# Training for correctness vs training for attitude



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Which do you do? Ask for the perfect sit/platz/etc right now and work on speed & attitude later, or ask for a super enthused movement now and work on perfecting the form later?

"Both" isn't an answer  Fixing one sacrifices the other in the immediate time frame.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Good question! Jax is the first dog I've trained so I'm really interested in the answers. It's kind of like, what came first...the chicken or the egg?


----------



## rvadog (Dec 9, 2010)

I don't understand why both isn't an answer?

Take a 8 week old puppy and start doing foundation and imprinting. If you have something that motivates him then you should be very easily able to teach him being correct is the only way to gain the reward.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

rvadog said:


> I don't understand why both isn't an answer?
> 
> Take a 8 week old puppy and start doing foundation and imprinting. If you have something that motivates him then you should be very easily able to teach him being correct is the only way to gain the reward.


If you super enthusiasticly ask for a platz, and get a sloppy one... if you treat right now, you have answered "attitude", if you correct the form in any way and hold out on that treat, you've hurt his attitude and answered "correctness". You can work on both... certainly you have a threshold for how sloppy a platz you will allow. ALso, you can get both in the end of course, but you've got to start somewhere.

Take three dogs.
I train one for a week only caring about attitude
I train one for a week only caring about correctness
I train one for a week working on both

Dog 1 will seem the most interested in the work, Dog 2 will be flawless but seem less happy about it, and dog three will be neither. Eventually they will all end up in the same place with the proper training and enough time.

There isn't a right/wrong answer.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)

> ask for a super enthused movement now and work on perfecting the form later?


First the drive and enthusiasm then the behavior for me!!! I want them to love to learn and do first of all. Then when the 'boring' exactness comes into play in the training they will still want to be 'in the game' and willing to learn!


----------



## rvadog (Dec 9, 2010)

When I take a dog who is motivated by a reward and ask him to "platz" and when he doesn't I say "fooey" and move. He doesn't get a reward but I don't see a loss in drive or attitude. Instead I see an increase. The dog wonders why he is not getting a reward and trys harder.

The flaw with all of this is that by the time I'm asking my dog to front or "platz in motion" he's not sloppy. I don't mind correcting it because I'm not teaching it anymore.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Then by the definition set by hunterisgreat, you are NOT doing both. You are training for correctness, not attitude.


----------



## rvadog (Dec 9, 2010)

I understand that.

My point is he is wrong.

When teaching you can do both.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

rvadog said:


> When I take a dog who is motivated by a reward and ask him to "platz" and when he doesn't I say "fooey" and move. He doesn't get a reward but I don't see a loss in drive or attitude. Instead I see an increase. The dog wonders why he is not getting a reward and trys harder.
> 
> The flaw with all of this is that by the time I'm asking my dog to front or "platz in motion" he's not sloppy. I don't mind correcting it because I'm not teaching it anymore.


Thats a bit more complex. First, if he flat doesn't obey the command then its thats predating my entire question. I'm talking about the dog actually doing the platz... either perfectly, or not so much perfect. I'm focusing on a very specific piece of the training

The increase in drive or attitude is because you've now loaded the dog with "positive stress". This is a separate concept from what I'm talking about.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

rvadog said:


> I understand that.
> 
> My point is he is wrong.
> 
> When teaching you can do both.


You can do both, but you are always leaning to one side of the spectrum. From what you said it sounds as though you prefer attitude and are correcting down the road for a sloppy movement? (in other words, you do not correct a sloppy movement while teaching the behavior, but while practicing it later)


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

FYI, my scenario in a vacuum does not lend well to being directly compared to your real world scenario. Everyone is somewhere in between, and there are many more variables, but when defining methods and techniques it is worth while to concentrate only on the relevant parts of the method, for the purpose of understanding the method. However, just because a theoretical situation doesn't mirror a real one, does not mean useful things cannot be learned from the theory.


----------



## rvadog (Dec 9, 2010)

hunterisgreat said:


> The increase in drive or attitude is because you've now loaded the dog with "positive stress". This is a separate concept from what I'm talking about.


Why is it a separate concept?

I have a 10wk puppy. I'm imprinting a return to front. I guide him in with food and if he doesn't get close enough or if he puts his paws on me I give him an eh, eh and keep moving back. No loss in attitude.


----------



## rvadog (Dec 9, 2010)

hunterisgreat said:


> (in other words, you do not correct a sloppy movement while teaching the behavior, but while practicing it later)



Absolutely not true. I just teach in a way that there is no loss in attitude and also complete correctness.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

rvadog said:


> Why is it a separate concept?
> 
> I have a 10wk puppy. I'm imprinting a return to front. I guide him in with food and if he doesn't get close enough or if he puts his paws on me I give him an eh, eh and keep moving back. No loss in attitude.


The separate concept is the increase in energy, attitude, etc was due to positive loading. You said the non-reward for not platzing increased his attitude and that means my statement was wrong. It doesn't have anything to do with my statement for several reasons: he didn't platz in the first place, even if he had and you didn't reward, the increase of attitude is due to positive loading, not your lack of treating him. He wants the treat. He didn't get it. That is adding positive stress. If you held an e-collar remote out (and he knew what that meant) and put your finger on the button, he is now negative loading. You get a change in attitude due to an increase in stress, be it positive or negative, in anticipation of a reward or correction.

You could at least agree that you can only observe, by definition, the results of the stimulus you provided? You cannot know the level of attitude of that dog, had you chosen to reward for getting "almost close enough", or if you had chosen to scream "fooey" at the top of your lungs and pop his collar (I know this is not appropriate). You may have not seen a loss of attitude over what he was before the exercise, but no one will ever know how his attitude compared to the attitude that would have resulted from rewarding "almost close enough" and fixing it later. I think we can reason that his attitude would have improved at the expense of his correctness... he wasn't close enough after all.

Demanding a perfect front from a 10wk puppy won't work, but commanding front and rewarding whatever happens won't either.. those are the absolute extremes of the spectrum. I'm just asking if you put a higher priority on attitude or on correctness

This is getting way way too complicated for such a simple question lol.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

rvadog said:


> Absolutely not true. I just teach in a way that there is no loss in attitude and also complete correctness.


I'm sure you are a very good trainer, but you can't have both at the same time.

If I chose to learn a foreign language.. I can progress slowly with perfect pronunciation, or I can rapidly develop an ability to communicate, but have a thick accent to native speakers. I have to strike a balance somewhere. Loosely the same concept


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Both is my answer, and I don't think it sacrifices anything. 

If I had to choose, I'd go with attitude in the early stages as I think the most important part of foundation training is to teach the young dog to love learning and love working. That attitude makes training so much more fun for both, so much easier for both, and when corrections are employed much later down the road they are taken in stride as just corrections without hurting the dog's attitude because that love of the work is so strongly instilled in the dog.

But I still don't think that requires sacrificing correctness. Even early on with puppies doing basic imprinting work, only correct responses are rewarded. Fast, straight, tuck sits. Fast, straight, fold back sphinx downs. Solid, evenly balanced stands with quick lock ups. Correct heel position with focus. Correct, straight, close fronts with focus. Correct, straight basics with focus. With good luring and marking techniques it doesn't take long for the dog to learn what is correct and brings reward and what isn't and doesn't bring reward, and therefore to consistently offer the behavior that is reinforced which translates to correctly performing the exercise with both enthusiasm and precision.

So no, I don't think correctness needs to be sacrificed for attitude or vice versa.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Another way to ask my question would be:

"do you think it is easier to fix attitude or correctness..."

maybe thats a little more palatable to everyone that is horrified by the idea of saying they would allow something less than perfect out of their dog lol


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Both are difficult to fix. If the fundamental attitude of the dog is one of dislike for the work, and he has much life experience disliking the work, it will be a long hard road to change his opinion. If he has habituated incorrect behavior, it will likewise be very difficult to fix that. Particularly as when under stress dogs will revert to their foundation learning. So while one could take a dog who had practiced a bad sit for a long while and fix it somewhat in training, when really paying attention and consistently rewarding the desired new behavior and correcting the undesireable old behavior, as soon as the handler isn't paying close attention or has his mind on other things, or the dog is placed in a stressful situation, the dog will likely revert to the previous undesireable behavior because it is well ingrained.

Which is why it's important to build both a positive attitude and correct behavior in the dog from the very start.

I'm sorry, it has nothing to do with being "more palatable". Just that some of us are of the opinion that your basic premis of one can have either attitude or correctness but not both at the same time, and cannot train both at the same time without sacrificing one, does not universally hold true. And while you may have some sort of training experience that leads you to your belief, others of us have training experiences that supports our very different opinions on that.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Chris, I've had to fix things with Jax (and still fixing) and found using a new word to associate the behavior with seems to be the trick. The command becomes 'soured' if the dog develops a bad association with it. I've had to change Down to Platz, retraining in a positive way. 99.9% of the time she hits the ground smoothly. Down brings a resentful, slouch "I'll do it because I have too".


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Jax08 said:


> Chris, I've had to fix things with Jax (and still fixing) and found using a new word to associate the behavior with seems to be the trick. The command becomes 'soured' if the dog develops a bad association with it. I've had to change Down to Platz, retraining in a positive way. 99.9% of the time she hits the ground smoothly. Down brings a resentful, slouch "I'll do it because I have too".


Absolutely! In cases like this is it much easier to teach a new word and associate it with the new behavior than it is to give new meaning to an old word that the dog associates with other things.


----------



## wolfstraum (May 2, 2003)

Only reward what you want. foundation is critical...you reward crooked sits, you will have crooked sits all the dog's life....it will always revert to early training...early imprinting is crucial - esp if you want to show/compete....heel position is critical for points - do not reward but correct the position, then reward IN the correct position...

Lee


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> I'm sorry, it has nothing to do with being "more palatable". Just that some of us are of the opinion that your basic premis of one can have either attitude or correctness but not both at the same time, and cannot train both at the same time without sacrificing one, does not universally hold true and have training experience that supports our opinion on that.


as I mentioned earlier my vacuum scenario doesn't translate one to one to real life, and everyone is obviously pursuing both. I'm not saying choosing one means you don't get the other, but people DO in fact place higher importance on one than the other. For the exact same dog doing a pretty quick & and pretty correct platz, I might reward because I was pleased with the correctness and attitude, and you might not because while you were pleased with the correctness the attitude wasn't quite what you were looking for. I absolutely agree with everything you said, but if you take a very close look at how you train, you do have thresholds for what is acceptable to you both in terms of correctness and attitude. If you rewarded only for perfect in both areas, the dog would rapidly demotivate because he'd never get a reward (or the dog is perfect which we know is not true, or when I say perfect, you interpret that as "acceptable", and not perfect). I am very simply, polling everyone as to where those thresholds lie with them. People answering with "i want correctness and attitude and train for both" doesn't give me any useful information. I know that everybody wants both and trains for both, but everybody picks their thresholds differently than the next person. Relative to other handlers, do you find yourself requiring higher attitude or higher correctness than they are willing to accept (or lower even?)

What I was desperately trying to avoid and so extremely easy to fall into on dog training discussions is a "your training sucks because your wrong" discussion.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Correctness must be made first. It is much easier to teach a dog where he should be and what he should do when he is not overly happy. When he understands this then he can be happy about doing it (still correctly).


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Zahnburg said:


> Correctness must be made first. It is much easier to teach a dog where he should be and what he should do when he is not overly happy. When he understands this then he can be happy about doing it (still correctly).


Thank you very much, for a simple answer


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Quote from Chris: "Just that some of us are of the opinion that your basic premis of one can have either attitude or correctness but not both at the same time, and cannot train both at the same time without sacrificing one, does not universally hold true."

Of course you can have both at the same time, this is the goal. And of course you can train both at the same time, at a certain stage in the training. However, I believe the OP's question involved what do you need to teach first.


----------



## Veronica1 (Jun 22, 2010)

So if my boy lays on his side with his legs stretched out and glances up out of the corner of his eyes (during obedience classes), sounds like I've missed the boat on both attitude and correctness.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

Veronica said:


> So if my boy lays on his side with his legs stretched out and glances up out of the corner of his eyes (during obedience classes), sounds like I've missed the boat on both attitude and correctness.


 
The horror!


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Zahnburg said:


> Correctness must be made first. It is much easier to teach a dog where he should be and what he should do when he is not overly happy. When he understands this then he can be happy about doing it (still correctly).


What is "overly happy"? If were talking about a dog needing to be in a lower drive state for early learning, I'd agree.

But I still think attitude and correctness go hand in hand and cannot be divorced from one another from the very beginning. The fundamental reason behind training of all animals is that correct = happy. Otherwise why would the animal do anything? Certainly different forms of training involve different forms of happy. But the fact remains that the dog finds it beneficial to himself to comply. If compulsion is used, then happy takes the form of release of pressure or discomfort. If motivation is used, then happy takes the form of getting some sort of tangible reward. But either way the dog's state improves, and he is more happy, when he complies. Therefore regardless of methods used, attitude and correctness are intwined and are being worked on together.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

I'll take a stab at it: my answer would be: depends on what the dog needs most. 
With Keeta, I'll take attitude over correctness - with Gryffon, I brought in correctness first, attitude being very easy to get from him. 


As Lee said: what you teach first is what the dog will always revert to. I didn't worry about correctness when I first started working with Keeta in pet-obedience classes. I was just happy to have her focus on me among the many distractions and respond to the commands correctly. Our instructor urged us to not accept sloppy work, but in my mind, I was thinking: "Hey, I have a mutt rescued from the pound, it's not like I'm going to be entering her in formal obedience trials!" 
Well, that train of thought came back to bite me in the butt, because later on as I WAS getting her ready for trials, the more I tried to correct her to make her more correct, the more her attitude suffered. I finally chose consistency in enthusiasm and happy attitude over consistency over accuracy. 

With Gryff, not wanting make the same mistakes, correctness is important - but NOT at the expense of attitude. Again, I find if I focus too much on correctness, attitude will suffer. The difference is that once I work more on getting the fun attitude back into the work, suddenly the accurracy and correctness just falls into place. 

Interesting experiences with my two dogs so far.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> What is "overly happy"? If were talking about a dog needing to be in a lower drive state for early learning, I'd agree.
> 
> But I still think attitude and correctness go hand in hand and cannot be divorced from one another from the very beginning. The fundamental reason behind training of all animals is that correct = happy. Otherwise why would the animal do anything? Certainly different forms of training involve different forms of happy. But the fact remains that the dog finds it beneficial to himself to comply. If compulsion is used, then happy takes the form of release of pressure or discomfort. If motivation is used, then happy takes the form of getting some sort of tangible reward. But either way the dog's state improves, and he is more happy, when he complies. Therefore regardless of methods used, attitude and correctness are intwined and are being worked on together.


Maybe a sticky is in order with standard definitions of all the words we use lol.. lot if semantic issues here that are impeding the flow of thoughts & meaningful discussion

They absolutely can't be divorced. I would never suggest someone only work to one end. 

Simple questions aiming for a simple response so I get a better idea how you as an individual train: Forget about what you would reward for a second. Would you rather see an almost acceptably correct movement with through the roof attitude, or vice versa


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

hunterisgreat said:


> For the exact same dog doing a pretty quick & and pretty correct platz, I might reward because I was pleased with the correctness and attitude, and you might not because while you were pleased with the correctness the attitude wasn't quite what you were looking for. I absolutely agree with everything you said, but if you take a very close look at how you train, you do have thresholds for what is acceptable to you both in terms of correctness and attitude.


Absolutely each individual person has a different idea of what is acceptable and what should be rewarded depending on what their end goal is. And what constitutes acceptable, even for the same person and dog, will vary with the individual exercise and where that dog is in training. But I don't see where that requires someone to primarily priortize one over the other. 

Training is always in a state of flux and fine tuning trying to achieve balance. So certainly if attitude is lacking in one exercise for a while, more focus will be given to improving that. But I don't see how that requires sacrificing correctness. Far better to control the environment and other factors to ensure success and set the dog up to be correct and reward that, then accept less than correct in order to improve attitude. One can have both. Correctness shouldn't be sacrificed by rewarding less than correct behavior, but it also doesn't need to be because there are plenty of ways for the handler to work on improving attitude while still making sure to only reward correctness. If the dog is allowed to get sloppy, or even worse rewarded for getting sloppy in the name of improving attitude, the handler is to blame and needs to rethink the training scenario to make sure one doesn't fall behind while polishing up the other.



hunterisgreat said:


> If you rewarded only for perfect in both areas, the dog would rapidly demotivate because he'd never get a reward


Or, one could put more forethought into each training session to make sure to minimize the possibility of mistake and set things up to where the dog will do it correctly, and get rewarded for doing so. Certainly constant lack of reinforcement will demotivate the dog. But if the dog is constantly making mistakes and not getting it right, then again the fault is with the handler. The handler either moved too fast and the dog doesn't really understand the exercise, didn't communicate clearly to the dog, rewarded for the wrong thing in the past and is now essentially changing the rules on the dog, or has placed the dog in a situation that is beyond his abilities to perform correctly in at this stage of maturity or training. 

So rather than accept less than correct behavior out of fear of harming attitude, or harm attitude by demanding a behavior the dog is having trouble performing, take a step back and design the training session to set the dog up for success and reward that.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> But I don't see where that requires someone to primarily priortize one over the other.


I never said anything about a requirement to primarily prioritize one over the other. If I came across that way, that was entirely not my intent. I was trying to discard all the other facets of training and put on blinders, to ask a very specific question about a very specific aspect of training, while pretending all other things are held constant. I'm very scientific and approach things that way. We can't really say much about cause and effect if we have to consider 100 variables all at once. Divide and conquer (analyze)



Chris Wild said:


> Training is always in a state of flux and fine tuning trying to achieve balance. So certainly if attitude is lacking in one exercise for a while, more focus will be given to improving that. But I don't see how that requires sacrificing correctness. Far better to control the environment and other factors to ensure success and set the dog up to be correct and reward that, then accept less than correct in order to improve attitude. One can have both. Correctness shouldn't be sacrificed by rewarding less than correct behavior, but it also doesn't need to be because there are plenty of ways for the handler to work on improving attitude while still making sure to only reward correctness. If the dog is allowed to get sloppy, or even worse rewarded for getting sloppy in the name of improving attitude, the handler is to blame and needs to rethink the training scenario to make sure one doesn't fall behind while polishing up the other.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree, but now we've stepped out of my tiny microcosm of this specific tiny piece of training, and we're now talking about a different subject, which is setting the dog up for success in the first place and the training program as a whole, which was way beyond the scope of my original question


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

@Chris,

I tried to craft my response to the general audience of this section of the forum. So yes I mean a lower drive state. 

Of course a dog must be motivated, in some fashion, in order to elicit a response. And yes, the dog must find the application or removal of such motivation to be in their best interest. 

However, there is a very large difference between "a dog's state improving" (quote from your above post) after compliance and the dog being in the correct state or having the correct 'attitude' throughout the exercise. 

As an example let us look at a dog being taught to stand. Imagine a dog locking up very well, and not moving but his ears are folded tightly and the tip of his tail is tickling his chin. After he is released of course his "state improves" and he is "more happy". This is teaching correctness, the dog is learning exactly what he must do, but he is certainly not happy about it as noted by the ears and tail. After the dog understands this behavior, then he can be allowed to be happy to execute it. So that in the final picture we see a dog who has a powerful buildup, followed by a correct stand and he does not look stressed.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Art,
I absolutely see what you're saying.

But, in the stand example, must a dog be initially taught the exercise for correctness in such a way that brings about such a poor attitude? Is there no other way to teach that exercise? Can't the dog be taught the initial behavior, including the correct way to execute it, via less stressful means?


----------



## ayoitzrimz (Apr 14, 2010)

Without reading the entire thread (sorry...) I'll give my two cents.
I go back and forth (these are usually done in this order):
1. (Foundation training / imprint) OR (training new behavior) - I'll work with food and work on understanding what is required and quick compliance
2. dog is fluent in the behavior (this is before doing any distraction training) and is starting to generalize - I'll work with a ball to bring him in drive but will only reward quick and precise behaviors. This is the stage where I start to reward only good position and fast reaction. If I don't see what I like, I'll give a quick "no reward marker" (nope) and go back to something he knows for a second. Then I'll try it again. I'll reward only quick precise compliance at this stage
2a. While working this way, my dog can get bored and lose some drive. I'll work on drive building on certain days without any obedience using the same toys
3. At this stage the dog has become fluent and generalized the behavior (i.e. sit means sit exactly where you are - not come in front and sit, although that's a VERY simple example) so I'll work on incorporating the command into our SchH OB routine as well as distraction training. I'll continue to reward only precise movements.

Don't know if this falls in line with what everyone else is doing, and I can't comment on how well this method works, but I can say that it has worked well with my dog.

Shorter version:
1. speed and enthusiasm
2. accuracy and precision
3. Both


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Chris, as you know, the stand or any other exercise can be taught and trained myriad ways. I used that example because it is something that is easy to imagine and illustrated the point well, though it is a bit extreme. Regardless of how an exercise is taught the dog must be in a state that is much less 'happy' than what is wanted in the finished product to create precision. Do not take this to mean that the dog must be stressed as that is not necessarily the case.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I think the exercise can be trained initially with minimal stress. Building a positive and confident feeling for the behavior. Correctness can be trained from the begining.

Then there is the adding of drive and sense of responsibility to the picture of the already happily performed behaviors. 

There is always balancing and the decision of when and how to add the have to and then bringing the dog around to thinking it was his idea anyway!


----------



## Wildtim (Dec 13, 2001)

Let me field this one.



hunterisgreat said:


> I never said anything about a requirement to primarily prioritize one over the other. If I came across that way, that was entirely not my intent. I was trying to discard all the other facets of training and put on blinders, to ask a very specific question about a very specific aspect of training, while pretending all other things are held constant. I'm very scientific and approach things that way. We can't really say much about cause and effect if we have to consider 100 variables all at once. Divide and conquer (analyze)


Dog training isn't as cut and dried as you are thinking it and making it out to be. Period.

Even in the most steril scientific environment you have to account for a thousand different variables, most of the time you can't completely isolate any one. When you are talking about dog training you never can.




hunterisgreat said:


> I agree, but now we've stepped out of my tiny microcosm of this specific tiny piece of training, and we're now talking about a different subject, which is setting the dog up for success in the first place and the training program as a whole, which was way beyond the scope of my original question


But it isn't.

Lets see if an example helps. 

Perfect is an enthusiastic, fast, close, straight, tuck-butt, sit, with focus and intensity. There is no division of correctness or attitude. The above is perfect, and if I want perfect it is all that is acceptable, nothing else will do, or be rewarded. My dogs give me this. I can do this by controlling the training environment, the reward, my behavior, and my attitude in order to elicit the only acceptable behavior in the dog. That 100 variables? they are what we manipulate to get perfect behavior and why we can't divorce our selves from them and look at this in isolation.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

And you have to figure out how to get it with each dog. My training session with my softer and less intense girl looks very different than that with my young male. You have to figure out what part of the training to manipulate in order to show the dog what performance you desire.


----------



## JKlatsky (Apr 21, 2007)

Thinking about this with my puppies and dogs-

I would say attitude is a priority to me in training. If I get a pup, my initial goal is to develop or reinforce a good working attitude. This isn't really done in training per say. I think this is done through play, bond building, and maybe small games that don't really have a direct correlation to a particular exercise. For example, when I bring home a dog, the dog has to play with me before I would start trying to teach anything. I would also work on food luring. Where pup gets treats just for being engaged with me- maybe some touch games, teaching spins, rear end awareness. Not really anything to get wrong there or be concerned about. I suppose you could argue that in playing/luring you indirectly teach and reinforce behaviors...but I prefer to think of it more like you reinforce personality  A good working prospect pup with good drives seems to come from the womb eager to form a relationship and work with it's humans. 

From there, once the dog already shows the proper attitude in the relationship it has with me and it's interest in my motivational tools (food/toys) THEN I introduce true training for exercises. At that point I strive for correctness. I agree with others that often you have to drop the drive level so the dog can more clearly think- which is why most go to food. I require things to be correct when I teach them to pups (providing of course that I have a good concept of what correct is! My first dog is pretty sloppy but I didn't realize at the time that sits HAD to be straight...he was a pet first and it is a bear to fix), but I teach them through marking and non-reward. 

In this way, me bringing out food lures or toys creates a conditioned response for the dog to respond in drive. So I will rarely suffer a loss in attitude or enthusiasm. When corrections enter the picture and there is the potential for loss of drive, usually the dog is so conditioned to be in drive that it is easy to maintain it or bring it back should there be a loss. Although I have to say, if you are training with CLARITY, corrections shouldn't really bring your dog out of drive unless it is sensitive or your corrections are overly harsh. 

Of course, my personal philosophy now is one of bringing a dog along slowly. It could be faster if I didn't work full-time and could devote more of myself to the training- but it is a hobby and it is what it is. I prefer not to touch formal commands until the dog is older. So I do not have a 10 week old puppy that sits on command- this makes me feel stupid when I go to puppy classes for socialization, but that's my just my ego and I can deal with that. I worked on sit with my last puppy until he was about 6 months old, training him not to rock back, but to pull his butt under him and scoot into a very fast sit, so that you hear a THUD. To be straight with it, and always keep his rear underneath. Looks pretty stinking good now that he's almost 12 months old  Same thing with his platz. Very correct, very fast, only recently mastered with only a verbal command. Fuss is the same. I have spent months luring him, teaching him to be straight, teaching him rear end movements, and building in all those pieces that will enable him to be absolutely correct and lovely in that exercise. Slow going, and the dog won't be ready at 15 months for his BH...but when he is ready he should score well and I won't have to mess around fixing things so he should be more ready come time for his SchH titles.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Wildtim said:


> Dog training isn't as cut and dried as you are thinking it and making it out to be. Period.


When you're speaking in theoretical it is. Thats how humans learn everything complex we learn. Do you think nuclear power was discovered from attacked all the problems at once with all variables considered at once? No... the problem was broken down into its smallest parts and analyzed for how one particular thing is effected by another, and such. No thats not realistic, and no you can never test *just* that piece, but you can learn much about the whole process from the macro perspective, but looking closely and individually at all the pieces that compose it. Can you start a power plant by slowly addressing all the millions of aspects that play into nuclear energy, one by one? No you can't do that either... still the final product must be far more perfect than any dog's performance

A martial artist doesn't start off practicing complex maneuvers. He starts of studying, mastering, drilling, and practicing small elements of the technique, which are all themselves individually worthless in a sparing match, before later putting it all together into something thats actually workable.

In order to understand complex tasks, you must first understand the subparts that make them up. Unless the task just isn't that complex. Some people understood what I was asking. Some did not. The original question has been so beat to death with people wishing to demonstrate their training prowess than I've lost interest in even finding out others answers to the original question.

p.s. I've not even shared what I think, so I'm not sure how it was presumed I over simplified things?


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Wildtim said:


> Lets see if an example helps.
> 
> Perfect is an enthusiastic, fast, close, straight, tuck-butt, sit, with focus and intensity. There is no division of correctness or attitude. The above is perfect, and if I want perfect it is all that is acceptable, nothing else will do, or be rewarded. My dogs give me this. I can do this by controlling the training environment, the reward, my behavior, and my attitude in order to elicit the only acceptable behavior in the dog. That 100 variables? they are what we manipulate to get perfect behavior and why we can't divorce our selves from them and look at this in isolation.


Once again, you're taking theory and applying it directly to practice which is wasting both our times. The example doesn't help as its not applicable in the first place.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

While not completely separated, I work on correctness first and then build speed and enthusiasm. I want the brain relatively calm for learning. I lure a lot, but also add some compulsion early. Once things are well learned then I add drive for intensity.

If you call correctness the simple accuracy of the behavior then, yes, I work on that first. Many repetitions.


----------



## Wildtim (Dec 13, 2001)

hunterisgreat said:


> When you're speaking in theoretical it is. Thats how humans learn everything complex we learn. Do you think nuclear power was discovered from attacked all the problems at once with all variables considered at once? No... the problem was broken down into its smallest parts and analyzed for how one particular thing is effected by another, and such. No thats not realistic, and no you can never test *just* that piece, but you can learn much about the whole process from the macro perspective, but looking closely and individually at all the pieces that compose it. Can you start a power plant by slowly addressing all the millions of aspects that play into nuclear energy, one by one? No you can't do that either... still the final product must be far more perfect than any dog's performance


Actually nuclear power was attacked in ignorance and we are all lucky Chicago isn't a glowing hole. Our understanding of Nuclear energy stems from the _general theory _of relativity. It's pretty darn simple actually, shove enough radioactive material into close proximity and you start a chain reaction, this makes heat, which in turn boils water making steam, the steam turns a turbine not much different from a water wheel centuries old giving the kinetic energy used to generate power. Very simple system.



hunterisgreat said:


> A martial artist doesn't start off practicing complex maneuvers. He starts of studying, mastering, drilling, and practicing small elements of the technique, which are all themselves individually worthless in a sparing match, before later putting it all together into something thats actually workable.



Any learning process for people, such as martial arts, is irrelevant. We can reason and understand therefore we can drill and practice endlessly, things that destroy a dog, because our reason allows us to know that there is a end goal we are trying to reach. 
Of course pretty much on day one I was taught to throw a punch and after a short corrective section I got it perfect thus receiving praise. Not much different than how I work a dog.



hunterisgreat said:


> In order to understand complex tasks, you must first understand the subparts that make them up. Unless the task just isn't that complex. Some people understood what I was asking. Some did not. The original question has been so beat to death with people wishing to demonstrate their training prowess than I've lost interest in even finding out others answers to the original question.



I wasn't talking about a complex task. I was talking about sit, pretty much the simplest task there is. Complex tasks are collection of simple tasks chained together each taught the same way I teach sit.

I'm glad you lost interest in the original question, it was unanswerable as it was written. 



hunterisgreat said:


> p.s. I've not even shared what I think, so I'm not sure how it was presumed I over simplified things?


The question you asked oversimplified things, no presumption required.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Wildtim said:


> Actually nuclear power was attacked in ignorance and we are all lucky Chicago isn't a glowing hole. Our understanding of Nuclear energy stems from the _general theory _of relativity. It's pretty darn simple actually, shove enough radioactive material into close proximity and you start a chain reaction, this makes heat, which in turn boils water making steam, the steam turns a turbine not much different from a water wheel centuries old giving the kinetic energy used to generate power. Very simple system.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


While you would have undoubtably single handily brought us nuclear power sooner, and are clearly both perfect at martial arts and have mastered the art of dog training, your ego has quite simply louded out any advice of value you could have provided. Ashame... Im sure you had something constructive to offer. All I'm reading any more is your desperate scream for validation and nothing else. Kindly make room in my thread for productive discussion.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

hunterisgreat said:


> Which do you do? Ask for the perfect sit/platz/etc right now and work on speed & attitude later, or ask for a super enthused movement now and work on perfecting the form later?
> 
> "Both" isn't an answer  Fixing one sacrifices the other in the immediate time frame.


I start training pups by capturing behaviors so their is no perfection at first. If it almost looks like a sit, it's a sit. Yay dog! The correct form and perfection come later. (sometimes wayyyyy later) Not that anyone really cares about the original question anymore.


----------



## PaddyD (Jul 22, 2010)

You can do both in that for a given command you can get him/her to 'do' it so they get the idea of what you want, then you can work toward perfection with each succeeding attempt without setting a deadline for perfection.


----------



## G-burg (Nov 10, 2002)

> Which do you do? Ask for the perfect sit/platz/etc right now and work on speed & attitude later, or ask for a super enthused movement now and work on perfecting the form later?


I don't understand either why you can't teach both from the get go? I see dogs taught correctness while learning, but they also have the attitude of wanting to do the exercises or the willingness for learning..

I'm taking the experiences I see in the classes that are taught..

I'll go a step further too and say a lot depends on the dog and whats inside them.. So maybe the answers aren't as simple as one thinks and you may never accomplish both regardless of how or which you start!!


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I found the book SchH Obedience Training in Drive by Gottfried Dildei and Sheila Booth helpful... Welcome to Dogwise.com
If you train while the dog is in drive the correctness comes with speed and enthusiasm. 
I agree with Leesa, the heart of the dog is the reason for the difference in training techniques.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

Maybe I'm the only one who saw the question as a theoretical one? I don't think that anyone really thinks that dog training can be simplified to two variables that are seperate entities, neither did I get the feeling that the OP was suggesting that it was. 

I think the question was to stimulate some thought and discussion. And I think as others have mentioned, as we work our dogs, we are always watching our dogs, asking others to watch us for feedback on the overall look, which includes precision, speed, and enthusiasm, and try to adjust our training if one area is not up to our expectations of what we want - and our expectations of attitude vs. precision will change as the dog gains experience and advances in training. 

At one time as beginners, most of us have made the mistake of putting too much focus on one element of training over another, and we learned how to prioritize the two, and balance them. Though these learning processes that WE go through are often subtle and progressive, so we often are not consciously aware of how we are prioritizing and adjusting our training and our training philosophies as we go along. 

But I'll stay with my initial answer, which is a safe one and not a real definite one: it depends on the dog and what they bring into the work.

edited to add: LOL, I see that Leesa posted pretty much what I'm trying to say, but more succinctly!


----------



## G-burg (Nov 10, 2002)

I guess if I had to answer the question.. I'd go with correctness first.. then hope I could bring up/in attitude/speed later!


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Castlemaid said:


> Maybe I'm the only one who saw the question as a theoretical one? I don't think that anyone really thinks that dog training can be simplified to two variables that are seperate entities, neither did I get the feeling that the OP was suggesting that it was.
> 
> I think the question was to stimulate some thought and discussion. And I think as others have mentioned, as we work our dogs, we are always watching our dogs, asking others to watch us for feedback on the overall look, which includes precision, speed, and enthusiasm, and try to adjust our training if one area is not up to our expectations of what we want - and our expectations of attitude vs. precision will change as the dog gains experience and advances in training.
> 
> ...


You are exactly correct. I was merely wanting to generate discussion on 2 variables and how they effect each other. I wasn't asking for anyone's advice, and I wasn't giving any either, or suggesting this was my or should be anyone's training techniques. 

I was trying to basically poll everyones thoughts on the subject, but I guess I did a poor job of communicating what I wanted, despite post after post trying to clarify lol.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

I just removed several posts that were completely irrelevant to the discussion and nothing but sniping at one another. Lets get back to discussing the topic without the insults and snarkiness please.

-Admin


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

rvadog said:


> When I take a dog who is motivated by a reward and ask him to "platz" and when he doesn't I say "fooey" and move. He doesn't get a reward but I don't see a loss in drive or attitude. Instead I see an increase. The dog wonders why he is not getting a reward and trys harder.


Totally agree. My answer to the original question is both.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

While I refuse to train "poop face", i don't want to teach a behavior at the highest level of drive. So the dog needs to be motivated in learning to a degree. Once i have the learning, the degree of drive and power can be brought up to higher levels. Then i have to keep it 

I guess, in the terms used here, I use both positive and negative loading together.

I am not convinced that a dog understands being reawrded for "faster" performance,so I don't use rewarding for speed.


----------



## Jason L (Mar 20, 2009)

Depends. What are you trying to teach? If it is something like retrieve, you may not want the dog to get so drivey during the exercise that he starts chomping on the dumbbell like it's his favorite squeaky toy so you teach a nice calm hold first and then work backward from there. Or you may decide to do a forced retrieve in which case the dog is definitely not happy in the beginning. Now you go to teach the voraus and if you are like most people, the first thing you work on is sending the dog away from you (towards a target or a reward) and for that you need drive and you may not even ask for the platz for a long time. So there, drive first and then correctness later.

And like the others have said, it really depends on the dog. Take hold and bark. With some dogs you let the drive build and you let them bump and crowd you a little in guarding in the beginning learning phase but with other dogs, you teach them right away that they MUST be clean in the blind because if you don't get that concept into their heads right away, you are going to have major problems down the line. It really just depends.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

onyx'girl said:


> I found the book SchH Obedience Training in Drive by Gottfried Dildei and Sheila Booth helpful... Welcome to Dogwise.com
> If you train while the dog is in drive the correctness comes with speed and enthusiasm.
> I agree with Leesa, the heart of the dog is the reason for the difference in training techniques.


I love that book, because there was a time when I knew the basics, but had nobody to guide on those small steps I could have got stuck.

About the question. I am not convinced either you can train speed by rewarding fast responses. I tried that route with no results at all. I train for correctness using an amount of drive that brings the best of the dog without clouding his thinking capacity. With a dog that is motivated the speed will come by itself once the dog has perfectly clear what you want from him.

And of course... there is the dog itself. You can't train Border Collie speed into a Neapolitan Mastiff, no matter how hard you try.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Yes, we can only speak in generalizations. Though I have a general approach, each dog here has a more unique training session because of the difference in dogs.

This reminds me that when choosing a dog, I look to genetics that lend to the type of dog I like to train. With the rescues, I have to adapt to what they bring.


----------



## FG167 (Sep 22, 2010)

Catu said:


> I am not convinced either you can train speed by rewarding fast responses.


I heard the same thing from one of the streaming Michael Ellis training shorts...


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Yes, Ellis does think this.

I have tried rewarding speed but was never sure the dogs knew what it was.

By adding energy myself, the performance usually amps. Motivation and confidence and what is genetically in the dog bring it on.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

Samba said:


> By adding energy myself, the performance usually amps. Motivation and confidence and what is genetically in the dog bring it on.


Excellent point!!

Too often we like to think that we need a better toy, more yummy food, less distractions, wathever, and forget how much OUR energy affects the performance of the dog.


----------



## psdontario (Feb 2, 2011)

hunterisgreat said:


> Which do you do? Ask for the perfect sit/platz/etc right now and work on speed & attitude later, or ask for a super enthused movement now and work on perfecting the form later?
> 
> "Both" isn't an answer  Fixing one sacrifices the other in the immediate time frame.





hunterisgreat said:


> Which do you do? Ask for the perfect sit/platz/etc right now and work on speed & attitude later, or ask for a super enthused movement now and work on perfecting the form later?
> 
> "Both" isn't an answer  Fixing one sacrifices the other in the immediate time frame.


This is a great question, one of the best I have heard in a long time with regard to training, and the responses have come from both sides of the coin without conflict. Very nice. The most civilized responses I have seen on a list to date.

My 2¢ will simply be a breakdown of how I do it... right or wrong, that is up to each person to determine after trying it for themselves (each person will find comfort in approaching a challenge in a different way). I still change up what I do however habits are sometimes hard to modify, never mind break. 

First, what is the end result? Pet? Competition? Working scenario?
All require one very crucial thing... trust, consistency and communication (sorry if this sounds too cliché) between dog and handler. In order to meet those requirements effectively, I do use BOTH at the same time...not within the same training session necessarily, but within close proximity to one another... and I will explain with a post of record length .

My specific goal is to prepare for service, primarily police k9. Sharp, animated responses are not my goal, although speed and accuracy of position can be very important in some exercises (especially those with firearms).
I start my puppies at 8 weeks of age using two formats of learning, one creating high amounts of drive for tug, ball etc. the other building calm and focus while still creating a more "operant" mind which will be tested later in solving "puzzles". Both utilize the positive reinforcement and negative punishment quadrants of operant conditioning for you psych types who like big words. Being a simple person, I would say that I reward (positive) the dog for what I want, ignore what I do not want and wait for the correct response.

I begin with an 8 week old recruit with simple house training, getting to know me, making me the key to everything the dog knows, needs, enjoys and learns. I utilize Pavlovian conditioning (clicker training) and condition the puppy to the clicker so they can begin to understand the cause and effect of offering behavior and I increase the criteria as we go to shape position and accuracy....but this is only done for very short periods of time. This is a puppy and should not be ground down to the point where they avoid you... 

now for the "both" part.

On the other side, where we spend most of our time, is simple play, games of chase and capture. Retrieval, searching, socializing (accessing public areas, seeing people, shapes, sounds etc. but not running with other dogs at parks or where other stronger relationship can be built with other that may interfere) and experiencing "normal life" is good. Attacking pant legs, shirt sleeves is not an issue, we do not sweat the small stuff, in fact I like it, I try not to promote it too much with me, but I enjoy them disrespecting others at this age, without punishment for it. They are puppies, this behavior subsides with time. 
We play ball, lots of tug... oodles of tug and begin to use this game as a means of reinforcing raw motivation to perform very simple behaviors randomly, sometimes melding the behaviors we have learned using clicker into a session of crazy tug work. This melding of "calmly-shaped" behavior (for lack of a better term) with raw, wide-eyed intensity is something that does not happen instantly but it has a dramatic impact on the performance of required behaviors and how "reachable" (if that is a word) the dog is when it becomes stimulated. This is where (in my mind) the magic happens. This is key in what I do, because so many of the real life scenarios that my dogs face will be intense, I would not want my dogs to be unreachable in a highly stimulating scenario (say if a dog is sent to detain someone and needs to be called off). 

That is how I blend both calm, accurate responses with high states of motivation. I would slant it more toward calm and accurate if I was to do sport then build drive into the exercises after, however, there would still be an overlap of sorts. For pet (my pet), hmmmmm.... not sure what I want out of my next pet... guess I need a goal, LOL.

As a side note, I rarely, if ever, use force as a means of teaching the dogs to "do" anything. Force is something I apply combined with reward to better prepare the dog for the traditional training programs of most departments. I want the correction to be a marker to pop into a more intense mindset where focus will earn you a reward... not as a means of inhibiting the dog or demotivating them. All my work is done on a flat collar, much is off leash to start. Never needed a prong or electronics although I used these devices for many years, I found a way around these crutches... and, speaking of crutches, no, I do not need food, a clicker or toys on me for my dogs to work. I do use prong collars to create a heightened state of aggression for bitework but that is another story involving a discussion on opposition reflex.... another post.

If I have skidded this initial post a bit off topic I apologize. I may take the time with my next recruits to loosely outline what I do by capturing it on video and posting it. Maybe by doing so other list members might have some suggestions that I could incorporate into what I am currently doing. I currently have youtube videos of my past dogs. If anyone is interested feel free to PM me.

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## psdontario (Feb 2, 2011)

Samba said:


> Yes, Ellis does think this.
> 
> I have tried rewarding speed but was never sure the dogs knew what it was.
> 
> By adding energy myself, the performance usually amps. Motivation and confidence and what is genetically in the dog bring it on.


Good point. I like to build using my energy, cut off that energy and let the dog build with anticipation, waiting for me to provide more energy and increase the waiting period. Great for sport, creates a very animated performance in obed as well as protection.


----------



## CassandGunnar (Jan 3, 2011)

psdontario said:


> All my work is done on a flat collar, much is off leash to start. Never needed a prong or electronics although I used these devices for many years, I found a way around these crutches... and, speaking of crutches, no, I do not need food, a clicker or toys on me for my dogs to work.


This is the way I was "trained" to work with all of K9 partners.
I laughed when I was reading the part I quoted because the only thing any of my dogs "worked" for was a rolled up taped towel.
The reward for a find or an apprehension was a quick game of tug with the towel or maybe me throwing it a couple of times for them to fetch.

People are amazed that my dogs were williing to work for a towel and no choke or prong collar was needed. OK, they did get the occasional Dairy Queen vanilla cone! 

Excellent post, thanks for the information.


----------



## psdontario (Feb 2, 2011)

psdontario said:


> First, what is the end result? Pet? Competition? Working scenario?
> All require one very crucial thing... trust, consistency and communication


Oops, I obviously forgot how to count. Trust, consistency and communication have all become one thing... in my confused mind. Perhaps I should have written "All require having a good working relationship that includes trust, consistency and communication". That makes more sense.

Please excuse me for my poor writing skills.

Cheers,

Mike


----------



## CassandGunnar (Jan 3, 2011)

psdontario said:


> Oops, I obviously forgot how to count. Trust, consistency and communication have all become one thing... in my confused mind. Perhaps I should have written "All require having a good working relationship that includes trust, consistency and communication". That makes more sense.
> 
> Please excuse me for my poor writing skills.
> 
> ...


 
LOL, I must have got what you meant because I never even noticed it.
Good one.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Here is a five month old puppy. Granted a different breed that matures faster than GSD. There is a lot of drive and animation as well as great correctness for a puppy.


----------

