This question is not typically asked because somebody is genuinely interested in knowing exactly what each of the discussion participants really mean by the term. Usually, the person posing the question is trying to make a point of his or her own about the use of corrections in training.
But . . . honestly . . . I believe that this is a question that we should be actively discussing! This word can mean different things to different people. I would love to see more trainers - both those who choose to incorporate correction into their training and those who do not - put their understanding of the term, in as much detail as possible, out on the table for all to consider.
When you use the term "correction", what, exactly, do you mean?
In this post, I am going to explain my answer to that question, and how I have come to formulate this definition.
When I speak of a "correction" in a dog training context, I mean:
A deliberate application of something that is aversive to the dog that is intended to communicate that a particular action or behavior is wrong or incorrect.
The aversive used can range from mild to harsh, but its use is intentional on the part of the trainer.
More than "Making the Dog Correct"
It is often claimed in online discussions that a "correction" is anything that "makes the dog correct". That would be a general definition, indeed.
If it were true that a "correction" really were simply anything that "makes the dog correct", then some things that are very pleasant to the dog could be classified as "corrections". However, in practice, those who choose to incorporate correction into their training typically do not classify the use of things that the dog likes to make him or her correct as "corrections".
I have presented these scenarios, or similar ones, on several occasions to groups of trainers who use corrections in their training, and have asked if they consider these to be examples of "corrections":
-
The dog is cued to do a trick and the dog does not comply. The handler gets out a treat and lures the dog through the trick, gives the treat. The handler then cues the behavior again and the dog is successful.
The dog is sent over a jump but runs around it instead of taking it. The handler ignores the error and puts a target out on the other side of the jump and sends the dog again. This time the dog takes the jump correctly.
The dog is called but does not come when called. The handler goes to the dog with a neutral demeanor and, upon getting to the dog, says the dog's name cheerfully while patting his or her leg. As the dog starts to walk along with the handler, he or she continues to praise the dog for returning as they walk along.
That begs the question . . . why not? In each example the dog was "made correct".
Obviously, there is more to a "correction" than simply making the dog correct. And, clearly, a "correction" is not intended to be something that the dog enjoys.
That is why I define "correction" as aversive.
More than "Information"
Another very common explanation that I see for the term, "correction" is that "a correction is just information".
I do not dispute that a correction is, in fact, information.
However, I would like to see those who define "correction" this way go on to give more detail about the type of information that is intended to be conveyed through the correction.
There are many ways to give a dog information. Praise is information. Delivery of treats is information. The click of a clicker gives the dog information. Being on a leash provides information. A well conditioned target is information.
Is use of a "correction", by virtue of being "information" exactly the same thing as use of praise, treats, a clicker, a leash, or a target?
In order to answer that question, we must consider the nature of the information that is being conveyed.
Information is not some neutral concept. Information is communication. By providing information, we strive to say something to our dogs.
Through use of praise, I intend to convey, "I am pleased with what you just did". By the click of a clicker, I am clearly stating, "that exact behavior in that instant is IT!" When my dog and I are joined by a leash, I am conveying, "we are sharing this space together now and we need to cooperate in our movement". And a target is telling the dog, "go there" or "lay down here" or "paw there".
What information does a correction give to the dog?
That is the question that I would like to see more trainers who incorporate correction into their training answer.
I would say that a correction conveys this information: "you are wrong" or "that is incorrect".
The merits and disadvantages of communicating that message to a dog in training is a matter that is up for legitimate debate.
But for those who define a correction as "information", the time has come for you to provide more information about the exact nature of the message that you are looking to convey through the use of corrections.
A Uniform Definition? Probably Not!
It is a fact that there is not one standard vocabulary in the discipline of dog training that all trainers, regardless of personal training philosophy or chosen methodology, recognize and adhere to.
Many lament over this, and express a desire for there to be such a standard. But the fact of the matter is that dog training in the United States is not a regulated industry, and we, as trainers, really are free to define the terms we use as we wish to define them. This may make for some confusion, but it really isn't something that any of us have the power to change at this time.
I propose that the next best thing is open, honest, and respectful dialogue among trainers about the terms that we use. We may not agree on how we choose to train, but we can take steps toward understanding one another better. I believe that thorough discussion of how common terms are used between different trainers would be a big move in that direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment