The Art of Natural Dressage

Hi everyone!
This topic was split from the "Defining Pressure" thread, which you can find here:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2213

Leigh

----------------------------




There are many instinctive stimuli and intrinsic stuff that cause behavior, but even those respondent behaviors have reinforcers or some sort of consequence once they hit the real world?? It may be just relief or release of some sort, or something physiological or chemical that we can't observe easily. But the consequence then affects the probability of that behavior in the future??



Oh good question! I am going to take a guess that lying down may be some sort of ethological/innate signal, like calming signals in dogs?? Or a horse that is lying down is not a threat, so that particular stimulus doesn't evoke the violent reaction in your horse, or?? Just brainstorming here...

A similar situation occurs with wolves and many dogs called 'ownership zone', where even a young pup or subordinate wolf that has a hold of a resource in it's mouth can prance and dance in front of the adults without recourse. No one attacks when the resource/food is close to or in their mouth. I have seen it with dogs too. Ya know, 'Possession is 9/10 of the law' idea. There just isn't any 'survival value' in fighting in that situation??? so nature installed certain safeguards along the way! Dunno...



'Could be' that prey animals have a lot of tactile sensitivity Or sound? or visual?), especially towards predators, so that the physical contact 'could be;' aversive to them?? I know Lucy slammed into me once when she spooked and I think it scared her, i.e was aversive/punishing cuz several times later she spooked and clearly avoided colliding with me?? I have heard similar anecdotes as well. Just some thoughts to play devils advocate <G>

I'm not saying these are the actual reasons I an just saying that there 'might be' a behavioral explanation, tho maybe covert, if we are able to look really closely or watch it on instant replay or something!!



Yeah, and IMO the word 'natural is the most misused as natural may not always be the best way! I certainly don't live with my dogs the same as a 'natural' dog pack!!! For example, I don't roll or pin or bite my dogs, I have nicer ways of controlling their behavior, i.e. by controlling the resources, like keeping the garbage under the sink and having doors with knobs <G>! So I think about those examples when reading about herd behavior and other 'natural' practices in the wild.

Great discussion!!

Brenda

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/Lucy04574
http://www.youtube.com/user/Jack04574

I wanted to get back to this one for a moment. This work ethic comes from Calvinism. A strong work ethic was seen as indirect proof that one was part of a group of people who were predestined to go to heaven although at the same time it was preached that salvation was by grace alone. For anyone who is interested in the details Max Weber has written a whole book about this with the title:" Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus " (Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism)
This work ethic is still very much alive, sometimes quite detached from it's Calvinistic roots, in the United States and to some degree in European countries. Another element that is also borrowed from Christianity, and, in my opinion, often misunderstood, is the teaching that we live in a fallen world (a world affected by sin) and that work is our punishment for people disobeying God. From there it is easy to go the next step and say that animals are also affected (although not personally guilty) by this fall and need to therefore work and sometimes suffer. In the United States this thinking can often be overcome when people come to understand that work can have a very different and positive meaning that is in perfect agreement with Christian teaching: that of a calling, a special gift that enables each of us to make a difference in this world and that is very fulfilling. By this definition our work may not be the same as our job ( the source of our paycheck). If I give work this positive definition many people are much more open to seeing that animals may indeed have meaningful work to do, for instance helping people to become better people, giving emotional support to those who are lonely, teaching us etc.
Leigh,
I couldn't agree more when you say that confining horses in a small space is worse than a lot of harsh training. It hurts me to walk into some boarding facilities that I know provide no turnout and some owners are not willing to exercise their horses at all. It's like prison for life, in solitary confinement. It's amazing that those horses don't all try to kill someone when they get taken out after weeks of this.
If those horses had work in the positive sense they would indeed be much better off.

Oh, yes, Birgit, you're a woman after my own heart! My doctorate is in cultural mythology/psychology and looking at these cultural momentums just fascinates me!

It's the stuff running in the background -- the energies and belief structures that we take for granted that often deeply shape our thoughts and actions, language, values, etc.

For example, in the West Indies they have twenty-some words for "hanging around" -- this is a culture that has spent a lot of time identifying the subtle nuances between kinds of hanging out, not doing much.

Would a culture like this be likely to think a horse needs a job?

I think a lot less than those of us who are walking in the cultural footsteps of those turkey-eating Puritans!

Leigh

_________________
"Ours is the portal of hope. Come as you are." -- Rumi
www.imaginalinstitute.com

Wow, that is very significant. I just thought about how our own (human ) languages affect our perception of animal language, esp. the common assumption that animals are not very smart because they have very limited language (as far as we can perceive, which isn't very far ) and how my horse interprets my constant chatter.
Oh boy, we've gotten a bit off topic in all kinds of directions here. Sorry to the moderators who have to decide how to split this, I was never very good at coloring between the lines.

Hmmm... you could be right, but with this kind of thing I tend to think - yeah, but why do humans? What makes us feel, for example, that we want to offer comfort if someone is upset? (I don't mean THINKING "oh I should give them a hug" but the instant reaction/feeling you might have towards a friend who is very sad.) Animals can offer comfort to each other - or to people - if they are upset, too. What makes them do that? If there is some behavioural thing that makes them do that, what makes it so different for humans? I don't know if I am explaining myself well, or if I'm just not understanding all of this...

Maybe it's getting a bit off-topic, because this isn't about them knowing right or wrong, but I kind of think it's the same with things like people saying horses/animals don't love, have emotions etc, and that it's all instinct and something nature has put in place - er, yeah, but then that would be the same for humans! We just HAVE emotions, they're not something we choose, so clearly they are something nature has put there!! We're quite different, of course, and think/feel/act in ways that have nothing to do with instinct or the way animals behave --- but we're not some mystical, magical creatures that have feelings and thoughts and no other animal does - and just because an emotion or feeling might be based on some instinct or other, or even on something behavioural (e.g. "animal 'feels' something, which makes it do this certain thing, which has this result and thus ensures animal's survival or wellbeing"), does that make the feeling/emotion any less real?? Not for the animal (or human) experiencing it!! But I don't mean to turn this into a debate about whether animals have emotions...


I think you're probably very right about this, either a signal or the non-threatening thing - maybe both, with Destiny. I think that they are not a threat in any way when down would help as he is a very insecure horse. As for it being a signal, like dogs responding to calming signals, I was thinking of something like that. If a horse lying down is some sort of ethological/innate signal as you say (and that makes sense cos other stuff happens like horses standing guard for the ones lying down) - I think this is what I mean... that they do HAVE things like this, where they just 'won't' do something, but if it is purely a behavioural thing, where is the reinforcement for not attacking, or consequence FOR attacking? I assume there would be situations where a horse did try to attack and other horses would maybe protect the horse that was down? But this is not the case with mine. They just DON'T do it. They will (but only very occasionally) tell the other horse to get up, and then attack ONCE they are up... but that's it. (I have edited this part because it wasn't saying what I wanted it to say.)

(Sorry about my constant abuse of brackets. And for apologising for brackets, in brackets. )


I think this is what I'm thinking... if I understand it correctly... what I think, anyway, is that the consequence/reinforcer for doing something/not doing something might just be a feeling that it gives them (relief or feeling good or whatever) but that it might be sometimes something that people tend to think of as "just a human thing". Like... how do we KNOW a very lovely-natured horse doesn't feel good if they manage to cheer us up if we are sad, or bad (I don't mean "guilty" I just mean a bit sad like we would if we accidentally hurt someone) if they knock you over or bite your hand while taking a treat (and yes I know some horses don't seem to care if that happens until they learn to take it gently ), I don't think we can know for certain (either way! I'm not saying THIS IS FACT, just my belief ) that it's purely some behavioural thing that makes them look exactly like they do not want to hurt us. Does that make sense? But then I guess even if that IS the case, if the horse did feel bad about hurting someone, that WOULD be an aversive, and so behavioural in the end anyway... oh, I don't know!!


Could be... obviously in a situation where a horse has hurt someone, if they yell loudly (or if even just the contact with the person is aversive) it's likely that has scared them, and also with horses that have been punished for things (even if not by that person, but others) their seeming to say "sorry" could really be "please don't hurt me" BUT, what about with horses who have absolutely no problem with physical contact/pushing all over you, and aren't scared of anything much (or at least not humans) but STILL won't do anything/be pushy enough to actually hurt you, and then even if they're scared will go out of their way not to run over you, etc. Some horses really DO seem to realise humans are far more fragile than other horses. Of course it might be that, if they realise this *and* trust their human, obviously if there is a scary situation, trampling your trusted friend into the ground isn't going to make you any safer -- I think that's what I mean? Not that they go about thnking about whether things are "right or wrong", or that they wouldn't run over you because it's "wrong"... but I DO think that, for whatever reason, and not necessarily because they think there will be a punishment/aversive for it, a lot of horses do not want to hurt people, and some will even take extra care to be gentle with them. (And even e.g. tolerate more from a person who does not know much about horses and might make a mistake, than they will from their own humans.) I'm not saying you couldn't find a behavioural explanation for any of that, of course in some cases it would be that humans = safety, a friend, food etc. so of course they're not going to severely injure or kill them! But I still think that involves a higher level of ...thought? feeling? something, than I think people are thinking of when they say it's all just behavioural. But I guess almost everything is behavioural, with humans too and there are still thoughts and feelings involved, so maybe this isn't what people are saying at all?

Sorry Brenda, you probably don't mean it this way, and even if you do, I ADORE what you are doing with your horses, I think they are very, very lucky to be with you, and not saying anything bad about thinking just in terms of behaviour - but when I see a lot of discussion of 'only' behavioural stuff I feel like some people (not people here) think of animals as sort of living robots that can be programmed, and that's all there is to them. But they're not! (Again, not aimed at Brenda, you don't talk about Lucy and Jack as if they are robots! ) But on the other hand... I probably shouldn't have a problem with it, things would be better for many horses if most people DID just think they needed to 'program' them, if they realised how effective positive reinforcement is, stopped using harsh, confusing methods and tried "programming" their animals to do what they wanted, in a very kind and clear way. That would be fantastic! So I don't know...


Yes!!!! Apart from the fact that these "natural" training methods are usually based on what some animals do in captivity which is not natural in any way, and also that a HUMAN doing something, even a so-called "natural" behaviour, to another species, isn't natural either --- since when have we humans felt the need to follow the example of nature exactly, including the really brutal bits, in how we live our lives???? So why then do we need to do that with our animals?

Sorry for such a long post that's a very bad habit of mine. I've been sitting here trying to condense it for hours, but it's not happening.


*gulp* Yes, I'm sorry too, I've just gone and taken things even more off-topic.

Me neither! (Rather obviously...)

In terms of the language/culture layer, it links to how we might define pressure by challenging to look a bit at our assumptions/values and how they transpose onto our horses.

And personally, it's this kind of potential pressure that I'm most worried about inflicting on my horses -- I am still finding my way, but am pretty clear about the conscious use of pressure (or not) with my horses. It's the subconscious stuff that is more difficult, I think.

Like, for example, the battle I had with Circe a while back over who was in charge -- it took me a while to peel back all of the layers of assumptions, expectations, remnants of traditional training, my own wanting to "succeed" (whatever that looks like! ), etc., etc.

This process was a lot harder on both of us than my tugging on her halter ever was!

But it also was one of the biggest lessons I've learned so far about what can constitute psychological pressure...

---

Totally interested in the animals and language cognition thought, Birgit, but I'm blanking on how to tie that in to pressure...

I know that we've had some conversation about language recognition, but I"m not remembering where...maybe in the Mental/Emotional Connection thread? Karen, Romy, keepers of all organization of this illustrious forum in those capacious brains, any ideas?

Oh, Kate -- you were writing as I was writing. I'm totally interested in exploring the "why's" of behavior with you...perhaps we can do this on another thread as well...

b-i-n-g-o....

Leigh

_________________
"Ours is the portal of hope. Come as you are." -- Rumi
www.imaginalinstitute.com

I already know who´s task this will be, hehe , but just wait a bit longer and feel free to discuss in all the directions you like.

Hey Kate!! Oh no offense taken!! We're just thinking out loud here, and that's cool!

And I absolutely agree that animals have emotions...BUT I don't base my training on that! I stick to what I can observe and try not to assume! My animals just 'might' love me, but I do not assume that, nor do I use that as motivation for them to 'do' for me???




Exactly!! IMO, traditional training often complicates the training, with LOTS of assumptions, etc. and the horse then suffers for it. Labeling, assuming motivations and morals, etc. just end up confusing things to the point where often the animal has no chance of getting it right!!

Labeling is a good example:

That horse is dominant.

Why is he dominant? Cuz he kicks.

Why does he kick? Cuz he's dominant.

And round and round we go without ever really explaining how kicking functions in that horse's life?? What happened before it? What happened after it? Those occurrences will predict what that behavior will do in the future. The label dominance doesn't really help us 'fix' the problem!

Here's an excerpt from a behavior analysis article:

Explanations which are not functional relationships do not really “explain.” Some people might explain an individual's helpless behavior as due to a “dependent personality.” This might refer to chronic, frequent dependent behavior, including test responses such as “I let other people make decisions.” Although this label or description is often useful to know, it “explains” little. We cannot say that a person acts helpless or dependent because he or she has a dependent personality (has acted dependently a lot in the past) and claim we have illuminated the causes of the behavior.

More here:

http://behavior.org/behavior/index.cfm? ... alysis.cfm

I take a 'Law of Parsimony' approach in that the simplest explanation is often the best! What did the behavior do?? Why did it do that? What can I do to affect it? Etc.



This is a great discussion, albeit a bit off topic!! Don't worry...I don't think we will get arrested or anyhting!!

Remember, this is AND Land!!!

Brenda

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/Lucy04574

http://www.youtube.com/user/Jack04574

Brenda!!! I agree SO ENTIRELY with you, it is amazing to hear someone saying EXACTLY what I think, but explaining it much better than I can even though it might seem I am contradicting myself a bit from my last post, I'm really not... this all makes sense in my head


Yes!! Me too!!! It would be really unfair of me to base my training on trying to interpret what they are thinking (hey, it's hard enough to work out what other humans are thinking sometimes, so many misunderstandings occur, and we're the same species and speak the same language!!), or wanting them to do it because they... should want to please me or something?? I actually won't usually discuss my thoughts on whether animals have anything like 'morals', with horse people, because even if they do, it has NOTHING to do with humans training them, and I don't want to give anyone more excuses/validation to mistreat their animals. I just don't think that will happen here, so I felt more free to discuss.


Absolutely!!!


So true. And - it doesn't MATTER. I really, absolutely, do not believe horses would see us as any kind of dominant/leader (or the reverse, that they are our 'leader'), we're not horses!! But even if I was wrong, or for people who do believe that -- the whole argument, as I see it, is completely irrelevant anyway, cos what you need to do is look at the behaviour. Whatever is going on in a horse's mind about what this human's place is in their life, if you know your stuff then you can train/change behaviour and have a wonderful time with your horses, without ever worrying about what your 'role' is in the horses eyes... I just don't think that is helpful, and thinking in this way often creates really unfair situations for animals. See also: "respect" - "the horse is being disrespectful" This label also does not help solve the problem/change the behaviour.

That article looks really interesting, thank you! I will read the whole thing when I am less tired.


Hehe, it is! Wonderful AND Land!

Hey Kate and Brenda,

even when I am not participating in this kind of discussion right now, I just wanted to say that I do so completely and entirely agree with you. So great to read all that, THANKS for sharing.

I really enjoy it a lot and I am looking forward to reading more,
Romy

Brenda and Kate,
thanks for sharing your ideas. I agree so much. Nothing to add at the moment.

Hey Kate and Brenda....

Wonderful stuff, like Romy and Birgit said!

But....but...but...

This is where things get interesting, I think, because while I absolutely see the intelligence and logic and just plain good sense in using a behavioral approach to working with horses...

...what most interests me, in many ways, is our psychology -- mine and theirs. What is it that we're going after? How can we do that? Why? How do I explore the roles we play with each other from moment to moment, experience to experience? How do I open my energy and connect with theirs? What are my motivations about asking for something? (This has been and continues to be key for me.)

I think this difference reflects how each of us are wired and what we're interested in/good at. I marvel at Brenda's careful and exceedingly thoughtful/incredibly well educated behavioral approach to training and to her because I think she's brilliant at it! I learn lots from it! (I'm sure yours is too, Kate, I just haven't had a chance to watch you in action!)

And I use/explore a lot of it -- but it's not how I instinctively think.

And while I don't obviously know exactly what's going on in my horsey's heads at any given moment , I don't think it's as hard to get a glimpse of as many people suggest. And i think skill at doing this is something that can be honed.

I agree that a kind of pseudo-psychology has been an issue with a lot of so-called "natural" horse training, and to me, the problem there is not that people are trying to figure out what their horses are feeling, but the way in which they're going about it. They're basing their opinions on a completely human-centric approach. There has not been an imaginal, empathetic move to stand looking at the world from within the horse's eyes at all. Instead it's a projection of their understanding of the world.

It's basically pop psychology in a really self-centered way, and to my mind, does pretty much exactly the opposite of what real, thoughtful psychology (of any kind!) wants to do, in its self-absorption and its certainty.

The behavioral psychology stuff works so well because it's all about focusing on what is tangible, measurable, seeable, quantifiable from the horse's point of view, not the humans. And, as Brenda suggests, it's the cleanest and least assumptive psychological way to approach horses (or anybody), I think. You're trying really hard never to extrapolate too far ahead of your data.

it is a clean, elegant, logical, marvelous approach to training. And think about how animals lives would change if more people understood even the basics of this!!

But it's not nearly messy enough for me!

I'm also interested in cognitive aspects of the horse's behavior -- cognitive psychology tries to look at memory, problem solving, perception, pattern recognition, concept construction, etc. And I'm interested in educational psychology -- how do horses learn? And social psychology -- how do they interact (what is the ethos, way of being that is "horse") And so on!

A lot of this I'm never going to find absolute certainty on, but the process of trying to figure it out endlessly fascinates me. And it pushes back against the shadow side of behavioral psych work, which is the "robot" stuff that you were talking about.

I think I probably would have landed here anyway, as this is how I approach much of the world and is what I'm academically/intellectually interested in. But I also think that Stardust, in his rather mystifying woundedness when he came to me, kick started a lot of my thought about this, mostly because he didn't necessarily respond the way we'd anticipate...and he seemed to be truly locked into his memories, which forced me to think more deeply about his emotional life than I had with any other horse.

Anyway, I love this conversation! And I think that all of us do some combination of these approaches all the time -- I think the differences between us are mostly about the point of entry for us. And since my life is mostly motivated by the existential "whyyyyy?" my ever-so-lucky horses get to share in my journey with that...


Leigh

_________________
"Ours is the portal of hope. Come as you are." -- Rumi
www.imaginalinstitute.com

Like you, Leigh, I find this cognitive and emotional stuff highly interesting and I just love thinking about that. But what I meant to say when I said that I wholeheartedly agreed with Kate and Brenda is that I don´t see this as a thing that I am trying to directly influence. Of course it IS being influenced during our interaction, but this just happens on the way.

So when I am helping my horses to master a scary situation, my goal is not that they trust me, that they love me, that they accept my leadership or whatever... my goal is that they are okay with the situation. After we have managed some of those situations they will most certainly trust me - but for me those emotional concepts are much too complex and partly too much human-made as that I could use them in my training as specific goals (let alone as tools ).

In that aspect I think I treat my horses just like I treat humans: I also neither try to make my friends trust or love me nor do I see it as my goal to get those feelings from them. Maybe I am a bit simple-minded in this aspect , but honestly, I am just trying to have a nice time with them so that everyone will benefit from it in various ways and will be happy. And yes, I do believe that my friends, at least the real ones among them, do trust me and would never perceive my actions as something that I am doing to hurt them. But that just happened through our interaction, which is, as I see it, based on behaviours.

I want to add a tiny bit to this discussion...and my utmost apologies if it's already been said because I have mostly just been scanning. My brain is not in a place at the moment where I can focus and read a lot. I get that way from time to time (a little hyper active I think).

Anyway, I do think horses have emotions, and I know (ok, personal belief - no hard and fast scientific evidence) they think and do not just react instinctively. They may be driven by instinct, but it is not all they are capable of. To me, humans are the same way. We, though, tend to overthink things and we lose touch with our instincts. Horses don't. That is why I believe they are in many ways more spiritual beings than humans and why they have so much to teach us.

So in training...I work to engage the thinking (can I call it analytical?) parts of the horse's mind. And I think clicker training and more specifically, free-shaping, is a wonderful way to do this. Free choice to engage or not, is also a very important factor. Yes, I do over-ride the free choice at times, and it's easy then to see that it reduces the thinking-outside-the-instinct capability of the horse. So before I disallow free choice in a given situation, I have to be aware that the horse will then drift more toward instinct and I actually have a bigger job on my hands to overcome any possible instinctive response (which may or may not be fight or flight...could also be "shut down" to some minor degree. In instinct mode, I need to have more skill in horse training (that I don't really have). In thinking mode, I need imagination. Either way I can get to a goal...but sometimes I lack both skill and imagination!

Tam learns lightening fast in free-choice, thinking mode. He is engaged, he is focused and he's thinking. In non-free choice mode, he thinks less and then I must train the instinctive parts of his mind and that is harder to do.

Sometimes I try to walk a balance (and fall off from time to time) in that narrow gap between thinking and instinct, where I can perhaps have an agenda (goal) and get what I want and still have the horse engaged with me. I have tried a lot to widen that gap.

I bump into the edges a LOT.

What it comes down to is my ability to set up something I want to achieve (that I want Tam to learn) in a way that Tam feels he's engaged by free choice and in focused thinking/learning mode and NOT bump into those walls at the edges of the gap. When I get too goal oriented, my own imagination suffers and I lose some of the ability to set things up well enough to not get to "you must". When I am totally non goal oriented, imagination reigns and we play and learn happily, but I don't always get to a desired goal.

So if I can stay in my own "in between" and Tam is in his "in between" we can sometimes play really close to the edges and sneak toward a goal.

Does any of that make any sense at all?

_________________
"Ride reverently, as if each step is the axis on which the earth revolves"

Hey Leigh!!

Here I am probably going to sound like I'm contradicting myself yet again... (knowing how my brain works.. or doesn't work, if I were a horse I'd feel a bit sorry for anyone trying to train me )


I don't think mine is - I actually find it quite difficult to do and remember things, like umm... building duration for behaviours, for example, or chaining... and also, actually having things like stimulus control and not just chucking out treats left right and center for any old thing, or because I feel bad that they might feel a bit frustrated that they can't understand what I want (I need to work on being clearer!) I treat then too! (Sort of saying "Here, it's not YOUR fault I'm hard to understand, have a reward for trying!") It seems to work out somehow, but I watch Brenda's videos and just want to be half as brilliant as she is! I'm really trying to use a proper behavioural approach to training, actually have a plan and TRAIN things properly, I used to do this quite well, actually, but I can only do it when I really concentrate. Cos..


Me either. I just think things are a lot better for my horses if I do. I am actually (here's a confession you will all think I'm an awful person now) prone to getting frustrated and jumping to "arghhh there is no reason for him to do that, he is just being a little..." which I KNOW is not true, there is ALWAYS a reason and I hardly ever think that now (and I don't really think it ever, it's just in the moment I get cranky) - and don't worry, I don't DO anything with those thoughts, just leave -- but that's why I REALLY need to make myself focus on the behaviour stuff when it comes to training, and think it is the best way for me. If I start delving too deeply into the "whys" with my horses, I often get frustrated. And also sometimes scared - "What if my stallion is just waiting for his chance and will one day attack me without warning, for no reason, just cos he can?" NOTHING in his behaviour, eyes, the feeling I get from him, anything (and now that he is seeming much happier and more content, this seems even less likely) has suggested this being even a remote possibility, but that is the way I start to think, mostly because of things I have been told about how stallions think, which I do not believe, yet get worried by them anyway -- so it is best not to think! On the other hand (and this is not because of the fear that he will attack me, but just because I want all my horses to tell me if something is wrong), if the look in his eye changes in a certain way I think it IS best to assume that he is cross, frustrated, wants to be left alone etc. cos his behaviour (back to that...) then shows me I was right to assume, and if next time I see his facial expression, I assume his feeling and do as I think he is asking me... be clearer with what I want, don't touch him etc... he is much happier. And I do think I can assume happiness? It's quite clear to me. So I guess I don't TOTALLY separate feelings and interpretations of their thoughts from my training, as much as I try!

But in a NICE way, I think it's really interesting to delve into the whys, and I do agree with this:


Yes, I agree very much. I don't think it's that difficult to get a glimpse of it, especially when they do tell us things -- it's just when people put their own thoughts about what is happening in there first, they can't be open to REALLY understanding what is going on with the horse. And even when people don't do this, there can be misunderstandings. I have become so much better over the years, at listening to my horses properly, but still sometimes I will think, "Oh, is she doing that because...?" and become almost sure, and then something will happen to make me see I wasn't quite right. So I just think it pays to be really careful.


Yes! Some horses are just very... it IS helpful to have a big think about their emotional life before just trying to change their behaviour. BUT only if this is done in a compassionate, truly understanding way.

Which is what I was getting at in my first post. The problem I have with just the behavioural, robot-programming type of thing and not assuming any emotion/thought... is, that something like this could happen: two horses are bonded, for some reason people decide to separate them. horses pace and scream for each other. People dismiss this as "instinct" or say "oh he is only doing that because he wants his friend back" (um.. yes!!!) as if somehow that means it doesn't matter!! as if there shoudl be no thought to: do those horses truly love each other, are terrified of being apart (even if they are both with lots of other horses) for themselves and also in case something is happening to the other? they may think they will NEVER see each other again? (and maybe they won't?) whatever actual thoughts are running through their heads, the fact that they are pacing and screaming makes it very clear they are distressed, and this IS an emotional thing, and as I have witnessed can be hugely damaging to a horse. So if a horse in this situation starts to "act up" in his training or riding... it is not helpful to the horse to try to fix the behaviour/training when the cause is the loss of his companion. Of course, sometimes horses havnig to leave their friends cannot be avoided (though it is possible to gradually get them used to being apart, by keeping any separation under what would make them distressed, so hopefully this could happen instead) and sometimes there is then nothing you can do BUT try to live with a very upset horse, but I do think it's important to acknowledge if something like this is the cause of some problem or other.


Hey Romy! Great post!! I definitely agree! (Well, I don't agree with the bit where you said maybe thinking that way means you are simple-minded... or if it does then I am all for simple-mindedness!!! )


Hi Karen, you've just posted while I was writing...


ABSOLUTELY!!! Couldn't agree more. It's sad when people talk about horses as if they are just these balls of instinct and nothing more... they are so much more than that.

And I think the rest of your post made a lot of sense - that is to say, I think I understand what you're saying, but instead of sensibly going to bed when I was tired hours ago, here I have sat, and I can barely see the screen... so I'll read it again properly - after some sleep, when *I* have more chance of making sense - before I say any more.

Oh, okay, one thing before I leave, a question...


This is interesting! Do you mean that you are using some pressure/negative reinforcement when working towards a goal, or just that Tam feels it is a "you must" when you're the one completely in control of what behaviours he must offer in order to get the yes response and a treat?