# Punishment/corrections



## Sarah ten Bensel (Mar 16, 2008)

I went to a seminar by k9 handler and trainer Steve White (i2ik9.com)recently and got a few insights into punishments for dog training. I think they are very interesting. This was a summary that was on a wallet-sized card.

ABOUT PUNISHMENT
1. It must be something the dog dislikes and does not expect.
2. It must suppress behavior, otherwise it's just plain abuse
3. It must be of the perfect intensity. Too much and the dog shuts down, Too little and the dog develops resistance to punishment
4. It must happen immediately after the behavior
5. It must be associated with the behavior, not you! Otherwise your presence is a signal that punishment may occur, and your absence is one that it will not. The result? A "sneaky" dog
6. It must occur everytime the behavior occurs. Otherwise, you may put the undesireable behavior on a variable schedule and make it even tougher to break
7. There must be an alternative for the dog. Give the dog an opportunity to perform an acceptable behavior in order to escape or avoid the punishment
8. It must never be used to the extent that punishment outweighs the reinforcement...from the dog's perspective

*********************************************

This whole world of dog learning; positives/negatives, etc is for the novice trainer like me the toughest thing to grasp. And as a result, tough for my dog!
I also see not getting the reward as punishment, not just a physical correction.
#7 I had to think about. The other day, when learning to search the blinds WITH THE HELPER in the find blind. He knows what is to be expected, i think. Nandi did not come to me after he went to one blind and instead made a bee line to the find blind (No one has never had that happen right!?) I said "NO"! Then "PLATZ!" and good boy he did just that. So I said good boy and we started the exercise from the top.

Anybody have any thoughts about these 8 points?


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2008)

> I also see not getting the reward as punishment, not just a physical correction.


You described an extant concept. It's just semantics. What you're saying doesn't describe punishment per se, because the uncongenial stimulus is not doled out as a consequence. Administering punishment decreases behavior. However, n*egative reinforcement* _strengthens_ a behavior because a negative condition is stopped a consequence of the behavior.

The "negative" condition being: not having the food he can smell in your hand (or whatever). 

It's usually clearer to describe that concept in terms of an animal altering its behavior to stop punishment (i.e. the lack of punishment being the reward itself). But I think it's valid to say that withholding the reward is a "negative condition" too.

AFAIK, he's spot on.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

_"This whole world of dog learning; positives/negatives, etc is for the novice trainer like me the toughest thing to grasp. And as a result, tough for my dog!"_

It really does seem overwhelming to try to remember and apply all this at the proper moment, but the more and longer you try, the better you get. Alot of what helps me, is to have an observer watch you train and interact with the dog, because there's alot of things you won't realize you're doing or not doing.


----------



## Lyn Chen (Jun 19, 2006)

Or video tape yourself.


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Lyn Chen said:


> Or video tape yourself.


Right on, Lyn.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

Lyn Chen said:


> Or video tape yourself.


Hey now, this is a dog training foru... Oh! you meant... nevermind! Forget I said anything


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

"Not getting the reward" is the strongest punishment any dog at our club gets in ALL their training. When this is developed from the start it works very well. 
I will say that retraining a dog that has been taught with correction training, the dog can sometimes revert to it's foundation training under heavy stress.


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Sarah ten Bensel said:


> ABOUT PUNISHMENT
> 1. It must be something the dog dislikes and does not expect.
> 2. It must suppress behavior, otherwise it's just plain abuse
> 3. It must be of the perfect intensity. Too much and the dog shuts down, Too little and the dog develops resistance to punishment
> ...




Good list, though there are fine points to be resolved, and I don't understand what he means in 8. Unless he means that if you let things get too unpleasant, the dog will shut down.

In 1) ; it really does not matter if the dog likes something or not, if it decreases the frequency of the behavior it immediately follows, it is a punisher/diminisher. If it does not, it is not. 

So it follows that 2) either suppresses behavior or it is NOT a punisher/diminisher. You can correctly say that physical force that does NOT diminish a behavior serves no purpose and therefore is unjustified. In diminishers and reinforcers, your intent means nothing, your effect means everything.




Don't feel bad about feeling overwhelmed. This is the most difficult subject for almost everyone. The technical definitions are:

reINforcer: INcreases frequency of behavior it immediately follows
DIminisher: DEcreases frequency of behavior it immediately follows

Postive: add to environment
Negative: subtract from environment (has NOTHING to do with good or bad, nice or mean, pleasant or unpleasant.




Like-dislike have nothing to do with anything. If I tell you I am holding your family hostage and if you don't do what I say I'll kill them, and you will know that I am happy with your performance if I tell you that you are stupid, and I want you to carry bricks, and I call you stupid everytime you carry a brick and you carry more and more, then the word "stupid" was a reinforcer for the behavior of carrying bricks. Whether you hate my guts, hate carrying bricks, or hate the work "stupid".




If food is withheld, as a consequence of the dog barking, and he quits barking, then withholding the food was a punisher. It was a negative punisher/diminisher. 

If the food is withheld and the dog keeps barking, it is not a punisher/diminisher. If the barking increases, withholding food reinforced the barking! 

If the dog barks, and food is given and the dog quits barking, it was a positive punisher/diminisher, whether the dog liked the food or not. 

If the dog is barking and food is given and he increases his barking, the food was a positive reinforcer.

The role of the food is defined by the effect it has on the behavior it immediately follows. Sometimes the true effect of our actions collides with our expectations of the effects of our actions. We must learn to observe what is actually taking place.




When this gels in your mind, it will help you to make good training decisions and it will make you a faster, more responsive trainer. 

If it gels your mind, then you have a problem... :wink:

Kudos for taking it on.


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> Hey now, this is a dog training foru... Oh! you meant... nevermind! Forget I said anything


Now that warrants a primary, positive diminisher. :twisted: ...

20 lashes.... :evil: 

What? You ask for 40?? :-o Never mind. :-\"

O


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Kayce, nice breakdown! 
I think to many trainers use punishment the same way a dominatrix uses a whip! It's more about enjoying the control and punishment then the training. 8-[ 8-[ :-#


----------



## Ian Forbes (Oct 13, 2006)

Kayce,

Interesting that you call punishers 'diminishers'. I may use this word myself, as so many people (certainly here in the UK) seem to have a problem with the word 'punishment'. Many people here say that they use no punishment in their training, when what they actually mean is that they do not beat their dogs! They use punishment all the time (mostly -P) they just don't realise they are doing it.

As for what this means:
_8. It must never be used to the extent that punishment outweighs the reinforcement...from the dog's perspective_

My view is that this is just good training practice. Set your dog up to succeed and you will be doing far more reinforcing than you will be punishing - if you're doing loads of punishing you're not making it easy enough for the dog to get it right.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

I went to a seminar a few years back and during theory work, the P-P+R-R+ was introduced. I told one of the other participants, I'd have to read it up again at home and he said - it's easy, it's what you've always been doing during training but now it's got a name.

I read a lot about dogs' behaviours, I'm open to any methods, might not use them on my dogs, but wouldn't reject them. I enjoy constructive criticism - even the pope isn't infallible and I'm definitely not:mrgreen: .

However, the two chaps who instilled the most learning into me could "read" dogs extremely well and could recognise stress signals naturally. From them I learned to "read" my dogs too and to communicate with them eye to eye and most of all, put trust in my gut feeling. 


Gillian


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

:-k Corrections are the techniques which trainers use to redirect and promote "positve" or successful behaviors. Punishment is a VERY strong correction to the point of total dominance over the dog. 

You can't punish what the puppy or dog has not learned and mastered. You can however correct it through verbal or physical means. A bad sit for example can be corrected, then praise given for the proper positioning. This is an ongoing learning and understanding period.

Punishment is something along the lines of the dog trying to bite the owner or willfull defiance to a command. The dog knows the term and proper technique requested. Punishment is IMO a time for a coming to Jesus meeting with the animal. It can't win at a game it can't control! [-(


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

It's all terminology. In fact, the list presented by Mr White was taught, pretty much the same way, in the early 70's by the Military working Dog School. Corrections/punishment, praise/reinforcement/reward, they, in my mind, all pretty much mean the same thing. For example, correction/punishment; if it doesn't have an affect on the behavior you are trying to change, then it's meaningless. Verbal, physical or in fact, completely ignorning can all be a correction/punisher, they all have their place.

DFrost


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

David Frost said:


> It's all terminology. In fact, the list presented by Mr White was taught, pretty much the same way, in the early 70's by the Military working Dog School. Corrections/punishment, praise/reinforcement/reward, they, in my mind, all pretty much mean the same thing. For example, correction/punishment; if it doesn't have an affect on the behavior you are trying to change, then it's meaningless. Verbal, physical or in fact, completely ignorning can all be a correction/punisher, they all have their place.
> 
> DFrost


David this sounds like education. New package for the same old stuff! \\/


----------



## Ian Forbes (Oct 13, 2006)

Howard Gaines III said:


> :-k Corrections are the techniques which trainers use to redirect and promote "positve" or successful behaviors. Punishment is a VERY strong correction to the point of total dominance over the dog.


I guess it's all just terminology, but I see it different to you. IMO punishment is something that makes a behaviour less likely to repeat - could be removal of a reward, a vocal reprimand, a leash pop etc.



> You can't punish what the puppy or dog has not learned and mastered. You can however correct it through verbal or physical means. A bad sit for example can be corrected, then praise given for the proper positioning. This is an ongoing learning and understanding period.


If it makes the behaviour less likely to repeat, it is punishment. The point of giving a verbal or physical correction is to make the mistake less likely to reoccur.



> Punishment is something along the lines of the dog trying to bite the owner or willfull defiance to a command. The dog knows the term and proper technique requested. Punishment is IMO a time for a coming to Jesus meeting with the animal. It can't win at a game it can't control! [-(


It seems you believe that punishment always involves something physical - I disagree.


----------



## Ian Forbes (Oct 13, 2006)

David Frost said:


> For example, correction/punishment; if it doesn't have an affect on the behavior you are trying to change, then it's meaningless. Verbal, physical or in fact, completely ignorning can all be a correction/punisher, they all have their place.
> 
> DFrost


That's the way I see it. Unfortunately, dog training fashion in the UK has made 'punishment' a dirty word.


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Bob Scott said:


> Kayce, nice breakdown!
> I think to many trainers use punishment the same way a dominatrix uses a whip! It's more about enjoying the control and punishment then the training. 8-[ 8-[ :-#


:-k 8-[ :lol: O


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Ian Forbes said:


> That's the way I see it. Unfortunately, dog training fashion in the UK has made 'punishment' a dirty word.


I understand that. In fact, it's why I use the word "correction" rather than "punishment". People that don't understand percieve the words differently. Yet, they mean the same. Or; a behavior that is reinforced is more likely to occur again. A behavior that is not reinforced is more likely to stop. See how simple dog training is, reward the good and ignore the bad. ha ha. Ok, maybe it's a bit more complicated than that.

DFrost


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Ian Forbes said:


> Kayce,
> 
> Interesting that you call punishers 'diminishers'. I may use this word myself, as so many people (certainly here in the UK) seem to have a problem with the word 'punishment'. Many people here say that they use no punishment in their training, when what they actually mean is that they do not beat their dogs! They use punishment all the time (mostly -P) they just don't realise they are doing it.


Absolutely, and you are right on. And people have a hard time separating the technical definition from the common use of the word punisher (to demean, degrade, humiliate, torture.... WITHOUT regards to effect on behavior).

I wish you would use this word. I have been lobbying for years. Punisher is a bad choice because 1) it is illogical (diminisher describes exactly the effect on the behavior) and 2) because there is a lot of emotional baggage surrounding the word punisher, which really distorts communication and issues. 



> As for what this means:
> _8. It must never be used to the extent that punishment outweighs the reinforcement...from the dog's perspective_
> 
> My view is that this is just good training practice. Set your dog up to succeed and you will be doing far more reinforcing than you will be punishing - if you're doing loads of punishing you're not making it easy enough for the dog to get it right.


Very, very true!


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Gillian Schuler said:


> I went to a seminar a few years back and during theory work, the P-P+R-R+ was introduced. I told one of the other participants, I'd have to read it up again at home and he said - it's easy, it's what you've always been doing during training but now it's got a name.
> 
> I read a lot about dogs' behaviours, I'm open to any methods, might not use them on my dogs, but wouldn't reject them. I enjoy constructive criticism - even the pope isn't infallible and I'm definitely not:mrgreen: .
> 
> ...


Well said, Gillian. I teach this stuff all the time, and feel it is a really important aspect of a professional trainer's education, for several reasons. 

1) Yes, we do these things whether we name them or not, but if I am coaching your training, we cannot discuss your actions and results without a vocabulary that allows us to be precise and specific. Behavior flows at its own rate, and our reactions flow on their own rate, which is often a bit slower than they need to be. So, if I am coaching someone, I need a fast, clear way to transfer information. And, when you coach others, you will need the same tools. Hence, the justification for creating technical terminology.

2) I am a quasi-academic, and it irritates me when I see PhDs steeped in learning theory lord their credentials over people with more actual knowledge about training, and try to bully them into intellectual submission by baffling them with BS (AKA terminology and theory). I like to see trainers armed to the teeth to hold their own in verbal discussions about the art they have mastered.

3) In order to talk specifically, you have to clarify your own understandings, and this causes you to study your practices, and your effects, and once you analyze these, you can guide yourself to better practices.

For example, when I was young, I worked with aggressive grey seals in a public situation. My employers made it clear they wanted no public displays of coercion. I made it clear that I intended to be consistent and safe with the animals. To balance those needs, I made a study of the most effective way to deal with the aggression. I identified 6 published theories/stretegies. I tried them all. I found only one actually changed the behavior of the animals. The others just held them at bay. Physical corrections, applied very specifically, were the only of these "solutions" that worked. 

From there, I went on to develop a 7th strategy. This is Perception Modification. It works better than punishment for me, and it is safer. It requires that I get ahead of the problem. In other words, rather than waiting for something bad to happen and then responding to it, I anticipate the possible problems and get in their and teach the animals how to respond before the problem comes up, and before they get all hot and bothered about anything. 

We can create virtually errorless learning - but we have to be better trainers, AND we have to be fluent with the concepts and vocabulary of training to apply and discuss these things. If I had not clearly analyzed the other strategies, I would have been less able to identify what was left to try/needed to be happening.


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Howard Gaines III said:


> :-k Corrections are the techniques which trainers use to redirect and promote "positve" or successful behaviors. Punishment is a VERY strong correction to the point of total dominance over the dog.
> 
> You can't punish what the puppy or dog has not learned and mastered. You can however correct it through verbal or physical means. A bad sit for example can be corrected, then praise given for the proper positioning. This is an ongoing learning and understanding period.
> 
> Punishment is something along the lines of the dog trying to bite the owner or willfull defiance to a command. The dog knows the term and proper technique requested. Punishment is IMO a time for a coming to Jesus meeting with the animal. It can't win at a game it can't control! [-(


As you define your terms here, I completely agree with you. Problem is, you are using terms which have specific definitions amongst other professionals and academic types - and their definitions are different.

You may be perfectly correct about what you are saying, but if you use these same terms, other professionals will hear something very different than what you are intending.

This becomes even trickier when working with others who do not speak the same native language.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2008)

> I will say that retraining a dog that has been taught with correction training, the dog can sometimes revert to it's foundation training under heavy stress.


Could you elaborate? I can't quite picture what you're talking about.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I find it easier to comprehend as I'm training to use simple words like "correction" and "reward", and for the following, "redirect"....



> This is Perception Modification. It works better than punishment for me, and it is safer. It requires that I get ahead of the problem. In other words, rather than waiting for something bad to happen and then responding to it, I anticipate the possible problems and get in their and teach the animals how to respond before the problem comes up, and before they get all hot and bothered about anything.


That +P/-P stuff sounds like math to me, and makes me internalize what I'm doing, instead of paying enough attention on the outside.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

> That +P/-P stuff sounds like math to me, and makes me internalize what I'm doing, instead of paying enough attention on the outside.


:lol: Ditto. I just go and train my dog, I don't think about the technical name for what I am doing, gives me a headache


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

David Frost said:


> It's all terminology. In fact, the list presented by Mr White was taught, pretty much the same way, in the early 70's by the Military working Dog School. Corrections/punishment, praise/reinforcement/reward, they, in my mind, all pretty much mean the same thing. For example, correction/punishment; if it doesn't have an affect on the behavior you are trying to change, then it's meaningless. Verbal, physical or in fact, completely ignorning can all be a correction/punisher, they all have their place.
> 
> DFrost



In vernacular language, I agree. And I believe you can probably train circles around most of the folks that imposed this terminology. 

In technical language, Ian references the precise meaning of "punish". 

You use the word "correction". Technically, I don't know for sure what you are meaning. Here is what I think you mean: A correction (does not have a technical definition to my knowledge) is an effort to change a behavior. It does not tell me the outcome of that effort.

It can also be a punisher, but only if it decreases the occurrence of the behavior it was applied to. 

A punisher decreases a behavior. Period. If you beat a dog on the head and it still does the thing you were attempting to correct, it was not punished, even if it has two black eyes and is cringing. By technical definition. This flies in the face of the common use of the word punish, hence diminish is a better choice of word.

An interrupt (like "platzing" a dog about to spring) can interrupt the behavior, without affecting the future occurrence of that behavior. The dog may be just as likely to spring the next time. However, an interrupt of a bucket of cold water thrown at a dog, may make him less likely to spring next time, as well as interrupt that particular spring, and may be a punisher/diminisher as well as an interrupt. 

Most leash corrections serve as interrupts rather than punishers/diminishers, but are still corrrections (attempts to change behavior).

It is analogous when discussing rewards, reinforcers, etc.

In training a dog, you don't need any of these words. In discussing the training of dogs, they are very useful. If a trainer comes in to me and says a animal lunged and was punished, I know the problem is solved. If he says he interrupted it, I know we have work to do. If he says he made a correction, I look to see if he got injured, because correcting a behavior is an action he initiates, but does not give me the outcome, technically speaking.


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Like many here, I learned in person with verbal information. It was a big labor to go dig up the terminology. Meanwhile, people that sit in the library to learn, may well know the terminology and can't train. Maybe I can save someone a few hours...

I just posted a glossary in the training articles forum. I excerpted the consequence section because the whole thing is too long for one post. 

If anyone wants a full copy, pm me, and there is also a study table available. It helps to cross relate some of these definitions.

This is the most up to date version.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Kayce

Would you say that that the perception method in dog training would actually lead to errorless training if carried out to perfection?

I used to think that a dog had to make a mistake and be punished, to learn. 

Doing bite training I learned to perceive my dog's actions by close surveillance thereby avoiding mistakes, so we achieved a stress-free exercise. The decoy was a man of few words, but after the exercise I used to go home and "chew it over". Actually, an instructor who could have monitored the exercise would not have been a luxury! I appreciate that decoys can't concentrate on the dog and handler simultaneously.

On the other hand we had training colleagues who used to visit seminars 3-4 times over, in an effort to pick up what the instructor had tried to get over to the audience. Maybe it was a case of "if you can't convince them, confuse them" but maybe the participants were too shy to say "stop" I don't understand. My husband said anyone who has to visit the same seminar twice is a nit-wit. But dog sport is not an "elite" sport and more often than not some of the most brilliant dog trainers are not talented in handing down their knowledge verbally. Here, it's up to the individual to watch, analyse and put into action himself.



Gillian


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Kayce
> 
> Would you say that that the perception method in dog training would actually lead to errorless training if carried out to perfection?


Just about. Since it is actually important for the dog to eventually test the system to see the limits and until he does, under supervision, you are not done training. However, we are getting to the point where we can just show the dog the limits, and he can honor them if he chooses. 

For example, I can show an animal a perimeter in a matter of minutes, using intermediate bridges. I can cross the perimeter and negate myself, then correct my location and bridge myself. I then ask the dog to stay within the perimeter, and uses bridges to give feedback, etc. They can pick up on this very quickly. 

This needs to happen when the dog is calm and focussed. Adrenaline/dopamine interfere with conscious thought and the dog cannot learn as efficiently. 

One other clarification, Perception Modification is the art of teaching animals to cope with stressors and manage their emotions. This is the technique that allows me to dial drive up. I don' know if I can dial it up as much as you guys like it, since I mostly work in the other direction. The transfer of information relies on Bridge and Target. Kind of like you speak English for communication, but your have a Fitness Program to attain athleticism.



> I used to think that a dog had to make a mistake and be punished, to learn.


I learned this way too. Koehler, whose descriptions of how to build and proof behaviors are brilliant, presented training this way. However, he relied on corrections to define what the rules were. If you take a moment to teach some signals that give the animal assurance when he is correct, and if you use a target or a known word to give the animal information of what is wanted, you can go straight to success and eliminate trial and error. It is much faster and much easier on the arm and back.



> Doing bite training I learned to perceive my dog's actions by close surveillance thereby avoiding mistakes, so we achieved a stress-free exercise. The decoy was a man of few words, but after the exercise I used to go home and "chew it over". Actually, an instructor who could have monitored the exercise would not have been a luxury! I appreciate that decoys can't concentrate on the dog and handler simultaneously.


Yes, and you can only focus on your dog and yourself in relation to the decoy. If we video that, and then analyze it together, we get up to speed. But we still need the language to discuss what we are seeing. If I coach you, we discuss the goals at the outset, have codes to serve us during action, and discuss afterwards. You cannot process much extraneous information while in action - it is dangerous, in fact. 



> On the other hand we had training colleagues who used to visit seminars 3-4 times over, in an effort to pick up what the instructor had tried to get over to the audience. Maybe it was a case of "if you can't convince them, confuse them" but maybe the participants were too shy to say "stop" I don't understand. My husband said anyone who has to visit the same seminar twice is a nit-wit. But dog sport is not an "elite" sport and more often than not some of the most brilliant dog trainers are not talented in handing down their knowledge verbally. Here, it's up to the individual to watch, analyse and put into action himself.
> 
> 
> 
> Gillian


I don't want to get on the wrong side of your husband!  He is probably exceptionally sharp!

However, most people have to see something several times to get the full content. I got a masters degree in education in order to be as effective as possible at teaching others, and they made a big point of this. They also made a big point of telling others what we will be learning, rather than just starting into the subject. It helps them to direct their attention. Another reason for terminology - for both working with others and working with dogs. Our certified trainers see the same information again and again and they tell me that each time, they learn things at a different level.

Also, people see what they expect to see, and can totally miss something that does not fit into their view of things. A valued colleague saw some footage of me training a rhino to let us flush an abscess under his horn. He said, "I saw some amazing stuff with a rhino, but I didn't see any training!" He defines training in a certain way, and my way of working never fit his expectation. 

I am still working on refining my own perspectives and understandings. Everytime I read my own work, I realize how much more refinement in my own understanding is still to occur. However, I have to start somewhere!


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Oh sheesh, all this is giving me a migrane! I don't work closely enough with a trainer in the OB, so words mean little here. Also punishment and correction or whatever else you want to name things, differ with each dog. I can 2x4 one dog in the head or give a stern NO/eh eh and the NO or eh eh will get the better reaction, the 2x4 gets me nothing. Another dog, a pissy look will bring him to the ground and a stern word will shut him down. I have to go through the correct action with the dog calmly. The methods gotta change with the dog/his style or triggers, who gives a rats butt what you call it? One dogs punishment another dog ignores. One dogs prais goes unnoticed by another dog also. My current dogs prais looks like punishment, I guess he likes it "ruff". :twisted:


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Quote Kace

"Just about. Since it is actually important for the dog to eventually test the system to see the limits and until he does, under supervision, you are not done training. However, we are getting to the point where we can just show the dog the limits, and he can honor them if he chooses."

Unquote

And if he doesn't choose, what do you do?

Quote Kayce

"For example, I can show an animal a perimeter in a matter of minutes, using intermediate bridges. I can cross the perimeter and negate myself, then correct my location and bridge myself. I then ask the dog to stay within the perimeter, and uses bridges to give feedback, etc. They can pick up on this very quickly."
Unquote

Here, I've only nearly got it. Can you be more explicit? Maybe with a "verbal picture" example so that dumdum can understand:mrgreen: 

Thanks
Gillian


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2008)

Michelle, 

You're right, accounting for relative degrees of punishment and reward is ultimately up to the individual animal in question.

I'm about 25 pages into Kayce's manual, and so far (I'll repeat what Bob Scott said) it covers a lot of familiar ground if one understands marking training and Operant conditioning, but it also describes a lot of patterns which people certainly know (or have noticed), but have not articulated. I speak for myself, at least.

It's not a step-by-step (so far). It's a description of principals. Fact is, if super precise discussions are to be had (which personally, I like), there needs to be a corresponding precision in words and definitions.

Kinda like in calculating multiple numbers. You have to defer to the number with the fewest decimal points.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Steven Lepic said:


> Michelle,
> 
> 
> It's not a step-by-step (so far). It's a description of principals. Fact is, if super precise discussions are to be had (which personally, I like), there needs to be a corresponding precision in words and definitions.
> ...


Very true -it's not easy to discuss individual problems to a point where a solution is attained but general discussions on the dog's behaviour, i.e. super precise discussions, as Steven said, are possible.


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Quote Kace
> 
> "Just about. Since it is actually important for the dog to eventually test the system to see the limits and until he does, under supervision, you are not done training. However, we are getting to the point where we can just show the dog the limits, and he can honor them if he chooses."
> 
> ...


Stop the IB, redirect, restart the IB as he self-corrects. We intensify the IB in various ways to optimize our effectiveness. The animal becomes so focussed on the stream of information, it rarely takes more. If the animal is working, there is usually little to correct. If they don't want to work or they won't correct, they get a time out (trainer ceases interaction).



> Quote Kayce
> 
> "For example, I can show an animal a perimeter in a matter of minutes, using intermediate bridges. I can cross the perimeter and negate myself, then correct my location and bridge myself. I then ask the dog to stay within the perimeter, and uses bridges to give feedback, etc. They can pick up on this very quickly."
> Unquote
> ...


Here is a simpler task, on the way to learning a perimeter. Easier to describe in writing.

Let's say I want a dog to get on/stay on a table. 

Instead of placing or pulling him onto the table, I target him on, naming the location "Table". 

Then I add a concept "On. You are on the table." 

Now I target him off, onto the ground. I name the ground, as he touches down, "Ground". "You are on the Ground. Now, back on the Table: Table! xxxxxx(IB sound)X"(as he touches down on table, following my finger target.) " Table! You are on the Table!"

Next I want him to stay on the table, and I will get this by using the IB to help him to stay there. 

"Table X! Good job!" (rest)

"Ready? Table 2: xxX! Outstanding!" (rest)

"Ready? Table 4: xxxxX! Good! " (rest)

"Ready? Table 8: xxxxxxxxX! Good dog! " (rest)

If he jumps off the table: "That is Ground. You are On the Ground. Can you get On the Table? xxxxxxxX - Good Table." (This is why I took the time to name Ground right at the beginning. I anticipate that he needs to know Table, Ground, On, and the difference between these and how they relate. Soon, I would teach "Off", and numbers, so we could talk about how long he would be there.

As you can see, the duration expands exponentially. Some will say, "Fine, but the dog doesn't have a choice. When I say table, I mean table and I mean now and I mean for however long I say, ...." But we have studied this and we get the same reliability as you get by using force. 

For example, we had to train pigs to allow us to stick a 5-inch needle into the vena cava next to the heart. This was done by using a catch pole and snaring the pigs. The pigs struggled violently and screamed and squealed. Very stressful for all. The researchers and caretakers came to me to see if we could do it another way. I was doubtful. It looked so bad it was hard to believe any animal would cooperate in that. 

It took us about one hour per pig, and the biggest problem was they all wanted to be first, so we had to teach them to wait till their name was called. (This change of attitude was accomplished through PM, by the way). It took only one person, the old way took 2-3. There was no noise, very little chance of injury, and no stress byproducts to contaminate the blood sample.


----------



## Sarah ten Bensel (Mar 16, 2008)

Steve White did clarify that he does NOT endorse punishment if all 8 rules cannot be followed. He stated that physical punishers can cause so many moe problems.

My "learning" example in my original post: Nandi learning to run blind #5, then come to me ("heir" ) then send to the blind with the helper in it. Again he did come to me, but went straight to the helper so I said "no", he stopped, then I said "platz" and he did. After that, I realized several things
1. My dog can listen and platz in a high drive state.
2. I was not convinced that my dog really understood the exercise completely AND disobeying the call to me
3. He may not understand that it is ME who releases him to his reward in this exercise.

So I backed up the exercise to where he last had success by shortening the distance around the fifth blind, calling him sooner with visuals to heir and then sent him to the blind. He got it! Got his reward, a good fight and to the car we went. We ended on success

Prior to that, he did zoom right past me and went directly to the helper. He got a physical correction. 
My point is the progression and the variety of ways we used to modify his behavior.
I try my best with the guidance of the club to use all kinds of methods. By in large the positive way is my way. I use markers and bridges and have been influenced by Ivan Balabanov and all, etc. If just seems that during protection work, because of the higher drive state, punishers have to be used.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Kayce

I've got the principles of the training even not knowing what the "IB" is but assuming it's a command, it's easy to check the rest - but still, what the .... is IB?

Thanks for explanation!

Gillian


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Kayce
> 
> I've got the principles of the training even not knowing what the "IB" is but assuming it's a command, it's easy to check the rest - but still, what the .... is IB?
> 
> ...


To me, the description seems pedantic, but the devil is in the detail and so without writing the detail, it is hard to give a true description of what is happening. Even so, I simplified this description a bit from what would actually go on. I also put another set of definitions in the training resources section.

The IB is short for Intermediate Bridge, it is an instantaneous, constant stream of feedback that tells the dog it is on the right track, leading to the moment of the TB (Terminal Bridge). The IB is written x, and the TB is written X. They make increasing duration a snap. I was trying to write it so it was clear that first we tell the dog how long he will be staying (later we can ask for indefinite stays) and then we use the IB to count the stay (2 xxX, 4 xxxxX, etc). As the dog gets confidence with a task, or part of it, the IB is dropped out of that part, and may appear in a new task, or later, if there is a distraction, injury, etc.


----------



## Anne Vaini (Mar 15, 2007)

I did not read responses. 

I take issue with


> #1: It must be something the dog ... does not expect.


If a dog does not understand why a correction occurs, it is abusive (MHO). I use a marker that means "fix it or else."

I disagree with


> #5" It must be associated with the behavior, not you!


Yes -- but no. 

When it comes to pack order, no. 

When it is electric collars, no. 

When it is trash digging, couch jumping, barking, and destructive behaviors, YES!


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Kayce, have you ever seen Clinton Anderson's "Horsemanship Downunder" (RFD TV). Now there's someone who really understands how to TEACH their skills to others. Sure, there's lots of other great trainers, but many don't seem to communicate with people as well as they do their horses.


----------



## Sarah ten Bensel (Mar 16, 2008)

From Anne Vaini "If a dog does not understand why a correction occurs, it is abusive (MHO). I use a marker that means "fix it or else." "

I agree. Mr. White also mentioned that this was for punishments when the correct behavior is known by the dog. Mr. White also clarfied that he does not endorse this methodology if it can't be done correctly (meaning all eight points). This is not his first choice in dog training. He also presents at MANY clicker expos. Like I mentioned before, it was an excellent seminar.

#5" It must be associated with the behavior, not you! 
I believe one does have to discriminate behaviors. Also, I believe and try to perform a correction that is "emotionally neutral" on my part. There are times when I want the dog to understand that indeed it came from me. One trainer I asked stated when done correctly, the dog thinks he caused the correction; at the same time when the dog does the right behavior, the dog thinks he caused the reward. I don't know if that makes any sense at all. However, if the dog associates the correction with me, he may not understand that is was for the behavior. In that case he learned nothing except to resent the handler.


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Kayce, have you ever seen Clinton Anderson's "Horsemanship Downunder" (RFD TV). Now there's someone who really understands how to TEACH their skills to others. Sure, there's lots of other great trainers, but many don't seem to communicate with people as well as they do their horses.


About 20 years ago, if I'm thinking of the right man. If so, he was highly admired by my horse mentor. Maybe I will look him up again if you recommend him. Thanks for the steer!

Of course, I have to go find a TV to do that maybe...


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I do recommend him. I think he would make a great model for effective teaching. You'll see what I mean if you watch him.

One thing I think we see alot of too, is certain trainers can be very close minded about learning techniques outside their usual practice. Or, favor a particular combination of drives and temperament, which leaves them ineffective when working outside that comfort zone.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Kayce, thank you for the explanation. My MT is English but my DT is German!

I thought I could train my dog to get through Schutzhund without learning much more than I kew. However, the "errorless training", even if not 100%, thereby creating a dog which isn't "competition clever", is something I've started looking into.

Years ago, with my first dog, a Landseer, I taught him sit, and once he knew it, I used to check it out by pulling him towards me. When he stayed put, I knew it was good. Nobody taught me this and I "showed off" with it, not realising then that this method can be applied to a number of exercises. I've just bought a book from Daniel Schwizgebel, a Swiss behaviourist and this is one method he describes. However, I don't want to bring Schwizgebel's knowledge down to one simple idea.

I hope my dogs live long enough to appreciate their "better trainer".

Gillian


----------



## Steve White (Mar 31, 2009)

I know this is an old post, but since I was kind of involved in absentia, I figure I might as well chime in.

First off, I really appreicate the thoughfulness with which Kayce has parsed the items. I feel compelled to let you know that this is my own personal list. I use it to check myself when I feel the ure to use an aversive crop up. It's sort of my reality check where I ask myself am I asking more than I have prpared the dog to deliver? If so, then I look at my shaping and generalization plan and figure out where I can better meet the dog at its level rather than try to drag it up to mine. That said, I'll start by answering the questions Kayce poses. 

She's pretty much on the right track with her own answer to the question about #8 and punishment not outweighing reinforcement. This more of a gloabal perspective about the dog's entire day, wekk, year, and life than is rule 3 which is about a single specific application of P+ or P-.

As for like/dislike, I will concede that I used imprecise lanuage so that laypeople might better understand that it's about something that aniumal will work (even if subconsciusly) to avoid. Spritz a Bichon for barking and it will likely shut up . . . for a while. Do the same to a Chessie and he'll probably go, "Hah hah hah. Do it again! I LIKE that!"

The bottom line is Kyace is right that the effect on behavior is what determines whether or not soemthing is a reinforcing or punishing consequence. We can use all sorts of euphemisms and jargon, but tge science is pretty well settled on this stuff.

Oh yeah, one thing I forgot to mention in the 8 Rules is that generally speaking, punishment is, by definition, reinforcing to the punisher. It makes the annoying thing stop . . . at least for a while. Thus, one is more likely to use it again if the annoyance recurrs. This is precisely when we need to STOP and rethink our training plans, because while our willingness to use punishment is increasing, so is the dog's tolerance of it (aka: the punishment callus). The more we use it the more they can take. They more they can take the more we use it. And so it goes. We've just accelerated ourselves into the vicious circle.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not good enough that I've not used aversives. It's just that I've found that the less I use them, them less I need to use and the more effective they are when I do.

I hope this makes sense. I'm kind of rummy about now. Too many nights of sleep deprivation this week. <sigh>

Stay safe,

-Steve







Kayce Cover said:


> Good list, though there are fine points to be resolved, and I don't understand what he means in 8. Unless he means that if you let things get too unpleasant, the dog will shut down.
> 
> In 1) ; it really does not matter if the dog likes something or not, if it decreases the frequency of the behavior it immediately follows, it is a punisher/diminisher. If it does not, it is not.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

The remark about the Bichon and the Chessie was good but, if a dog, even though it likes water, gets a surprise squirt in its face, it can stop maybe the barking to check back to you and then you can tell it to be quiet. I've found yelling at the dog from another floor will only have delayed effects. Going up to it quietly and telling it to be quiet and that it's going to be butchered tomorrow in the nicest possible voice can have more influence......

I'm with you in that the harder you deal out corrections, the more the dog gets used to it and the more it can take. I stopped this and used to whisper threats to my Briard, followed by a correction - all I had to do was whisper afterwards.....

I think the surprise element is important - the dog stops what he's doing for a second and then you can react with the sledge hammer or the feather - whichever works. Most dogs are immune to their name after a while.


----------

