Horse Behaviour - The Horse Behavourists Way

Max doesn't use flooding to get a horse to load, he works it in hand to get it to understand pressure and release and then uses that to load it.
 
leogeorge said:
Obviously I'm not suggesting that rope halters cut horses!! The likening is to do with the difference in the amount of the pressure exerted to that of something with a flatter, wider surface. Perhaps my humour is lost on some and for that I apologise. Forget I said it and lets just talk about small surface area as opposed to a larger surface area and the difference, pound for pound, in the actual pressure exerted.

For what it's worth, clicker training is not bribary. Bribery and food reward are two different things and the difference lies in the timing of the presentation of the food, not to mention the marking of precise behaviour that you don't get with bribery.

Sorry Lannerch if you think that I feel superior in some way. I don't think that at all! As I have said, my problem is that these trainers portray their work as something that it is not....and also advertise themselves as behaviourists when they don't know their flooding from their elbows! It's up to you who you learn from and how you train your horse....I don't care, but I do care that professional NH trainers sell a message that I, and many others, believe to be false. Yes it works in a lot of cases, it's just how it works and that it isn't how they say it does, in my opinion. I have a right to my opinion, just as others have theirs.

Absolute diva...I am glad you have found a way of working with your two horses that were "bargy and rude" and that they are both a pleasure for you to be around.

Maybe, next time someone is talking to Max, you could ask him to show you proof of his behavioural science degree? If all he can come up with are his experience and relevant qualification from his work with the horse guards and a couple of meaningless certificates from Monty, then I'm not convinced he should be calling himself a behaviourist.
Click to expand...

What she said and halleluyah!
 
Apologies for the late reply...

amandap said:
Leaders imo don't just expect followers or want a horse that follows blindly (trainers might though), well not in my idea of leadership.
Click to expand...
That's not my idea of leadership either.

I also think you are making huge assumptions about 'round penning here btw. Are you saying all round penning always creates a shut down robot?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not! However, like any tool, it can be abused.

I don't think any of my horses would go into a trailer as you describe unless I 'trained' them to do that.
To me leadership is all about training and learning not mindless following.
Click to expand...
Right! So what is the purpose of roundpenning in the first place? Clearly it can be used to teach horses to follow you - although it is debatable whether they consider you to be their "leader" in any broader sense. It can be used to get a horse's attention and teach it to "listen" (or else). It can be used as a place to do physical exercises, e.g. yielding in various ways to pressure - though obviously you don't need a roundpen for that.

Like you, I believe that "leadership" is learned/earned, not imposed. In my opinion, it isn't anything mystical or anything to do with equine social structure. I don't need, want or expect a horse to consider me as "alpha mare" - and even if he did, I don't think it would buy me much apart from the ability to shoo him away with the equivalent of "a flick of the ear" - something which can be taught easily enough without roundpenning. I certainly don't believe it will make him magically load, or accept bridling after he's been made headshy. You don't need to play dominance games to teach a horse to respect your space either. To my mind, it's just faffing - and it can have its downsides if the horse decides to escalate rather than simply submit. It's easier and better to teach a horse directly to behave as you would want rather than to "establish" some mythical leader-follower relationship and expect everything else to fall into place automatically. (People end up doing the nitty-gritty teaching part anyway!) The trouble is people find it reassuring to believe that horses cooperate with them because they're at the "top of the hierarchy" or some such.

Mmmm, it could be argued a 'Trusted' person could be one that can be trusted to always give you a good hiding as well as always keep you safe surely?
Click to expand...
Sure, though I didn't mean it in that sense. Trust (the good type) is a horse learning to associate you with safety and consistency of outcomes, rather than nasty surprises.

It's very difficult imo to pick these things apart because of everyones personal understanding of words.
Click to expand...
Yes, particularly with words like "leadership", which can mean so many different things to people. I find it a rather unhelpful term because it is so slippery.

Neither would I expect anyone/horse who 'trusted' me to follow me blindly either. NH states the loading is a leading issue as you say 90% ish of the time so we have to teach the horse to lead/load without creating a robotic response either through fear of punishment, shut down or brainwashed so the horse no longer thinks for itself imo.
There are training methods some behaviourists use eg. clicker training but like round penning used excessively/badly and without thought for the horse can imo create a mindless, submissive horse that does whatever you want without 'thought' in my eyes.
Click to expand...
Agree 100% - how you use the tools is important.
 
Last edited:
My turn to said well said will miss out the hallaluyah though as not my style, fburton thank you for that post very interesting reading and you are spot on in all you say.

In my mind there is no one correct way of training but it is how you train in the method you use that is important, all are open for abuse in the wrong hands and a lot or training is patience and instinct and above all common sense.

It is those that insist that their method is the only way that get nh behaviourists/trainers a bad name and it is where the superiority tone comes from that I mentioned earlier really winds me up.

It is the way you train not how you train.
 
ok - I might need my tin hat for this! Especially as Im new

But I am really interested in all your points about what is/isnt behavioursim/nh, because I work with young and problem horses, and in first contact with clients - eg on my website, its tricky to know how to describe what I do.
As far as I am aware, (and not that I think this is a good thing!) The term horse behaviourist does not actually need any qualification or certification - if you 'study' horse behaviour (not nec. at uni) then you can call yourself a horse behaviourist.



I would prefer to use this term than anything down the natural horsemanship trainer route, because I have always found that title a bit of a contradiction in terms myself.
But, I do take into account the horses natural instincts and can read body language, does this make me a N.H. trainer? Or am I one by association? I am sure that most exceptional horsepeople of any discipline can and do read body language and understand horse instincts without marketing it as natural horsemanship.

In terms of learning theory - releasing a pressure is a form of negative Reinforcement - the release of pressure does indeed act as a reinforcer for the desired behaviour. 'reinforcer' here, scientifically means that it the behaviour is more likely to be repeated. Attempts at negative reinforcement could be the touch and release of a leg asking for a lateral move, or standing at the bottom of a ramp attempting to drag a horse into a trailer with a wire bit and waiting to release once he goes in. The term negative reinforcement itself denotes nothing about kindness or cruelty, that, alas, is left to us to debate :)

I just thought it would be an interesting angle for you to see that, as a practicing horse trainer, its very hard for me to define what I do without offending or distancing myself from some people, or worse being associated with others!! Ultimately, I know the boundaries of my own training are 1) things that are not cruel (and we all need to put our own levels on that I guess) and 2) things that effectively work with no hocus pocus or frilly edges or rose tinted glasses - and I am happy to use things learned from 'good old horsemen' as well as new tricks and tips.
I like Kelly Marks term of Intelligent Horsemanship, because it doesnt denote natural, round pen based, or any other boundary to thinking, and it isnt't an emotional fish-hook, it denotes a dynamic and thinking and logical and sensible approach to horsemanship, which is what attracted me to it. I dont like all the tricks and waily music myself, I like straight talking sensible things that work. So I am frustrated when I see people talking against natural horsemanship on here, and knowing that they might well lump me into that umberella, when in actual fact if we met at a barbequeue and got talking horses we might find we had an awful lot in common in our approach. Damn the labels!!

How many people have I managed to offend with that?!
 
Well if people can call themselves whatever they like without having to gain any recognised qualifications, submit to any sort of peer review, conduct any kind of publishable research or be in any way accountable for what they claim to know, who cares what they call themselves?
 
Booboos said:
Well if people can call themselves whatever they like without having to gain any recognised qualifications, submit to any sort of peer review, conduct any kind of publishable research or be in any way accountable for what they claim to know, who cares what they call themselves?
Click to expand...

But does any of that matter if they achieve the results, we are back to the word qualifications, they are just a piece of paper, it is how you apply those qualifications and quite frankly someone without the qualifications on paper but a lot of experiance can be far more effective than someone who is highly qualified, knows the theory but is rubbish in putting it into practice.
A lot of horse training be it breaking or problem solving is common sense anyway. If you look for the cause of any problem then you can usually work out the best way to rectify.

Rosiejones I found your post most interesting and would be surprised if you upset anyone :)
 
Last edited:
Face it, we are all horse people on here, that is why we have these discussions on this forum frequently, about different ways of dealing with our beloved animals. My philosophy is you take your time or as much time is needed and keep it basic. But in this day and age, people seem to want it, not today or tomorrow but yesterday and the value of the animal also comes in big time. I think we've lost sight of what owning a horse is all about. Pleasure
 
I would say that clicker training wasn't bribery.

bribery would be say using a bucket of feed to tempt horse into trailer (ie with the food reward in sight)
clicker training would reward (with or without food) the desired behaviour once completed (with the reward not in sight)
 
agree - i think the person who claimed it was bribery was saying that's the case because the click is paired wiht the treat to begin with. However, this is simply to create the positive association wiht the click (so that it can then be used WITHOUT food and still create the phsyiological positive effect on the horse) - therefore food isn't even used half the time when clicker training.

Once the horse has associated the click with something positive, food is just a back-up that's brought out every so often so as to keep the positive association. it seems to be a very common misconception that clicker trianing is bribery.
 
lannerch said:
But does any of that matter if they achieve the results, we are back to the word qualifications, they are just a piece of paper, it is how you apply those qualifications and quite frankly someone without the qualifications on paper but a lot of experiance can be far more effective than someone who is highly qualified, knows the theory but is rubbish in putting it into practice.
A lot of horse training be it breaking or problem solving is common sense anyway. If you look for the cause of any problem then you can usually work out the best way to rectify.

Rosiejones I found your post most interesting and would be surprised if you upset anyone :)
Click to expand...

What does matter is this:

- not spouting made up science-sounding drivel to back up non-existent theories
- making up these non-existent theories in the first place without a shred of empirical evidence or any attempt to defend them in a peer-review arena
- selling this to others who are in a vulnerable position because they need help
- and backing the whole thing up with the claim that 'common sense' (as if anyone really has any of that! If there is so much common sense how come there are so many problems?) is a substitute for reading, researching, working hard and exchanging ideas with others.

Because without proper controls, trials, publications, etc. how do you ever know who has good results, why they had them or whether they can ever replicate them? If science and learning are so useless, how come all these people who have neither are so quick to take on made up titles, appropriate science-sounding terms and pretend they have some kind of theory to peddle? If science and learning does not matter, who cares what people call themselves, they shouldn't call themselves anything; they should just say "I know as much as you do mate, nothing you can learn here, just do whatever comes natural to you".

No one who is seriously interested in horse behaviour should turn their nose up at the work others have done, and by work I don't mean putting on a cowboy hat and talking fast and loose, but years of study and effort. Studying is not something to be disparaged nor discarded, it's something to be valued and applauded.
 
ester said:
I would say that clicker training wasn't bribery.

bribery would be say using a bucket of feed to tempt horse into trailer (ie with the food reward in sight)
clicker training would reward (with or without food) the desired behaviour once completed (with the reward not in sight)
Click to expand...


Exactly right! :)
Which is why learning and reading matter...the first one is lure and reward a training technique which depends on presenting the food to produce the behaviour. The second is operant conditioning where the food is used as a reward following the behaviour. What is common sense here is that the placement of the food (before or after) the behaviour makes a significant difference to the clasification of the technique. Doesn't take much reasoning to see that the weakness of the first technique is the presence of the food, without which you do not get the behaviour, whereas the interesting question to ask proponents of the second technique is how they are going to produce the behaviour without the food.
 
booboos your getting a little too carried away, almost bitter is this aimed at rm or have I got the wrong end of the stick.

I still think experiance and common sense counts far more than paper and am talking in general, infact it applys to a lot of things evan when you are talking of two qualified people e.g those with a degree in a proffesion, often the one with say e.g the first does not necessarily make a better proffesional than the one who has the 3rd but are able to express and use thier knowlege
better.
As I said before some of my best trainers on the ground have been unqualified in paper but more than qualified in experiance, it is how they can relate to the problem and express themselves so they then get the resullts. And we all learn by experiance.

It was me that associated clicker training with bribary and I am unconvinced it is anything but, the horse is still trying to please to hear the click which it associates with the reward, how is that not bribary!
Would you work if you were not paid, we are mostly bribed to work by the necessity to receive money.
If clicker training was not bribary then you would never have to give the reward, either at the beginning or as a reminder that the click can lead to the reward. The horse tries to please to hope to receive the reward even if the reward is not forthcoming ever time it is still hoping for it ie bribary!
 
Last edited:
I guess it depends what you consider to be a bribe. Are all rewards bribes regardless of what they are and how they are given? Saying that a person getting paid for work done is bribery would suggest that's what you believe. If so, then for you reward is indeed the same as bribery. I'm not saying that's right or wrong. It's one point of view.

Food isn't the only thing that horses find rewarding. A soft word or a stroke on the withers (for example) can be rewarding for many horses. Indeed, some people have successfully clicker trained using the latter with horses that are less food-oriented. However, there is still the promise of pleasant consequences for an action done correctly. So would this also be bribery, or is it only bribery if there is food involved? If the latter, then what's so special about food?

I think bribery tends to be associated with food because food can be used to lure a horse e.g. into a trailer - whether or not the promise is kept and the horse allowed to eat the food. Here the bribery is something that happens before the reward is given (or not).

Thinking about bribery this way makes a distinction between the promise of a reward and the delivery of a reward. Either can happen without the other.

(Incidentally, in basic clicker training the click isn't rewarding in itself - it's just a signal to convey the message "Yes! You done good and a reward is on its way now." In more advanced "variable schedule of reinforcement", the click may be given without a reward. Here it means "Yes! Keep going, you're doing great and you'll get a reward soon.")

Personally, I don't use clicker training much myself - but I have used it to solve certain specific problems much faster and easier, I believe, than would have been possible with other methods. Occasionally it has produced a positive result after other methods failed to do so. It's such a powerful technique that it would be foolish, in my opinion, to refuse on principle to include it in one's "toolbox". I really do think it's worth people finding out about properly, rather than dismissing it out of hand because of one's preconceptions about it.

The following document addresses the bribery question briefly and common misconceptions about clicker training:

http://whydoesmyhorse.co.uk/oldsite/pdf/Catherine Brocksopp - ct.pdf

Finally, I totally agree with you that experience trumps formal qualifications. Qualifications are worthless if they don't deliver results. However, I also believe that science matters, because they give us a way to objectively assess the effectiveness of different methods and to understand, if one is interested, how they work.
 
Booboos said:
I am not too sure what your point is. I didn't suggest any of these techniques are better than others, merely pointed out to the OP that her choice was not limited to between 1 and 2.



I also made no claims about any of these techiniques being correct or about it being impossible or undesirable to combine them.

My main concern with this area of discussion is the lack of precision and thoughtful consideration of the ideas.
Click to expand...
Apologies I missed this earlier.
Fair enough.

I have given these things thoughtful consideration over many months/years believe it or not. For me 'Training' isn't just about getting a certain response to a cue/stimulus it's about developing a relationship and knowledge of another species ie. holistic and for me that includes an element of immediacy and being able to adapt to what is happening in that moment.

fburton said:
Apologies for the late reply...


Right! So what is the purpose of roundpenning in the first place?
Click to expand...
I've no idea past it being an enclosure to interact with a horse.

Just to pick up on a point you made about a horse not 'wanting' to do something as a result of P&R but perhaps wanting to do something for a food reward. I have a slight problem with this as I think the horse wants the treat, it doesn't in my thinking automatically follow that he wants to do the task, he knows that if he does it he will get a treat. I see a difference here but I'm not a scientist or have studdied learning theory in any great depth.

Francis B I submit! I have lost the will to try and explain my thinking and feelings on the subject of horse society and language being of any relevance to enhancing our relationship with our horses, I find it has enhanced my understanding and relationship with my horses. Perhaps I'm deluding myself I don't know, all I know is it 'feels' right and I don't feel able to give up 'feel' in favour of 'theory' as my guide.
This is a 'cop out'/ opt out post and I make no excuse for that except that I just don't see things the same way at a very fundamental level.
 
Pedantics, that's what it seems like.

At the end of the day, if it works for someone and the horse is right at the end, then everything in between becomes obsolete. If the horse wants to do something, it should weigh next to nothing.

*winds neck back in*
 
lannerch said:
booboos your getting a little too carried away, almost bitter is this aimed at rm or have I got the wrong end of the stick.
Click to expand...

Why am I being carried away and bitter for saying that knowledge matters and is a good thing? Why should we cellebrate ignorance, willful contradictions and bad reasoning?

My posts were not aimed at you specifically, I would have quoted you if I wanted to reply to you specifically, but if I were to ask you something specifically it would be this: if you had a health problem would you go to a doctor who has dispensed with all that education mamby-pamby and has chosen to practice directly with no qualificiations? Surely there is nothing more applied than the human body, and anyone with good intuitions can put on a white coat and perform brain surgery. After all practical ability is far more important than those dusty universities.

If you think that is a load of rubbish (and rightly so) then why not value knowledge in all spheres of life?
 
amandap said:
Apologies I missed this earlier.
Fair enough.

I have given these things thoughtful consideration over many months/years believe it or not. For me 'Training' isn't just about getting a certain response to a cue/stimulus it's about developing a relationship and knowledge of another species ie. holistic and for me that includes an element of immediacy and being able to adapt to what is happening in that moment.
Click to expand...

There is no disagreement here. The timing of the response is absolutely crucial to operant conditioning so immediacy and being able to adapt are essential skills for the application of the theory. As for general knowledge of horses, this is in no way incompatible with any of the options discussed on this thread. E.g. using 'lure and reward', or positive reinforcement or negative punishment are all entirely consistent with well rounded knowledge of equines.

Despite the trendiness of the term 'holism', it doesn't actually denote a specific approach or particular claims as to how one should train - if I am missing something here, please do elaborate, I would be very interested to see how a 'holistic' approach is a distinct training approach incompatible with others.
 
Booboos said:
Despite the trendiness of the term 'holism', it doesn't actually denote a specific approach or particular claims as to how one should train - if I am missing something here, please do elaborate, I would be very interested to see how a 'holistic' approach is a distinct training approach incompatible with others.
Click to expand...
Oh when did the term holistic become 'trendy', rather a dismissive comment imo but a reponse I 'trust' to get, this is why I'm bowing out.
I don't think I was saying that holism was a 'training' approach' was I? That's not what I meant. For me this is where the basis and focus for any training should be. No it is not in my opinion at odds with some training but it can be and this is why for me 'trendy' holism is most important.
 
To be fair, ALL the consistently successful trainers I know ARE well educated. Perhaps not in an academic setting (more later) but through apprenticeships (formal or informal), instruction, and hands on experience. (Would you let someone do brain surgery on you who had never done any under supervision, starting simply and perfecting their "real life" skills? ;) ) The vast majority also read and pursue other methods of "continuing education".

Part of the problem in horses is, by and large, the specific academic options are severely limited (at least in the UK and North America) beyond a certain point. Most programs seem to be very basic both in their targets and their information. Which is not to say their aren't good programs, just that advanced work, by necessity, almost always has to have a strong element of "self direction".

I do actually agree with Booboos et al, that terms should be used correctly and explanations should follow a provable path. I do also know there is a huge amount of "feel" in training, which cannot be honed (although the basis for it can be learned) academically. Obviously the best path is a combination of the two.

There is an issue with language, though. . . are terms only open to use by people with academic qualifications? "Doctor" is not really a fair comparison as the word itself means someone with specific qualifications. What would the term "healer" imply? (I'm sure I'll get some replies to that. ;) ) It's easy to say anyone without an academic qualification shouldn't be "allowed" to help an ill or injured person, but surely it's not so simple? (Obviously, again, the best would be a multipronged approach, in the same way that horse trainers should work with vets.)

What would you call someone who has made a life long study of languages and/or possess the ability to speak many languages? Presumably not a "linguist" (vs "Linguist" perhaps?) although they would fulfil the criteria of the term. . .
 
Last edited:
amandap said:
Oh when did the term holistic become 'trendy', rather a dismissive comment imo but a reponse I 'trust' to get, this is why I'm bowing out.
I don't think I was saying that holism was a 'training' approach' was I? That's not what I meant. For me this is where the basis and focus for any training should be. No it is not in my opinion at odds with some training but it can be and this is why for me 'trendy' holism is most important.
Click to expand...

"Holism" became trendy in the 1990s in medical sciences and, despite the obvious advantages of an approach that looks at many angles, has slightly negative connotations because of its association with fairly wooly claims (sometimes related to entirely implausible claims). The unclarity of the term prompted me to ask what you mean by it, because if you mean that one should look at everything, clearly no one would dispute that. Of course one should consider the horse's feed, management, pain issues, etc as part of attempts to understand and change its behaviour. Nothing contentious there but nothing unique to the 'behaviourist's way' either.
 
TarrSteps said:
To be fair, ALL the consistently successful trainers I know ARE well educated. Perhaps not in an academic setting (more later) but through apprenticeships (formal or informal), instruction, and hands on experience. (Would you let someone do brain surgery on you who had never done any under supervision, starting simply and perfecting their "real life" skills? ;) ) The vast majority also read and pursue other methods of "continuing education".

Part of the problem in horses is, by and large, the specific academic options are severely limited (at least in the UK and North America) beyond a certain point. Most programs seem to be very basic both in their targets and their information. Which is not to say their aren't good programs, just that advanced work, by necessity, almost always has to have a strong element of "self direction".

I do actually agree with Booboos et al, that terms should be used correctly and explanations should follow a provable path. I do also know there is a huge amount of "feel" in training, which cannot be honed (although the basis for it can be learned) academically. Obviously the best path is a combination of the two.

There is an issue with language, though. . . are terms only open to use by people with academic qualifications? "Doctor" is not really a fair comparison as the word itself means someone with specific qualifications. What would the term "healer" imply? (I'm sure I'll get some replies to that. ;) ) It's easy to say anyone without an academic qualification shouldn't be "allowed" to help an ill or injured person, but surely it's not so simple? (Obviously, again, the best would be a multipronged approach, in the same way that horse trainers should work with vets.)

What would you call someone who has made a life long study of languages and/or possess the ability to speak many languages? Presumably not a "linguist" (vs "Linguist" perhaps?) although they would fulfil the criteria of the term. . .
Click to expand...

At the risk of becoming annoying a 'linguist' is someone who is skilled in the study of languages, a polyglot, so I would call this person a linguist. An academic linguist is someone who makes a living from such study but it is perfectly possible to be a linguist outside of one's employement simply by being a gardener who speaks 3 languages or a rider who speaks 4. ;) I also don't think that you need to have a PhD to put forward this definition, all you need is to be a competent language speaker.

And now I shall rant a bit because words, meaning and clarity all matter :)

Words do matter because they have meaning and convey that meaning in their use. This thread is supposed to relate to the 'behaviourist's way' but so many pages later I have no idea what this is supposed to be. One cannot set up oneself as a proponent of a theory that one cannot even articulate, espouse it as superior to others that one cannot even distinguish it from, and consider the confusion an advantage of the whole approach. Consider for a moment the natural/traditional distinction in horse training and the numerous students who ask for help on this forum with their dissertations comparing the two, when they cannot even articulate either. It's as if I ask you to compare "bloogy" and "hobrety" without telling you what either means - pretty impossible.

BTW (as a general point) applied ethology courses have an enormous amount of practical experience, mainly involving animal experiementation and observation, some of which many people would find objectionable in its 'applied' nature. They range from Dian Fossey who spent 18 years living in a non-interventionist way with gorillas (AND was a Professor of zoology at Cornell), to Pavlov who coincidentally observed the dogs, to Martin E. P. Seligman who set out the notion of learned helplessness by giving repeated insecapable shocks to groups of dogs over a period of days - doesn't really get more hands on than that does it? In fact, personally I would wish that last guy had been a little bit less hands on...
 
Booboos said:
Why am I being carried away and bitter for saying that knowledge matters and is a good thing? Why should we cellebrate ignorance, willful contradictions and bad reasoning?

My posts were not aimed at you specifically, I would have quoted you if I wanted to reply to you specifically, but if I were to ask you something specifically it would be this: if you had a health problem would you go to a doctor who has dispensed with all that education mamby-pamby and has chosen to practice directly with no qualificiations? Surely there is nothing more applied than the human body, and anyone with good intuitions can put on a white coat and perform brain surgery. After all practical ability is far more important than those dusty universities.

If you think that is a load of rubbish (and rightly so) then why not value knowledge in all spheres of life?
Click to expand...

I do realise you posts were not aimed at me specifically and am not at all offended and enjoy your posts and view point booboos. What I meant is this aimed at RM ie the subject of the post in the fact he is claimed to call himself a horse behavourist without a horse behavourist academic qulification if such a thing exhists.

I too think a dr is a bad comparison as to call oneself a medical doctor legally you do have to be qualified and registered with the bmc ( or a european similar )
A better conparision would be the linguest or in the horse sense a groom. If you had the choice of a groom just out of collage has studied the relevent stable management course passed all the relevent exams, no experiance or the older experianced groom never went to collage been with horses for say 20 years in various compitition yards no academic qualifications in paper just a wealth of experaince and references, which would you choose first choice all other things being equal?

Agree the ideal is both and agree a knowlege of the science behind the behaviour is a big bonus, as science does matter in helping to determine possible causes or to help predict resultant behaviour.
 
So doesn't this beg the question what DO we call someone who studies horse behaviour in a non-academic setting and uses that information, along with whatever education and experience they collect? Since the ultimate goal is obviously to influence said behaviour then "trainer" applies but, in the context of the equestrian community, that has a fairly specific understanding now.

I do understand the objection to terms used out of context and outside of their correct definitions. But also, language is not that hard and fast. The discussion of defining and comparing nonsense words is valid but, especially in the wonderful world of horses, all sorts of perfectly common words are used - and widely understood - in "non-approved" ways. Often it's slang but some words - for example "break" - are simply used in less common ways. And some have various definitions. Is a "cowboy" someone who works cattle, someone who rides western, or someone who rides roughly and sloppily (although many "proper" cowboys do nothing of the sort . . . )

My point (and I do have one . . .;) ) is that do we now, as a community, understand what someone MEANS when they use the term "behaviourist"? Would most people assume this is a person who works mainly with "horse behaviour" and understanding why a horse does this or that as a tool to change, rather than, say, achieving, competitive training goals in a specific, traditional school of training.

The word that USED to mean (and still in in some, especially older, circles) this is "horseman" - someone who understands horses and how to influence their behaviour with educated, experienced intelligence and empathy. To be a good horseman (usually just "a horseman") was the highest accolade. (And for many older people it's still a gender neutral term.) A similar one was "good hand with a horse". But now it just means someone who rides and I'd hazard a guess most people would consider themselves thus. So people have gone looking for a new term . . . . they may be co-opting it incorrectly but that's the development of language, to some extent - people use what they already have in new ways.

Don't get me wrong, I don't deny some people are exploiting a "pseudo-scientific" approach to make something very basic look new and shiny. (Which is, of course, what sells.) But I don't think it can be universally applied that the ONLY way to gain knowledge is through a degree and, in this case (different from a doctor) people should be stopped from trying to explain what they do in words that make sense to their market. (And yes, people lie like rugs sometimes. Even in very codified businesses.)
 
I don't in any way think that the only way to learn is in an academic environment, nor that academic learning should be restricted to libraries and have no applied component. Vocational courses should have a strong practical component as appropriate to the subject matter that is being taught. For example, German riding degrees go up to a doctorate in riding and have one hell of a tough handling/grooming/riding test (lasts a few weeks) along the exam component. This is perfectly suited to the subject matter, whereas a doctorate in philosophy can be carried out entirely in a library.

Personally I also think that there should be a difference between a good horseman and a behaviourist. A good horseman is someone who deals well with horses, but can't necessarily teach this, articulate this or turn his ideas into a marketable theory. Once you start spouting theories, having students who follow 'your way', promoting DVDs/books, etc. you owe it to yourself and your audience to figure out what you are saying, how it compares to what others have said before you and how it stands up to critical scrutiny. Definitions of behaviourism are difficult because they are usually tied to a specific school of thought about the importance of behaviour (e.g. Watson, Skinner, etc.), but a fairly neutral one might be this: a behaviourist believes that behaviours can be measured, trained and changed. Following on from this it is fair for the audience to ask the behaviourist "how do you think behaviours can be trained and changed?". The answer should be situated in the huge body of knowledge that has already been produced in this area, i.e. our guy's approach can be entirely novel, it needn't follow anyone else, but at least he should be aware of alternatives and have some account of why they don't work. This is why ignorance bugs me.

Incoherent, self-contradictory claims about how behaviour should be trained and changed should NOT make sense to the market, the market should have enough knowledge to say "oi, what are you talking about, this is nonesense!".


Anyway, will shut up now, as I know almost nothing about behavioural sciences! :)
 
smaarthorses said:
If anyone is interested in reading an article about treats as bribery or reinforcers I have an article on my web site on the topic.

http://smaarthorses.co.uk/clickertrain/horse-training-articles.htm#Bribery or Reinforcer
Click to expand...

OK, I did say I would shut up now, but just a little thought!

Great article, I have experienced the same thing (in a small scale) with the dogs. B knows how to roll over which she was taught by shaping. I was then teaching J roll over with B watching. We were right at the start so all I was doing was rewarding the down with the head turning to look over the shoulder. We were repeating this a few times, when B walked between J and I (which she normally never does), threw herself to the ground and rolled over as if to say "there dummy, this is the behaviour!". Funny animals!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top