|
Post by portiabuzz on Nov 29, 2009 21:23:21 GMT 1
i do not understand people who are anti monty....its the whole concept of the methods that i admire and want to learn for myself... i do not need science to tell me it works just the horses
|
|
|
Post by Catrin on Nov 29, 2009 21:32:55 GMT 1
… 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. Ooo! I thought Wendy said it in the thread about If you don't understand the scientific lanuage and was making a joke, so I didn't consider it seriously, but the concept is an interesting one. Behavioural theory lays its total emphasis on change in 'observed' behavioural responses, being the sole indicator of learning. This to me is false and is proved many times by people who have learned something, but pretend they 'didn't know.' Maybe the observed behaviour indicates that the person who just parked a car is a member of staff, but I know loads of people who should have walked from the visitor's car park in the rain and hoped they'd not be noticed. Behavioural theory assumes you are not a thinking being. I know that my horse is, today I watched him eat a swede. Having previously seen him lose them in the yard, when he bites a piece off and the rest rolls away, he took his swede into his stable, bit a piece off, decided it was too big and bashed it on the floor until he was left with a small piece in his mouth and another on the stable floor. He told me he learned the trick off a monkey, but I know that isn't true. He is just a horse who at times can think how to get a better outcome. His companion is quite good at binning the behavioural theory too. He eats from one of those round rubber feeders on the floor, so the sugar beet sticks in the edge when he's eating from the middle. Every so often, he lifts the edge of the feeder until it's about three inches off the ground, drops it down and frees the stuck food into the middle. Behavioural theory will get you so far, but is too simplistic to work at the macro level. The idea of postmodernism is not to know what you are not, but to not really know what you are. I find this has so much more to offer horse training. My horses are totally unaware that they can't knit, but can do so much more than they realise. They can flatten the ground when they roll, fertilise the fields with the help of the birds, make me feel good on a dreadful day and take my son to the pub and bring him home without losing his licence. Behavioural theory limits what my horses can do, post modern theory allow them to expand, change, adapt and most of all to be what I see them to be. They are not the mud covered hairy hay eaters that they might appear to be to the passing behaviourists. Well that is very odd. I thought science was all about finding proof for a hypothesis. However, I have never been a 'scientist' like my mother, just a mathematician, so I see things differently. Do we hear a hint of prejudice? Either you don't understand the theory, or you don't understand the process. Whichever it is, you have drawn your own conclusions, based on no objective evidence. I have used exactly the type of process that you criticise, to rear three well balanced mature adults who have used the same methods, successfully so far, with their own children. My friend on the other hand used only positive reinforcement with hers: the oldest is a drug addict, who can't keep a relationship and hasn't seen his six year old child for five years; the youngest, whom she is constantly telling not to drink and drivem my friend just told me, "We can't do anything with." The middle one didn't test the bars of the cage and has fortunately turned out a lovely person. Heart rate is one objective measure and that is the one used in the test to compare 'traditional' training methods with the one's that Monty uses. If you can devise a more appropriate test to do this, I'm sure Dr Fowler and Dr Marlin would be keen to discuss it with you. You also seem to know the results of the tests, though they have yet to be published. It is unnecessary to train and use a horse, I will agree. Just as it is unnecessary for me to keep chickens in my back garden, but it doesn't make either unacceptable or wrong. How does this compare Monty's methods to traditional ones? Me too! Is this an objection to all halters and is it based on anything other than emotion? You can't use a halter without pressure. You can't use a saddle, bridle, roller without pressure. You can't sit on a horse, hold it for the farrier or keep it in a stable without 'pressure.' Don't go to places that make you upset, is my advice. It's a bit like not expecting to soar like an eagle, if you hang around with turkeys. Fortunately no one does own it. That's why it's peer reviewed. I'll look forward to hearing your point of view. After reading all the irrelevant data on global temperatures used to support a dubious and immoral political agenda, I wholeheartedly agree. Isn't it funny how the high profile, very successful and humanely effective trainer that has changed thousands of people and animals' lives for the better, gets all the flack, when there is some dreadful abuse of animals that passes with no comment. That's life I suppose, if you can't do the same then criticise.
|
|
|
Post by Dragonmaster on Nov 29, 2009 21:49:07 GMT 1
Go Catrin! I love your well thought out and eruditely expressed responses.
|
|
|
Post by montana21sky on Nov 29, 2009 21:51:35 GMT 1
Echo Dragonmaster - wow!
|
|
|
Post by wabuska on Nov 29, 2009 22:19:43 GMT 1
Well, this is great.... no shouting down, no abuse.... everything positive, inclusive.... go IH!
|
|
|
Post by horseharmony on Nov 29, 2009 22:32:38 GMT 1
Love the science of the heart thing
|
|
laura
Grand Prix Poster
going for a splash
Posts: 3,867
|
Post by laura on Nov 29, 2009 23:02:51 GMT 1
I found it very useful to have the scientific explantion of how reiki practitioners emit ELF waves to assist healing alongside the traditional training and some of the spiritual explanations ...... but in the "application" I just "let it happen" and go with my instincts. I find sticking to a set pattern a hinderance but some practitioners do better with routine ... but the energy gets through just the same
|
|
|
Post by Yann on Nov 29, 2009 23:10:02 GMT 1
Perhaps certain people spend so much time and effort criticising Monty and IH because the people who are interested in them are the only ones who will take them seriously and engage in discussion with them. Can you imagine the response they'd get on a mainstream board like HHO?
I suspect you don't hear much about what they do with their horses because there isn't actually that much to tell. Or if they do then what they do in practice is probably indistinguishable from the rest of us on here.
|
|
|
Post by highlanderpony2002 on Nov 30, 2009 3:13:59 GMT 1
Perhaps I have a too simplistic view of things I have a science degree I am interested in science but in ley mans terms surely the fact is Monty has brought a great deal of humanity to many peoples ways of handling and dealing with horses and to some extent other animals and people and regardless of whether you believe the hype the advertising and blatent self trumpet blowing the fact is many horses in particular and some children have benefitted from all the hype and passing on of the IH way. If so much as one animal has suffered less because of a simple doctrine wherever it came from originally and that will never be fully known surely it can only be a good thing. Any blinkered and narrow view will stifle progress and new ideas but surely coming from a broad and common sense view IH is one that should be able to make further steps regardless if clinically it cannot be proved in scientific terms.
Modified as although I have a science degree it is blatantly obvious I cannot type
|
|
|
Post by aero on Nov 30, 2009 8:08:38 GMT 1
Succinctly put Catrin... I'm with you all the way on that one..... Also, what an excellent example of discussing and putting your views forward without being rude or putting anyone down. That, in my mind, is how it should be. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by wendyihts on Nov 30, 2009 9:52:36 GMT 1
Nope, what I actually said is below:
There is nothing in that statement to say that one is better than the other, just that one person's approach may be derived from a different philosophical basis.
The 'non-dogmatic forms of thought' part reminds me of why I was drawn in to the IHDG. In the very early days of the DG, people who followed IH methods were being berated for not following the behaviourist approach to training. It was being presented by its proponents as 'the whole story' when it came to Learning Theory, as it is to a good degree these days too. Now, I remember Behaviourism being about term 1 of my psychology A level, and then again something we did in the 1st year of my Behavioural Sciences degree. It's an important perspective and contribution, but it's flawed (it doesn't allow for cognition, or at best relegates it to the sidelines, for example). It's also, fundamentally, a reductionist perspective. It tries to break down complexity, iron out paradoxes, get rid of exceptions to the rule as outliers in its analyses, it denies the reality of living systems, it prefers numbers to feelings and impressions... all those things we started to touch on in years 2 and 3 of the degree, rather more in the Masters and in much more detail in doctoral research, post-doc research and in practice with clients (in my case, human clients).
So, my point is, and always has been, if we're really going to be behavioural scientists, we should be looking at the work of Monty/Kelly and people like them and saying 'what is this? How can we best understand this? What would be a different way of seeing this?' and ask the questions with an open mind. We may even have to change our mind or our perspective. I'd LOVE to see some scientists do some proper qualitative research into the nature of horse/human relationships rather than trying to stick numbers and equations on to one- or two-tailed hypotheses.
As for 'practical examples of the application of post-modern theories of teaching and learning to equines' - well, read Kelly's and Monty's books. If you want to take your study a step further, read many other books of this ilk, go see some demos, get stuck into trying it yourself and then come up with some defining, overarching principles that seem to describe the complexity you see before you.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Nov 30, 2009 10:34:36 GMT 1
Catrin and wendyihts Thankyou!!!!! For me it is a fundamental difference in approach and thanks to you two I have some posh words and an explanation/theory that I feel more at ease with personally. Mta... I do get too emotional especially about behaviourism, mainly though it comes from my inability to argue what I feel in these discussions but now I've learned there is a 'theory' closer to my personal philosophy I feel relieved.
|
|
|
Post by wendyihts on Nov 30, 2009 11:56:09 GMT 1
And you know what, Mandal, the things we should all be really excited about are the things we experience that don't fit ANY theory! Because they might just be the signs that we can make a radical leap in our understanding.
No theory of ANYTHING represents 100% of truth. That's why the debate is still ongoing and people are still learning. Behaviourism fits for some people, it fits their 'truth', who they are and where they are in life and gives them some practical tools. Excellent! It doesn't for others - something else fits. Great!
|
|
|
Post by Rosie J on Nov 30, 2009 12:46:13 GMT 1
i think the best quote i have picked up from uni so far is that you should manipulate your theory to fit the facts - rather than the other way around. As others have said, lets look at the results certain methods get as the 'proof' if you like - lets start from what we KNOW. Lets start from what the horses show us. and work backwards towards understanding 'why' rather than assume we understand the 'why' and therefore can discredit the proof. Not sure if that makes sense to anyone but me... you also mention alternatives tess, if you can show me something which can achieve success on such a wide variety of training aims in such an ethical manner as the methods I have learned from IH, I will start learning it right away. The great thing about IH is, that IS IH! thats the whole point!! On a holistic note - its great that we are all coming from the same place of wanting whats best for the horse, and assessing and reassessing our methods for integrity and kindness as well as efficiency can only be a good thing. Rosie PS - not read everyones thread but id be really interested to know if you have ever been to a demo or on a course to learn about join up tess? (its hard to get tone across on a thread - that really is a genuine question im not being antagonistic!) xx
|
|
|
Post by rj on Nov 30, 2009 13:09:34 GMT 1
Well done gang, your calm consitent approach to the questioning and doubting is, I think, exactly as it would be to a demanding and insecure horse, which continually asks questions, needs answers, and boundaries within which to operate, without antagonism or emotion. Something for all of us to aim towards I think!
|
|