Whats people's thoughts of the Monty Roberts methods then

Know what you mean competitiondiva - I think MR does sometimes make it sound as though there is no-one breaking horses in in a calm & kind way, which obviously there are.

I think you have been a bit lucky with your experience of good horsemen/women - for a large majority of horse owners I've come across it hasn't been this way.

Re common sense - there is certainly some stuff that is common sense, but there is a lot more too. Have shared these methods in depth with quite a lot of people over the years, up to 4* eventers, and they have all found some new and useful info in there. Even Yogi B now uses some MR methods.
 
Morgan123 said:
my previous post applies to this response too. we should always question everything - and particularly if there is research suggesting it's wrong/inherently incorrect/inconsisteny. QUOTE]
Which research did you mean?
I don't blindly follow what an expert says without thinking it through and satisfying myself that it all makes sense - and there is no cruelty involved. I have also read his books, watched videos, been to demos, listened to him talk about his work, talked to him face to face. When I said you don't "get" it, I mean I can see the logic behind his explanation that he has recognised the language of Equus. He describes the behaviour of the horses and interprets it as a "horse language" in a way that I understand and can see with my own eyes. I have studied horses behaving in the field and can see the Equus language happening between the horses, locking the nearest ear to the dominant horse, the licking and chewing and bobbing the head down near the ground. I have also practiced join up with an un catchable pony in the field and the pony behaved in exactly the same way as I have seen MR describe during his demonstrations. IMO there was no fear or stress involved when I was doing JU with this pony except it's own fear of being caught. I did catch it quietly and without any chasing or it galloping around the field so I have concluded that his methods work in the way he describes and it all makes sense to me. Therefore I don't need to ask anymore questions, I am happy that there is no cruelty involved.
Click to expand...
 
fburton said:
Nope, never 'eard of it! What was that about?
Click to expand...

Barry Thomas had just finished his training with Monty Roberts in America and S4C filmed Monty presenting him with his certificate at Aintree in February 2011. The interview was for one of four episodes of Ffermio: Y Meistr, showing the 'master' Monty Roberts' techniques, used by Barry in Wales.

The programme description describes it: In the second programme, Barry meets the original 'master', Monty Roberts from California, at one of his demonstrations at Aintree. Barry also turns his hand at taming one of Dyfan James' Limousin bulls. He also tries to tame one of Valmai Thomas' horses ready for the show season.With on-screen English subtitles.

You can find more about the programme here too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-13017546
 
RE: A comparison between the Monty Roberts technique and a conventional UK technique for initial training of riding horses

Dear All

If you would like to read an interesting and detailed overview (presentation) about the scientific study comparing MR methods to Conventional UK methods which was presented at the International Society of Equitation Science (ISES) visit the link below. You do not need a password to access the presentation, it is a PDF file and is found at the bottom of the page.:)


http://www.mobileliveryassociates.co.uk/distance-learning-material-for-associates/
 
Thanks for that, VJames.

I have been waiting for Anthrozoös to publish the study and they still haven't done so, so this is a useful alternative source.

And thanks neelie OAP and talkinghorse for the Ffemio Y Meistr pointers.
 
Last edited:
Morgan 123, you would be most welcome on the IHDG :D
Your questions are valid ones, which deserve a much more detailed and scientific answer than any I could provide. There are plenty of knowledgeable people on there who will happily discuss this with you. I personally do not use JU as have never felt the need with my mares.
I believe Kelly has previously been banned for 'advertising' her methods during a discussion. I would think it would be a little difficult to answer queries without reference to the methods used, but there you go!
 
debsg said:
I believe Kelly has previously been banned for 'advertising' her methods during a discussion. I would think it would be a little difficult to answer queries without reference to the methods used, but there you go!
Click to expand...
That doesn't sound very fair to me. :(
 
Hello
I saw Morgan 123 asking for someone in the know to answer a question and I might be able to help, I'm a recommended associate of ih. Can you clearly phrase what your question is though? I've got a little confused reading through the previous comments.
Intelligent horsemanship is all about questioning, open mindedness and finding the best solution for each horse, that's why sometimes it seems like common sense and good old fashioned horsemanship and sometimes it seems so strange it's funny (someone on here was laughing at the human to human learning we use on courses before you are let loose on real horses)! The central point is that it's all about finding solutions that work for the horses.
I'm literally amazed to read the comment about km taking an assertive approach without reading the horses personality, Kelly is incredibly passionate about working with each individual horse in a way that works for them, and has literally no ego or temper (really!). I'm actually not that easy to impress and certainly no cult follower, and I wouldn't professionally associate myself to any other person, but I literally trust Kelly to always put the horse first. I have found ih to be so friendly and welcoming and useful to all sorts of horsepeople.
One of the best things that ih does is to stop this us and them nonsense between 'nh' and traditional. Most of us are actually trying to do the same thing and should be looking for the best people to help us base on individual talent and merit not which camp they are in. I'm often helping with remedial ridden issues on professional competition yards, and am happy to turn to 'traditional' instructors for my own development, currently having fab dressage lessons on my own horse.
Shocked to read also of negative Ra experience, it's pretty tough to become an Ra and feedback is constantly monitored and standards are high. To those who had bad experiences sending horses away to 'monty' people or nh people, they probably were not RAs at all, dont tar us all with the same brush, I know I certainly have never sent a horse home anything other than happy well and successful!
The main thing is to use whatever works for you, ih can prove a useful support for you in doing that because it really is not that prescriptive, and is full of experienced problem solving thinkers. If it works and is non violent, in my opinion, it is intelligent horsemanship! Hope this is useful, obviously one sided but true for me!
 
eatmoremincepies said:
Theory and research are interesting things. I did some physics at university, but wouldn't say I really understand or have researched everything about electricity. But I'm satisfied that it's not emotionally harming my light switches, so I'm happy to use it.

:-)

Conditioned responses in JU? I thought a conditioned response needed repetition for the subject to connect the stimulus and response . . . so why does a horse not just stop moving but come towards me when I turn away at the end of a JU? I've only done it the once. Anyway in 10 years don't remember doing a JU more than once with a horse.

We will never know what a horse experiences during JU. Any theory is just a theory. So in that spirit, here is mine. :-)

JU starts just by asking the horse to move away round the pen. No emotion, no "you bad horse". When you're trained to do it, you're told not to do it when the horse is attentive to you, only when they have lost interest in being with you for a few seconds. Just "oi you, can you move around the pen for a bit please".

(In demos the horses can be difficult and dangerous, and pretty oblivious to people, so a stronger sending away may be needed; but for most horses, they don't need to go out of a trot)

Sooner or later horse asks questions - shall I speed up? shall I change direction? Person answers questions with body language but no emotion. Horse seems to realise that its questions are being answered in a way it understands, without person getting angry or constraining/hitting it. Horse is then happy to be with person.

Conversation goes on from that moment throughout leading, handling, riding - horse asking questions, person noticing questions and answering them in a way horse can understand. In 5 minutes standing chatting to your mates on the yard with a leadrope in your hand, a typical horse might ask 10-20 questions (can I shuffle closer to you? Can I nudge you? Can I rub on you?).

JU is just an opportunity to start these Q&As, it can just as easily be done while leading a horse or loose in a big arena or field - frequently a horse will choose to circle round the person instead of running away further into the field or school, tell me that's a horse that I've trapped and forced to run around me!

The vast majority of the time, there is no round pen available so the JU effect is achieved via leading exercises. But generally these are more straightforward horses.

Btw anyone who has had a bad experience with an RA or MR person, if you really want to do something about it, I hope you will get in touch with Kelly or Monty and say who it was and what happened. They want to know if someone is using their name without training or has been trained and is doing a bad job.

(Disclaimer: I am not an RA etc but did the training about 10 years ago and have integrated it with other people I've learned from)

Not bothered about the theory (see electricity reference above) but for those interested in the practical applications, I hope the above is useful.
Click to expand...
I've done these discussions so many times (lol) but would like to say I agree with and like this post.

I also second rosiejones's post, and add, folk will tell you in all areas of horsemanship that they have done this course or that course but this is no guarantee of their skill level in practice. The only IH/KM approved trainers are the ones on the list I linked earlier in the thread, if that is your choice of trainer.

It's a case of finding someone who suits you and your horse and can help you progress in a way you want to. There is an element of trial and error in this process I have found with many professional sectors. For eg. I have found (eventually) the most fantastic EDT, it's in my mind because he was here yesterday. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I remember when I worked at Gleneagles and him and his team were there- we took them to the pub and I kept in touch with one of his ( drop dead gorgeous ) students for a few years!
 
FANTASTIC thank you. I'm at work but I'll surreptitously start writing some questions and then I'll post later, thank you for the opportunity :-)
 
rosiejones said:
Hello
I saw Morgan 123 asking for someone in the know to answer a question and I might be able to help, I'm a recommended associate of ih. Can you clearly phrase what your question is though? I've got a little confused reading through the previous comments.
Intelligent horsemanship is all about questioning, open mindedness and finding the best solution for each horse, that's why sometimes it seems like common sense and good old fashioned horsemanship and sometimes it seems so strange it's funny (someone on here was laughing at the human to human learning we use on courses before you are let loose on real horses)! The central point is that it's all about finding solutions that work for the horses.
I'm literally amazed to read the comment about km taking an assertive approach without reading the horses personality, Kelly is incredibly passionate about working with each individual horse in a way that works for them, and has literally no ego or temper (really!). I'm actually not that easy to impress and certainly no cult follower, and I wouldn't professionally associate myself to any other person, but I literally trust Kelly to always put the horse first. I have found ih to be so friendly and welcoming and useful to all sorts of horsepeople.
One of the best things that ih does is to stop this us and them nonsense between 'nh' and traditional. Most of us are actually trying to do the same thing and should be looking for the best people to help us base on individual talent and merit not which camp they are in. I'm often helping with remedial ridden issues on professional competition yards, and am happy to turn to 'traditional' instructors for my own development, currently having fab dressage lessons on my own horse.
Shocked to read also of negative Ra experience, it's pretty tough to become an Ra and feedback is constantly monitored and standards are high. To those who had bad experiences sending horses away to 'monty' people or nh people, they probably were not RAs at all, dont tar us all with the same brush, I know I certainly have never sent a horse home anything other than happy well and successful!
The main thing is to use whatever works for you, ih can prove a useful support for you in doing that because it really is not that prescriptive, and is full of experienced problem solving thinkers. If it works and is non violent, in my opinion, it is intelligent horsemanship! Hope this is useful, obviously one sided but true for me!
Click to expand...

Yes agree keeping an open mind is the answer, all horses are individuals as we know, so why don't we take that on board when we train them, which method we use on one may work very well, but that could be a total disaster on the next one, with horses there is always some thing more to learn !
 
eatmoremincepies said:
Conditioned responses in JU? I thought a conditioned response needed repetition for the subject to connect the stimulus and response
Click to expand...
For "trial and error" learning (operant conditioning), a single reinforcement or punishment can be enough for learning to occur, though repetition is usually needed to strengthen the association.

. . . so why does a horse not just stop moving but come towards me when I turn away at the end of a JU?
Click to expand...
Isn't it the case that, in Join-Up, the horse often does just stop moving, and the handler has to approach the horse a few times in order get the "hook on"?

I'm not saying any of this proves the issue one way or another. However, I haven't seen anything that would completely rule out a "learning theory" explanation. Is it worth knowing how electricity or Join-Up works? I personally think it is potentially useful knowledge, but I appreciate that others might not be bothered.
 
Helloooo - me again. I have actually had to work a bit today - GUTTED - so didn't have as much time as I'd have liked to phrase these properly :-D, so please let me know if anything is not clear:

1) my first and foremost question is about join up. I know it's not always done on every horse and all that stuff, but I'm just asking anyway. There is no evidence (that I have seen) that join up is related to herd behaviour, while there is quite a bit of contrary evidence that it is something other - e.g. simply conditioning (not so negative), or indeed other studies (e.g. Natural Animal Centre's one with zebras being chased by lions and showing some behaviours similar to a horse in join up!!) that show it in a much more negative light. Of course all studies will have their limitations and these are all just - as fburton says - theories. But the fact remains that there are (at best) limited positive findings about join up, and that clearly it is a means of starting a 'conversation' with a horse in a very dominant way (move away from me and keep moving). I think I'm asking how we know it's right, when the evidence appears to suggest otherwise, and whether it is REALLY justifiable.

2) Lunging. Sorry, it's quite hard to phras this as a question. How can it possibly be right to lunge a horse you've just joined up with? Sorry that's not very neutral. But you've moving the horse away from you when, squaring up to it, etc when you're joining up, and then essentially 'training' it that if it acts submissive you'll allow it to come and stand with you (negative reinforcement). I cannot see how it would therefore not be intensively stressful for a horse to be immediately after (I am referring now to the demo 'break in in half an hour' horses) to be lunged, where all their signs are then ignored.
When I asked Monty this in a Q&A session the convulted response essentially was 'a language is not a language unless someone is listening'. But this made no sense becuase that was my point - he is talking about learning the 'language' of the horse - i.e. equus - but then he is ignoring it?? Unfortnately there was no chance for follow up discussion on that one.

3) Using dummy dolls - as in demos and so on (favourite quote from monty here: 'some people say that the horse stopping bucking is learned helplessness. I say it's learned acceptance' :-D. Who's to say either of us are right, of course, but lovely example of how we can just switch things round to suit us!). Right - so using dummy dolls to overcome fear is flooding (as they did in the 70s when they were experimenting with overocming phobias, e.g. putting spider-phobics in rooms full of spiders and waiting for them to calm down). This is extremely stressful for the subject, which is why they don't do it with people anymore - e.g. cognitive behavioural therapy, where the behaviour is broken down into sections, is much more practical, long-lasting and less stressful. If the theory of MR's stuff is about listening to the horse, understanding its language and respecting it, where does it fit in to use a method that is so extreme and stressful?

I have more but this will do for now since I need to finish a few things before i leave work, haha. Thanks in advance, sorry this is convoluted.
 
Very good questions, morgan123 and I for one would love to know the answers to them. I have often wondered about lunging, because even though I dislike JU, I do lunge and I do therefore worry that I am causing the same stress as I believe JU causes. However, my horses do not show the same appeasement behaviour when lunged (licking and chewing), and look very relaxed and so I am pretty sure that they just accept it as work and not being sent away like in JU.
 
Good questions from Morgan123.

I'd also like to ask a question. Why did Roberts feel the need to include a Buckstop in the list of equipment he had access to during the study of his method? It has been previously stressed on his forum that this is a tool of last resort used only when all other techniques have failed and this is horse's last chance before being sent for slaughter or similar. I don't believe any of the horses in the study fell into that category (?).

This following a quote from an article previously printed by Cavallo magazine asking experts' opinions on join up:

Dr. Evelyn Hanggi, Equine Behaviourist and President of the Equine Research Foundation in Aptos, California. Round pen training and Monty Roberts are not one and the same. Proper use of a round pen by a good trainer is not nearly as stressful as what you see with Roberts. He uses halters that create pain. He uses a buckstopper and right there he loses any credibility of non- violence. Horses do not learn well when they are fearful or in pain. (my empahasis).

full article can be read here (scroll down to page 2) http://friendshiptraining.org/documents/Critique_NATURAL_HORSEMANSHIP.pdf
 
In response to the posting of the findings of the study on Roberts' method, a write up of the presentation at the Equitation Science Conference is below:

Later in the morning it was time for the much publicized study titled “A comparison between the Monty Roberts technique and a conventional UK technique for initial training of riding horses” a presentation which had been causing quite a strong reaction from all sides and had brought the man himself, to fly from the US to attend the conference proceedings. I know many people have been asking about this one, so I will go into a bit more detail… The study involved two trainers, Monty Roberts himself and Phil Roelich, a UK trainer with 12 years experience starting horses.

14 horses were split into two groups and were cleverly and carefully matched according to their behavioural responses to leading and novel-object tests. Trainers had the help of one assistant each, 30 mins per day with each horse, and 20 days to train them to perform a standardized flatwork and obstacle test which was scored by a panel of judges who were blinded to which horse corresponded to which trainer (this was possible because Monty had brought his own assistant who the judges did not recognize, and none of the judges knew Phil Roelich at all). The sessions were videoed and horses wore heart rate monitors as the only way to evaluate their stress response. So what did they find? Not all the findings were detailed, but rather focused on the heart rates at two crucial points of any horse’s breaking-in: first saddle and first rider. These two stages have been previously documented to cause higher stress. The Heart Rates of the horses trained by Monty Roberts were indeed lower than those of Phil Roelich’s horses at those times. Monty’s horses also scored considerably higher in the ridden and obstacle courses. So the conclusion? Well it is important to acknowledge the findings, but in my humble opinion it may have been more appropriate to title the study ‘a comparison between Monty Roberts’ and Phil Roelich’s ability to start horses in no more than 20 days’, because it sounded a bit like they were comparing apples with pears. Later in the corridor, Andrew McLean and Monty had a long friendly discussion and it was suggested that the study could be repeated addressing the limitations of this one, for example allowing for the full duration of training according to each technique (the UK method typically is expected to take 6 weeks – would the UK trainer’s horses have been exposed to higher stress than normal in trying to halve the training time? after all this was not a speed test but a stress test) as well as matching trainer experience to make the study more reliable. my emphasis

full article here http://horsesandpeople.com.au/equitation-science-articles/348-2011-ises-conference.html

I was at the Equine Behaviour Forum Seminar last year when Veronica Fowler presented the preliminary findings to this study. I think it is fair to note that the reliance upon heart rate to infer decreased stress levels was challenged by Andrew McClean (Australian Equine Behaviour Centre http://www.aebc.com.au/) as there is evidence to suggest that lowered heart rate can actually indicate increased stress. To date there has been no attempt to my knowledge to carry out analysis of the cortisol swabs taken during the sessions, nor any observational analysis of the horses' behaviour including those that may be indicative of stress, displacement of fear. To my mind, the study would be stronger if these short-comings were addressed. I am aware that there is currently no definitive ethogram for fear-based behaviours displayed in training, but I am sure that there is enough expertise available to come up with a working model if the incentive were there. Sue McDonnell has documented the equid ethogram in considerable detail, and, for example, has interesting knowledge and insight into behaviours such as licking and chewing - commonly seen in join-up and other training approaches http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=6346

from the above article:
The lowered head, relaxed posture, licking, and chewing are part of an autonomic response when stress or pain fluctuates, or when panic or startle resolve. The first scientific description I encountered was in the field of neurophysiology. In mammals, this cluster of responses occurs when the animal is returning from predominantly sympathetic tone (fight or flight response) back to parasympathetic tone (feed or breed response). This process is also known as sympathetic attenuation. So it is seen in all sorts of situations.

When a horse is suddenly frightened, then quiets down, the head drops, there might be salivation, tongue and jaw movements, and a sigh. It does occur in all horses, feral or domestic, whenever startled by something in the environment, or after a disturbance. In domestic horses, we see it most often when evaluating video of hospitalized horses in association with episode of pain, a minor seizure, or the collapse of narcolepsy. The scenario can be reliably provoked by presenting a startling noise, then letting things quiet down.

These behaviors also can be induced by administering drugs that produce the neurochemical conditions in the brain corresponding to anxiety and panic. Some have been studied in horses. At certain blood levels, panic followed by relief responses is seen. Rapid blinking and yawning, which are signs of the related autonomic state of mild anxiety, are seen at different blood levels. So these behaviors have always seemed very physiologic--plain and simple, no thought is required.

So in the popular demonstrations in which a horse is run around a pen, then allowed to stop--I think of the same simple underlying autonomic physiology. Scare or excite the horse, then stop.

Certainly, it could also be consistent with the more complex behavioral concept of displacement behavior. This term refers to behavior occurring out of context (usually feeding behavior) in a thwarted goal or conflicted situation. The horse is motivated to escape, but is thwarted from escape and the energy is redirected to feeding motivation, which induces salivation, chewing, etc. The jaw and tongue movements relieve the energy and so attenuate the stress.

The physiologist's and behaviorist's interpretations seem much more plausible than the submission, trust, "digesting a thought," or "dawning moment" you hear about in popular horse talk. That's why some people question whether the high-pressure aspect of some "natural horsemanship" techniques are the most humane. They would say that if the horse is thinking, it's likely "I'm scared, want to get out of here now," or "Thank goodness this guy has stopped chasing me in circles so I can relax for a minute."

Years ago we studied punishment in horse training. In that context, when subjects "figured out" how to avoid the punishment, they usually showed the lowered head, lip licking, chewing, and sighing. They then responded correctly and avoided punishment, so they had learned. But they usually showed signs of anxiety and mild depression. The end of a training trial seemed like relief, "Thank goodness that's over," and they became reluctant to do the trials


To her credit, Veronica Fowler also pointed out during the presentation at the EBF symposium that the probable reason that Roberts' horses did better in the ridden tests was because they were practising the manouveres pretty much as soon as he got a rider on board - which of course he managed to do much quicker than the conventional trainer as, has already been pointed out, traditional trainers do not have quite the same focus on speed.
 
Finally, an alternative view of Join-up (ie, other than "the language of equus") can be found here http://www.horsesandpeople.com.au/equitation-science-articles/326-different-horse-training.html

Extract from above article

How it works – the popular explanation

A common explanation of round-yard training is that it mimics horses’ behavioural responses in their natural environment where group structure is maintained by horses’ use of a range of visual signals to communicate. One instigator of round-yard training reported that an equine leader seeking to discipline a youngster would show dominance by chasing it away from the group and keeping it away. Subsequently, the youngster would show certain responses such as turning an ear toward the dominant horse, lowering their head toward the ground and licking and chewing. These responses are said to prompt the dominant mare to acquiesce by showing behavioural signs that include averting her gaze and allowing the youngster to rejoin the group1. When transferred to round-yard training, a similar process of dominance and submission results in the trainer becoming dominant over the horse and the horse accepting him as its leader1.

Problems with the popular explanation

The use of visual signals to communicate with horses is certainly important, but it is beguiling to think that we can enter their social hierarchy by mimicking their signals and behaviour.

Humans are physically unable to mimic horse signals with any subtlety as we do not have the same visual signalling structures (i.e. our ears do not move like horses’ ears) and of course once we ride the horse, we have further problems with visual communication because the horse is not likely to see all our signals.

We certainly can train horses to respond to certain visual signals, but we need to recognise that this is what we are doing; training them to respond to our signals and not mimicking the horse’s own communication signals. This is an important concept to understand because it highlights that when training methods come up with fabricated interpretations of ethology they are not comprehensible and therefore confuse those dealing with the horses.

There are a number of different interpretations of the responses that the horse is expected to exhibit such as; being considered signs of submission2, that the horse is ‘ready to negotiate’3 or they may be displacement activities4. Whilst it is important to remember that we do not know exactly what it is like to be a horse, with logical, systematic objective research we can arrive at the most likely explanations.

Head lowering and licking-and-chewing have received much attention, here is a summary of what objective observation and research has proved so far:

they are rarely performed simultaneously5-9
they are mostly performed while the horses are facing away from each other7,9
they occur mostly while horses are walking, not going at speed7
they are more likely to simply be a reflection of the physiological response to the presence of a potential predator, whereby the horse could be salivating after adrenaline release has caused a dry mouth, or simply moving the jaw after having it tightly clenched while being chased. In this instance, as the threat reduces (chasing), head lowering and/or licking-and-chewing may indicate redistribution of saliva around the buccal mucosa10.

From this, it is clear that the general interpretation of head lowering and licking-and-chewing needs to be updated.
 
Since the Cavallo magazine article has been quoted, in the interests of fairness I feel I should say how it came about and point out some errors and misrepresentations.

The article was created by someone from Cavallo by simply assembling a series of quotes obtained from messages posted in a mailing list (Equinebehaviorgroup@equine-behavior.com) that had a relatively few private subscribers. This person asked a couple of questions about join-up and "licking and chewing" and a number of people, included me, responded. There was no suggestion that our replies would be used in a magazine article and at no point was our permission formally sought to print our comments. So the statement "CAVALLO asked leading experts from all over the world" is dishonest and misleading.

More importantly, I had no idea that my random thoughts on a subject (which is what they were) would be presented as a definitive statement in an article that was intentionally slanted against Monty Roberts. I only discovered that later on, after the article was published in the magazine. Had I known this was going to happen, I would not have allowed my words to be used in this way - either I would have used different, carefully considered words or I would simply not have given permission for them to quote me at all. This regardless of my opinions of Roberts or Join-Up.

If they had quoted me verbatim, it would still have been taking what I wrote out of context. But they didn't even do that - they actually changed my words! So, for example, I did not write (of L&C) "This action is caused by a previous adrenaline release." This gives the impression that it is known for certain what causes licking and chewing in join-up, which is untrue! The adrenaline mechanism was (and still is) a theory of mine. The hypothesis has yet to be tested properly. What I actually wrote is: "I believe this action is caused by previous adrenaline release." Rather different - and remember that the context was an informal discussion amongst academics, not a statement of "fact" as you might find in a textbook.

Similarly, my original words "Can we rule out the simple physiological explanation which goes: being made to flee -> increase in circulating adrenaline -> dry mouth -> licking (with or without saliva secretion when the sympathetic/parasympathetic balance swings back the other way)?" got transmuted into "The simple physiological explanation goes: being made to flee - increase in circulating adrenaline - dry mouth - licking.".

Another example: "I felt that driving away had a detrimental effect on the trust that I had already built up." turned into "... and realized that the driving away ..." Another dishonest shift in emphasis from what I originally wrote to fit their agenda.

Finally, they didn't even get my job title right! They said I was a "Brain Researcher and Behaviourist at ... the University of Glasgow. In fact, my research field was (and is) cardiac electrophysiology. I have never given myself the label of "Behaviourist". I have a keen interest in equine behaviour, and see a strong role for "learning theory".

The article that gets quoted on the Internet is a translation back to English of the German, so there may be an element of Chinese whispers. Nevertheless, it was wrong of Cavallo to use what was essentially a candid private conversation to make a public article with an agenda.
 
Thanks for clarifying that fburton, I guess we have to acknowledge that pretty much everyone has an agenda! If you were a politician I guess there could be a public enquiry :-)
 
I think you should copy your post so you have it to hand every time this article is quoted fb. Save you some time. :D
 
amandap said:
I think you should copy your post so you have it to hand every time this article is quoted fb. Save you some time. :D
Click to expand...
Yes, good point Amandap. :D Actually, I did copy it, from a post on the IHDG forum a couple of years ago, with a couple of minor edits.
 
This is all very intersting, but after watching the S4C Ffemio Y Meistr series, and seeing that chap 'Flooding' that poor coloured horse using a long stick covered in what looked like plactic bags, frightening the living day lights out of the poor thing, it really wasn't nice to watch, my friend who is a BHSI happened to be watching it with me and was horrified. :confused:
 
neelie OAP said:
This is all very intersting, but after watching the S4C Ffemio Y Meistr series, and seeing that chap 'Flooding' that poor coloured horse using a long stick covered in what looked like plactic bags, frightening the living day lights out of the poor thing, it really wasn't nice to watch, my friend who is a BHSI happened to be watching it with me and was horrified. :confused:
Click to expand...

But, you see, thats where the smoke and mirrors come in. I bet they never admitted to flooding!! They will have called it desensitisation (which it isn't) just as they never chase a horse in the round pen they 'send it away'. Changing the language to make people think something is more acceptable doesn't help the horse one iota.
 
Ladyinred said:
But, you see, thats where the smoke and mirrors come in. I bet they never admitted to flooding!! They will have called it desensitisation (which it isn't) just as they never chase a horse in the round pen they 'send it away'. Changing the language to make people think something is more acceptable doesn't help the horse one iota.
Click to expand...

:eek: Well what ever term they use for it, it certainly isn't very nice, I wouldn't ever subject any of my horses to that sort of treatment !:mad:
 
Ladyinred said:
But, you see, thats where the smoke and mirrors come in. I bet they never admitted to flooding!! They will have called it desensitisation (which it isn't) just as they never chase a horse in the round pen they 'send it away'. Changing the language to make people think something is more acceptable doesn't help the horse one iota.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought when Monty Roberts was talking about using the life sized dolls on a horse wiht a phobia for being ridden - he said "now some people call this learned helpnessness. I call it learned acceptance".

Now of course you can argue for either of those cases, but I just thought what a fantastic example of the language being altered to make a change in how we feel about what we are seeing!

I hadn't thought that deeply about this particular thing before (other than the above) but actually I bet fburton has some interesting thoughts in terms of what we would see if something was learned helplessness (like Seligman's dogs in... I think it was the 70s? For anyone who doesn't know this study see * below) - what we'd see if a behaviour was learned helplessness vs learned 'acceptance' (not a term that anyone has actually coined in behaviourism, but presumably what we're imagining is that they aren't helpless they're just learning in a more positive and accepting way that it's not a big deal). Fburton any thoughts?

Just off the top of my head, if we're looking at the case of flooding being used with a rider-phobic horse who has had a life sized doll strapped to it, I would have thought that if we are looking at learned helplessness we'd be seeing a massive raise in stress levels, followed by an apparent calming down but with intervals of return to escapist behaviour (bucking/throwing self around), followed by submission and apparent calmness, and then a lack of trying this behaviour in other circumstances - e.g. when an actual rider is placed on board (presumably a horse is aware of the difference between a dead weight and an actual rider, particularly as Monty chooses really outstandingly balanced and light riders for demos). To me this does fit in with what I've seen, but i am wondering if we take the view that it is some sort of acceptance what we think we'd see? Can it be 'acceptance' if it's a flooding theory and therefore initiates with a violent bout of stress? Perhaps measuring stress levels is the way forward with that one! Only I'm not sure an ethics board would approve it ....??? Sorry just thinking out loud (well with my fingers really :-)!).


*- basically two sets of dogs were used in this trial which was looking at symptoms similar to depression and anxiety disorders in people. The dogs were put (one at a time!) in a room with a metal floor and a barrire in the middle. The floor gave them an electric shock and the dogs would jump the barrier. For half the dogs, the other side was 'safe' and held no electric shock. For the other half, the floor shocked them on both sides. For the second group, they began to show apathetic behaviours and lack resistance, and stopped trying to escape the stimulus - even when an alternative 'escape route' was shown.
 
ps - fburton - thanks for the response ot the cavallo article! Interesting definitely. I am interested in the study about reliably inducing licking and chewing behaviours by startling the horse, is that fair/reliable study etc (would be interested in reading this!).
 
What about chin wobbling? I have noticed that horses do this when they are either unsure or really concentrating and trying hard to get something right. They do this even when trotting or cantering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top