Life is full of corrections

[terrecar]

Julie, as a writer and editor, you have got to be cringing if you happen to read any of my posts, because I don't spell-check any of it or type very accurately LOL!

[Tea]

I will add this.

 

 

 

I don't have spell check and I type with one finger.

 

 

 

And often cannot find my glasses....

 

 

I will try to help though by using the vulcan mind meld from afar.

[juliepoudrier]

Julie, as a writer and editor, you have got to be cringing if you happen to read any of my posts, because I don't spell-check any of it or type very accurately LOL!

Well, I recognize that my eye has been trained to catch more than most people would, but I make mistakes, typos, etc., too, so I try not to point out other people's mistakes. Among a group of copyeditors that behavior might be appropriate, but I try to restrain myself in other venues!

 

J.

[rushdoggie]

I really was going to sit this one out because it really just seems like more of the same, but then Rushdoggie posted the statement above. Perhaps this is specific to the person to whom you addressed it (as in a response to a comment about leash pops)?

 

Yes, I had leash pops in mind when I asked that.

 

My biggest beef with the people who are anti-corrections in training is the apparent assumption that correction = punishment, when for most of us that is simply not the case. Most corrections are verbal or body-pressure based (this coming from a stockdog training POV).

 

There's a difference between a negative consequence and punishment, for sure. And like I said to Sista, I am not out to tell you or anyone else what you do is wrong, or that your dogs are suffering.

 

There are aversive consequences to life here, like the door not opening for dogs who are spinning and barking, and the toy that has landed in my lap after I say Not Now that ends up out of reach.

 

Positive does not equal permissive.

[juliepoudrier]

The difference, Rushdoggie, is that I have never said in any of these conversations that positive = permissive (and in fact often make a point of noting that I use positive methods to train things not related to stockwork, to make clear that I am not a rabid anti-positive training maniac), and yet the positive trainers repeatedly equate correction with punishment. As others have said here, it's interesting that you can believe--and state--the positive doesn't equal permissive and yet for some reason refuse to accept that correction doesn't equal punishment. That's why I don't really bother with these conversations anymore, except for these couple of comments, so that anyone reading might yet understand that correction does NOT equal punishment. The fact that you even mention suffering in the same sentence with my dogs is just astounding, really. It's clear to me your attempting to make associations without saying it directly. Kind of like "when did you stop beating your wife?" And you wonder why people like me often don't take people like you seriously.

 

J.

[terrecar]

But coming from the sheepdog community where dogs aren't confused the difference was noticeable: too many squirreley dogs per capita

 

This just struck me with a memory that gives me a chuckle. I am reminded of a ring stewarding gig I had in the sporting group ring once. I remember a substantial ball of fur blew across the floor from the handler's tent (grooming central), and a good many handlers in the ring were struggling to stack dogs that were spooked by it. The sporting group, right? These are breeds that were developed to work under the blast of a hunter's gun, and the lot of them were spooked by a fur ball?! LOL!

 

This was the conformation ring, of course, so it doesn't reflect on agility or positive training.

 

Just thought I'd share/insert a bit of levity.

[Maralynn]

And this, to me, is the mark of a talented and skillful trainer.

 

I wasn't going to get back into this, but...

 

Why do you equate a total lack of corrections with skill?

 

Just because one person feels that they don't want/need to use any sort physical correction doesn't mean that they are a good trainer. Only that they've selected a set of ideals to train by.

 

The proof is in the pudding - ie, what they've accomplished with the dogs they've trained and the relationship you see between them and their dog.

[terrecar]

I wasn't going to get back into this, but...

 

Why do you equate a total lack of corrections with skill?

 

Just because one person feels that they don't want/need to use any sort physical correction doesn't mean that they are a good trainer. Only that they've selected a set of ideals to train by.

 

The proof is in the pudding - ie, what they've accomplished with the dogs they've trained and the relationship you see between them and their dog.

 

 

I think I equate the total lack of corrections with skill because, for me, it is more difficult to work through behaviors without corrections. In my mind, it takes more skill to think through a method of shaping behavior than it does to simply pop the leash. Corrections don't take as much thought, except perhaps in the sense of timing.

 

Your point is well taken; the proof is in the accomplishments. However, I still think it takes a bit more thought and skill to shape behavior than it does to correct the dog. That is my opinion.

 

If you're just looking at it from a "the end justifies the means" perspective, you're right. It makes little difference how one got there. I'm not looking at it that way.

[Root Beer]

Kristine,

I'm probably going to regret saying this, but here goes anyway. I write and edit for a living and I realize that some people who post to this forum apparently don't have the same grammar and spelling skills that I have. I find it rather condescending when someone chooses to point out another's mistake by repeating the misused word in quotes. It's obvious you understood what the poster meant. Why diminish your own argument with such behavior? I'm not trying to be the posting police here, but here it struck me as petty. Your argument has sufficient merit on its own; there's no need to make fun of another person to prove your superiority (and yes, that's exactly what it looks like). I'm sure I've just managed the equivalent of kicking a hornet's nest--but I just wanted to point out that when I read something like that I start to think that the rest of what the person has to say isn't worth reading. That may not matter to you, but I felt compelled to say it.

 

You read quite a lot into it that simply wasn't there. And, truth be told, that is very "posting police-ish".

 

The term "implore corrections" was unfamiliar to me, so I put the word in quotes. For all I know, that is what the training center actually says about itself, and she meant to say it.

 

I was neither making fun, nor figuratively kicking, nor intending to throw an error into her face, but simply referring back to the actual terminology that she used to describe the facility.

 

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify that. Being able to set misunderstanding right does matter to me.

[juliepoudrier]

I think I equate the total lack of corrections with skill because it is more difficult to work through behaviors without corrections. In my mind, it takes more skill to think through a method of shaping behavior than it does to simply pop the leash. Corrections don't take as much thought, except perhaps in the sense of timing.

Seriously? Now people who use positive only training are more thoughtful and creative because teaching without corrections requires greater thoughtfulness and creativity? I guess I've heard it all now. Yes, positive trainers are the gift to all dog kind. Y'all crack me up.

 

I think I'll go back to abusing my dogs because, you know, I don't have the brains to figure out how to train a better way and the ends justify the means anyway. My poor, poor dogs--somebody rescue them please....

 

 

J.

[juliepoudrier]

Kristine,

Glad to give you the opportunity to clarify your comments. I'm sure the poster to whom you responded will be grateful to know that you simply didn't understand her terminology.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

Kristine,

Glad to give you the opportunity to clarify your comments. I'm sure the poster to whom you responded will be grateful to know that you simply didn't understand her terminology.

 

If she has an issue with anything that I've written, she knows how to reply and/or PM me about it. I'd be happy to discuss the matter with her directly if she wants to.

[terrecar]

Seriously? Now people who use positive only training are more thoughtful and creative because teaching without corrections requires greater thoughtfulness and creativity? I guess I've heard it all now. Yes, positive trainers are the gift to all dog kind. Y'all crack me up.

 

I think I'll go back to abusing my dogs because, you know, I don't have the brains to figure out how to train a better way. My poor, poor dogs--somebody rescue them please....

 

J.

 

 

Wow. That's quite an emotional response.

 

I'm not sure why you would 1) assume a ruffled sarcasm to a stated opinion or 2) suggest that I think you're abusing your dogs

 

Quite frankly, if you read my past posts, you'll see that I do not use "positive only". That the fact that I admire it makes you scoff is, well, kind of cracking me up.

[juliepoudrier]

Actually it's just the fact that you think it takes more skill to be a positive only trainer vs. any other sort of trainer that makes me laugh.

 

J.

[terrecar]

Incidentally, I seem to remember a diatribe about choosing the benefit of the doubt in not reading insults into others' writing. Pot? You're black!

[terrecar]

Actually it's just the fact that you think it takes more skill to be a positive only trainer vs. any other sort of trainer that makes me laugh.

 

J.

 

Right, because.... it's a "stupid" thing to think, right? That pot thing again.

[Maralynn]

I think I equate the total lack of corrections with skill because it is more difficult to work through behaviors without corrections. In my mind, it takes more skill to think through a method of shaping behavior than it does to simply correct the dog. Corrections don't take as much thought, except perhaps in the sense of timing.

 

But wouldn't that mean that you're assuming that a person using corrections uses those as their primary training method?

 

Just because you use an occasional "ah-ah" or collar pop doesn't mean that it's your primary training method, just that it's an acceptable tool in your training toolbox.

 

Your point is well taken; the proof is in the accomplishments. However, I think it takes a bit more thought and skill to shape behavior than it does to correct the dog. That is my opinion.

 

I pretty much agree with this.

 

If you're just looking at it from a "the end justifies the means" perspective, you're right. It makes little difference how one got there. I'm not looking at it that way.

 

I'm not looking at it as the end justifies the means. In fact part of the end for me is an excellent working relationship (hard to get when you're training primarily with corrections). I'm just saying that one trainer is not more skilled than another simply because they've totally removed corrections from their toolbox.

 

Skill is not determined by a personal choice.

[Root Beer]

I'm just saying that one trainer is not more skilled than another simply because they've totally removed corrections from their toolbox.

 

More or less skill is certainly going to be dependent on the actual skill level of the trainer, and opinions of those trainers, and their level of skill, will vary.

 

I would say, though, that trainers who do not incorporate correction into training and successfully train to their goals/have excellent working relationships with their dogs, etc., very likely have strong and varied reinforcement based skill sets. These are not the people claiming that it doesn't work, but those who are working it and getting the results that they are working toward.

 

I know that you didn't say this, but one of the most common misconceptions that I hear is that reinforcement trainers stand around waiting for their dogs to randomly offer things and pointlessly throw treats at the dog, thereby teaching absolutely nothing and creating crazy untrained dogs. And I particularly like to see that misconception set right.

 

I appreciate that terrecar recognizes that reinforcement based training is a discipline that involves skill.

[terrecar]

But wouldn't that mean that you're assuming that a person using corrections uses those as their primary training method?

Not really. It is more about the difficulty (and I changed my initial post to say "for me") I have with thinking of ways to get around a correction. I'm comparatively new to positive training if you put it in the perspective of my having exhibited and trained dogs for a lot of years. So, I see it as a... well.... positive development. But I also see it as one that takes a more thoughtful approach. I see it as thoughtful irrespective of the number of corrections used when using older methods. However, as I said before, I personally have a hard time getting around aversives altogether.

 

Just because you use an occasional "ah-ah" or collar pop doesn't mean that it's your primary training method, just that it's an acceptable tool in your training toolbox.

 

Well of course I agree with this since I said before that I use verbal corrections. I certainly don't use them as a primary training method.

 

I'm not looking at it as the end justifies the means. In fact part of the end for me is an excellent working relationship (hard to get when you're training primarily with corrections). I'm just saying that one trainer is not more skilled than another simply because they've totally removed corrections from their toolbox.

 

That's right, you did mention the working relationship, and I don't have an answer as to how many corrections it takes to ruin a good working relationship. But here is where we have differing viewpoints: I do think it takes more skill to shape behavior using positive methods than it does to use corrections. Granted, that may simply be because I know a correction gets quick results and I personally have to think through an alternative.

 

Skill is not determined by a personal choice.

 

No, it's not. But that isn't what I'm saying. From my perspective as a trainer, I am saying it is easier to use corrective action than it is to shape behavior.

 

ETA: I should add that I'm thinking specifically of correcting bad behaviors with that last sentence. For e.g. it's easier to pop the leash than to redirect if the dog is obsessing over the guy on the skateboard. Again, that may be my own limitation.

[Maralynn]

 

I know that you didn't say this, but one of the most common misconceptions that I hear is that reinforcement trainers stand around waiting for their dogs to randomly offer things and pointlessly throw treats at the dog, thereby teaching absolutely nothing and creating crazy untrained dogs. And I particularly like to see that misconception set right.

 

Kinda goes along with the misconception that because a person who uses an "ah-ah" in training is correcting their dog into every behavior that the dog learns.

 

And I wasn't the one discounting any skill set I merely said that basing ones estimation of skill on that particular litmus test would not always prove to be accurate.

[rushdoggie]

As others have said here, it's interesting that you can believe--and state--the positive doesn't equal permissive and yet for some reason refuse to accept that correction doesn't equal punishment.

 

I said:

There's a difference between a negative consequence and punishment, for sure.

 

^^^I guess you missed that?

 

The fact that you even mention suffering in the same sentence with my dogs is just astounding, really. It's clear to me your attempting to make associations without saying it directly. Kind of like "when did you stop beating your wife?" And you wonder why people like me often don't take people like you seriously.

 

Oh, come on now. I wasn't saying anything of the sort! I think you are mistaking me with someone who ever said that. How it can be clear to you that I am saying something I never said?

 

I am eing transparent, I meant just what I said. Just because I choose a different way does not mean I am saying your way is wrong or that you are doing anything abusive. I have said repeatedly that I don't think using corrections in training equals being mean to your dog - I can't imagine you or Sista don't love and care for your dogs.

 

Jeez Louise!

[Root Beer]

Kinda goes along with the misconception that because a person who uses an "ah-ah" in training is correcting their dog into every behavior that the dog learns.

 

Sure, we could probably both produce quite a laundry list of misconceptions that people have toward the type of training that each of us has chosen to use.

 

Of course, the one that started this particular discussion is the proposition, with which I disagree, that training that does not incorporate correction somehow deprives a dog of the opportunity to develop a sense of self.

 

In light of that, hearing someone acknowledge that reinforcement based training does, indeed, involve skill is a very welcome change!

[Maralynn]

You do realize that most people here use reinforcement based training, right? Just because some of us mix in a few corrections here and there doesn't mean that we don't see value in it...

[terrecar]

Skill is not determined by a personal choice.

 

Assuming someone chooses aversive conditioning, not because they aren't skillful enough to shape the behavior positively, but because they simply prefer to use an aversive, I'll agree with you. I guess I am assuming that most trainers would take the positive route if they had the skill set. I mean, you implied yourself that using correction as a primary technique would not be conducive to a good relationship. Why is that? Isn't it because there is something inherently less desirable about an aversive?

 

I'm just saying that one trainer is not more skilled than another simply because they've totally removed corrections from their toolbox.

 

I also think this is a simplification of my comment re: the mark of a good trainer. That comment had more to do with Root Beer saying she could get results without using aversives. I didn't think I had to spell it out, but I guess I do. There is not one criterion--throwing out corrections/aversives--that establishes a good trainer. But if you can get the results you're going for, which is the gist of what Root Beer said, that IS the mark of a good trainer. And, if you can get them without corrections, I think that is better still.

[Root Beer]

You do realize that most people here use reinforcement based training, right? Just because some of us mix in a few corrections here and there doesn't mean that we don't see value in it...

 

Some do, others not so much.