Is avoiding correction:”withholding half of the information?”

[Labradorks]

There has been some conversation around not using correction in competition training from time to time and this is a really good explanation, in my opinion. I thought others might find it interesting so I wanted to share. Even if you don't agree, it's interesting to think about.

Link --> Is avoiding correction: "withholding half of the information?"

Disclaimer: Not saying that other types of training do not work, just that this type of training also works, if that is your preference and/or works best for your dog.

[Annette47]

I suspect her method can work (as can many other methods), but one point I disagree with her on is that it can work as quickly as using a correction. And of course it depends what kind of correction - for example we mostly just use a no reward marker “NO” which is not something the dogs want, as it signals they won’t be getting anything good, but it doesn’t really lessen their engagement - it just makes them try harder to be right. The NO is followed by immediately asking them to perform something they can be successful at (such as a spin or twist etc) which is then rewarded, keeping engagement up. I just think it’s easier for a dog to understand the difference between no reward and reward as opposed to some reward and higher value reward which is much more subtle.

I won’t say we never use physical corrections, but they are pretty rare, are never part of the teaching process and I can’t remember the last time I used one with Chloe, so although they are “in the toolbox” so to speak, they aren’t really part of the process at this point.

[Labradorks]

I suspect her method can work (as can many other methods), but one point I disagree with her on is that it can work as quickly as using a correction. And of course it depends what kind of correction - for example we mostly just use a no reward marker “NO” which is not something the dogs want, as it signals they won’t be getting anything good, but it doesn’t really lessen their engagement - it just makes them try harder to be right. The NO is followed by immediately asking them to perform something they can be successful at (such as a spin or twist etc) which is then rewarded, keeping engagement up. I just think it’s easier for a dog to understand the difference between no reward and reward as opposed to some reward and higher value reward which is much more subtle.

I won’t say we never use physical corrections, but they are pretty rare, are never part of the teaching process and I can’t remember the last time I used one with Chloe, so although they are “in the toolbox” so to speak, they aren’t really part of the process at this point.

I think you'd be surprised! We have a pretty large number of Fenzi students and followers in my neck of the woods and I am not seeing things taking any longer. We have plenty of young dogs trained 100% Fenzi from puppyhood that have UD titles at the age of three with three trials we well as lots of dogs that are trained to Utility by the age of two or three (by novice trainers) who are being proofed and maturing to prepare for the ring.

The dogs can definitely differentiate between no cookie/pets/toy and a "good try" with a little pat versus cookie/pets/toy and a reward marker plus praise. In referencing Denise's blog, the difference between a +2 and a +8 is like playing on a rusty swing-set in the backyard versus going to an amusement park (a +10 might be more like Six Flags!). How would this not make them try harder to be right? I've never seen this to be true. Of course, if a person is going to use this method (or these methods), like any method, you have to train for it. The dog needs to know the rules or else it's ineffective. The dog has to know what is a +2 and a +8 and that has to stay consistent.

[Tanya]

interesting. I don't believe in corrections per say when training a new trick or behaviour. In agility we didn't use any corrections as far as I remember. Withholding reward would be about the only thing and if there was repeatedly failure we quickly added props or made it easier somehow to ensure the dog "gets it right" and then reward. Having said that I am sure if pen's off course I do say "no" which - IS a correction isn't it! huh. Also I yell at her as she flies too fast to some things (like the teeter) but more a command yell (SLOOOOOOW or TEEETTER TEETER TEETER TEETER!) so not really a correction.

Ditto for the tricks we did (she has her "novice trick dog title" and i hope to one day get my butt in gear for the intermediate title. I get very lazy though.

I've been internally debating the entire "positive only" thing. But that doesn't adequately describe what I (and many of us) really are. This post would be more towards the positive only camp though! I read somewhere that a tight leash is actually not at all "positive only" so positive ONLY really goes a long way when you stop and look at it. And while some people are truly that positive only, many are more positive with some level of correction. I personally think you can TRAIN most things without punishing but once a dog knows and really understand then YES i use corrections (vocal, removal of something, leash correction but not often cuz pen isn't great on that). The issue where is my saying "when the dog knows". because all too often people say "the dog KNOWS" but really, the dog doesn't know at all :P so fine line.

And if a dog does something possibly dangerous (rock getting into the oven, penny lunging on leash towards a car) i absolutely issue corrections but less because I am thinking things thru to be honest. just reactionary. not entirely sure that leads to any improvement haha.

Where i have issues is when dogs are being corrected early on in the training a new behavior/command. it seems unnecessary and unhelpful long term. Trainers who require use of prongs at all times and correcting immediately. Or the entire "praise is the only reward a dog needs" camp i can't get on board with (might work for some dogs but let me tell you when I tried that with rocky it did NOT go well). Yes you need to wean off treats and be careful how you use them (and reward isn't necessarily treats - toy or release to an activity are rewards - whatever the dog actually values).

[Labradorks]

interesting. I don't believe in corrections per say when training a new trick or behaviour. In agility we didn't use any corrections as far as I remember. Withholding reward would be about the only thing and if there was repeatedly failure we quickly added props or made it easier somehow to ensure the dog "gets it right" and then reward. Having said that I am sure if pen's off course I do say "no" which - IS a correction isn't it! huh. Also I yell at her as she flies too fast to some things (like the teeter) but more a command yell (SLOOOOOOW or TEEETTER TEETER TEETER TEETER!) so not really a correction.

Ditto for the tricks we did (she has her "novice trick dog title" and i hope to one day get my butt in gear for the intermediate title. I get very lazy though.

I've been internally debating the entire "positive only" thing. But that doesn't adequately describe what I (and many of us) really are. This post would be more towards the positive only camp though! I read somewhere that a tight leash is actually not at all "positive only" so positive ONLY really goes a long way when you stop and look at it. And while some people are truly that positive only, many are more positive with some level of correction. I personally think you can TRAIN most things without punishing but once a dog knows and really understand then YES i use corrections (vocal, removal of something, leash correction but not often cuz pen isn't great on that). The issue where is my saying "when the dog knows". because all too often people say "the dog KNOWS" but really, the dog doesn't know at all :P so fine line.

And if a dog does something possibly dangerous (rock getting into the oven, penny lunging on leash towards a car) i absolutely issue corrections but less because I am thinking things thru to be honest. just reactionary. not entirely sure that leads to any improvement haha.

Where i have issues is when dogs are being corrected early on in the training a new behavior/command. it seems unnecessary and unhelpful long term. Trainers who require use of prongs at all times and correcting immediately. Or the entire "praise is the only reward a dog needs" camp i can't get on board with (might work for some dogs but let me tell you when I tried that with rocky it did NOT go well). Yes you need to wean off treats and be careful how you use them (and reward isn't necessarily treats - toy or release to an activity are rewards - whatever the dog actually values).

For some -- many -- dogs, avoiding traditional corrections keeps them in the game and causes them to try harder to be right versus giving up. The point of the blog post is that it doesn't have to be a traditional correction to communicate with a dog that what they did was not what you wanted. They can receive the same information in other ways that won't cause them to opt out, give up or shut down.

Not everyone has a dog that will shut down -- in some way -- with corrections and if that is the case, you can probably train the dog however you want, for the most part, and get good results both inside and outside of the ring. But, that is often not the case. Stressing in the ring is a huge issue and why the program was created in the first place.

This is not a pet dog program, though much of the information can be applied to tricks and other every-day exercises. There is a pet dog spin-off due to competition followers who are also trainers asking for pet dog training tips and programs for their clients, but it is not the focus and it's more about relationship building versus training (her blog has training stuff, but very little and much of it is submitted by pet dog trainers). I am pretty sure that most of Fenzi program followers use corrections in every-day stuff. I know I do. But then again, I don't need my dog to opt in nor am I looking for precision in these commands nor am I asking him to perform them in a stressful situation.

There is no "purely positive" training that I am aware of. If you deny the dog what they want, that is negative, no? But, most dogs won't shut down over this, especially if trained with these methods previously and know that a little problem-solving is all it takes to win. They know to keep trying until they figure out how to get the reward; it's part of the game. And, if you can encourage a dog that needs it by being nice to them when they make a mistake, a simple "good try" and a pat, they truly learn to love the process because even mistakes and unsuccessful tries are kinda fun while working for the jackpot.

I posted this because I thought it would be interesting to some people, not because I don't think other methods work. They do. For some dogs. And, so does this. For many dogs. If other methods worked for every dog and every person, there would not have been a need or a following for other methods. The vast majority -- like 98% -- of those using the Fenzi method are cross-over trainers.

[doubledip1]

I do corrections for regular training (like housebreaking, not chasing the cat, not jumping on people etc.) but zero corrections when trick training.

[Tanya]

For some -- many -- dogs, avoiding traditional corrections keeps them in the game and causes them to try harder to be right versus giving up. The point of the blog post is that it doesn't have to be a traditional correction to communicate with a dog that what they did was not what you wanted. They can receive the same information in other ways that won't cause them to opt out, give up or shut down.

Not everyone has a dog that will shut down -- in some way -- with corrections and if that is the case, you can probably train the dog however you want, for the most part, and get good results both inside and outside of the ring. But, that is often not the case. Stressing in the ring is a huge issue and why the program was created in the first place.

This is not a pet dog program, though much of the information can be applied to tricks and other every-day exercises. There is a pet dog spin-off due to competition followers who are also trainers asking for pet dog training tips and programs for their clients, but it is not the focus and it's more about relationship building versus training (her blog has training stuff, but very little and much of it is submitted by pet dog trainers). I am pretty sure that most of Fenzi program followers use corrections in every-day stuff. I know I do. But then again, I don't need my dog to opt in nor am I looking for precision in these commands nor am I asking him to perform them in a stressful situation.

There is no "purely positive" training that I am aware of. If you deny the dog what they want, that is negative, no? But, most dogs won't shut down over this, especially if trained with these methods previously and know that a little problem-solving is all it takes to win. They know to keep trying until they figure out how to get the reward; it's part of the game. And, if you can encourage a dog that needs it by being nice to them when they make a mistake, a simple "good try" and a pat, they truly learn to love the process because even mistakes and unsuccessful tries are kinda fun while working for the jackpot.

I posted this because I thought it would be interesting to some people, not because I don't think other methods work. They do. For some dogs. And, so does this. For many dogs. If other methods worked for every dog and every person, there would not have been a need or a following for other methods. The vast majority -- like 98% -- of those using the Fenzi method are cross-over trainers.

oh sorry i went off on a bit of a tangeant, i wasn't addressing you or the article specifically. I agree with the article for the most part! NOT getting the reward; or less of a reward IS information. Even in classes we used jackpots (randomly or for when they get to the next level). in agility it was no reward. But i read lots of debates between training "camps" and there is the purely positive camp (where it is TRULY all positive) and i'm not quite there. And when moderate/alpha trainers point to positive trainers they point to PURELY positive (and also do so without understanding how it works!)

And it's not fair to be harder on rocky because he "seems fine". Penny has actually been great for me and learning about how i train and how it impacts dogs (I mean I KNOW from reading and fosters but nothing quite hits it home than a dog that actually is sensitive like Penny - and in fact she isn't as sensitive as many other dogs either).

[Labradorks]

oh sorry i went off on a bit of a tangeant, i wasn't addressing you or the article specifically. I agree with the article for the most part! NOT getting the reward; or less of a reward IS information. Even in classes we used jackpots (randomly or for when they get to the next level). in agility it was no reward. But i read lots of debates between training "camps" and there is the purely positive camp (where it is TRULY all positive) and i'm not quite there. And when moderate/alpha trainers point to positive trainers they point to PURELY positive (and also do so without understanding how it works!)

And it's not fair to be harder on rocky because he "seems fine". Penny has actually been great for me and learning about how i train and how it impacts dogs (I mean I KNOW from reading and fosters but nothing quite hits it home than a dog that actually is sensitive like Penny - and in fact she isn't as sensitive as many other dogs either).

I feel like people use that term, "purely positive", but it's not entirely accurate (I have used it in the past). I don't know, maybe it is and maybe it works for some dogs. If it didn't, I guess people wouldn't be doing it?

There are a lot of people that point to certain types of training that have never tried it and their comments are based purely on speculation. Or maybe they tried one thing within the entire program for five minutes or five days and it didn't work for them. Or maybe they met someone who tried it and it didn't work for them, but how do they know that person was following the program correctly? I know boat-loads of people that think they follow the Fenzi method but do not. They think they do because they don't use physical corrections or because they picked up a few pointers. Which is fine, but it's not a true assessment of the methods or programs and it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what the program is about. It's frustrating. But, it's probably equally frustrating for "balanced" trainers too because "balanced" can mean stringing your dog up when they are simply distracted and then turning around and giving them lots of cookies for work well done two minutes later (which was seen locally by at a recent seminar by a famous "balanced" or "mostly positive" trainer) or simply saying "no" when the dog is wrong and rewarding for correct behavior. That's a BIG gray area!