preconceived notions, stop anthromorphising- let's discuss!

[zangersheide]

It is funny how people like to replace the word punish with correct, to correct would suggest that the behaviour is removed instantly, however i find that those who correct their horses tend to have repeated bouts of this behaviour.

I think it is becoming accepted that the ultimate tools for behavioural conditioning are +Reinforcement and -Punishment.

Do we know the true nature of horses and then does the horse in the herd's behaviour have significant parallels with the domesticated horse? I would conclude that any assumption can be potentially harmful, anthropomorphic or otherwise.

I would also not cros reference NH with clicker training they are poles appart if you were to actually study them.

Punishment happens regularly with horses, if you are into NH (which I use sometimes in my training) you are punishing a horse by sending it away for example. Also, I fail to see how -Punishment can work, for example, -P is to take the feed bucket away to punish for say, being aggressive around food- would this not make the horse more aggressive and anxious?
I take the haynet away when tacking up so I can assess any stress in the horse whilst tacking up and deal with it accordingly. Is taking away the haynet -P?

ETA- CT has brought me wonderful results

 

[miss_bird]

I wil say i am in the firm but fair camp, never ride with a whip, try not to raise my voice, but if i do it a very loud no and the change in my tone is generally enough that any of the horses are aware that what ever was not acceptable.
An example, young horse bred myself, was started by me and riding away happily, went out on loan and disater, loanee was was very soft and did not raise her voice ever youngster walked all over her and got to the point of rearing once loanee got off, so after that rearing learnt, rider on walk a few paces rear rider gets off.
Youngster comes home, i get on, walk rear, booming voice "get on with yourself" and used reins to give her a slap on the shoulder, walked on straight away and never done it since, now happily back to enjoying being ridden.
Yes it is fim but fair, if i had not been firm, would the rearing have carried on? would she of ended up a problem horse? would she of ended up going around the sales? or would i of kept her as a field ornament and classed as unrideable?
so one slap and shout problem sorted, and back to a happy horse that knows she is a safe place and will now have a career infront of her

 

[kerilli]

crikey, lots of points.
umm, i think your point about humans nowadays cf apes and domesticated horses cf wild ones doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. we are so far ahead of apes in terms of language, interaction, how we have shaped our surroundings, etc etc that it is immeasurable.
a horse is still a horse and knows how to behave like a horse. i'm pretty sure that if one took a domesticated horse (mare or stallion, probably not a gelding, for obvious reasons) and turned it loose with a wild herd nearby it would know how to interact. they all speak 'equus' as Monty Roberts would say. a mare would probably be rounded up and included very quickly, but i suspect a stallion would have it a lot harder. i agree that their feet might not be up to it (or not at first anyway) BUT they would know how to interact and 'be' a wild horse - graze, socialise, stay alert, be a good mum, etc. (i have a TB maiden who has just foaled, admittedly it took a while for her to realise the foal was allowed to touch her but she was instantly affectionate towards it and now she is an ACE mum, and you wouldn't get a more 'domesticated' horse imho! that instinct was absolutely there.)
punishment for bad behaviour, instantly - yes, if it was dangerous to me, or the horse. i totally agree about working out WHY the horse is bucking, biting, whatever, BUT the horse needs to know that I as a human will not tolerate that behaviour aimed directly at me, or in a dangerous environment.
I don't punish a horse for lifting a leg, for putting ears back, for warning behaviour. I analyse - why is the horse so unhappy? But a kick or bite gets instant reprimand. My horses do NOT bite because when as youngsters they tried it (and ime they all do at some point, not necessarily nastily, rather in a spirit of "i wonder what happens if i do THIS") they got a quick slap on the nose. i am not there to be bitten, it'll hurt me a lot more than it'd hurt their field mate. ditto kicking, and being played with. with a new foal here i'm already having to teach her that i'll be her Friend (benevolent dictator, if you like), but i'm not her friend (field mate to play with)... i'll fuss and groom her, but she is NOT allowed to buck at me (as she does at her mum, who can take it a lot better than i can!) or bite. she's allowed to express herself as much as she likes 99% of the time, but NOT within a 4' radius of me. i am very horse-centric in my thinking BUT my safety and the safety of everyone else who will be near this horse in the future is paramount...

 

[amandap]

It is funny how people like to replace the word punish with correct, to correct would suggest that the behaviour is removed instantly, however i find that those who correct their horses tend to have repeated bouts of this behaviour.

I think it is becoming accepted that the ultimate tools for behavioural conditioning are +Reinforcement and -Punishment.


I would also not cros reference NH with clicker training they are poles appart if you were to actually study them.

To try and remove positive and negative punishment form our training and interaction with horses is impossible imo. The term 'correction' has become somewhat meaningless as have many words in horsemanship. I'm trying to work out if as in the example I gave of asking a horse to step back to where he was is technically punishment? I don't believe it is necessarly aversive to a horse if well trained to respond to movement cues. This sort of argument/muddyness goes on and on forever for me and why I am often at odds with extremely 'positive' people. ie. people who train with only positive reward and those who also use only light negative reinforcement. I believe that much of the finer detail of Skinners theories now deveoped and expanded upon becomes a nightmare to tease out anything really useful to Joe average like me to help with my horses. I have been totally bogged down and become almost prostrate with apoplexy trying to fit the complexities of theory completely to what I observe day to day. It just doesn't fit or make sense in many interactions. Of course it can't because horses are living, sentient beings and learn and develop in many complex ways some of which I believe we don't understand yet or may not even be aware they exist. For me developing a trusting, solid relationship with my horses is crucial to my interpreting their reponses and their acceptance of me and things I ask of them. I use learning theory in part to do this but I don't base my horsemanship on learning theory. It has taken me quite a while to realize this difference to some dedicated learning theory users.
So, I wouldn't say CT and NH are necessarily poles apart though they certainly can be.

The basic mechanisms of how positive and negative reinforcement, punishment etc. work in learning is very helpful and important and an understanding of what they really mean is crucial. I do balk at extended theories like poisoned cues etc. to some degree because I've seen this used as an excuse to bash other methods and invalidate other ways of learning which to me is very small, closed minded as well as limiting.
I prefer to try and watch and learn by experience than fit myself and my horses into a theoretical theory closed, dark box. Horses are SO much more and so are we!

I believe good horsemanship incorporates the principles of learning theory as well as many other aspects and skills and knowledge of horses as a species, is to me the one most important aspect that sometimes or often gets lost imo.

Do we know the true nature of horses and then does the horse in the herd's behaviour have significant parallels with the domesticated horse? I would conclude that any assumption can be potentially harmful, anthropomorphic or otherwise.

I think we have much to learn about horses and imo what we have known for a long time about horses physical and social adaptions and requirements have been swept aside by our needs for far too long leading to many practices that put the horse in a constant state of low level stress through management practices, breeding regimes, diet etc. etc.
I believe the better we get at providing the basics horses really need, as opposed to what we think they need or is convenient for us, in domestication the lives of all horses will improve thousand fold and along with that our lives. For me 'bad' training and other ways we abuse horses is a minor part of the abuses we have subjected horses to over our combined history.
I have to go out this pm. Anyway, that's my babble for now.