parelli? how do i go about it?

I always find it interesting that when specific methodological points are raised about parelli or MR people don't specifically address them but just brush over them. Howevr I am going to do as you say - I am going to join parelli connect and see if any of my questions can actually be answered. I don't think they will be seeing as they are fundamental problems with the method!!! However fair enough, let's see if anyone can prove me wrong. will report in 30 days ;-)
 
Morgan123 said:
in the initial game (can't remember what it's called, but i think it's the friendly game) - you are using the sdtick to stroke your horse all over in imitation of its mother licking it when it was a foal. When it relaxes, you take the stick away. If it moves you carry on wiht the pressure, and the pressure halter will also ask it to halt.

Well, for starters that's a bit odd becuase a) why would it feel nice for a horse to be stroked with a stick, b) if you're doing something that feels nice you DEFINITELY should not need a pressure halter to make it stand still, c) if it feels nice, why would you stop doing it when it relaxes?!?
Click to expand...

I could be wrong here, but I don't know if it's so much that it "feels" nice. To me, it's like putting a rug on. The rug is there for the horse to be warm and dry but the first few times you go to put it on, the horse most likely won't stand still so you have a head-collar/halter so you can put it on. You may then progress to putting it on with no restraint as the horse has learnt that the rug won't harm him.
So, parelli friendly game - is about using the stick as an extension of your arm and rubbing the horse with it is a cue for it to relax and stand still. So, if the horse moves while your rubbing him and you take it away, you have praised him for moving when the stick rubs him. If you wait for him to stop and relax and then remove the stick, the horse then learns that this is how he gets the release of pressure. So, it gradually becomes a cue for relaxation?

Morgan123 said:
To top it all off, then in the next game you start making it move away from the stick, even though you've just been teaching it (in a flawed way!) to stand still!! No wonder you end up with broken down parelli horses....

It just makes no sense. And those are only the first two games!!! Feedback welcome...
Click to expand...

This game "porcupine" is about moving the fore/hind quarters so instead of rubbing/scratching with the stick, you simply hold it there lightly and the horse takes a step away. Once he's stepped away, he has released the pressure. This doesn't have to be with the stick, it can be with your hand. Some people with use one finger to the chest and the horse backs up. Same principle and the same where your leg goes to get the horse to cross its hindquarters.

It's all about body language as well. Friendly game = you relaxed. Porcupine game = your more upright (so to speak) and getting horse to do something.

I hope this makes sense as I think I've rambled on but hope I've answered your questions? To me, parelli is another method to get the end result (and there are lots of different methods depending on what suits the handler and horse. Parelli either is or isn't for you) and you can do the games without the carrot stick.
It's like everything, it's open to misinterpretation and you can take what you want away from it.

I like threads like these where people ask questions and post answers (such as Team Barney) because it does get people thinking about what they are/aren't doing and why they're doing it. Some answers may be negative but how will we learn if people only post gushes and positives?
 
Morgan123 said:
I always find it interesting that when specific methodological points are raised about parelli or MR people don't specifically address them but just brush over them. Howevr I am going to do as you say - I am going to join parelli connect and see if any of my questions can actually be answered. I don't think they will be seeing as they are fundamental problems with the method!!! However fair enough, let's see if anyone can prove me wrong. will report in 30 days ;-)
Click to expand...
It is impossible to have a proper 'discussion' about the Parelli methodology in this forum, thanks to the same old crew of 'bashers' who always turn up to deliberately derail and mock the discussion. I suggest that anyone who has a genuine interest in getting to grips with the subject FIRSTLY clear your mind of preconceptions, then take advantage of the 30 day Parelli Connect free membership and try in that time to at least get an overview of what it's all about. It can't do any harm, can it?
 
Golf Girl - this is really not a very helpful answer. Above we are actually having an interesting discussion about the ins and outs of parelli, there is no 'bashing' going on but we are actually discussing some of the interesting scientific principles of it. If you took the time to actually reply to this rather than just claiming people are bashing it, it could be far more interesting and you might actually make some interesting points/lesarn something yourself/teach someone else something. Isn't that what a forum is for?! I am asking these quesitons, as I have said, out of genuine interest - maybe try taking the stance of Fidleyspromise who has actually tried to make real answers! As I said to you in the lsat discussion about this - just becuase someone is disagreeing with you, doesn't mean that they are being unfair or not listening to your point. I have actually taken time to learn about the method and my opinions are formed after having done so, but i'm continuing to learn about it! I'll be joingin parelli connext wiht as open a mind as I can, and will see if anyone can actually respond to the queries in a convincing way.

Fidley's promise - thansk for your interesting reply. Having spent a lot of time with clicker training, I find this stick thing difficult becuase if you look at the scientific principles of it, you're messing around wiht them all, that's what I mean. So, you're stroking wiht the stick whihc should be adding something positive (i.e. positive reinforcement), but if the horse moves, you remove the 'positive' stimulus and do something negative (pressure on the head) - negative reinforcement - becuase you're using a pressure halter, this happens whether or not you actually do pull on the headcollar. Then when the horse stands still you add the nice thing again - (more positive reinforcement) and then rmeove it. the removal of something nice is called negative punishment. That's three messages in one. It makes no sense whatsoever to me?! If it's nice, you should carry on doing it when the horse reacts, shouldn't you?

the porcupine game - negative reinforcement - does make a lot more sense, but i think it's weird that you do it with the stick that you've just spent hours making the horse NOT react to when you stroke it with it?

I absolutely agree that it's really great when we have good discussions about these sorts of things, and thank you for replying in a thoughtful manner - my further quesitons are purely intended in an interested way and not in any way bashing, mocking, rabid or any other negative words that people immediately assosciate with the group of people who have somewhat negative views of the parelli system :-)

thanks again!
 
"the porcupine game - negative reinforcement - does make a lot more sense, but i think it's weird that you do it with the stick that you've just spent hours making the horse NOT react to when you stroke it with it?"
You are teaching not to fear it,not not to react to it.:)
 
Golf Girl said:
It is impossible to have a proper 'discussion' about the Parelli methodology in this forum, thanks to the same old crew of 'bashers' who always turn up to deliberately derail and mock the discussion. I suggest that anyone who has a genuine interest in getting to grips with the subject FIRSTLY clear your mind of preconceptions, then take advantage of the 30 day Parelli Connect free membership and try in that time to at least get an overview of what it's all about. It can't do any harm, can it?
Click to expand...

GG I actually think that the 'Parelli Bashers' as you call them, just get ticked off with sanctamonious and defensive posts from some pro parelli people, the 'bashers' boil the blood of the 'parellis' and the 'parellis' boil the blood of the 'bashers' I understand what you say regarding the inability to have a genuine discussion, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I did go on PC, I am not interested in Parelli, but in the initial stages what PP says does make sense, trust, rhythm, relaxation, outlining the 'zones' of a horse, pressure and release, personal space, predator and prey, understanding the horse and observing, slowly applying pressure and quick release. There are however a few problems as I see it:

This is all common sense
It is not rocket science
PP is not the discoverer of this understanding
PP has merely bottled it and made money out of it in a way that annoys a lot of people, not just because of the sheer commercialism, but the fact that when you see his demo's with some of the more trying horses, or even some of the less trying ones, HE HIMSELF, does not seem to practice what he teaches, neither does Linda.
Often to get to a point of 'understanding' with the horse the methods, to watch are heartbreaking for all of us that do actually 'observe', 'understand' and 'want the best' for our partnership with horses. :(

That is not to say that the principals of what he preaches are wrong, just that the practices are less appealing to some in the horse world. I have seen more videos and practices of parelli that I view as bad and not necessary in the training of horses than I have seen good, and those that I have seen that demonstrate a real good and heart warming bond with horses generally try to disassociate themselves from the 'P' word.

Those are my observations, a lot of money for some words of common sense, and a follow through of bad practice and at best confused horses.
 
It strikes me that Parelli is more a system for training people,than for training horse.
The stick game/Porcupine game are about body language and intention. Two vital elements of horse handling.
The majority of horse owners do not need to practise these things,but for some,who perhaps lack confidence and experience around horses,the games provide a great learning tool............The horse on the other hand does not need so much practise understanding body language and intention.
The horse however,is very forgiving!
 
Pale Rider said:
Morgan you need to look at positive and negative reingorcem
Click to expand...

Why?! positive reinforcement - adding something nice (e.g. treat, stroke)
negative reinforcement -removing something aversive (pressure)
positive punishment - adding something horrible (e.g. smacking horse for biting)
negative punishment - removing something positive (e.g. removing nice thing when horse is naughty - e.g. if won't be caught, you take friends out of field).

Friendly game is using positive reinforcement (that's if you go wiht the idea that it's nice for a horse to be stroked with a stick, which I dont but anyway - let's assume i'm wrong because all the aprelli people are saying it is nice), then negative reinforcement (taking away presure when it stands still) then negative punishment (taking away the so-called pleasurable stick-rubbing). What's that about?! that's not common sense?!
 
Hi

I am NOT a Parelli expert and I Don't do it (so to speak) with my horse. But, for what it is worth here is my take on the seven games.

1 The friendly game is used to get the horse desensitized to the carrot stick so that he/she will not be frightened of it when you use it for the other six games. If your horse is frightened of the stick it is useless and cruel to even try the other games. This, I think is where some people go horribly wrong with it all. The horse cannot learn if it is frightened. Also note that it is not just Parelli that uses a stick.

2 The porcupine game is the second game and should ONLY be started when the horse is absolutely comfortable with the carrot stick so he/she can start to understand the concept of pressure and release.

3 The driving game I think is the third game teaches the horse to move with you.

4 The Yo Yo game is about asking the horse to move politely out of your space and to come back in when you invite. Sometimes using the carrot stick to back up your request. BUT it should not be done to death as so often seen AND the horse has to have no fear of the stick which is so often seen.

5 The circling game. This (I think) teaches the horse to move round you at a gait chosen by you (usually walk or trot in the remedial stages) and to maintain that gait until you ask it otherwise. The horse has to take responsibility for maintaining gait not you. So it is the horse that moves not you. Again, this should be only be attempted when the horse is not afraid or confused by the stick and has good respect for you otherwise you are setting it up for failure.

6 The squeeze game. This game/exercise is about getting a horse feeling more confident moving between objects and between different spaces and help it overcome claustraphobic (can't spell it) feelings. PTO
 
Sorry run out of space.

7 The sideways game. (not too sure about this) other than to teach the horse to move left and right.

I think some people try to do too much too soon and the horse is just so overwhelmed by it all. Couple this with not doing the first three games right and you have someone who makes it all look awful and cruel and nonsensical.

I apologise for the long post but just wanted to try to make sense of it all my self.

I am not justifying it or condoning it and remember, I didn't invent it. It is just the way I understand it and thought I would share.
 
Morgan123 said:
Thanks - still doesn't explain any of the flaws inherent in the methodology and parelli's supposed reasoning though. In fact, I think it makes it all the more confusing. If you're in danger you're doing something wrong - obviously there are some exceptions, but in general horses are nice and if you go slowly and kindly you shouldn't need a stick as an extension of your arm - certainly it would't then need to be sold as a standard necessity for every parelli-ite!

E.g. if a horse is kicking out when you touch its back legs, you need to go slower and work your way towards its legs. this is safer and nicer for you both! Only in urgent veterinary cases or very extreme behavioural problems should an alternative be taken - surely THAT is common sense?!
Click to expand...

my horse who is 8 years old and was unbacked never been shod (broodmare basically)was very nervous when i got her and the thought of a stick around her or even a lunge whip would have freaked her out i do believe you have to build a bond and a trust between yourself and horse 6 months down the line we are getting on great hacking out being shod all we have to do now is clip which is proving to be a little harder but we will get there, having been at yard a few years ago where 70%of the women did parrelli i made a quick exit its not for me but its up to the indevidule if they want to do it but dont ask me to
 
Last edited:
The "games" go in this order:
Friendly, Porcupine, Driving, Yo Yo, Circle, Sideways, Squeeze.

(I met a friendly porcupine driving a yo yo, he circled around me sideways and became my favourite squeeze).

You know what the purpose of the "games" was supposed to be when Pat started all this stuff? To get a horse yielding and responsive and prepared to ride. It was all about riding as a goal when he was touring in Australia with Phil Rodey. He devised the games in an attempt to teach people the sort of horsemanship you see people like Ray Hunt using. It became more and more rigid, and less sophisticated, as time went on.
 
MrsMozart said:
h010.gif
Click to expand...

Drink with that :D
 
FionaM12 said:
Is this refering to all the jokes about settling down with popcorn, etc?

I didn't read that as looking forward to "cyber bullying" at all. I just thought they were thinking it's a contentious subject and they were expecting an entertaining debate/arguement!
Click to expand...

Agree with this, the popcorn would be out for the, to rug or not to rug debate or the ( whispers ....... draw reins ) :eek:
 
Morgan123 said:
Why?! positive reinforcement - adding something nice (e.g. treat, stroke)
negative reinforcement -removing something aversive (pressure)
positive punishment - adding something horrible (e.g. smacking horse for biting)
negative punishment - removing something positive (e.g. removing nice thing when horse is naughty - e.g. if won't be caught, you take friends out of field).

Friendly game is using positive reinforcement (that's if you go wiht the idea that it's nice for a horse to be stroked with a stick, which I dont but anyway - let's assume i'm wrong because all the aprelli people are saying it is nice), then negative reinforcement (taking away presure when it stands still) then negative punishment (taking away the so-called pleasurable stick-rubbing). What's that about?! that's not common sense?!
Click to expand...

You cannot be too rigid in your perception of what is positive and what is negative reinforcement. What you may see as positive may not be seen that way by the horse in the first instance but may change later as the horse learns how things may or may not affect it.

The fact that we are using the terms positive and negative is poor in any event as even the word negative has a negative connertation. There is a quote,

' Please honor the memory and work of B. F. Skinner and please do not desecrate it by using negative reinforcement and punishment synonymously.'

for this to happen the 'theory' is often muddled, probably by his poor choice of words.

I hasten to add, I'm not saying you don't understand the theory.

In training any horse at any stage a dialogue has to be built between the two partners in the process.

If we took the example of an untouched horse, it is reasonable to assume that the trainer may see the giving of a treat or stroke, as a positive, the horse on the other hand may feel that touching it with your hand is a negative stimuli, this may provoke the response of movement by the horse, which the handler doesn't want, so the hand is removed. This obviously, is using negative reinforcement to cause the horse to stop moving. As things progress the horse may, and nearly all do, have a less of a reaction to the hand and may come to quite like the feeling of being stroked. When the horse stands still to be stroked the application of the hand is then seen as a positive reinforcement, from the horses point of view.

The use of positive and negative reinforcement, particularly when training animals, should be seen as equally important in building the dialogue, with niether one or other being more or less desireable.

Whether being stroked with a stick or a hand is of equally no importance to a horse, in the initial stages of building the dialogue, if it doesn't want to be touched at all. The stick buisness is I feel more of an issue for you than the horse, in any event, if the initial friendly game is done correctly, the horse does come to find being stroked with the stick a pleasurable experience, as it does with a hand or brush.

The porcupine game is of course negative reinforcement, but whether you use the stick with which you have been stroking the horse, or your hand is totally immaterial to the horse. As long as the horse is allowed to step away from the pressure, and not persued, it learns to move away from pressure, which of course is the negative stimulii being removed, but being removed by the horse itself.

I know that Tinypony states that the games are more rigid and less sophisticated, than originally, but I feel that these games are much more meaningful to the horse than was first intended or appreciated and they are at a high level of sophistication, from the horses point of view.
 
hi all

im not a parelli nut but i have been doing it casually for over a year with my horse since he was 2 hes now 3 1/2.

he has excellent ground manners and i started him myself using parelli methods.

i dont really understand how people can bash it if they cant be bothered to look into it properly. and if you dont want to look into it dont bother commenting on something you know nothing about.

if you do it properly your horse will understand exactly what you want him to do.

normally peopls reasons for not likeing parelli is:
the price of the equipment- most horse equipment is expensive
pat himself- can be annoying so i'll give you that one

nothing generally to do with the method. its just a different way of doing something, tho i have seen it mentioned that its just common sense and for beginners really, well i have seen plenty of people lacking said common sense and plenty who should go back to basics.

if you are serious about finding more the free trial on parelli connect and the digital membership for £6 per month after that if you like it is the best way to go.
 
Morgan123 said:
...

To top it all off, then in the next game you start making it move away from the stick, even though you've just been teaching it (in a flawed way!) to stand still!! No wonder you end up with broken down parelli horses....

Furthermore, this moving away is supposed to be in imitation of the mother teaching the foal to move out of her way - fair enough. However, in the context of a 'game' I think that's again inherently crazy. A mare does not practice drilling her foal to move out of her way on a daily basis in short sesions - she simply tells it to move and they both get on with it. No drilling required!

It just makes no sense. And those are only the first two games!!! Feedback welcome...
Click to expand...

Morgan, I've cut down your poo picking musings a little to make things a little easier for me and to try and cover the points you raise.

Assuming, you accept my ideas on the fluidity and interdependance of positive and negative reinforcement in my earlier post, in training and that neither should be seen as one preferable more than another. I will explain how I see the use of the Parelli rope halter. The ultimate object of the training is a light and responsive horse. The idea being that the handler doesn't jerk the head about, and has hands quick to open and slow to close. We don't want to put pressure on the head as you would with some of the control halters. What the Parelli halter does is take away the option the horse has of comfortably pulling back on the halter as horses can in a webbing or leather halter and overpowering the handler. If the horse chooses to pull back it gets the stimulus of pressure on the poll, the horse itself can quickly relieve that pressure by stopping pulling and or stepping forward, once again this is negative reinforcement coming into play, the removal of the stimuli is in the control of the horse. Once the horse has removed the unwelcome stimuli, the handler should be in a position to reward the horse by going back to the friendly game and stroaking the horse, either with their hand, or that 'dreaded stick' again. Now we are back into positive reinforcement. Most horses quickly understand that a loose lead rope equates to comfort around the poll area, this really does eliminate the horse getting into a tug of war or dragging the handler around, without conseqence.

The porcupine game or game 2, is asking the horse to move away from pressure as already mentioned. Mares do move foals using their fore quarters, horses push they have trouble pulling one another. But, with mares it is a very light hand on the tiller and she is directing the foal with her fore quarters, she has the added advantage that the foal is imprinted on her and will initialy follow very closely. You may notice a mare positioning herself either on the left or right of a young foal to guide it with light pressure from the fore quarters.

The action of pressure from the forequarters is something that horses take with them throughout their life, and a controlling horse will use this pressure to move the forequarters of other horses within the group. This once more is negative reinforcment which the horse can remove by stepping away. Here in the porcupine game, the handler is tapping into the horses own understanding of negative reinforcement, they are familiar with the concept and quickly step away. As horses always yield to a horse of a higher status within the group, here we are indicating to the horse that we should be considered of a higher status and therefore the decision maker, the leader.

Some people fail to appreciate exactly what it is they are conveying to the horse in these exercises or games, and become fixated with the task itself. This I feel, leads to some people drilling their horses, but this is always the fault of the human in failing to truely understand the purpose of the games. It is a common fault with horse people that they want to practice the end result rather than the steps to get there.
 
But GeeGee my horse had excellent manners on the ground too and I never touched Parelli. From a foal I trained her with common sense and respect and ended up with exactly what I wanted, a well behaved horse that willingly did whatever I requested without any resentment or fear (a daft 16.2 TB mare). I'm not saying she didn't ever say 'no' (2 year olds can be such fun!) but we quietly worked through it without any games or hysterics (just talking in general about hysterics). She was my first youngster too and an interesting one to teach and school, quite willful at times!

I'm not bashing Parelli I just don't understand why it's needed. I think someone earlier hit the nail on the head when they said it was for the owner's benefit more than horse. Whatever happened to good old common sense?
 
It's not common it's rare is sense. I don't dispute many can get by doing whatever they do, yes some people need help, and these forums bare witness to that.
I support Parelli, but its not for everyone. Everybody has a choice.
 
I think when using scientifically accepted definitions, it is helpful to use them correctly. When Parelli refer to "positive reinforcement" they normally use the term incorrectly.

For anyone who wants to understand the correct use of the terminology it is easy to google and find out.
 
Hedgewitch13 said:
I'm not bashing Parelli I just don't understand why it's needed. I think someone earlier hit the nail on the head when they said it was for the owner's benefit more than horse. Whatever happened to good old common sense?
Click to expand...


There is an awful lot of scaremongering throughout the system and I can see how it leaves many people feeling Parelli is the only option, if you weren't experienced with horses you would probably believe it. Scattered through the level 1 dvd's are numerous extremely unsubtle mentions of death and how horses can and will kill you. Death by horse was one of the primary undercurrents throughout the DVD. The no.1 lesson for the humans seemed to be that only Parelli Savvy can keep you alive and safe.
Parelli is a system that suits owners, it isn't designed to be horse friendly in the slightest but it appeals to human nature based on it's computer game like structure. For some reason people like being told they are at level such and such it gives them a false sense of achievement, same reason people play games such as farmville. The levels structure of Parelli is the main reason it is so marketable in my opinion as it appeals to a certain human characteristic that many people display.

Yes horsemanship should be based on common sense and feel, two things you can't buy or be taught, you either have them or you don't. In my opinion you shouldn't be dealing with horses if you don't have common sense. No system is ever going to give you that horse instinct that tells you how to deal with an unpredictable situation, if anything system based education is destroying instinct and common sense as it replaces it with a set of rules and reactions for hypothetical situations.
 
Well it is only a theory and has lots of detractors, but you are right I have heard Parelli folk getting it wrong. More to the point is people bemoaning the fact that there is an element of negative reinforcement in Parelli, as if its a bad thing.
 
Pale Rider said:
Parelli farmville, and a computer game like structure.

I'm sorry Barney, I have really tried with this, but you are as mad as a box of frogs.
Click to expand...

Farmville is the first game I thought of which has it's basis in going through the levels.

It is well known that humans like to be told they have "levelled up" or gained an achievement and in my opinion this is one of the most marketable aspects of Parelli as it preys on the human need for perceivable success.

Funny isn't it how the name calling has started again. Barmy, rabid and now mad, I am doing well on this thread ;)
 
Pale Rider said:
Well it is only a theory and has lots of detractors, but you are right I have heard Parelli folk getting it wrong. More to the point is people bemoaning the fact that there is an element of negative reinforcement in Parelli, as if its a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I think most people who have even a basic understanding of negative reinforcement realise that pretty much everyone uses it to some extent, including people who are very good positive reinforcers. To be honest I haven't seen a lot of people bemoaning negative reinforcement in Parelli, using that actual term. I have seen people bemoaning the harsher aspects of the training system, such as the use of the bull clip and over-use of the stick (maybe some would argue that Phase 4 comes into that category). There is also often criticism of Parelli for mis-using scientific terminology such as "positive reinforcement" and promoting flawed views of equine behaviour - but calling it equine behaviour.

I think you're trying very hard here Palerider and I applaud you for that. I've got to say though that in my opinion your response to morgan123 demonstrates some mis-use of terminology, and I don't think that's the best way to explain what happens in the training.
 
Hi Pale Rider

thanks for your interesting post, I was really interested in the idea of fluidity of the reinforcement types as haven't come across this before (I am almost tempted to go poo-picking, even though it's not my day, so that I can ponder it :-)!). I think I agree with this, and it's easy to see how things move swiftly between negative reinforcement and positive punishment, for example (which is I guess where a lot of the BAD horsemanship examples - e.g. in riding schools you nudge [negative reinforcement], then kick if you get no response, then smack [positive punishment] if nothing still happens. I agree! I guess this is also one of the problems with the bad parelli examples we see - e.g Barney - you use pressure [flicking rope] to move him back and when nothing happens you do more until this becomes positive punishment - i.e. flicking him back with a clip etc etc).
I guess the same goes on wiht positive reinforcement too in some ways, and of course it's possible to combine the two...

OK interesting point! I think then - and thanks becuase I think it's SOOO good to discuss think this through - that my problem wiht parelli is therefore the same as the problem with the way people are taught in riding schools and so on - the use of systems built mainly on negative reinforcement and for whihc there seems to be little discrimination as to where the -ve re stops and the +ve punishment starts?? Perhaps that's why 80% of the time when I see Parelli horses they look a bit subdued and I guess why people sometimes say they're mechanicalised. I have seen one or two that look genuinely like they're enjoying themselves - there's a lovely video somewhere of a girl in Germany wiht a little haflinger - but e.g. mikey and redsun are a bit lacking on the joy. I have been assured that the parelli teachings do tell you to positively reward your horse too, but from what I've seen there's not actually huge amounts of this actually going on - perhaps especially wiht those higher up the levels??

just pondering - anyway back to work!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top