David Marlin decided to study us :)

catkin said:
ETA - I don't think I've seen the full set of questions but I do hope when analysing that they took into account different types of expertise - someone looking after competition horses will have a different set of parameters for many management options to either a pony breeder or heavy-horse handler for example.
Click to expand...

Much as I agree with you about ponies (I see a LOT of them!) this wasn't the point of the exercise, those completing it might have thought it was but it was to see whether people knew how knowledgeable they were, and the findings were that there is a confidence gap and that is the issue. If you think you are more knowledgeable that you are then you are more likely to make mistakes and less likely to get the right help. Further to that I'm staying out of it but have been watching from a distance....
 
I don't think anyone is taking it seriously?

Well apart from them of course with their concerns about the 'serious consequences on the welfare of horses, could affect the mental health of riders, and raises important safety issues to the rider and horse.'

I think the fact than a man who has recently been obliviously completely wrong is writing an article about people thinking they know more than they really do is hilarious, personally.
 
Leo Walker said:
Why are people here taking this so personally? It wasnt directed at forum members, its part of some ongoing research with several people involved, not just David Marlin. I actually thought the HHO article was pretty funny. I also did the example questionnaire he posted recently and epically failed barely scraping 60% :rolleyes: I didnt take any of it seriously though.
Click to expand...

Because on another thread where what he was saying was incorrect and queried, he said that HHO forum members illustrated the Dunning-Kruger effect in action, then set up a thread on his Facebook page encouraging people to mock and deride HHO members, quite successfully.

Plus I'm taking it personally because he attacked me personally on his Facebook page. That's not the same a taking it seriously, though, which is impossible because he was wrong and just made himself look a bit silly.
 
Leo Walker said:
Why are people here taking this so personally? It wasnt directed at forum members, its part of some ongoing research with several people involved, not just David Marlin. I actually thought the HHO article was pretty funny. I also did the example questionnaire he posted recently and epically failed barely scraping 60% :rolleyes: I didnt take any of it seriously though.
Click to expand...

I don't think any posts on this thread indicate anyone taking such a daft/poor piece of research personally (except maybe YCBM, but frankly she has every right to imo).

I think for most of us there is just a continued sense of amazement that a man who appears to turn out one shoddy piece of 'academic' work after another (in recent years), and is unbearably rude and obnoxious with it, is still so hero worshiped. But hey, the horse world is a marvellous place.
 
does he actually keep horses, or any animal? i`d love to invite him here to study me for the day, or better still get him to what i do everyday, then see what the observations and conclusions would be, would it be so easy to evaluate, quantify from such a close perspective to make assumptions that i don`t know what i am doing? or is it easier from a distance.

i go forth into the day and do my best, at the end of the day i think about what i have learned, that is horses, the condition in which the relationship between man and horse exists
 
sbloom said:
Much as I agree with you about ponies (I see a LOT of them!) this wasn't the point of the exercise, those completing it might have thought it was but it was to see whether people knew how knowledgeable they were, and the findings were that there is a confidence gap and that is the issue. If you think you are more knowledgeable that you are then you are more likely to make mistakes and less likely to get the right help. Further to that I'm staying out of it but have been watching from a distance....
Click to expand...


to my mind it depends if you test "knowledge" by quiz type questions or by the condition and achievements of the horses you look after/ride. If it is the latter then we used to know those people as "horsemen" or "stockmen" who had the ability to produce the goods even if they couldn't answer quiz questions.
 
ycbm said:
.


This one?

View attachment 26692



There's nothing wrong with riding piebald cobs, but if you are going to use physics to explain how to rug a horse, you really did ought to get a physicist to check it before you publish

.
Click to expand...
Fxxk me ... what did you think on the approach to that hedge - were you looking forward to the jump or thinking ‘oh sh*t oh sh*t oh sh*t’ with your eyes firmly closed???
 
Strangely I haven’t noticed him post anything about this thread on his Facebook page.
Maybe because he realises that some on HHO actually know research and how to review one properly, and as such this current piece of “research” doesn’t say much about his skills.

I wonder where he considered academic versus skilled.
Many in horses are incredibly skilled but am sure would struggle on “factual knowledge”.

I know his findings are certainly of no significance, aren’t useful in anyway and can think of no reason that he would do this test other than to prove him superior.

Ets, I looked at his quiz. It contains questions that have very little to do with looking after a horse eg,
1) if you were to stretch a horses skin it would be 5 square metres, how much of this would be the legs?
2)compared to a human sprinter, the adrenaline levels in a horse when exercising hard are? (Half as high/same etc.)
3)what did dr Bob cook say was related to racing success? (Heart size/nostril size/colour etc.
4) what gait uses the least energy per km travelled

That’s just a couple of examples. Definitely a true measure of horsey knowledge in the general population...
 
Last edited:
only_me said:
Strangely I haven’t noticed him post anything about this thread on his Facebook page.
Maybe because he realises that some on HHO actually know research and how to review one properly, and as such this current piece of “research” doesn’t say much about his skills.

I wonder where he considered academic versus skilled.
Many in horses are incredibly skilled but am sure would struggle on “factual knowledge”.

I know his findings are certainly of no significance, aren’t useful in anyway and can think of no reason that he would do this test other than to prove him superior.

Ets, I looked at his quiz. It contains questions that have very little to do with looking after a horse eg,
1) if you were to stretch a horses skin it would be 5 square metres, how much of this would be the legs?
2)compared to a human sprinter, the adrenaline levels in a horse when exercising hard are? (Half as high/same etc.)
3)what did dr Bob cook say was related to racing success? (Heart size/nostril size/colour etc.
4) what gait uses the least energy per km travelled

That’s just a couple of examples. Definitely a true measure of horsey knowledge in the general population...
Click to expand...

And that is supposed to indicate whether you are good at horse welfare?
 
blitznbobs said:
Fxxk me ... what did you think on the approach to that hedge - were you looking forward to the jump or thinking ‘oh sh*t oh sh*t oh sh*t’ with your eyes firmly closed???
Click to expand...

It was a huge drop, but not more than five foot six on takeoff and I was on a horse who I knew would jump anything. He did a seven footer that was at least as wide as high the following season! I saw the field master jump it and disappear out of sight, so I knew it was big on the other side. just said as I went over the top 'sit back, sit back, sit back' and he landed it like he always did. He would sort of hang there with his front feet stuck in front of him until they touched ground, so he never pecked and I was safe as long as I sat back.

I gave up when the hunt changed and I didn't feel safe any more, but it was definitely a thrill that used to make life worth living!
 
only_me said:
Strangely I haven’t noticed him post anything about this thread on his Facebook page.
Maybe because he realises that some on HHO actually know research and how to review one properly, and as such this current piece of “research” doesn’t say much about his skills.

I wonder where he considered academic versus skilled.
Many in horses are incredibly skilled but am sure would struggle on “factual knowledge”.

I know his findings are certainly of no significance, aren’t useful in anyway and can think of no reason that he would do this test other than to prove him superior.

Ets, I looked at his quiz. It contains questions that have very little to do with looking after a horse eg,
1) if you were to stretch a horses skin it would be 5 square metres, how much of this would be the legs?
2)compared to a human sprinter, the adrenaline levels in a horse when exercising hard are? (Half as high/same etc.)
3)what did dr Bob cook say was related to racing success? (Heart size/nostril size/colour etc.
4) what gait uses the least energy per km travelled

That’s just a couple of examples. Definitely a true measure of horsey knowledge in the general population...
Click to expand...


I really am struggling to understand what thinking you know the answers to those questions, but not, has to do with horse welfare, where the likelihood of actually knowing the answers to sensible questions would be so much higher. But not, possibly, give you anything statistically significant to publish. I remember doing the questionnaire now, and abandoning it because I didn't know the answers and the questions were bizarre, and it seemed pointless to carry on. If the people on this thread who did the same are representative, then those of us who gave up are the very ones who would not overestimate our ability as much and his results are therefore badly skewed, with only 123 in the sample.
 
Just seen it was a poster session at a conference.
https://hartpury.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/do-horse-owners-know-how-to-care-for-their-horses

Where it the data on over-estimating your skills? They have not asked people to rate their confidence in their performance they have just used the 'don't know' answer as a guide to confidence!! Plenty of people on a meaningless online survey will be pretty unsure but guess anyway rather than answer 'don't know'.

When I went to medical school they used negative marking on Multiple Choice papers - ie you get marks deleted for wrong answers - precisely because people do just hazard a guess when they think they might know but really aren't sure. Which is a bad idea in doctors. We all used to get scores like minus 20 before we learnt to only answer when we REALLY TRULY knew the answer.

The paper itself is fine (as far as it goes) for a poster presentation though the survey design is not robust enough for anything more than just that. It says people have gaps in their knowledge and educational level is not relevant to whether you can own a horse (why would it be???). But interestingly the lead author is actually not Marlin and makes no mention of horse owners thinking they know more than they do or to the DK effect.

That appears to just be just DM flogging his favourite subject in a magazine article while puffing the piece up way beyond its no-sh1t-Sherlock findings.
 
Leo Walker said:
Why are people here taking this so personally? It wasnt directed at forum members, its part of some ongoing research with several people involved, not just David Marlin. I actually thought the HHO article was pretty funny. I also did the example questionnaire he posted recently and epically failed barely scraping 60% :rolleyes: I didnt take any of it seriously though.
Click to expand...

Well he did refer to HHO as trolls in FB and says the D-K effect was alive and well on HHO.
Personally I thought both rugging and the D-K articles were light weight. My interest didn’t extend to googling the origin of the D-K paper - I would be surprised / dismayed if it was published in a peer reviewed journal. No PhD needed to produce that paper.
I agree with ycbm’s comment about pressure to produce papers in university research departments (resulting in low quality papers ) except I still can’t work out which university he works at, other than being an associate at some US university.
Ps cross posted with AE - I suspected it was a conference paper so no peer review required?
 
Not even a conference presentation - just a poster presentation. Which does not even support the conclusions spouted loudly by DM in H&H. I'd be pretty pissed off with him if he was one my my co-authors on a poster presentation.
 
I wonder how H&H has been hoodwinked into running their article. Whereabouts in the study is it possible to make the conclusions re the mental health of riders??? Have I missed something?

“This over-confidence can have serious consequences on the welfare of horses, could affect the mental health of riders, and raises important safety issues to the rider and horse.”

ETA Whilst it's easy to have a laugh at DM's expense, the fact that I no longer have confidence in anything he publishes has knock on effects. For instance, when I bought a Haygain hay steamer I was heavily influenced by the body of research which found that steaming with a Haygain was much more effective at reducing mould than diy steaming or soaking. DM is a consultant for Haygain. To my great relief, he was not listed as being involved in the main study on which I based my decision to buy a Haygain steamer.
 
Last edited:
only_me said:
Ets, I looked at his quiz. It contains questions that have very little to do with looking after a horse eg,
1) if you were to stretch a horses skin it would be 5 square metres, how much of this would be the legs?

...
Click to expand...

don't mock him. That would be very useful to know if you ever wanted to make your horse into a rug!
 
I see he's resurrected the hot dogs thing, that was the first thing he wrote that I was unconvinced by, given that dogs are very much not horses on their cooling mechanisms.
 
only_me said:
Ets, I looked at his quiz. It contains questions that have very little to do with looking after a horse eg,
1) if you were to stretch a horses skin it would be 5 square metres, how much of this would be the legs?
2)compared to a human sprinter, the adrenaline levels in a horse when exercising hard are? (Half as high/same etc.)
3)what did dr Bob cook say was related to racing success? (Heart size/nostril size/colour etc.
4) what gait uses the least energy per km travelled
Click to expand...

What appalling questions. The first is most appropriate for a taxidermist (or, indeed, someone making a rug - which, to be fair, would be very cool...), the second is only useful if you're planning on going on mastermind with obscure comparative physiology trivia as your specialist subject, the third is attempting to judge someone on their knowledge of an argument based on the authority of an individual (i.e. pointless), and the last, I would put money on it, depends on the type of horse and its biomechanics...
 
devil's advocate here, if the questionnaire was designed to assess peoples confidence in their answers though, as opposed to whether they answered correctly, then it almost doesn't matter if the questions are directly linked to practical horse care...?
Haven't seen the original study, as ester pointed out the Hartpury one must be different, so I'm just speculating ;)

But I'd say there is a problem with some people believing stuff to be correct which actually isn't - lots of people still withhold water from horses around times of exercise, for example, firmly believing they are doing the right thing, because that was what was taught decades ago. And that does have welfare implications. It's a stretch from the sort of questions that appear to have been in this study but not a ridiculous concept IMO :)
 
ester said:
I see he's resurrected the hot dogs thing, that was the first thing he wrote that I was unconvinced by, given that dogs are very much not horses on their cooling mechanisms.
Click to expand...

The most alarming thing I saw on his page was a response to a post he wrote about a H&H spillers article. Off the back of his comments a poster asked him about feeding something extra for her horse with pssm, as she was already feeding her (410kg) horse 300g of linseed a day and had been told not to feed anymore than that. DM's response was that he had had horses on 2.5kg a day and advised her to increase the amount by 2-3 times to help her get her horse's top line back. But hey, I guess there would definitely no need to rug a small horse that has a kilo of linseed to go at a day. 😱
 
I think, MP, you can only conclude that the results are concerning on the grounds of their implication for the welfare of horses who dependent on their owners for care, if the questions in some way relate to the care and welfare of those horses.

Otherwise, the actual conclusion is "horse riders over-estimate their knowledge of equine trivia, meaning that their conviction in the correctness of their answer to a really-specific-niche-horse-themed quiz should be taken with a pinch of salt".
 
I saw about the spillers article (which was very clear to me and not suggesting what he said it was) but not that follow up re. linseed.
 
Yeah, it was just a random comment below tbh, but it did make me double take.

Also, back to this 'study' the quiz with the how much skin is in the horse's legs etc questions is not the quiz that was used in the study being discussed in the H&H article. The link posted earlier is the subject of the article.
 
DabDab said:
Yeah, it was just a random comment below tbh, but it did make me double take.

Also, back to this 'study' the quiz with the how much skin is in the horse's legs etc questions is not the quiz that was used in the study being discussed in the H&H article. The link posted earlier is the subject of the article.
Click to expand...


Well he posted it on his Facebook page as an example of the study quiz. Considering he is the author of both I think it’s not too far a stretch to think they are similar.
 
only_me said:
Well he posted it on his Facebook page as an example of the study quiz. Considering he is the author of both I think it’s not too far a stretch to think they are similar.
Click to expand...

No not at all - I just mentioned it in case people were wondering about the points on nutrition mentioned in the article
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top