Post by tess1 on Nov 29, 2009 14:11:02 GMT 1
On the 'dressage-warm up disgrace thread, in response to some confusion over whether or not IH were anti-Rolkur, Kelly wrote:
I must say there seems to have been a whipping up of the 'anti Monty brigade' just recently (and so IH I guess) and it I'm not clear on why - I think the science trials have a lot to do with it - certain people seem to want to 'own' the science side of the horse world - rather than being pleased that IH has worked really hard over the last 10 years to ensure that all our students start to gain a real knowledge of learning theory, behavariourism etc. It's almost like "What right have they?!" "Who do they think they are?!" And of course now that Monty has done a science trial - well - it's sent them into apoplexy!
I think that perhaps it is because whenever someone discusses learning theory on here they are attacked for ‘overanalysing’, and it is suggested that they can only talk the theory and not actually do the practical. One of the very students that you speak so proudly of asks if it is in fact necessary to ‘know the science’ at all, and in the same thread it has been suggested that an excellent way to terminate discussion is to say that behaviourism is mechanistic (valid point) and postmodern theories are much more appropriate for horse training. I’d like some practical examples of the application of post-modern theories of teaching and learning to equines.
Perhaps it is because, in the original statement regarding the science trial, which has since disappeared, one or other of the Dr’s – Fowler, I believe – said that in this trial they wanted to prove how kind Monty’s methods were – science is meant to be objective, if it is to have any credibility at all, and does not (or should not) set out to prove anything.
Perhaps it is because some people believe that the physiological stress response in equines is a little more complicated than – heart-rate up – scared horse; heart-rate down – horse has accepted Monty as leader and feels safe. Perhaps round pen training would have far more credibility if it was explained the learning theory terms that you hold so dear – the horse is positively punished for standing next to the trainer at the start of the session, by being driven to the outside of the pen, where negative reinforcement keeps him, until he starts to show displacement behaviours, as a result of anxiety, at which point the trainer eases the pressure to allow the horse to come in closer. Should the horse actually decide at any point that it does not wish to stay with the trainer, that decision is positively punished by putting the horse to work again, whereas signs that the horse will stay close to the trainer are negatively reinforced. The horse has no genuine choice – it is simply stay near trainer or work. The adaptability of the horse means that it will quickly figure out its best course of action in that situation – but it is not, as Monty and others would have us believe, that the horse is ‘choosing to stay with the trainer because it sees him/her as leader’.
Perhaps there is a question mark over whether the horse truly perceives Monty – or any human – as leader – and some people see the validation of dominance techniques of training based on doubtful ethology as somewhat misleading.
It may be argued that it is unnecessary to raise many of these horses’ heart-rates in this way anyway – and that we should be looking at the heart rate and the horse’s behaviour before the heart rates drop – as well as after. A true comparison would be to teach horses to do similar tasks using a variety of different training techniques.
Certainly I object to the use of a pain-inflicting gadget to prevent ‘bad behaviour’ on an animal whose ‘bad behaviour’ is caused as a result of present pain and fear. And object to the continual use of pressure halters in training, to the point that these things are seen as the ‘norm’. And I am sickened by the propaganda and emotional heart-wringing used to justify these methods when they are challenged.
I don’t think anyone has the right to ‘own’ the science of horse training – in fact horse training needs science very badly – horse owners have the right to understand what works, what doesn’t and why. Perhaps that way the myths and mystique which has surrounded horse training for so long will start to evaporate, and owners can really be empowered to take control of their own horse’s training – and make informed decisions about how they are training. But that science, to my mind, must be credible, and carried out as objectively as possible – and not used simply as publicity, or to attack critics. When the science trials are published in a peer reviewed journal, I will read them and comment on them as objectively as I possibly can. As I have said about other research, they will be one more piece in the puzzle that is horse training.
No one should own the science – but then no one should be shouted down for using science to discuss horse training, either – especially not on a forum that frequently mentions 'science trials', and all the science and research into horse training should be fairly discussed and evaluated, not just the selected studies that support certain viewpoints.
Re: the Cesar Milan book, and no two trainers agreeing, except to disagree – perhaps you would find this link interesting on why the AVSAB certainly don't agree with Mr Milan
www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vmth/small_animal/behavior/pdfs/AVSAB_Dominance_Statement.pdf
I must say there seems to have been a whipping up of the 'anti Monty brigade' just recently (and so IH I guess) and it I'm not clear on why - I think the science trials have a lot to do with it - certain people seem to want to 'own' the science side of the horse world - rather than being pleased that IH has worked really hard over the last 10 years to ensure that all our students start to gain a real knowledge of learning theory, behavariourism etc. It's almost like "What right have they?!" "Who do they think they are?!" And of course now that Monty has done a science trial - well - it's sent them into apoplexy!
I think that perhaps it is because whenever someone discusses learning theory on here they are attacked for ‘overanalysing’, and it is suggested that they can only talk the theory and not actually do the practical. One of the very students that you speak so proudly of asks if it is in fact necessary to ‘know the science’ at all, and in the same thread it has been suggested that an excellent way to terminate discussion is to say that behaviourism is mechanistic (valid point) and postmodern theories are much more appropriate for horse training. I’d like some practical examples of the application of post-modern theories of teaching and learning to equines.
Perhaps it is because, in the original statement regarding the science trial, which has since disappeared, one or other of the Dr’s – Fowler, I believe – said that in this trial they wanted to prove how kind Monty’s methods were – science is meant to be objective, if it is to have any credibility at all, and does not (or should not) set out to prove anything.
Perhaps it is because some people believe that the physiological stress response in equines is a little more complicated than – heart-rate up – scared horse; heart-rate down – horse has accepted Monty as leader and feels safe. Perhaps round pen training would have far more credibility if it was explained the learning theory terms that you hold so dear – the horse is positively punished for standing next to the trainer at the start of the session, by being driven to the outside of the pen, where negative reinforcement keeps him, until he starts to show displacement behaviours, as a result of anxiety, at which point the trainer eases the pressure to allow the horse to come in closer. Should the horse actually decide at any point that it does not wish to stay with the trainer, that decision is positively punished by putting the horse to work again, whereas signs that the horse will stay close to the trainer are negatively reinforced. The horse has no genuine choice – it is simply stay near trainer or work. The adaptability of the horse means that it will quickly figure out its best course of action in that situation – but it is not, as Monty and others would have us believe, that the horse is ‘choosing to stay with the trainer because it sees him/her as leader’.
Perhaps there is a question mark over whether the horse truly perceives Monty – or any human – as leader – and some people see the validation of dominance techniques of training based on doubtful ethology as somewhat misleading.
It may be argued that it is unnecessary to raise many of these horses’ heart-rates in this way anyway – and that we should be looking at the heart rate and the horse’s behaviour before the heart rates drop – as well as after. A true comparison would be to teach horses to do similar tasks using a variety of different training techniques.
Certainly I object to the use of a pain-inflicting gadget to prevent ‘bad behaviour’ on an animal whose ‘bad behaviour’ is caused as a result of present pain and fear. And object to the continual use of pressure halters in training, to the point that these things are seen as the ‘norm’. And I am sickened by the propaganda and emotional heart-wringing used to justify these methods when they are challenged.
I don’t think anyone has the right to ‘own’ the science of horse training – in fact horse training needs science very badly – horse owners have the right to understand what works, what doesn’t and why. Perhaps that way the myths and mystique which has surrounded horse training for so long will start to evaporate, and owners can really be empowered to take control of their own horse’s training – and make informed decisions about how they are training. But that science, to my mind, must be credible, and carried out as objectively as possible – and not used simply as publicity, or to attack critics. When the science trials are published in a peer reviewed journal, I will read them and comment on them as objectively as I possibly can. As I have said about other research, they will be one more piece in the puzzle that is horse training.
No one should own the science – but then no one should be shouted down for using science to discuss horse training, either – especially not on a forum that frequently mentions 'science trials', and all the science and research into horse training should be fairly discussed and evaluated, not just the selected studies that support certain viewpoints.
Re: the Cesar Milan book, and no two trainers agreeing, except to disagree – perhaps you would find this link interesting on why the AVSAB certainly don't agree with Mr Milan
www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vmth/small_animal/behavior/pdfs/AVSAB_Dominance_Statement.pdf