corrections vs. compulsion

[Doug Wendling]

This is a bit of a spin off of one of the other threads. It is something that bugs me at times and I think a lot of people really don't understand. It is something I did not fully understand until I started training with the guy I currently train with, which goes back a few of years.

Disobedience and defiance=corrections

Making a dog do something he doesn't seem to understand, even forcefully=compulsion

We as trainers need to know that a dog is truly being disobedient or defiant in order to use corrections on the dog.

In the teaching of a new exercise the handler needs to help the dog physically as much as necessary and with as much force as necessary to get compliance. This is the true meaning of compulsion. It has nothing to do with corrections. It is a fine line between the two, but they are two different things!;)

[valdes43]

Compulsion: the act of compelling or state of being compelled.

Compel: 1. To force, drive, or constrain 2. to make neccessary: EXACT

Is there not force in a correction? Is a correction not "to make necessary"?

A correction is a form of compulsion. Isn't it? ;)

You correct when a dog disobey's but when you correct you do it with compulsion.

Both are force that the dog is taught to avoid.

The difference is in one case (the disobedient one) the dog's sure of what behavior to display to stop the force. Where the other one doesn't...it just learns through trial and error that the behavior it's in when the force stops is the one that's right.

[Doug Wendling]

Correction
1 : the action or an instance of correcting: as a : AMENDMENT, RECTIFICATION b : REBUKE, PUNISHMENT c : a bringing into conformity with a standard d : NEUTRALIZATION, COUNTERACTION <correction of acidity>

Compulsion
1 a : an act of compelling : the state of being compelled b : a force that compels
2 : an irresistible impulse to perform an irrational act

They do not sound the same to me both are taken from the Webster.

Is there not force in a correction?

Yes, their is force in a correction.

A correction is a form of compulsion. Isn't it?
You correct when a dog disobey's but when you correct you do it with compulsion.

No, it should be looked at in two different ways. As I wrote in my original post.

Both are force that the dog is taught to avoid.

The correction if done correctly should teach the dog to avoid what it is he has done to make him/her get corrected.

Compulsion is used to teach new things to the dog. You use just the amount of force necessary to accomplish this. It could be talking in a stern voice, or it could be physically holding the dog, or a knock on the head or electric, what ever it takes to get the dog to comply to what you are asking.

Like I said it is a fine line, and a lot of things have to be looked into in the individual dog. Drives, pain sensitivity, etc. A lot has to do with how the dog looks at what you are doing. Using corrections to teach often causes handler dog problems, avoidance, etc. If using compulsion correctly (remember minimal force necessary) to teach you can avoid a lot of these handler dog conflicts. Compulsion is not something the dog should learn to avoid. I use compulsion in bite work a lot by having the handlers cradle their dogs. They are holding their dogs in there arms (forcing them to comply, to stay there). This is not something you want to teach the dogs to avoid.

Just some thoughts.

[flyballmom]

You are going to knock the dog on the head when trying to teach it something new????????!!!!!!!!! NOT MY DOG, YOU DON'T!!!!!

[valdes43]

Originally posted by Doug Wendling
Correction
1 : the action or an instance of correcting: as a : AMENDMENT, RECTIFICATION b : REBUKE, PUNISHMENT c : a bringing into conformity with a standard d : NEUTRALIZATION, COUNTERACTION <correction of acidity>

Compulsion
1 a : an act of compelling : the state of being compelled b : a force that compels
2 : an irresistible impulse to perform an irrational act

They do not sound the same to me both are taken from the Webster.



Yes, their is force in a correction.



No, it should be looked at in two different ways. As I wrote in my original post.

Actually It should be looked the way it is written. My definitions came from webster also. The reason the definitions are not the same is because a correction is form of compulsion. Compelling doesn't have to be to made right it can also be to be made wrong. Is punishment not compulsion?? What happens if you correct your dog lightly while it's disobeying and it does not comply because the force was not enough to avoid. Are you going to compel it to "make it right" (in other words "correct")? Is it still a correction? The dog knows the behavior...

Just trying to get to the bottom of it. I understand what you're saying but I still believe a correction is a form of compulsion.

[Doug Wendling]

First of all this is not easy to expalin, so maybe I should not have started the post.
When I said about knocking the dog on the head, I was not talking about punching. It maybe better explained this way, say you want to get your dogs attention and you use a command and maybe he is really set on going after the cat he just saw or whatever. So, maybe you kind of give him an attention knock with the opened hand, nothing more nothing less. It is away of getting his attention.

As for the defintion, I still don't see how they mean the same thing, the defintions are different.

Maybe I can explain this better this way, like in my first post I said compulsion is used in teaching, corrections are used to correct an act of disobedience.

My brother is a local K9 handler, he is starting his second patrol/narc dog, the dog is a 16 month old Mal that comes from Holland and was started in the KNPV program. The Dutch are pretty hard on their dogs and they don't do much for a while other then pump the dogs up in bite work. Well, this dog was a nut case any time we brought him out to do bite work an absolute nut. So, we started teaching drive capping, now you start this by using compulsion. The dog new already in OB what sit meant, but becasue of his drive he had no clue what you were asking or how to sit in drive in bite work. Now, you could beat it into him using a prong and he would sit, but you would knock him right out of drive once you beat on him hard enough. So, you use compulsion, my brother would kneel next to him and use his hands to push him into a sit while the dog was still in drive once he sat he got the bite. Then you ask more and more of him, longer times and different OB exercises. At this point it has nothing to do with corrections, because how can you correct for something when the dog does not know how to do it? Now after this training leads somewhere and the dog is doing the exercises and one day he decides he does not feel like doing it, just because. Now it turns into a correction, you are correcting for the disobedience.

If the dog knows and you are sure he knows the behavior then it is a correction.
Compulsion should be looked at as physical guidance.
The best way to see the difference is in drive capping, if you train with someone that really knows what drive capping is. The reason is, it is easy to say the dog knows this, or that, but the dog being in drive changes things. So, we should not look at it as he knows this and **** he better do it! You have to go back to a teaching phase, using compulsion.

[valdes43]

Sorry man, Gotta disagree with you. I won't continue because it's going to be an endless battle but you're changing actual definitions of words to describe a training method. They both do the same thing. Making it undesireable to do what their doing therefore they change the behavior to AVOID the discomfort. I see what you're saying but there's gotta be a better term for what you're describing.

[flyballmom]

I'm totally ignorant to the ways of schutzund here, so probably shouldn't be jumping in, but it's been one of those days-I may as well get myself in more hot water!

First, I did misunderstand the "knock on the head statement. Glad to hear you're not punishing your dog for not doing something it hasn't learned. I have never whacked my dog with my hand, but when she is completely ignoring a command and focused on something else, a little flick with a finger tip gets her attention. OK, so she's a wuss...

I understand the "correction" part of this-the dog disobeys a command it has previously learned and it gets a pop with the prong collar, or whatever.

"Compulsion"- in your last post this sounds more like positive reinforcement than it did previously. You physically assist, or compel (but not necessarily in a "corrective" sort of way), the dog into the sit, once in that position, the dog gets what he wants, which is the bite...You could also say you "compel" a young puppy just learning obedience to sit by raising a treat over his head til his butt touches the ground...??????????

OK, I'm ready.....

[Doug Wendling]

Here is another way of looking at this. Say a police officer needs to talk to someone that is wanted for questioning of crime. They find the guy and the officer say hey, come here I want to talk to you, maybe the guy comes over maybe he doesn't? Maybe the mere presents of the officer is enough to make him comply. Maybe the officer needs to use his gun to get him to comply. My point is compulsion can come in a wide variety of force, but the job of the officer is to use whatever force is neseccary to get the "bad" guy to comply. This has nothing to do with the corrective phase of law enforcement.

Once the guy is convicted and sentenced then he starts his corrective phase. The man is told what he did wrong and punished for the crime.

Does this help? I am not the best at getting a point across over the computer........

[valdes43]

Originally posted by Doug Wendling
Here is another way of looking at this. Say a police officer needs to talk to someone that is wanted for questioning of crime. They find the guy and the officer say hey, come here I want to talk to you, maybe the guy comes over maybe he doesn't? Maybe the mere presents of the officer is enough to make him comply. Maybe the officer needs to use his gun to get him to comply. My point is compulsion can come in a wide variety of force, but the job of the officer is to use whatever force is neseccary to get the "bad" guy to comply. This has nothing to do with the corrective phase of law enforcement.

Once the guy is convicted and sentenced then he starts his corrective phase. The man is told what he did wrong and punished for the crime.

Still a bad example. Let's break your scenario apart to show you. When the police officer is asking the suspect to come over for questioning he is: asking for a behavior that the individual knows..

So now the suspect is intimidated because he has to face an authority (he no doubt knows what behavior to offer to comply) but he's offering behavior that is leading to non compliance which is hesitation or walking away.

The officer realizes that the suspect is not complying so he is now compelling the suspect (with a shout, gun, etc) to correct his behavior (hesitating, running away, etc) and making his behavior the right one (correcting) which is questioning or whatever the officer wants.

Just because something is labeled "the corrective phase" doesn't mean it's still not going on. Again, you are making up your own words. I'd almost use the word "steering" for what you are trying to describe as compulsion. See what I'm saying???

[Mattweiser]

OK, my turn ;)

to me, correction is a punitive action used to "punish"

compulsion is any act that will "force" something to perform an act that it had no "intention" of doing.

here is my analogy (I will use a child cuz they are just like dogs ;) )

you tell your kid to go to its room, and he ignores you...

correction method: you yell at him, spank, him, or put him in time out

compulsion method: you walk over grab the child by the arm, and "walk" him into his room

level of either action you take is based on many factors, the correction may be severe (physical abuse, a lot of yelling, etc)

just as the compulsive method may be severe (jerking the kid around while dragging him into his room, banging him into walls etc)

but at the same time it may be nothing more than a raised eyebrow (correction) or walking next to him to "guide" him into his room (compulsion)


yes it is a little different with dogs, but I think my analogies are pretty sound (at least in my mind :p )

[Mattweiser]

now to get dog training specific:

corrections work in P+ or R- and are aimed at the elimination of certain action,

compulsion works in P- (wich requires punishment) to force a dog through avaoidance or escape to do something that it didn't "want" to do...


this is how I see it..

thoughts? arguments?

[Orville Story]

Well I use motivation, complusion, and corrections in training. I don't believe in nagging corrections, when I give a correction it is hard, very hard. I intend for it to have a impact, a lasting impact.

However, I never give a dog a correction until the dog is solid in his skill level. The correction only comes when the dog is giving me the finger.

Sometimes I do set the dog up on purpose, knowing that the distractions will cause him to give me the finger.

[Doug Wendling]

Well put Orville!

My original post was just to point out that they are two different things. People say they don't want to send their dog to a trainer that uses compulsion to train. My point is many trainers do this, if they use their hand to force the dog into a sit they just used compulsion to teach the sit. Compulsion is not a bad thing, the key is using just enough force to get the dog to comply.

Corrections have more of a punitive ring to them. It is done to correct the dog for doing something he knows and for whatever reason chooses not to do at that time. Here again the correction is given when you know the dog knows what is being asked of him.

Yes, they both use force in one form or another, but the thing is when it is used and how much.

[valdes43]

LOL, ok Doug Webster. Now that you are the authority on giving words definitions explain. If a correction is a punitive thing then why is compulsion described as a "P-"? "P" stands for punishment. It's the exact way YOU describe compulsion. There's still punishment/compelling/compulsion/driving/making right whatever in the world you want to call it involved. Stop making you're own definitions!! You're wrong brother, look it up.

I understand the differences in the ways you decribe the compulsion being applied. The words describing the seperate applications are wrong.