, or shut off the correction at that particular moment. But I think it's the whole the dogs think in picutes Idea. They may have got it right that time. But what really happened in the dogs head is a bunch of pictures of what caused the correction got put in thier brain. They do not really know that it was that one picture.
> 
> And this is just another Idea about correction I have. I notice a lot of dogs when first introduced to correction are very quick to respond to it. Overtime the correction becomes less effective. I used to believed this was due to some desenstization to pain.... a good indicator that others think this is sharpened pinch collars and e-collars. They get corrected for leaving the handler to go get the dumbbell before they are told...correction. Dog responds. He may have one picture in his head. One of him leaving and getting a correction. So, he knows that. Then later he gets one for not outing his ball. Now 2 pictures in his head. Then he gets one for not looking at his handler in heeling. 3 pictures in his head on what gets him a correction. The he gets one for not downing when told. 4 picuters. than 4 more in Protection. maybe the handler corrects his dog in tracking at the scent pad and on articles. We now at minimium have 10 pictures in the dogs head on what causes him to get corrected.
> 
> ...


You bring up some good points that I think encourages further discussion of the topic.

Maybe my answer was overly simplistic. I wasn't really sure how in depth of a response was desired when Chad originally posed the question. I believe at a very basic level, corrections are most correctly interpreted when the timing is perfect and consistent. But you are correct, some behaviors are more complex for others allowing for greater interpretation of what exactly is being corrected.

Your post called to mind that issue I have with e-collar only trainers ...or ones who rely heavily on the e-collar. I am not against e-collars, but I certainly think it's the one tool that's so effective in it's intended effect that mistakes in application of the collar as very eary to pick out. It's also something, when used with proper timing and consistency, can produce and refine some pretty advanced behaviors. I liken the e-collar to your mention of being burned by a stove for every improper behavior. I think it can be a pretty unsettling correction for most dogs. I read something somewhere (maybe I can find it and provide a link) about research done on rats or birds (you can tell I didn't read it recently) about the effect electric shock has opposed to other forms of punishment. Basically, electric shocks, even at low levels, produce a much more severe psychological and physiological effect on the animals, especially when used unfairly, as opposed to other methods of punishment. Anyway, with that in mind, I think we have a much greater chance of confusing the dog and leaving the door open for the dog to very quickly form a picture in his mind about why the correction happened and become superstitious about the associated behaviors.

With that in mind, I think just using a leash can alleviate a lot of the confusion. As simplistic as it is, it can communicate direction and help guide, even when the dog is being punished for improper behavior. For teaching, even with low level e-collar stimulus, the leash can help guide the dog into the right position in order to alleviate the stimulus from the collar. In the situations where we can isolate one specific aspect of the behavior, an e-collar alone may be useful, but in more complex behavior chains, a leash can help guide during/after a correction. I think it's common to want to complicate things or move too quickly to working off leash and expecting the dog will understand that at one moment, a nick means to go away faster but at another moment a nick means to come back instead. If I use a leash, I can greatly improve my chances that the dog ceases the bad behavior and has the correct response, thus learning how to avoid future correction and be rewarded faster.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> You bring up some good points that I think encourages further discussion of the topic.
> 
> Maybe my answer was overly simplistic. I wasn't really sure how in depth of a response was desired when Chad originally posed the question. I believe at a very basic level, corrections are most correctly interpreted when the timing is perfect and consistent. But you are correct, some behaviors are more complex for others allowing for greater interpretation of what exactly is being corrected.
> 
> ...



Ariel said


> And respect is based on compulsion and punishment. I guess I would prefer my dogs enjoy their work but also understand it's not option. You know, balance or something like that?


Your responses change to fast for some too take you seriously Ariel. I thought a leash correction was considered compulsion today.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Ariel said
> 
> 
> Your responses change to fast for some too take you seriously Ariel. I thought a leash correction was considered compulsion today.


Don, you're trying so hard you're not even making sense any more. What point, exactly, are you trying to prove? I can't even follow your logic during your feeble attempts to discredit me anymore.

By the way, we're not talking about hunting pigs in this thread so perhaps it's time to go lurk elsewhere.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Ariel said
> 
> 
> Your responses change to fast for some too take you seriously Ariel. I thought a leash correction was considered compulsion today.


I've re-read your comment and tried to think like a 70 year old has-been and I think maybe I understand what you meant.

Answer me this, does the leash correct or does the collar correct, save those instances when the actual leash is used to smack the dog? Is a dog being corrected every time a leash is attached to him? Are we correcting our dogs for tracking when we attach a lead to them? Are we correcting our dogs for walking when we attach a lead to them?

You're reaching so far I almost hate to humor you with a response. And I can't even try to explain myself because you're too closeminded and ignorant to understand.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Your responses change to fast for some too take you seriously Ariel. I thought a leash correction was considered compulsion today.


could be wrong, but the way i read it the leash is used to guide the dog, not for the correction, that is done with the e-collar, at least that is what I read...using the leash to assist the dog in being more correct, so as to avoid too much use of the Ecollar..

Besides, Don, I never read anywhere where Ariel said she does not use compulsion, an E-Collar is compulsion too...can you point that out, I missed it, if she said that...

again for most people here, food or toys is used for teaching...then once behaviors are learned....other methods are used for compliance and proofing, except for the few people that claim to not use corrections at all..


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> could be wrong, but the way i read it the leash is used to guide the dog, not for the correction, that is done with the e-collar, at least that is what I read...using the leash to assist the dog in being more correct, so as to avoid too much use of the Ecollar..
> 
> Besides, Don, I never read anywhere where Ariel said she does not use compulsion, an E-Collar is compulsion to...can you point that out, I missed it, if she said that...
> 
> again for most people here, food or toys is used for teaching...then once behaviors are learned....other methods are used for compliance and proofing, except for the few people that claim to not use corrections at all..


Stop making sense, Joby! You know reason and experience mean nothing to Don.

And Joby, I use just my pretty face to accomplish everything in life. All the rest of you have to resort to rewards and compulsion and nonsense like that.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> You bring up some good points that I think encourages further discussion of the topic.
> 
> Maybe my answer was overly simplistic. I wasn't really sure how in depth of a response was desired when Chad originally posed the question. I believe at a very basic level, corrections are most correctly interpreted when the timing is perfect and consistent. But you are correct, some behaviors are more complex for others allowing for greater interpretation of what exactly is being corrected.
> 
> ...


 
Good points ariel... To bring that back around to corrections in general pairing the correction with a stimulus the dog already knows as being eithe punishment or negative reiforcement, or even just a marker that has been paired with a correction and understood as such can be useful into making sure the dog understands what the correction was for. I think also to take time and stop whatever you are trying to train, and address the behavior you had to correct in some other contexts may help the dog understand. like if its leaving for the dumbbell early. You correct for the dog leaving early for the dumbbell....stop and take his ball out, and tell him to sit and, reiforce it with another command like wait...and throw his ball, and if he goes correct, do it till he stops going, then do it with someone holding a tug and trying to get him to break...and so on. just so he has the idea that it is staying until told is generalized by making the motivation variable, but the behavior required is the same.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> And Joby, I use just my pretty face to accomplish everything in life. All the rest of you have to resort to rewards and compulsion and nonsense like that.


My face works just as good as yours ( I think)


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

Why leave it up to the dog to fill in the blanks?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Chad, can you expound a little?

what is your theory?


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

sorry but i haven't read these last few long posts and maybe won't
i DID read the first few short sarcastic answers and decided it WAS pointless ](*,)

but to me it is VERY fking simple 
the reason a correction might seem like bullshit is because that is all a lot of stupid trainers use them for !!!

if you correct a dog for something and don't follow up IMMEDIATELY with showing them CLEARLY what they they could do DIFFERENTLY that DOESN'T get the correction, and instead gets them a reward they value, you are NOT training and they are not learning a damn thing ... you are just being a nagging mommy and giving them some bullshit lead pop like most family pet owners

after you correct, show them the correct behavior and reward it for christs sake 

in case you forgot, a "correction" can have a lot of degrees : from an attention getting tug to a thump on the head....not all one and the same either numb nuts !
...hot stoves don't have that option of course

i could start discussing operant conditioning but based on your first few responses that would probably put you to sleep and appear to be just more bullshit

maybe it is pointless...when i have time i'll read the long posts to see if this has just become another WDF pissing contest or a real discussion about dog training
- if you have a question ask it clearly ... if you have an agenda you are trying to set up ... never mind


----------



## Brian McQuain (Oct 21, 2009)

Chad Sloan said:


> Why leave it up to the dog to fill in the blanks?


 
Because apparently you can't


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

rick smith said:


> if you correct a dog for something and don't follow up IMMEDIATELY with showing them CLEARLY what they they could do DIFFERENTLY that DOESN'T get the correction, and instead gets them a reward they value, you are NOT training and they are not learning a damn thing ... you are just being a *nagging mommy* and giving them some bullshit lead pop like most family pet owners


Unless you are HAMMERING THEM...  then it is not nagging 
Then you are commanding RESPECT... (just kidding here, obviously)


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

rotflmao Joby ....
hammering is how i often treat owners who bring me their "problem" dog to check out ](*,)

- i never get close to them; i just hand em a much longer light lead than the tow rope they brought with em and ask them to go thru the paces ... usual stuff...play with it, show me what it knows etc etc 
- i used to count the leash pops and the first thing i would say is "nice dog" and btw, do you know in the last few minutes you popped that dog about 50 times with that lead in your hand ??"
- "kinda looks like you are trying to teach it to ignore the lead and listen to what you are saying instead......the lead part is working great so you might as well take it off now" 

- for me a lead is so simple it's hard for me to use effectively for training; never been one of my strong points


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

Brian McQuain said:


> Because apparently you can't


I think you probably can, they just might not fill them in the way you want them to. Then where do you go from there to get what you want?


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

rick smith said:


> sorry but i haven't read these last few long posts and maybe won't
> i DID read the first few short sarcastic answers and decided it WAS pointless ](*,)
> 
> but to me it is VERY fking simple
> ...


 
Hey rick there is some sort of a discussion between Ariel and I that to me, at least sounds like to dog trainers sharing Ideas and maybe trying to learn from one another.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Now I know people have claimed all kinds of things that give correction some sort of clout in this thread. They have stated that if done correctly punishment is very effective. 

Now what do people think about B.F. Skinners conclusion on the effectiveness of punishment?.... He claimed punishment is not very reliable over the long term. He seen that Even though behaviors would cease temporarily that punishment did not seem to stick very well.


----------



## Tracey Hughes (Jul 13, 2007)

Hi Chad-

If you are training in a similar manner to what I would do here is a basic breakdown.

Stage 1 is the Showing Stage/Motivational
Stage 2 is the Proofing Stage
Stage 2 is the Securing Stage

By the time corrections are introduced to the dog they already understand the proper way of executing an exercise because you have shown them (by either placing them into position or luring them), starting in a distraction free area. 

Corrections should never come into the picture until the dog is ready for the next step in training. 

In the early stages of performing under distractions, corrections should not be given for the dog making errors or having difficulty in complying exactly with directions from the handler. We as handlers should never correct a dog’s intention to try, that only leads to the dog slowing down on a command or not even trying at all. Also never give the command with the correction..No more saying “Sit” and popping the dog, that also causes problems by linking the command with a negative, rather then sit being a positive thing that the dog wants to do. 

I personally use a throw away command before a correction is given..mine is NO. So when I do say No it has meaning to my dogs..they understand if they don’t try to fix their wrong choice they just made that a correction will follow. This works great in trial where I can’t touch my dog)


To be effective, a correction should NOT be given in such a manner that the method of correction solves the problem for the dog, nor should a correction be given too lightly(dog will only learn to ignore them and over time build up a resistance to them) or too harshly (will ruin expression/attittude). 

Giving a well timed, properly suited correction for the individual dog takes skill and experience.. and like anything in dog training, you only gain such experience from getting out there and training..


By backchaining the exercises you lessen the risk of correcting all the things the dogs did well, with the one thing he may have done wrong.

Hard enough to explain this to my club members in person..so hopefully you can get a bit of what I am trying to say to you.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

James Downey said:


> Now I know people have claimed all kinds of things that give correction some sort of clout in this thread. They have stated that if done correctly punishment is very effective.
> 
> Now what do people think about B.F. Skinners conclusion on the effectiveness of punishment?.... He claimed punishment is not very reliable over the long term. He seen that Even though behaviors would cease temporarily that punishment did not seem to stick very well.



I agree 100% with Skinner on that, thus the results of my SchIII, CDX, HT, CGC, TT, SAR trained dog never having had a physical correction. 
I do think correction training can be quicker with some dogs but, as skinner claimed, compulsion is not very reliable in the long term. 
That said, any methods require skill and knowledge to apply them. I will use both motivational and correction IF the need arises.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

"By backchaining the exercises you lessen the risk of correcting all the things the dogs did well, with the one thing he may have done wrong.'

Excellent!


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Tracey Hughes said:


> To be effective, a correction should NOT be given in such a manner that the method of correction solves the problem for the dog


I'm not sure what's meant by this. Could you clarify?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> I'm not sure what's meant by this. Could you clarify?


not sure what she meant but lets say I tell the dog to down, he doesnt listen..so then I yank hard on the leash, and the line that is through the eyebolt in the floor, pulls the dog into a down. 

I tell the dog to sit, he doesn't, so I crank up on the leash and correct him into a sit for him...

dog is in front, i say heel, he doesnt, so I yank him to my side.

dog refuses to come over a jump, I yank him over it..

just things that I have seen...(which did work sometimes I'll admit) ...

maybe that is the kind of thing she is talking about, not using the correction as the force that makes the dog perform the action, but to use a correction and let the dog decide to comply or not, or figure it out for himself...just guessing here, sorry if I am off base....


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> I'm not sure what's meant by this. Could you clarify?


The correction is for the wrong behavior Ariel, but don't force the dog to do it right....let him figure it out because it will stick better.


----------



## Britney Pelletier (Mar 5, 2009)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> You bring up some good points that I think encourages further discussion of the topic.
> 
> Maybe my answer was overly simplistic. I wasn't really sure how in depth of a response was desired when Chad originally posed the question. I believe at a very basic level, corrections are most correctly interpreted when the timing is perfect and consistent. But you are correct, some behaviors are more complex for others allowing for greater interpretation of what exactly is being corrected.
> 
> ...



Excellent post!


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> not sure what she meant but lets say I tell the dog to down, he doesnt listen..so then I yank hard on the leash, and the line that is through the eyebolt in the floor, pulls the dog into a down.
> 
> I tell the dog to sit, he doesn't, so I crank up on the leash and correct him into a sit for him...
> 
> ...





Don Turnipseed said:


> The correction is for the wrong behavior Ariel, but don't force the dog to do it right....let him figure it out because it will stick better.


I assumed that was meant as well ...but you know what they say when you assume.

Anyway, I think saying you shouldn't give a correction in a manner that solves the problem for the dog may be overly simplistic. I think it depends on what you consider "correction" to mean and also how well the dog understands the behavior and what method of "correction" you're using. Typically, I use the term correction to mean positive punishment. However, I suppose "correction" could really mean any action taken after a mistake to produce the desired result. There are so many considerations, although I thought Tracey's explanation was a good place to start, there were a lot of absolutes that don't apply to all learning/training situations.

For instance, if I'm using positive punishment in the form of an e-collar, I think it's fair to "correct" the dog with the collar for sticking it's nose in the trash without providing any additional information. It's pretty easy for the dog to figure out (in my opinion), that sticking his nose in the trash produced the correction. However, if I'm using the e-collar to correct the dog for not sitting when I say sit, I think additional help/information may be necessary in many cases. If I correct the dog without providing some help, I think it's possible for the dog to become confused or stressed and start guessing at how to avoid the correction. I think the use of a leash to apply gentle upward pressure gives the dog a bit more information that tips the scales in his favor. Am I solving the problem for the dog by doing this or just opening a door to make it easier for the dog to be correct?

If I'm using positive punishment in the form of a prong or choke collar correction, I am not sure how you would apply a proper correction without communicating some direction through the leash. If you tell the dog to sit and he disobeys, I have always popped up, which I feel is more likely to compel the dog to sit. I think if the prong/choke is the instrument used as a correction tool, you have to help the dog solve the problem with it ...otherwise you wind up communicating contradicting information.

If I'm using negative punishment and consider that a correction, then I think it's a lot more reasonable not to offer the dog additional information after he makes a mistake and I tell him "no." If every time the dog does something wrong, I lure him into the proper position and then reward, of course he is going to rely on me to help rather than trying to offer solutions on his own.

If I'm using negative reinforcement, I think it again depends on what behavior you're teaching. If it's a sit, I think you need to use some leash pressure or other way of communicating some information to the dog about how it can alleviate the stimulation otherwise you again wind up a dog that starts guessing under diress.

Saying the training sticks when the dog has to figure it out on its own is again an overly simplistic absolute. When positive reinforcement and negative punishment are the only techniques used then, yes, I believe helping the dog by guiding with a leash or food just makes the dog dependent on the handler. We can correct the dog by with holding the reward and allow the dog to figure out what needs to be done to continue being rewarded. This works well with a dog that has sufficient drive for the reward and I do believe produces a dog with a better understanding of the behavior

However, if we start using positive punishment and negative reinforcement, I think more guidance is required from the handler. Don seems to be against using treats or any sort of tangible reward when communicating with his dogs. I think if we punish and use force to only communicate when the dog is wrong, but don't ever reward when the dog is right, we create a lot of stress and confusion and ruin any chance at having a dog that is eager to learn. If we then don't even help the dog to execute the proper behavior, but just keep correcting when the dog is wrong, I think we wind up with a dog who is afraid to do anything but "safe" behaviors. I imagine this produces a very obedient dog who appears to respect his master, but I believe the dog also becomes afraid to do anything but the things he doesn't get corrected for. Maybe that type of training makes one or two very clear behaviors "stick," but I don't think you get a dog that is engaging and willing to interact and learn new things.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

> Anyway, I think saying you shouldn't give a correction in a manner that solves the problem for the dog may be overly simplistic.


Thought simple was in order since you said you didn't understand what Tracey said....which was pretty simple also. Now you have turned simple into several large paragraphs for some reason.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Thought simple was in order since you said you didn't understand what Tracey said....which was pretty simple also. Now you have turned simple into several large paragraphs for some reason.


Because it was a over-simplified. I was hoping she might clarify what she meant. Instead, I get your ageless wisdom: correct and let the dog figure it out ...too vague and too many variables to pretend that's all there is to it. I wrote several large paragraphs to explain what I think for those who might actually be on here trying to learn something and engage in discussion, like I am, not for people like you who just want to validate their own opinion by finding someone who agrees with them while discounting anything contrary.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> Because it was a over-simplified. I was hoping she might clarify what she meant. Instead, I get your ageless wisdom: correct and let the dog figure it out ...too vague and too many variables to pretend that's all there is to it. I wrote several large paragraphs to explain what I think for those who might actually be on here trying to learn something and engage in discussion, like I am, not for people like you who just want to validate their own opinion by finding someone who agrees with them while discounting anything contrary.


appreciate it, 

haha...I didnt agree with Don, he agreed with me

I was just tossing out what might have been meant..and got stuck on the leash aspect for the most part..


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> appreciate it,
> 
> haha...I didnt agree with Don, he agreed with me
> 
> I was just tossing out what might have been meant..and got stuck on the leash aspect for the most part..


I didn't mean that I didn't appreciate the input from you (and Don). I just read what Tracey wrote and thought most of it was pretty clear and concise, but that statement stood out as something that really depended on a lot of other things. I was interested to hear her clarification and what others thought as well.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> I didn't mean that I didn't appreciate the input from you (and Don). I just read what Tracey wrote and thought most of it was pretty clear and concise, but that statement stood out as something that really depended on a lot of other things. I was interested to hear her clarification and what others thought as well.


was just saying that I for one appreciated your last post....

and stating that I did not agree with Don...

 (boy this interents stuff is hard to convey tone, isn't it )


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> was just saying that I for one appreciated your last post....
> 
> and stating that I did not agree with Don...
> 
> (boy this interents stuff is hard to convey tone, isn't it )


Ah, now I understand! I think learning to decipher forum-speak is an accomplishment in and of itself.


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

Hi Tracey. What is the Showing/Motivational stage for the NO command?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Chad Sloan said:


> Hi Tracey. What is the Showing/Motivational stage for the NO command?


would that be a no command, or a no used as a marker???


----------



## Tracey Hughes (Jul 13, 2007)

Sorry guys..I find it really hard to explain some of this stuff in a way it can make sense without showing it.

Don understood what I meant. 

Too many times people force the dog into the position, so the dog isn’t actually learning. In some severe cases, you will actually see a dog shut down and wait for the trainer to correct him into the position rather then the dog even attempting to try on its own.

The No is used as a marker for the correction to come if the dog doesn’t make an attempt to fix itself.


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

So the dog knows after you say no you may or may or not do something unpleasant to it?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Chad Sloan said:


> So the dog knows after you say no you may or may or not do something unpleasant to it?



Only if the "no" has been imprinted as a negative. Otherwise what you say is nothing more the Charlie Brown's wa, wa, waaaa to the dog.


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

My mistake, I assumed that on those occasions when the no marker itself is not sufficient to cause training problems to fix themselves whatever the person giving the no marker followed it up with would be unpleasant. On a side note do you imprint the no marker as "negative" in the same manner as you condition the yes marker to be "positive"?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Chad Sloan said:


> My mistake, I assumed that on those occasions when the no marker itself is not sufficient to cause training problems to fix themselves whatever the person giving the no marker followed it up with would be unpleasant. On a side note do you imprint the no marker as "negative" in the same manner as you condition the yes marker to be "positive"?


Chad, many would have you believe training a dog is rocket science. It isn't. Dogs have been getting trained for a looooong time, by herdsman, circus performers, hunters kids, you name it. "No" means no to whatever the dog is doing at the time. Don't start substituting other commands like "leave it", "come" or any other of the number of clicky commands you hear trainers using. "No", means stop "whatever" the dog is doing. The less terms used, the better the training experience. You can train a dog with a good well understood "no" and a great "atta boy" with very few cue words here and there. Tracey has put titles on breeds that others can't because she is in the dogs head and reads them. Most just think they are. Dogs like bulldogs HAVE to respect the handler or they simply won't work for you. They require more than "just" a trainer. Don't make it more difficult than it really is.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Dogs like bulldogs HAVE to respect the handler or they simply won't work for you. They require more than "just" a trainer. Don't make it more difficult than it really is.


what is respect?


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

Can you train a "No" without a good well understood no?


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Chad Sloan said:


> Can you train a "No" without a good well understood no?


Do you mean train a No without a physical correction?


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Chad, many would have you believe training a dog is rocket science. It isn't. Dogs have been getting trained for a looooong time, by herdsman, circus performers, hunters kids, you name it. "No" means no to whatever the dog is doing at the time. Don't start substituting other commands like "leave it", "come" or any other of the number of clicky commands you hear trainers using. "No", means stop "whatever" the dog is doing. The less terms used, the better the training experience. You can train a dog with a good well understood "no" and a great "atta boy" with very few cue words here and there. Tracey has put titles on breeds that others can't because she is in the dogs head and reads them. Most just think they are. Dogs like bulldogs HAVE to respect the handler or they simply won't work for you. They require more than "just" a trainer. Don't make it more difficult than it really is.


I thought Don wasn't a dog trainer. :-k


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

SO much of this thread has dealt with corrections, but the REWARD half of the equation is just as important (actually much more so), ...how else to explain the success of those that use purely positive training methods (although there are still "corrections" of sort I'm sure). Personally, I think early corrections can easily confuse the issue (conflict) if they are used before you are pretty damn sure the dog realizes what you want, instead of when the dog is just being lazy or bull headed in the response given to a known command or behavior. Usually, the foundation (whenever possible in my opinion) needs to be done relying much more on the "reward" side until you consistently are getting the required response. Correction based training makes for one lackluster, unhappy dog...sure, the dog performs, but it's not the picture I like to see at all, and I feel sorry for the dog.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> what is respect?


:smile:

*Respect* denotes both a positive feeling of esteem for a person or other entity ...Wikipedia

One wee version....

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/respect/


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

_"the REWARD half of the equation is just as important (actually much more so), ...how else to explain the success of those that use purely positive training methods (although there are still "corrections" of sort I'm sure). Personally, I think early corrections can easily confuse the issue (conflict) if they are used before you are pretty damn sure the dog realizes what you want, instead of when the dog is just being lazy or bull headed in the response given to a known command or behavior. Usually, the foundation (whenever possible in my opinion) needs to be done relying much more on the "reward" side until you consistently are getting the required response."_

I just think this bears repeating.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Skip Morgart said:


> SO much of this thread has dealt with corrections, but the REWARD half of the equation is just as important (actually much more so), ...


Police trainers, myself included are often grouped as the "yank and crankers" of dog training. I've said on numerous occasions that 90+% of our training is positive. What can be more of a positive reinforcement than allowing a dog that likes to fight, fight. In my opinion, it's the <10% aversives, in one form or another, that let's the dog know there is a consequence to not doing something correctly. 

DFrost


----------



## Wayne Dodge (Mar 7, 2008)

There are people in this world who consider their own knowledge base to be next to absolute because it is what they have interpreted as the reason for prior success. I feel as though this is foolish, the amount of knowledge that is available and yet still not completely understood in this world concerning animal training is mind boggling. The knowledge and understanding that we have available to us through scientific research and then applied application by some of the greatest minds in past and present generations is available to us all if we seek it. 

I once thought that I had a lot of this whole canine training thing figured out, I had spent many years with dogs; I had read many books from the Great animal trainers; I had trained canines and animals to do many different things successfully in double blind tests, I had seen my training success in combat. I had it figured out, sure not all of it but I was pretty close, then I realized I knew nothing. 

I had the opportunity to spend some time one on one with Bob Bailey, we talked dogs and thought in much the same way or so I thought. The broad strokes concerning concepts were similar in many ways, and then he started asking questions about the training that we were observing, asking for my opinion. I answered confidently, explaining my points and offering possible solutions to any negative criteria. I asked for his feedback, he never said I was wrong on anything yet the questions he asked up until that point seemed to have no relevance; he explained the questions he had concerning the training. I sat quietly for a while and simply listened, trying to grasp the way this man thought and soon realized I did not have the knowledge or experience to talk with him as a peer. I was not his equal in this regard, the people he had known and trained with, the conversations he had in the past with the likes of Burrhus Skinner, Keller and Marian Breland, Rob Ramirez, etc. had left him with an intuitive mind for training that far surpassed my own. I told him as much, he smiled a little and simply said… “I have known some Great Trainers in my life and all of them always had more questions than answers”

I realized I was only beginning my journey, and truly hope that every time I start to feel pretty smug in myself that I have the opportunity to spend some time with a man or women like that to help show me the vastness that still awaits us all.

My point in all of this is that I come here less and less; people have a tendency on here to offer their opinions as fact when they have never even taken the time to educate themselves in anything other than their own backyard. I am not asking anyone to agree with anyone, no matter who they are, I’m just saying at least take the time to educate yourself, apply your thoughts, test and evaluate your results before offering an opinion that is given as fact and not simply an truly uneducated guess.

Just my take though…


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

_" ... people have a tendency on here to offer their opinions as fact ...."_


The reader, OTOH, is under no obligation to accept opinions as fact.


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

Which is why I usually state my thoughts as "my opinion, my 2 cents, and I've stated several times that there is a LOT I don't know". Now, not trying to be a smartass at all, but your statement gave no real personal viewpoint on the subject. You neither agreed or disagreed directly with any viewpoint, nor gave some, other than to (I guess) send up some warnings to be careful to take any of the advice given, and you throw out some suggestions to talk to some experts. I absolutely agree that it's good to talk to people that we would consider some real experts in the field, but since we are not all experts here on this discussion forum (I know I'm not) I think it's good that we can discuss what has worked individually for us here. It's food for thought. If I hear some stuff that makes sense to me that I think I can use, all the better.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Chad Sloan said:


> Can you train a "No" without a good well understood no?


Just a bit confusing.
The understanding comes from the training and just everyday life with the dog.. The tone of voice is as, if not more important as the the word. Words alone take us back to the Wa, waa, wa thing.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Wayne Dodge said:


> There are people in this world who consider their own knowledge base to be next to absolute because it is what they have interpreted as the reason for prior success. I feel as though this is foolish, the amount of knowledge that is available and yet still not completely understood in this world concerning animal training is mind boggling. The knowledge and understanding that we have available to us through scientific research and then applied application by some of the greatest minds in past and present generations is available to us all if we seek it.
> 
> I once thought that I had a lot of this whole canine training thing figured out, I had spent many years with dogs; I had read many books from the Great animal trainers; I had trained canines and animals to do many different things successfully in double blind tests, I had seen my training success in combat. I had it figured out, sure not all of it but I was pretty close, then I realized I knew nothing.
> 
> ...


That brings to mind the quote, "It's what you learn after you know it all that counts."

I would love the opportunity to meet some of the names you've mentioned. Randy Hare told me about his chance to spend some time with Bob Bailey and said very much the same thing you did ...he asked many questions and listened and Randy was astonished with the extent of his knowledge and experiences. 

It's good to be reminded now and again that there is still so much to learn if only we can keep an open mind.


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

People who know things they haven't learned are more interesting.


----------



## Trace Sims (Oct 9, 2009)

Chad Sloan said:


> How do dogs figure out corrections are a result of their behavior and not some random bulls*** that happens?


Chad I would suggest "_Excel_ - erated Learning" by Pamela J. Reid. It helped me better understand how animals learn (including my kids, lol).


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

I have an old mal, he was trained with the "crank and Yank" method. He just doesn't enjoy working, even though I have used mostly reward based training since I have owned him.
My current dogs, are allowed to figure things out, and I rarely ever correct. They love to work! 
Now I don't need perfect heeling, or the dog to retrieve perfectly, or out instantly. But my dogs are always wanting to do better, faster, more of anything I ask. I will correct if needed, but am much happier with the dogs enjoying their work.


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

Next trip to the library I'll check it out.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

James Downey said:


> One theory I have been working with is only correcting behavior for one thing at a time. And do not use it on anything else until that one behavior is absolutley the way we want it. and then we move onto another and do the same thing.
> 
> Now this is really an idea have that is very infant. I have not addressed problems like...what if we are working on behavior #2 with correction and only doing one at a time...what if behavior #1 goes to shit. what would be the ramification of using the correction there again.... So they are very, very new ideas I am playing with. But I think the answer is just training one thing at a time and making sure it is perfect (at least in the terms of our own criteria...I do not if there is such a thing as a perfect behavior)...
> 
> ...


This is pretty interesting. After trying to put cues/stimulus control on 6 different behaviors at once with a dog that could deliver them all in a blink spontaneously, I've gone to one behavior at a time. I think how you analyze connecting the dots on the corrections along the same lines as putting the cue on a behavior is pretty interesting. But you're also indicating what I believe and that is that the dog is more confused than actually disobedient [i.e. refusal to perform a trained command]. When I say trained, that means you've gone through all the steps of generalizing the behavior--different places, duration lengths, different handler positions, etc. 

T


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

Do you think operant conditioning involves the dog connecting the dots, or do you think of it more as a way to explain the manner in which behaviors are classically conditioned?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Chad Sloan said:


> Do you think operant conditioning involves the dog connecting the dots, or do you think of it more as a way to explain the manner in which behaviors are classically conditioned?


Both, except I would stick to "explain the manner in which behaviors are operantly conditioned."

Terrasita


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

How do you integrate the two?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I'm not sure what you mean. 


T


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

That's a bummer.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

You guys are really funny tonight ! :lol:


----------

