Caroline
Grand Prix Poster
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 2,277
|
Post by Caroline on Dec 23, 2011 13:07:29 GMT 1
Oh boy - that was meant to be a short post, but my fingers ran away with me!
|
|
|
Post by Yann on Dec 23, 2011 13:38:07 GMT 1
No, interesting post, especially the bit about submissive people being effective with horses using CT.
I'm not sure if we're tripping over definitions again though, as this is largely the point that was being made as far as I can see. The only qualification would be that dominance and submission (in the way he defines them) are a perfectly normal part of any relationship between social animals and are necessary for it to function. As far as I can see it that's certainly true if we own horses and ask them to work for us, and even if we don't there will be circumstances where they have to do something they'd prefer not to, undergo vet treatment for example, or even something like coming out of the field off the grass for health reasons.
Although it was gently done I'd still class the join up you describe as an act of dominance as well as communication, but that doesn't mean there was anything bad about it, sounds like the trainer was just saying 'pay attention to me, I matter'. The join ups I saw done by Kelly a few years ago were very much more in that vein, like a lot of these things it's not just the tool but how you use it.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Dec 23, 2011 14:06:41 GMT 1
Yes very interesting and thought provoking post Caroline. I think your points about humans natural tendencies and horses natural tendencies is a very valid one. In all this is the human and horses experiences and learning are also part of the equation and a 'good' experienced trainer is able to adapt and move the feel of any encounter to communicate more effectively or create a mood where the interaction becomes more meaningful and less stressful which in itself is learning about each other for both parties. Learning to play a violin comes to mind as an analogy. She tells me that the first thing that is needed is a genuine fearlessness and showing just love. Meeting aggression with aggression is never going to go in the human's favour with an animal as big and powerful as a horse! A horse that has hitherto controlled humans with their aggression towards them can be quite surprised when they meet someone that isn't afraid, isn't asking anything and is just radiating love towards them. They sometimes think about that a while and then are open to a more communication based interaction. I do think this is important too. Need to mull it over more.
|
|
|
Post by Yann on Dec 23, 2011 14:19:37 GMT 1
I think there's still an important interaction going on even if the fearless person isn't doing anything active other than perhaps deflecting the aggression if necessary. They're not yielding physically in any significant way, and they're certainly not yielding mentally which is something horses seem to see a lot of significance in. The horse that gets the water trough when it wants it isn't always the biggest or strongest for example.
|
|
|
Post by mudlark on Dec 23, 2011 16:15:01 GMT 1
The Natural Dog Training movement makes a big deal about the fact that dominance theories are based on the behaviour of stressed captive wolves, and that wolves in the wild rarely exhibit this behaviour. See for instance leecharleskelleysblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/is-your-dog-dominant-or-just-feeling.htmlI like this distinction in relation to dogs, and I like the way that NDT focuses on pack-predator psychology as a way of fixing problem barkers, cat-chasers and aggressive dogs, by giving them games which let them express their predator energy and channel it into less anti-social behaviour. Trying to be dominant is pointless, goes this theory. Dogs (and horses) are domesticated animals, rather than wild or captive, which means that we can use our understanding of their instincts to intervene in their lives. It doesn't mean that we have to act like we're a member of the same species as them - as if they'd be fooled anyway! Like Pony-Nutt I'm wary of reading across from dogs/wolves into horses. I like IH because it focuses on prey-animal psychology, and that's very different to pack-predator psychology as far as I understand it. But what I do find interesting is that both IH and NDT focus on games as a way of re-setting the human-animal relationship. I wonder if it's the sense that human and animal are working on something shared (and rewarding for both) which gets you 'on the same page' as your horse/dog? Is this mechanism also at work in clicker training? Parelli? I like Mark Rashid's observations about passive leadership in herds, and I've seen this working for myself - as Yann says, it's not the biggest and strongest that rules the herd, so what is the key factor? Fearlessness? Or being smart, consistent, reliable, co-operative? Those last four are often the markers for good leaders in the homo sapiens species!
|
|
|
Post by rifruffian on Dec 23, 2011 16:29:17 GMT 1
I suggest that the key factor is wisdom.
|
|
ap2
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 168
|
Post by ap2 on Dec 24, 2011 23:19:49 GMT 1
Even clicker training uses a lot of dominance as you are controlling the food resource, controlling resources being a definition of dominance.
Adam
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Moy on Dec 25, 2011 1:08:50 GMT 1
Caroline - very interesting. I read somewhere that lead mares often rank somewhere in the middle of observed heirarcies (though I also understand that due to the complexities of equine relationships heirarchies are oftena blurred), which would support what you are saying about influence being related to perceived role. I also read something by Temple Grandin where she had observed that family units of wild wolves did not display the overt dominant behaviours of wolves who were brought together to form a group, and that the young wolves even when adult did not challenge their parents. So I think that there is defintiely something in what you say about putting yourself into a role that generates authority/compliance that does not neccesarily involve overt displays of dominance.
|
|
|
Post by portiabuzz on Dec 26, 2011 23:36:58 GMT 1
Phew just finished reading...i do think of dominance to be a bad thing, with horses or any animal or other people...have i missed the point?
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Dec 27, 2011 15:38:27 GMT 1
I'm still trying to get to grips with what Roger Abrantes is doing when he substitutes "social-aggression" for "aggression", "social-threat" for "threat" and "social-fear" for "fear". I don't think he is saying that e.g. "social-aggression" is not actually aggressive, but it seems to be toned-down version (though what one sees with horses in relation to dominance may appear quite brutal at times). What does this mean for our interactions with horses? For me, it keeps coming back to that question. Does it mean that people who use threats and aggression can continue to do so, as long as it's in a 'social' way? How do we ensure our actions are not misinterpreted when we aren't horses ourselves? Even clicker training uses a lot of dominance as you are controlling the food resource, controlling resources being a definition of dominance. Hmm, I'm not so sure about that, Adam. My impression is that, as CT is typically done, the food rewards appear out of nowhere as far as the horse is concerned, and he doesn't have any notion of a finite food 'resource' that the person is guarding. In that sense, it is very different from the 'natural' situation where the food is in front of him but you are preventing access using body language. Having treats in a bag or pocket and delivering them straight to the horse's mouth (so to speak) doesn't have anything like the aura of conflict associated with saying, effectively, "Here's your food, but I'm not going to let you have it!" In reply to Francis Burton... That depends on your current thinking. I don't think this is new anyway, is it? Dominance being only aggressive was new to me. Dominance being bad or cruel was new to me. Denying dominance exists in animal groups was new to me. Denying there are hierarchies of one form or another however fleeting and fluid was new to me. Denying we are dominant was new to me. Just to be clear, Mandal - I don't believe I ever said I thought dominance was bad or cruel (though attempts to emulate it by humans may be), or that dominance or hierarchies don't exist (though they may be more or less hard to see in practice). However, I do think that threats of aggression, if not overt aggression, are central to establishing dominance and that may be problemmatic if translated into human actions directed towards horses. Whether or not we are actually dominant to a horse depends on your definition of dominance, of course. If you are "in control", are you necessarily dominant? I don't think so, because I believe the social aspect is a crucial ingredient (as does Abrantes, if I have read him correctly). Assuming that to be the case, we may or may not be dominant depending on whether the horse perceives us as participating in dominance as a social process. That may be the case, but imo it doesn't have to be.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Dec 29, 2011 17:15:16 GMT 1
Just to be clear, Mandal - I don't believe I ever said I thought dominance was bad or cruel (though attempts to emulate it by humans may be), or that dominance or hierarchies don't exist (though they may be more or less hard to see in practice). However, I do think that threats of aggression, if not overt aggression, are central to establishing dominance and that may be problemmatic if translated into human actions directed towards horses. Whether or not we are actually dominant to a horse depends on your definition of dominance, of course. If you are "in control", are you necessarily dominant? I don't think so, because I believe the social aspect is a crucial ingredient (as does Abrantes, if I have read him correctly). Assuming that to be the case, we may or may not be dominant depending on whether the horse perceives us as participating in dominance as a social process. That may be the case, but imo it doesn't have to be. Fair enough Francis Burton. I've thought about this a great deal and wavered in my thinking about dominance since discussions regarding horse/human relationships. In the end I see dominance as control, it can be aggressive but control isn't necessarily aggressive. I have to think of it this way so it fits in with all other uses of the word. For example, we are often deemed the dominant species on the planet, I believe because we control so much and other species but not always with aggression... We have other words for aggressive leaders such as tyrant and dictator, why, if dominant/dominance is only aggressive? Even dictators have various methods of dictating... Even clicker training uses a lot of dominance as you are controlling the food resource, controlling resources being a definition of dominance. Hmm, I'm not so sure about that, Adam. My impression is that, as CT is typically done, the food rewards appear out of nowhere as far as the horse is concerned, and he doesn't have any notion of a finite food 'resource' that the person is guarding. I can't agree here because I don't believe that horses don't connect the reward with human's giving(controlling) them. I don't believe horses see the reward as"coming out of nowhere". CT begins with training not to mug doesn't it? If horses didn't make the connection between human's giving and the treat then there would be no mugging surely? In human terms(theory) the food resource may not be considered finite but how do we know how the horse perceives it? Surely if horses never saw food we gave as finite we wouldn't see aggression between horses at feed time? If they knew more was coming why argue? I see CT as dominant myself because we are totally controlling (trying to/training) the behaviour we want the horse to display.We call the shots... desired behaviour=treat. Incorrect/other behaviour= no treat.
|
|
|
Post by Kelly Marks on Dec 30, 2011 16:32:49 GMT 1
Wouldn't it be great if we could do some sort of 'trial' on this?! But 'when internet arguements turn bad' they end up with 'well I know my horse is happier than your horse' type thing and I've heard the same sort of thing with working mothers versus non working mothers, and that one 'yes that person may be rich and beautiful but they can't be really happy ...' So obviously no horse (or person) wants to live with pain, fear and lack of the basic needs (5 Freedoms) but possibly after that it's consistency that's the most important to the horse i.e. horse conversation 'my owner insists I back up when she opens the gate/barn door whatever keeps her happy' - er... not that I ever anthropomorphise of course!
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Dec 30, 2011 17:23:10 GMT 1
I've thought about this a great deal and wavered in my thinking about dominance since discussions regarding horse/human relationships. In the end I see dominance as control, it can be aggressive but control isn't necessarily aggressive. I have to think of it this way so it fits in with all other uses of the word. For example, we are often deemed the dominant species on the planet, I believe because we control so much and other species but not always with aggression... We have other words for aggressive leaders such as tyrant and dictator, why, if dominant/dominance is only aggressive? Even dictators have various methods of dictating... Fair enough Amanda. I'm all for control - and if it can be gentle, considerate, respectful, non-violent, etc. so much the better! I personally won't call it 'dominance' though, because for me dominance has a different and rather specific meaning to do with "behavior displayed by an individual with the function of gaining or maintaining temporary access to a particular resource" (to quote Abrantes). You make some very good and challenging points! I agree that in CT we are controlling. (The extent to which the control is total depends, I think, on the style and skill of the trainer.) As I said above, though, I am unwilling to call it, or equate it with, dominance. As for how the horse perceives the food used in CT, I think that definitely is up for discussion - or even some kind of trial, as Kelly suggested! I didn't want to be dogmatic in what I wrote because I really don't know for sure what the horse is thinking(!) - I was simply giving my impression/intuition. The main reason why I think horses view food treats in the typical CT scenario differently than in food guarding/competition is that their behaviour is quite different in the two situations, particularly in the amount of aggressive and conflict behaviours. Allowing a bit of anthropomorphism, horses appear to enjoy CT sessions -- at least when it's done well -- whereas they don't look to me as if they are enjoying themselves when displacing subordinates off e.g. a food pile or being displaced by a dominant.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Dec 30, 2011 18:03:02 GMT 1
But 'when internet arguements turn bad' they end up with 'well I know my horse is happier than your horse' type thing and I've heard the same sort of thing with working mothers versus non working mothers, and that one 'yes that person may be rich and beautiful but they can't be really happy ...' I've come to terms with some assuming my horses are all unhappy, "dominated" and always fighting. I believe consistency and clarity are important aspects to learning and communication. How we achieve this rapport and understanding is imo down to personal preferences and personal ethics. Cruelty comes in many guises and many are not actively aggressive or aggressively controlling. Francis Burton, I completely understand you not being able to see dominance as I do. I am not a scientist or have studied learning theory in any depth. I have just made my sense of the world as I see it in human words without having learned a precise definition of some of those words. I find it hard to compartmentalize things, to me everything is connected and one word has to make sense in all it's contexts to be useful to me. I am sorry I cause so much confusion in all this though. I have a simple mind and numerous meanings for words depending on context are hard for me to take on board without intense confusion because it always depends. Just thinking about dominance with regard to controlling food. Do horses give food to each other? I haven't observed this behaviour. I have observed horses taking and asking to share and being allowed to share when asked but I have not noticed/seen active giving of food? Has anyone else? How does it play out? Is this relevant? I've got lots rolling around in my head and am trying to sort my thoughts. Be very afraid. ;D Kelly, what aspect do you think would be interesting to study in particular? I wasn't clear there.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Dec 30, 2011 18:57:16 GMT 1
You make some very good and challenging points! I agree that in CT we are controlling. (The extent to which the control is total depends, I think, on the style and skill of the trainer.) As I said above, though, I am unwilling to call it, or equate it with, dominance. As for how the horse perceives the food used in CT, I think that definitely is up for discussion - or even some kind of trial, as Kelly suggested! I didn't want to be dogmatic in what I wrote because I really don't know for sure what the horse is thinking(!) - I was simply giving my impression/intuition. The main reason why I think horses view food treats in the typical CT scenario differently than in food guarding/competition is that their behaviour is quite different in the two situations, particularly in the amount of aggressive and conflict behaviours. Allowing a bit of anthropomorphism, horses appear to enjoy CT sessions -- at least when it's done well -- whereas they don't look to me as if they are enjoying themselves when displacing subordinates off e.g. a food pile or being displaced by a dominant. I don't mean to be challenging, just explaining my take. In CT, in my none expert opinion, we are in total control of the reward but as in any training we are not in total control of the horse. We alone choose when to give or with hold the treat. Many feel the horse feels in control and this in itself is a motivator. I am unconvinced myself that the horse feels in control but I do feel the horse is more motivated when it knows how to get more food/treats. Is this the same? We still totally control the resource if not the animal, there is no aggression involved on the part of the human of course. For me control in CT depends on the eagerness of the horse for the reward and in the quality of learning the horse is getting from the trainer, so, as you say the skill of the trainer is also crucial. I don't see CT as having only one effect or mechanism. CT sessions are generally held privately I believe so the only competitor the horse may have is the human. Also the horse has the human's undivided attention. I wonder what would happen if one of the piles of food was effectively guarded by a human for one horse to eat without fear of challenge? What happens in CT done in a group of horses? I don't think a training session can be compared directly to herd dynamics... I do however think food has a very strong effect on horses born out of a basic need for survival and I believe we should consider this aspect when retraining 'bad' behaviours especially.
|
|