# What's a correction to you?



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Did not want to go off topic, so I would start another thread. Tippy's post #17 made me think this would be an interesting thread. It is a term that gets thrown around a lot, and one that I think is prone to misunderstanding.


----------



## Mssjnnfer (Aug 9, 2009)

A correction to me... like... if they counter surf. I'd point to the floor, say "OFF!" and put them into a sit. After they do it I give them big hugs and sloppy kisses.


----------



## GoldenOwner12 (Jun 18, 2008)

correction to me is if the dog is misbehaving and if i told them down etc if they did what asked they get rewarded but if they didn't they get a slight tap on the bottom and told again, If they do what there told that time i reward them for doing it. If they don't listen again i raise my voice higher and give another tap on the bottom and reward when they have done what i wanted. Normally my dogs listen the first time as they know what happens next if they don't. Eg the tap on the bottom is more like a pat so nothing hard its the tap and the raise in the voice that gets them thinking.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

to me, a correction is anything that gives the dog information that what he/she has done isn't correct. It can be a look, a verbal, a collar pop, etc. depending on the dog. It's just information that he hasn't made the right choice.


----------



## LibertyME (Jan 6, 2007)

It makes very little difference what I 'call' a correction....what matters is what the dog interprets as a correction...


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

To me a correction is anything that gives he dog information that the current action is not correct - a spin for lack of attention, a NO for heading in the wrong direction, an Uh-Uh etc. I tend to not do physical or collar corrections.

One thing that I think people are not always aware of, is for many positively trained dogs, the lack of positive re-enforcement can also be a correction - we use this deliberately at times (ie; becoming a tree), but need to be aware of the effect it has on our dogs when we go quiet in the ring.


----------



## lgnutah (Feb 26, 2007)

I looked at this thread hoping someone would define a "leash correction" because I am not sure exactly what it is. 
I have tried a quick, short pull on the leash but my dog doesn't seem to even notice it, so I was wondering if I was supposed to be pairing it with a command? Where does positive reinforcement come in?


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Here is Karen Pryor's definition: Correction:
A euphemism for the application of a physical aversive. The aversive is intended to communicate that the dog did something wrong. In some cases, the trainer then guides the dog through the desired behavior. The application of an aversive followed by desired behavior is considered instructive, thus the euphemism ”correction.”

To me, a correction is anything the dog interperates as a punishment rather than information but does understand the cause/effect. If the dog cannot understand the cause/ effect, it is just bad temper on the human's part and not a correction. The recent case of the obedience person kicking a dog in the show ring for breaking a sit /stay minutes after the 'crime" is not someone giving a correction but just someone blowing off steam in an inhumane way. A no reward marker like "too bad" is on the line between giving a correction( aversive) and a well-conditioned reinforcer that works the same way as a clicker depending on the softness of the dog and the history with the handler etc.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

So for me a correction need not be negative, but it is anything you do when a dog makes a mistake that helps the dog fix the mistake and be successful. I.e. a butt tag when your dog makes the mistake of losing attention, and then corrects himself and looks up at you.

I don't really consider ignoring the dog a correction, nor do I consider merely popping on the leash a correction _unless it causes the dog to fix the mistake or an improvement within a reasonable amount of time_. So the key for me, is a correction is letting a dog know it does something wrong and then having the dog successful fix that. The dog is made to be 'correct.'


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

lgnutah said:


> I looked at this thread hoping someone would define a "leash correction" because I am not sure exactly what it is.
> I have tried a quick, short pull on the leash but my dog doesn't seem to even notice it, so I was wondering if I was supposed to be pairing it with a command? Where does positive reinforcement come in?


I consider a leash correction pretty much to be a leash pop that fixes a behavior. If your dog is not responding, you aren't giving a correction. For a fair application of it, your dog needs to understand and have practiced what you desired first.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> . The dog is made to be 'correct.'


That doent makes sense to me as a definition, bc I can also make my dog correct by giving him a treat. If I hold up a treat, and my dog straigtens his front, I have made him correct but not given him a correction. If my dog's attention wanders, and I say "pup, pup" in a happy voice and give him a treat, that's not a correction to me, though it does correct him. A butt poke is a correction and so is a collar pop in the same situation. I think what defines a correction is that it is aversive to the dog, not the outcome that the dog becomes correct.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

This is hard because the term varies depending on where you're at. 

With the 'average' club and around most* 4-H clubs, "Correction" is the same as a leash pop if you're heeling. In some scenarios it will vary depending on the activity at hand... for some exercises a "correction" may be hand-to-dog's jaw or using a hand to get the dog into a sit or down. It's interesting to see that the -instructors- know what they want but the human students sometimes misunderstand due to the varied behaviors to follow the cue "correct him!"

Coaching term is more of "to make correct." And often in the form of verbal feedback or modeling/molding. Students who don't have prior training experience often thing of this and ask about "what is the correction when he does xyz." 

--

As for my own dogs. "To make correct" varies. I typically will move and then re-set for another rep. After a poor/incorrect response I do not want to let him try again directly after the error. Any reinforcement would, to some extent, be applied to the error and I do not want errors chained into the response or reinforced at any point. 


*Now, I actually haven't been around "most" clubs in the US, but I've worked with kids from dozens of clubs here and talked to advisors from all over the US


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Ljilly28 said:


> That doesn't[sic] makes sense to me as a definition, bc I can also make my dog correct by giving him a treat. If I hold up a treat, and my dog straightens his front, I have made him correct but not given him a correction.


...and I would call that a bribe.  In that situation I really don't think a dog consciously goes 'ooops, made a mistake' so much as he goes 'gotta do this to get that.' 

Maybe in the dog's eyes a correction is to some extent aversive--maybe butt tags work because the dog doesn't want to get tagged on the butt even though it doesn't hurt. I know I am horribly ticklish and people can 'train me' to stay clear away from them by trying to tickle me. It doesn't hurt, but I would much rather not get tickled  

Either way I view a correction as something you do that makes the dog consciously fix itself and *know* that it made a mistake. Using food to make a dog fix it's sit doesn't really tell the dog that it shouldn't have sat that way in the first place.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> ...and I would call that a bribe.  In that situation I really don't think a dog consciously goes 'ooops, made a mistake' so much as he goes 'gotta do this to get that.'
> 
> Maybe in the dog's eyes a correction is to some extent aversive--maybe butt tags work because the dog doesn't want to get tagged on the butt even though it doesn't hurt. I know I am horribly ticklish and people can 'train me' to stay clear away from them by trying to tickle me. It doesn't hurt, but I would much rather not get tickled
> 
> Either way I view a correction as something you do that makes the dog consciously fix itself and *know* that it made a mistake. Using food to make a dog fix it's sit doesn't really tell the dog that it shouldn't have sat that way in the first place.


I do agree with all of this. I think a correction implies that it is aversive. I can tell my dog he made a mistake by using the phrase"too bad" which means to him "try again", "fix it" , or "offer a different behavior". It is a no reward marker, but to me it is neutral and not a correction. Yet, it tells him he made a mistake. 

Corrections are one teaching tool and operantly conditioned reinforcers are another. I prefer to train without either bribes or corrections.


----------



## Joanne & Asia (Jul 23, 2007)

For me it ranges from a simple Ah Ah, to a leash pop or a verbal command. If she shows any aggression to dogs she is told a firm no and is immediately put into a down verbally which she does.This gets her attention and she is focusing on me and not the dog. Sometimes it can just be a "look" or getting in her space by standing right up almost over her head and she automatically sits or lies down. In the early days of training it was more physical in terms of leash popping but I rarely do that anymore.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

The end does not justify the means, and some people's definition of "correction" is my definition of "abusive" such as hucking a chain at a dog to improve his drop on recall. Throwing the chain in front of the dog- well, that is going to be grey area on this forum. . .

In my little dog niche in New England, I see lots of over-the-top correcting of obedience dogs, and they make me sad. The Doberman lady goes behind the building and gives her dog ten huge corrections in a row before going into the public ring to warn and intimidate it; the famous trainer whose border collie ducks when she makes a fast move. The flexi leash yank to bring the dumbell back faster resulting over time in the dog who is obviously afraid to return to his owner and equally afraid not to, the prong collar pop and immediate reward aka the "schitzophrenia technique" espoused by a famous nearby trainer has ignited 100 sarcastic imitations bc it is so absurdly mean. The 12 year old golden who tiptoes around the ring in terror of making a mistake, winning a ribbon and hating her day. Sure, corrections can be used decently and compassionately, but there is a lot of brutal stuff in competitive obedience.

I shake my head when I see those people whose dog must always have a job, even sticking its nose between two fingers while the owner is chatting, who then become ring sour and stubborn or shut down two years later. What do you expect? The dog only has 10 -12 years on this earth. it should have a nice life. 

I enjoy that my dog learns well without corrections, and I feel good when judges commend his working attitude and attention heeling. I am not opposed to all corrections though, and I think intelligent/skillful corrections have a place with some dogs or for trainers who do not intellectually understand/embrace the science behind positive training and just think of it as bribing/luring. My main negative reaction to the pro-correction, pro-aversive threads is how often I personally see them misused by hapless pet owners in the training center or overly ambitious, title-seeking owners who really don't care what it takes to get the HIT. 

Some of the "corrections" out there in obedienceland are indefensible.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Would love to see what more people think...

To me it doesn't matter whether you say 'uh-uh, wrong, oops, try again, mistake' these are all backhanded ways of avoiding the word 'no' and can be aversive (and a correction) to your dog in the sense that the dog fixes itself because he doesn't like making a mistake. At work, when told I made a mistake I feel horrible and find that aversive enough (and have been brought to tears when I've been yelled at). Not every person is that way--some don't seem to care even if the boss is so mad he is purple in the face, let alone care if he is 'disappointed.' I think dogs are the same--some are very keen to mild aversives such as 'no, wrong, uh-uh, mistake' and others bat their eye at them if no other meaning is applied to them.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> Would love to see what more people think...
> 
> To me it doesn't matter whether you say 'uh-uh, wrong, oops, try again, mistake' these are all backhanded ways of avoiding the word 'no' and can be aversive (and a correction) to your dog in the sense that the dog fixes itself because he doesn't like making a mistake. At work, when told I made a mistake I feel horrible and find that aversive enough (and have been brought to tears when I've been yelled at). Not every person is that way--some don't seem to care even if the boss is so mad he is purple in the face, let alone care if he is 'disappointed.' I think dogs are the same--some are very keen to mild aversives such as 'no, wrong, uh-uh, mistake' and others bat their eye at them if no other meaning is applied to them.


Again, I completely agree with you. A neutral no might be a conditioned reinforcer the same way as "phoeey". The disticntion is in the skill and comprehension of the trainer and the way the dog hears it. For example, if a dog hears "too bad" , and he wags his tail and offers a different behavior happily, that is a conditioned reinforcer not an aversive. This is materially and philosophically different than giving him a collar pop and insisting on a prescribed behavior. You can get to the same place taking many different roads. I am not against all corrections even though I prefer not to use them. I am against unreasonable force, fear & bullying though.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Ljilly28 said:


> The end does not justify the means, and some people's definition of "correction" is my definition of "abusive" such as hucking a chain at a dog to improve his drop on recall. Throwing the chain in front of the dog- well, that is going to be grey area on this forum. . .
> 
> In my little dog niche in New England, I see lots of over-the-top correcting of obedience dogs, and they make me sad. The Doberman lady goes behind the building and gives her dog ten huge corrections in a row before going into the public ring; the famous trainer whose border collie ducks when she makes a fast move. The flexi leash yank to bring the dumbell back faster resulting over time in the dog who is obviously afraid to return to his owner and equally afraid not to, the prong collar pop and immediate reward aka the "schitzophrenia technique" espoused by a famous nearby trainer has ignited 100 sarcastic imitations bc it is so absurdly mean. The 12 year old golden who tiptoes around the ring in terror of making a mistake, winning a ribbon and hating her day. Sure, corrections can be used decently and compassionately, but there is a lot of brutal stuff in competitive obedience.


I totally agree with you I have definitely seen some stuff that has made me cringe. Despite my defense of using corrections and punishment as a technique, I don't use them all that often which I think is ideal. But I also don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater, either.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

GoldenSail said:


> To me it doesn't matter whether you say 'uh-uh, wrong, oops, try again, mistake' these are all backhanded ways of avoiding the word 'no' and can be aversive (and a correction) to your dog in the sense that the dog fixes itself because he doesn't like making a mistake.


I definitely agree with the first part. "No reward markers" definitely can become very aversive for learners. Ken Ramirez has a great talk on "advanced training tools" that I highly recommend if anyone gets the chance to attend..... 

The second half is a harder thing to think about... just because we don't know what the dog is actually thinking and in most "correction" situations of any sort... even if the dog moves into the right position, how do we "know" what the dog "knows."


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> I totally agree with you I have definitely seen some stuff that has made me cringe. Despite my defense of using corrections and punishment as a technique, I don't use them all that often which I think is ideal. But I also don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater, either.



A good dog person who cares enough about goldens to be writing on this forum all day probably is going to be reasonable in training. I have no problem working with people who use corrections fairly, judisciously, and skillfully. I like to challenge myself not to use them, but I agree with not throwing the baby out with the bath water. I happen to live&train in an area with many, many old school obedience people and not too many younger ones interested in competing, Some of the things I see, for some reason especially with dobermans and border collies, make me sick to my stomach.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Great discussion!
I find the "correction" has to fit the offense, too.
If we're out in public and I tell one of my dogs to sit, and they don't, a stern look or snapping my fingers is plenty of correction.
In the obedience ring, I tend to be much more positive with my approach. This is MY game, he's just going along with it. 
In the field, where safety factors in, my corrections are going to be a lot more harsh, although I do like to think they are fair. If he breaks when flushing a bird, just as the guns go up, he's done something much more serious than not heeling in the proper position. 
I will be the first to admit there have been many times I have made mistakes, there have been many times I have corrected more harshly than I should have, and there have been a couple of times I have corrected in anger.
But my dogs have always forgiven me when I make mistakes. I forgive them when they make mistakes, too.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

I'm with Barb here! The correction, and its severity, are location, dog and infraction-dependant for me. The correction I use in an obedience setting is not going to be what I use when the dog is 150 yards away in a field setting. And the correction I use with one dog may not be the correction I use with another for the same issue. It needs to be just enough to get the dog to do as asked, be that offer a behaviour, or stop a behaviour, and then only for something they know to do or not to do. By the same token, the correction must be meaningful enough to get the response, otherwise it is just nagging.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

Great topic! This is something I have been pondering myself. In the broadest sense of the term a correction is anything that causes a dog to change its behavior at that moment. Does it have to be aversive? Does that depend on the defination of the term aversive? Is my telling Selli "no" when she is asking if I have seen a bunny an aversive (leaving out how I know she has asked me if I have seen a bunny)? Or is that a cue, just information?

To put it in human terms, if my boyfriend asks if I his slipper that Duffy often steals is in the living room and I say "no" so he does not look for it in the living room, have I corrected him? Is that an aversive?

In agility training I do work without any corrections, but in obedience training I am using limited "uh uhs" and "wrongs," They are always followed by big positives. Selli is soft and does worry about doing things wrong, but I also think that an "uh uh" can show her what exactly I don't want her to do. I guess technically that is a correction, how aversive is it? I am confused!


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

In the field, I often use "No, here" to correct Tito. It tells him that he has made the wrong choice, and I bring him back to me and help him make the right choice (by simplifying the exercise) and then we celebrate that he has done it right. So I guess I have corrected him...he has now done it correctly. So by definition that is a correction, whereas to me, it's just helping him out.
Clear as mud.


----------



## eirepup (Apr 14, 2010)

I just use verbal corrections with Finn usually "no" or "ah-ah" or something like that. When he's on a leash if he doesn't listen I use a quick, gentle tug to get his attention. If he's walking to far ahead on the leash I sometimes stick my foot out in front of him (no physical contact though) and say "heel" so he slows down a bit not sure if that counts as a correction though.

Since he's gotten older Finn's generally very well behaved and understands a lot of what I say. I think my body langauge and tone of voice are the important part of a correction I don't think the word I'm saying matters much. To me corrections are just a way of letting your dog know that they are doing something wrong.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

ok, here's another example....is this a correction?
When we go out into the field, Tito will scan the scenery, as I expect him to do. When he is looking in the "wrong" direction (not where the bird is going to come from), I will tell him "no". He will look in another direction, and I will tell him "no". When he's looking in the right direction, I will tell him "yes" and then signal that we're ready, and he will wait for the bird. 
Is that a correction?


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

It depends if Tito finds looking in the right direction rewarding, and if you are telling him "no" as information to offer you another attempt or "no" to stop what he is doing because it is wrong. I am pretty sure that here you are using "no" like a no reward marker that just says try again, you're getting warmer.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Goldensail, I am curious if you consider this a bribe, a lure, or a conditioned reinforcer? 

YouTube - Celeste Meade Brick Work "Get In" Part II


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

He doesn't find looking in the wrong direction rewarding any more than looking in the right direction, he is just scanning the field to get the lay of the land. So I'm telling him "no" to tell him he needs to look in another direction, not that he needs to stop looking, if that makes any sense. So I guess in this case, it would not be considered a correction, just information that he hasn't found the right location yet.
I think of it more as teamwork rather than praise/correction. I know where the bird is going to come from, he doesn't. So I'm helping him to know where to look. I guess I could use any other word besides "no" with the same result, as long as I used it consistently.





Ljilly28 said:


> It depends if Tito finds looking in the right direction rewarding, and if you are telling him "no" as information to offer you another attempt or "no" to stop what he is doing because it is wrong. I am pretty sure that here you are using "no" like a no reward marker that just says try again, you're getting warmer.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> He doesn't find looking in the wrong direction rewarding any more than looking in the right direction, he is just scanning the field to get the lay of the land. So I'm telling him "no" to tell him he needs to look in another direction, not that he needs to stop looking, if that makes any sense. So I guess in this case, it would not be considered a correction, just information that he hasn't found the right location yet.
> I think of it more as teamwork rather than praise/correction. I know where the bird is going to come from, he doesn't. So I'm helping him to know where to look. I guess I could use any other word besides "no" with the same result, as long as I used it consistently.


Yes, I completely agree. Here, you guys are a team communicating, and "no" is not a correction. I also agree any word would work if always used to mean the same thing.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

When Janice Gunn uses the word "correction" here, I am absolutely a fan of what she is doing. A tiny surprise to mark Louie looking at the leash, and then a nice party when he does it right.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

If one of my students tries to tell me that 3 + 3 = 5, then I am going to correct them so they don't go the rest of their lives thinking that 3+3=5 (unless they are trying to do AKC math of course ) Just some verbal information on my part can correct them by letting them know their answer is not right and let them know that the correct answer is 6. It doesn't have to make the child feel bad or anything, just provides the correct information that they need.

I think anything else added to the definition is all connotation on the part of the individual person.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

hotel4dogs said:


> to me, a correction is anything that gives the dog information that what he/she has done isn't correct. It can be a look, a verbal, a collar pop, etc. depending on the dog. It's just information that he hasn't made the right choice.


I agree. 

I held my tongue on the other thread, but I think there is a misunderstanding of what a correction is. It doesn't always have to be a noticably negative thing.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Loisiana said:


> If one of my students tries to tell me that 3 + 3 = 5, then I am going to correct them so they don't go the rest of their lives thinking that 3+3=5 (unless they are trying to do AKC math of course ) Just some verbal information on my part can correct them by letting them know their answer is not right and let them know that the correct answer is 6. It doesn't have to make the child feel bad or anything, just provides the correct information that they need.
> 
> I think anything else added to the definition is all connotation on the part of the individual person.


This is an excellent comparison. That kind of teaching style in which you tell kids the answers is long gone in all the schools at which I've taught. Telling a kid the answer is six does not teach him how to learn, just content. You might send the student back to try again and offer you another process to arrive at a new answer, but you certainly cannot "tell" students the answers. It's like if one person is driving and one is in the passenger seat- often, the driver remembers the way better than the passenger.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I really don't like comparing teaching children to training dogs all that much because it's not the same, I was just trying to show the definition in a different context. But you don't have to "tell" the child the answer for them to get there. I can let them know that the answer they have isn't correct and guide them to the correct answer. Just like if a dog were to head to the wrong jump I would tell him "no," bring him back, and put a little extra body language in my next cue to help him be right. I still view those both as corrections. 

If it weren't for the fact that I'm expected to teach 43 different Grade Level Expectations to my kids in 8 months, I guess I could just ignore the child until they came up with the correct answer in order to avoid correcting them, but I've never enjoyed that kind of training with my dogs either. 





Ljilly28 said:


> Interesting. That kind of teaching style in which you tell kids the answers is long gone in all the schools at which I've taught. You might send the student back to try again and offer you another process to arrive at a new answer, but you certainly cannot "tell" students the answers. It's like if one person is driving and one is in the passenger seat- often, the driver remembers the way better than the passenger.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

Ljilly28 said:


> This is an excellent comparison. That kind of teaching style in which you tell kids the answers is long gone in all the schools at which I've taught. Telling a kid the answer is six does not teach him how to learn, just content. You might send the student back to try again and offer you another process to arrive at a new answer, but you certainly cannot "tell" students the answers. It's like if one person is driving and one is in the passenger seat- often, the driver remembers the way better than the passenger.


But isn't this a correction or am I completely off the point you are trying to make?


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

Ljilly28 said:


> When Janice Gunn uses the word "correction" here, I am absolutely a fan of what she is doing. A tiny surprise to mark Louie looking at the leash, and then a nice party when he does it right. YouTube - Louie heeling 1.5 years old



What exactly does she do? I watched it over and over and really could not tell.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Ljilly28 said:


> Goldensail, I am curious if you consider this a bribe, a lure, or a conditioned reinforcer?
> 
> YouTube - Celeste Meade Brick Work "Get In" Part II


This is a difficult one--since I am attempting to answer I think you should put in too 

To me, it looks like she used a lure along with a conditioned reinforcer to teach the behavior. Lure to get the dog up on the stand and then the click to mark when the dog starts to turn. I mean--it doesn't really look like that much of a lure but she is holding the food in her hand and the dog knows that. 

Now for the harder one--is it a bribe? At this point, probably not for me. Mostly because the dog looks to be in the learning stage. If she used visible food every single time in her hand even after the dog mastered the command I would say it is a bribe. Also, if she asked the dog to do the command sans food and the dog did not and then she pulls out food--it's a bribe.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

RedDogs said:


> I definitely agree with the first part. "No reward markers" definitely can become very aversive for learners. Ken Ramirez has a great talk on "advanced training tools" that I highly recommend if anyone gets the chance to attend.....
> 
> The second half is a harder thing to think about... just because we don't know what the dog is actually thinking and in most "correction" situations of any sort... even if the dog moves into the right position, how do we "know" what the dog "knows."


Sure--technically we will never know what a dog knows however, as dog owners we do have to make that judgment when working with our dogs. And that is based on your dog's response.

I take it that my dog knows something when she has been practiced at it in multiple environmentsf. When a correction fails I see it as two possible things: either the dog didn't care, or the behavior was not trained well enough (the dog doesn't really know the expectation).


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

When I use the word "correction" in GRF threads, I mean an aversive, even the mildest one, to interrupt an undesired behavior

A neutral or positive stimulus that redirects the dog's attention somehow would be an "interruption" in my lexicon.

Comet breaks heel. I say "Comet!" in a happy voice. Comet gives me eye contact and comes back into position. I reward. "Comet!" wasn't a correction. It was an interruption.

Comet breaks heel. I pop the leash to interrupt his attention. He gives me eye contact and comes back into position. I reward. It's hard to say if that's really a correction. Was it unpleasant in any way to him? Maybe, but only slightly. I didn't intend it as a punishment for breaking heel. I was just trying to get his attention.

But I don't care what we call it. I'll happily shift my semantics if it will make me clearer.

I do think it's important to know when your stimulus is aversive, even a little.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Loisiana said:


> If one of my students tries to tell me that 3 + 3 = 5, then I am going to correct them so they don't go the rest of their lives thinking that 3+3=5 (unless they are trying to do AKC math of course ) Just some verbal information on my part can correct them by letting them know their answer is not right and let them know that the correct answer is 6.


In a different post, you made it super clear that you understand that it's problematic to make an analogy between teaching kids and training dogs, so I'm not accusing you of that.

I think it's a very useful distinction to make, however, that the word "correction" is euphemistic (as Pryor says) when we apply it to dogs. We cannot correct their information by providing them with alternate verbal information. When we "correct" them, our only way of telling them they're incorrect is to make their incorrect behavior unpleasant (even slightly unpleasant). That's why I mean aversive when I say "correction."


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> This is a difficult one--since I am attempting to answer I think you should put in too
> 
> To me, it looks like she used a lure along with a conditioned reinforcer to teach the behavior. Lure to get the dog up on the stand and then the click to mark when the dog starts to turn. I mean--it doesn't really look like that much of a lure but she is holding the food in her hand and the dog knows that.
> 
> Now for the harder one--is it a bribe? At this point, probably not for me. Mostly because the dog looks to be in the learning stage. If she used visible food every single time in her hand even after the dog mastered the command I would say it is a bribe. Also, if she asked the dog to do the command sans food and the dog did not and then she pulls out food--it's a bribe.


We do have common ground, because I completely agree with you.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> I think it's a very useful distinction to make, however, that the word "correction" is euphemistic (as Pryor says) when we apply it to dogs. We cannot correct their information by providing them with alternate verbal information. When we "correct" them, our only way of telling them they're incorrect is to make their incorrect behavior unpleasant (even slightly unpleasant). That's why I mean aversive when I say "correction."


Is an "UH UH" aversive? I think it is, but how? It is not inherently a no-reward-marker. For example if Selli is mouthing the dumbell and I say "uh uh" and she stops I will take the dumbell and give her a treat. If she did not mouth the dumbell, I would have her hold it for about the same amount of time, ask for it and then give her the treat.

I would say the "uh uh" is a correction, but I don't know if it is aversive.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

I think if it works, 'no, uh-uh, etc' are aversives. If it really is neutral to the dog, then why does it work?? 

Also I think a big part of this depends on tone and how you use your voice. 'No, no? No! and NO!' are not the same. I told my girl last night that she was a 'bad girl' but I did in it a play/excited voice so it wasn't an aversive, I think it was a reinforcer  BUT, if I had deepened my voice and said it more harshly I could have gotten her to put her head down or lay down. She knows the difference.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

In common parlance, without splitting hairs, a "correction" is usually a physical punishment/physical sensation like a collar pop or an ear pinch, imo. There are many times people give ineffective corrections- ie the guy whose dog I tested for CGC this morning who kept popping his lab on a flat collar that the dog ignored. That was a correction, but it didnt work. I don't think the test of if something is a correction is if the dog becomes correct. I think the salient point about a correction is it tells the dog he is wrong through a stimulus he dislikes.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Ljilly28 said:


> In common parlance, without splitting hairs, a "correction" is usually a physical punishment/physical sensation like a collar pop or an ear pinch, imo. There are many times people give ineffective corrections- ie the guy whose dog I tested for CGC this morning who kept popping his lab on a flat collar that the dog ignored. That was a correction, but it didnt work. I don't think the test of if something is a correction is if the dog becomes correct. I think the salient point about a correction is it tells the dog he is wrong through a stimulus he dislikes.


But I disagree--if it doesn't work I think it isn't really a correction. The point to me lies in the word itself--correct. If the dog isn't made correct by it, then it isn't a correction. It's just a punisher. The dog MUST be successful afterwards.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Despite being an English teacher I really am not all that into using words completely correctly and admit to using words incorrectly quite frequently. However, since I've gotten involved in the discussion, here are the official definitions of "correction."

1. something that is substituted or proposed for what is wrong or inaccurate; emendation. 
2. the act of correcting. 
3. punishment intended to reform, improve, or rehabilitate; chastisement; reproof. 
4. a quantity applied or other adjustment made in order to increase accuracy, as in the use of an instrument or the solution of a problem: _A five degree correction will put the ship on course. _

and to define "correcting" used in definition 2:
_1. _to set or make true, accurate, or right; remove the errors or faults from: The native guide corrected our pronunciation. The new glasses corrected his eyesight. 
2. to point out or mark the errors in: The teacher corrected the examination papers. 
3. to scold, rebuke, or punish in order to improve: _Should parents correct their children in public? _
4. to counteract the operation or effect of (something hurtful or undesirable): _The medication will correct stomach acidity. _





So in all the above definitions, only one definition of "correction" and one of "correcting" imply the use of aversives. Some people may choose to single out one particular definition when using the word in dog training, but that doesn't make the other uses wrong.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

That's why I said in common parlance: the way a word is most often used in conversation as opposed to the dictionary definition. In dog training, when someone says he or she uses corrections to train, it means he or she uses aversives/punishment.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I think it's funny that TippyKayak, Loisiana, and I are all English teachers debating the denotation/connotation of a dog training word.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

since my Master's degree is in math education, I'm staying out of the debate 




Ljilly28 said:


> I think it's funny that TippyKayak, Loisiana, and I are all English teachers debating the denotation/connotation of a dog training word.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> since my Master's degree is in math education, I'm staying out of the debate


 
ewww, I didn't know I was talking to a MATH person all this time!! : j/k!


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

yep, I require precise angles from Tito when heeling....


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> yep, I require precise angles from Tito when heeling....


Ohh, too funny


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> since my Master's degree is in math education, I'm staying out of the debate


I guess since I am a bio major I don't fit in either


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Selli-Belle said:


> Is an "UH UH" aversive? I think it is, but how? It is not inherently a no-reward-marker. For example if Selli is mouthing the dumbell and I say "uh uh" and she stops I will take the dumbell and give her a treat. If she did not mouth the dumbell, I would have her hold it for about the same amount of time, ask for it and then give her the treat.
> 
> I would say the "uh uh" is a correction, but I don't know if it is aversive.


Does she interpret it as an annoyed or negative tone of voice from you? I have a deep voice, so if I say "uh uh," it's definitely aversive (mildly so, but still aversive).

I wouldn't call it a correction if it's a noise that simply indicates that she should try something different. In the context you mentioned, though, you're using it to tell her not to do a thing. You seem to be pairing a mild aversive with an undesired behavior.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> I think if it works, 'no, uh-uh, etc' are aversives. If it really is neutral to the dog, then why does it work??
> 
> Also I think a big part of this depends on tone and how you use your voice. 'No, no? No! and NO!' are not the same. I told my girl last night that she was a 'bad girl' but I did in it a play/excited voice so it wasn't an aversive, I think it was a reinforcer  BUT, if I had deepened my voice and said it more harshly I could have gotten her to put her head down or lay down. She knows the difference.


Neutral noises would be something like making a little squeak simply to get the dog's attention. Or I could say "Comet!" in a neutral tone. It's not rewarding, it's not punishing. It's just an interruption. You can also interrupt an undesired behavior with a command the dog already knows. That would be neutral too.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

so screaming, "knock it off, butthead" would be considered an aversive  ?

(It hasn't worked on my husband so I haven't bothered to try it on the dogs)


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> so screaming, "knock it off, butthead" would be considered an aversive  ?
> 
> (It hasn't worked on my husband so I haven't bothered to try it on the dogs)


Well only if he is sensitive--which it seems he isn't  I think it would definitely work for some people, again depending on tone, seriousness, etc.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> Does she interpret it as an annoyed or negative tone of voice from you? I have a deep voice, so if I say "uh uh," it's definitely aversive (mildly so, but still aversive).
> 
> I wouldn't call it a correction if it's a noise that simply indicates that she should try something different. In the context you mentioned, though, you're using it to tell her not to do a thing. You seem to be pairing a mild aversive with an undesired behavior.


My tone of voice is kind of like what you would use if you were saying "try again" almost happy or encouraging. Once again it is so confusing not being able to ask them what they think. Is it a sound that says "try something else" or one that says "don't do that" or is there a difference.

Oh, by the way I have an educational background in architecture and history, so I can't really comment on the grammar issues, but can design a really nice dog house and explain the history of dog houses!


----------

