|
Post by Catrin on Jun 11, 2007 18:38:31 GMT 1
Wow - some superb arguments so far, so after fth posts to support Derek in opposition, the floor can voice its opinion.
Please remember that you may post your opinion only ONCE and please could you make it clear at the start whether you support the motion or oppose it.
|
|
|
Post by fth on Jun 11, 2007 22:27:41 GMT 1
sorry -- horsey emergency -- had to take friend's horse to vet!! all ok now afetr panic re colic...just sorting out other hroses will post as soon as get a minute to read the second proposer!!
|
|
laura
Grand Prix Poster
going for a splash
Posts: 3,867
|
Post by laura on Jun 11, 2007 22:32:17 GMT 1
take your time fth .. i i did mine in a rush and several other thoughs I had did a runner Glad friend horse ok now though , we all know the gee gees come first !!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by fth on Jun 11, 2007 23:01:41 GMT 1
Ok here goes the seconder for the opposition: I have tried to keep it brief (for once!!)
some interesting points -- as well as some interesting assumptions.
Punishment: an emotive word. I find it interesting that Laura talks of the difficulty in defining a noun/verb that "involves the intent of the giver as well as the effect on the receiver" -- I would say that is true of ANY training, not just "punishment"...
if training involves encouraging a horse to do certain behaviours or responses, and not do others -- then ALL forms of training involve intent of giver and receiver.
Referring to clicker as not having any punishment basis things become even more interesting: I myself have seen horses who become fearful with clicker training...become horses who repeatedly try to achieve the "right" response -- and become fearful of not giving it...but that is another debate I think...
Now re the second proposers comment that "ignoring unwanted behaviour" is "generally more accepted" as effective training to remove an undesireable behaviour -- yes, it is well known that for SOME types of behaviour "extinction" is very effective
LEts take a look at some ways of increasing or decreasing the frequency of behaviours: negative reinforcement (the removal of a stimulus on an action) positive reinforcement (the presenting of a stimulus on an action) punishment (the presenting of an aversive stimulus on an action) and extinction (the ignoring of an action)
As SKinner stated most eloquently in his original reserach on behaviour and its modification -- ALL THESE ARE EFFECTIVE.
if we define training as creating a horse which will do what we want and not do what we don't want -- we can -- and do-- use any of these four approaches
Now, what is punishment? the presenting of an aversive stimulus on an action...such that the target chooses not to repeat that behaviour.
So what is an aversive stimulus to a horse?
Loudly rattling a can of pebbles when he stands still....so he moves -- THAT can be an aversive stimulus
lightly tapping a shoulder with your hand to stop his actoin of not moving it...that can be an aversive stimulus
using your body energy to block a direction in the round pen -- that can be an aversive stimulus
using a vibration on your rein to stop your horse from leaning on it in a resistance -- that can be an aversive stimulus....
the use of an aversive stimulus NEED NOT NECESSARILY CAUSE FEAR
THat is my MAIN objection to the motion under debate.
Now I could talk about the children I have punished who have not developed fear, but as Laura rightly points out, human reponses are not necessarily a good guide for equine responses.
Punishment is nothing other than the provision of a consequence for an undesireable behaviour.
OF COURSE it behooves us as humans to use ALL FOUR behaviour management categories humanely, intelligently and without abuse...
Now I read the line "we must remember that equines cannot make ratoinal decisions about punishment and fear.....and we cannot explain to them WHY we have caused them pain/discomfort/fear"
wow -- how do we KNOW this? a horse that has been frightened by something will be frightened of htat thing the next time -- this means that the fear has taught him something? so the assumption that horses do not have a rational process is by no means proven
it is the way punishment and fear are so closely linked here -- that there is an assumption that aversive =- painful or frightening that I object to.
let me say again -- punishment does NOT NECESSARILY mean fear or pain!!
it means a dislike, a preference for another action...and we ALL train with this every day.
when we give our children consequences for poor choices, we are punishing them -- are they fearful? in pain?
when we give a HORSE consequences for a poor choice, does that mean they have to be fearful? or in pain?
for my short, somewhat effort-saving mare, an aversive stimulus is MORE WORK...so if she acts in an undesirable manner to me, I will send her away and ask her to WORK -- this is punishment, Now, if she behaves in the DESIRABLE manner -- we stop early, I get off her and she gets to hang out and graze... with the combination of reward for desirable actions, punishment/consequences for undesirable actions -- the learning is FAST and effective and, more to the point, SAFE.
The fact, oft stated, that people get emotional, people do not apply punishment effectively, that people get angry and abuse their horses has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DEBATE!!
My opposition to this motion rests on three solid foundation stones: 1. Punishment -- the use of an aversive stimulus on an action to reduce its frequency -- does NOT NECESSARILY cause fear -- therefore this motion is defeated
2. Punishment -- the use of aversive stimulus to show a horse what we do NOT want them to do is, combined with the positive reinforcement to reward what we WANT Them to do -- an effective way to train horses -- therefore this motion is defeated
3. Punishment is a training tool we are all already using on a daily basis -- so this motion is redundant and therefore is defeated
regards and thanks for the great thread
fth
|
|
|
Post by Catrin on Jun 12, 2007 18:31:44 GMT 1
Thanks to our four very erudite speakers, whose profound and artful comments have given us plenty of thought. The floor is now open.
|
|
Derek Clark
Grand Prix Poster
Olympic Poster
Posts: 1,369
|
Post by Derek Clark on Jun 13, 2007 12:17:59 GMT 1
Wot, no comments! Derek ;D
|
|
|
Post by fth on Jun 13, 2007 18:16:37 GMT 1
Well LizP, Laura, Derek and I obviously wowed them!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2007 18:19:01 GMT 1
I can't work out if we've wowed them, confused everyone or just sent them all to sleep...
|
|
|
Post by Catrin on Jun 13, 2007 18:48:04 GMT 1
Couldn't wait to get in, to read all the comments - can we sum up yet or should we give them a bit longer? ;D
|
|
|
Post by fth on Jun 13, 2007 18:51:26 GMT 1
maybe post another thread giving people 24 hours to repsond to the debate an then put a poll up tomorrow evening!!!
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Jun 13, 2007 18:54:52 GMT 1
The "chipping in only once" rule might be inhibiting some people because they don't want to shoot their bolt prematurely?
I have some comments in mind, but I need a little more time to set them out in a useful way (and it would have been nice to see some other responses first). 'Spose it's too late now that I have spoken...
If this is my only message, however, I would like to say that I think all four speeches were excellent - most thought-provoking!
Francis
P.S. Ok, my main comment is that, although I am strongly inclined to side with Liz and Laura, because their views are very close to my own on the subject, I think the motion is flawed in implying that punishment always creates fear. An effective punisher can be merely unpleasant, surely? Several examples were given by fth, and others could of course be added e.g. poking a colt in the mouth, or pinching his lip, to teach him not to nibble/nip. I don't think this causes fear any more than if he chewed on something which didn't taste nice. Nevertheless, the end result is punishment - i.e. a behaviour is made less likely to occur in that situation again.
Otherwise, I agree with the proposers that deliberately creating fear is not good practice in training horses - even if the intention is to punish in the sense of reducing or stopping an unwanted behaviour. Even worse is creating fearfulness - a persistent state of fear directed towards a particular person, object or situation.
|
|
|
Post by Catrin on Jun 13, 2007 20:21:33 GMT 1
The "chipping in only once" rule might be inhibiting some people because they don't want to shoot their bolt prematurely? I have some comments in mind, but I need a little more time to set them out in a useful way (and it would have been nice to see some other responses first). 'Spose it's too late now that I have spoken... Please be patient with me, I've never organised an on-line debate before I wanted to avoid the 'I didn't mean what he said I said' posts that sometimes appear in controversial topics, rather I wanted to encourage thoughtful posts like we've just had. Ought we to allow two posts then? I would love to hear more of what you wanted to say. Many thanks for getting the ball rolling.
|
|
gillmcg
Grand Prix Poster
Olympic Poster
Posts: 1,948
|
Post by gillmcg on Jun 13, 2007 22:13:47 GMT 1
Have just sat down and read this through from the beginning - what an excellent idea Catrin! Perhaps the reluctance to post is a consequence of the well-considered, eloquent and persuasive arguments put forward - well done you guys! My thoughts:
The dictionary definitions are all well and good but we need to look at the common usage of the key words in the motion, ‘Punishment causes fear and as such has no place in the training of horses’:
Punishment – I would suggest that the common meaning would be ‘an act, after the unwanted behaviour, meant to inflict discomfort/pain that will demonstrate that the behaviour was ‘wrong’.' There are a few problems with this – are we sure that our timing is good enough for the horse to connect the punishment with the behaviour? If not, and I would suggest that 9 times out of 10 it isn’t, then are we not just confusing the horse and building resentment and fear? Is our intention in administering punishment clear to the horse – if it isn’t then why do we do it? Punishment, as eloquently pointed out above, is often more about what the person inflicting it is feeling (anger, embarrassment, fear etc) than any attempt at ‘training’.
Fear – a perception that ‘bad things’ are going to happen! Is fear always a consequence of punishment? May be anthropomorphising (sp?) here but can mostly remember resentment, switching off and avoidance as a consequence of punishment received as a child – could this be the way horses feel? And if it is, is this what we want?
The way the motion is worded makes it difficult for me to form a conclusion myself – well done Catrin! – if it were ‘Punishment has no place in the training of horses’ I would have found it a lot easier….. On balance, I think that I will vote in favour of the motion – if only to ensure that those who are unable/unwilling to fully consider and appreciate the semantics are not encouraged to consider ‘punishment’ , as it's commonly understood, as an acceptable training technique.
|
|
dax
Advanced Poster
Posts: 330
|
Post by dax on Jun 13, 2007 22:35:55 GMT 1
I do love how a horse is supposedly not capable to 'trying it on' but is capable of 'resentment'. If a child does something naughty, you tell them off, if they're rude/cheecky etc. I feel it is the same with a horse. Providing you are accurate in the timing, and I believe it is easy to be accurate, it should reinforce the message 'NO'. I see the dually as punishment, pressure causing discomfort is used to modify the behaviour. It's simple. Others however do not see pressure as punishment for some odd reason. Negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement are just like politically correct words bandied about. A horse is a big animal and has to know the limits. In a herd they will get punished for behaviour which is out of line. I am sure they are still 'friends' with their herdmates. I do not want to be a 50% partner with my horse, then he is trying to make the decisions. The horse has to know the human makes the decision for everyones safety. I think those objecting to punishment don't want to make their horse dislike them. Well...I'm sure the horse would be happier in the wild and all, free, but that's not going to happen..
|
|
|
Post by malikariverbaby on Jun 14, 2007 13:35:12 GMT 1
Well done to everyone for starting such an eloquent and thoughtful debate.
I have sent a couple of days thinking about the motion and I think that other people might need some time before they respond also.
I think that the way that the motion is worded makes it difficult to choose to be either for or against it. I would certainly be against any form of punishment that caused fear but I think that this is too simple. Although for most of us punishment is something 'bad', it can just be a consequence of an action e.g if you touch an iron, you get burnt, if you answer back you might get sent to your room.
As a teacher my job would be impossible if the children were not aware that some actions have consequences. All people involved in the training of horses have to make choice as to which methods they use. People in favour of clicker training use only positive reinforcement. But does that mean that people who use pressure methods, for example Parelli, are punishing their horses and does this punishment cause fear. I think that it is an unrealistic utopia that suggests that living creatures can exist without consequences. It is one of the most basic and easiest methods there is, cause and effect.
All of us on here aim to approach our horses with as much understanding as we can. We read books, discuss our issues on here etc but can we ever claim to really understand what is going on in their minds. As already stated, horses themselves will bite and kick to stop or prevent unwanted behaviour from others. They have certainly tried to use this method of training on me in the past. Kym was always turning his back on me and treatening to kick me when I first got him. Surely when a youngester is punished for 'bad' behaviour by being pushed out of the herd by the head mare, this would cause fear, suggesting that horses themselves are using fear as an effective method.
When I was training to be a teacher we looked at the differences between physical and mental punishment. Most studys showed that children were often left with far greater scars from mental abuse than physical. Again I would like to stress that I don't support any form of cruelty but I also feel that we have arrived at a time when we all fear administering any form of physical 'punishment' however small. (I would also like to state that as a proffessional I do not think that it is the place of teachers to administer physical punishment on children). Before anyone says I am contradicting myself, I see myself a my horses parent and would certainly not be happy if someone else administered any form of physical punishment on my horse. I also do not use physical punishment as a philosophy. But I admit that I have giving River a smack on his mouth after weeks of biting. There is only so much pain I can take.
The modern phenomonon (sp?) of confused and indicisive behaviour with regards to disipline is leading us all down a very dangerous road. As a foster carer and step mother I freely admit that a minimum amount of fear is needed to be effective. I say this to illustrate that there are levels of fear. Respect and fear are often closely related whether we choose to admit it or not. Most of us respect and fear our parents. I try to bring this to my horse training. I want my horse to respect me and if that involves them having a moderate amount of 'fear of consequence' then so be it. I feel that this is realistic and natural. I need them to understand that I am head of the herd. I needed Malika to be confident enough in me to ride her past a burning field, which I did without any whip or harsh word. The strongest and most effective leaders are the ones who can also make the difficult decisions and who don't shy away from them.Indicision and wishy washy forms of training are in themselves a negative form of punishment for a horse and can lead to fear, as they have no idea what it is you want from them. The hardest thing is knowing the time and the place. Giving River a small smack for biting and if I had beaten Malika to go past the flames would not be the same thing. River's punishment was a minor moment in his cheeky life, whereas had I beat Malika she would have suffered from my actions and the consequences would had gone on for years. Likewise I would never appoach Kym with the treat of physical punishment of any kind, as he was serious beaten by his previous owner. Modified for clarity I do believe that physical consequences mostly are the last resort. In pressure methods of training the firmest pressure is the last level. A little tap on the nose is not the same as a beating with a stick. I think there is a very clear difference between what is acceptable and what isn't. I never ride with a whip but if I was really having problems I would consider using a stick collected en route to tap, and I mean only tap, my horse. I am a very gentle person and everyone comments on how gentle my animals are and also how well mannered they are. It is rare that I need to administer any form of 'punishment' but when I do I make a definate decision and stick to it what ever form it takes.
In conclusion (because I must do some housework , a punishment I fear ) I think that punishment is consequence to an action and is not always negative and therefore does not always cause fear. Fear itself is not always a bad thing but that it is a natural and realistic part of animal interaction and experience. Horse training is a complex and personal choice which we base on our experience and knowledge of our animal's breed, personality and previous experiences. We all know what cruelity is and what it is not, therefore I believe that not all 'punishment' causes fear and therefore does a have a place in horse training.
PS. Please don't shout me down for daring to be this honest.
|
|