Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2007 11:09:06 GMT 1
I would like to start this summary in favour of the proposed motion by agreeing with Derek, “It’s clear from reading the original posts and the follow up comments that definitions play a huge role in any conversation such as this.” To my reading, it is clear that many of the posts in opposition to the motion are confusing punishment with negative reinforcement. To quote Yann from another thread, “In dead simple definition terms punishment is where something is added or removed to make a behaviour less likely, negative reinforcement is where something is taken away to make a behaviour more likely.” A good glossary of this and related terms can be found at: www.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/wasserman/Glossary/index%20set.html.
With all due respect, many examples given of punishment, such as the use of the Dually or a leg aid to ask the horse to move in a particular direction, are then NOT punishment but example of negative reinforcement. Blocking a horse from travelling in a certain direction is again not punishment. It is not stopping unwanted behaviour, it is applying body energy to encourage a different behaviour, that of turning.The requests given by those aids are to encourage certain behaviours, rather than to simply stop unwanted behaviour. The stimuli given can be removed once the appropriate response is offered, in other words, negative reinforcement. If those speaking in opposition to the motion are in fact speaking in favour of negative reinforcement, then I would have to come along in complete agreement. Negative reinforcement is and should be an integral part of training horses.
In order to simply stop unwanted behaviour, any stimulus must be to the extent that the choice between performing that behaviour and facing the stimulus, and not performing that behaviour and so avoiding the situmulus must weigh clearly in favour of the latter. Any suggestion that a light situmulus which would not cause any concern – or fear – to a horse would be sufficient to stop unwanted behaviour simply has to be incorrect. A horse that has an urge to bite, for example, will not stop biting because of a gentle tap on the shoulder. A horse that is in the habit of banging his door will not stop because you politely ask him to. In the face of behaviours that require punishment, then, any punishment will need to be at least one stage stronger than the original behaviour in the horse’s mind, otherwise the original behaviour will have the stronger pull for him.
How, if not by causing concern, stress, fear, does punishment work? As Derek says, he “must confess it is difficult to imagine how anyone could be dissuaded from repeating a behaviour or course of action (which presumably seemed attractive beforehand) without the consequence being unpleasant”. It works, surely, by causing concern or anxiety, included in Derek’s definition of fear – with which I agree – or even full on fear, enough to dissuade from doing something that was otherwise attractive or compelling. Surely then, punishment does by definition include concern or anxiety and hence fear.
It is appropriate at this point to mention that I do not believe that all horse training can be done without fear, much as I would love this to be the case. In desensitising, one has to face a fear to overcome it. This, though, is nothing to do with punishment and does therefore not form part of the debate. Rather, I say this to counter Derek’s statement of “the implication in the proposition that “fear has no place in training“. It does, but not in connection with punishment.
The distinction is that the fear created by punishment is of the punisher, not of an unrelated object such as a plastic bag or a puddle. The fear, then, becomes a fear created by the trainer, even of the trainer, rather than a fear used carefully by the trainer with the aim of eliminating it.
My final point has to concern the emotions of horse training. While I applaud fth’s desire to distance punishment from emotion, I wonder to what extent this is realistic. We live in a practical world. Theory is wonderful but when you are with the horse, reality is what counts. I simply cannot work with a horse without emotion. As my emotions are already engaged, surely it is not practical to consider an word such as punishment without its attendant emotions, and without associated concepts such as wrongdoing and retribution.
To conclude, then, I shall refer to the actual wording of the motion before us: Punishment creates fear and as such has no place in the training of horses. For the reasons given above and in my initial support of the motion, punishment does create fear. Even if it is argued that it does not always create fear, it simply cannot be argued that punishment does not or cannot create fear. The fear created by punishment is a fear created by the trainer. It is this that wrong.
To be very picky, one could argue that the phrasing of the motion is a statement of current practice, that punishment currently has no place in the training of horses. We all know, of course, that there are many punitive practices uses with unfortunate regularity on horses. However, I believe the spirit of the wording is that there should be no place for punishment in the training of horses. I am convinced that I have been able to demonstrate this to be the case and would now invite everyone to participate in voting in favour of this motion.
In ending this part of the debate, I would like to thank all who have contributed. In particular, I would like to thank Catrin for her inspiration and organisation, to Derek and fth for their oppositions to the motion and to Laura for her able support in favour of it. I’m sure that I can confidently say that we all come together in agreement to thank everyone who has commented and all of you who have read our words.
With all due respect, many examples given of punishment, such as the use of the Dually or a leg aid to ask the horse to move in a particular direction, are then NOT punishment but example of negative reinforcement. Blocking a horse from travelling in a certain direction is again not punishment. It is not stopping unwanted behaviour, it is applying body energy to encourage a different behaviour, that of turning.The requests given by those aids are to encourage certain behaviours, rather than to simply stop unwanted behaviour. The stimuli given can be removed once the appropriate response is offered, in other words, negative reinforcement. If those speaking in opposition to the motion are in fact speaking in favour of negative reinforcement, then I would have to come along in complete agreement. Negative reinforcement is and should be an integral part of training horses.
In order to simply stop unwanted behaviour, any stimulus must be to the extent that the choice between performing that behaviour and facing the stimulus, and not performing that behaviour and so avoiding the situmulus must weigh clearly in favour of the latter. Any suggestion that a light situmulus which would not cause any concern – or fear – to a horse would be sufficient to stop unwanted behaviour simply has to be incorrect. A horse that has an urge to bite, for example, will not stop biting because of a gentle tap on the shoulder. A horse that is in the habit of banging his door will not stop because you politely ask him to. In the face of behaviours that require punishment, then, any punishment will need to be at least one stage stronger than the original behaviour in the horse’s mind, otherwise the original behaviour will have the stronger pull for him.
How, if not by causing concern, stress, fear, does punishment work? As Derek says, he “must confess it is difficult to imagine how anyone could be dissuaded from repeating a behaviour or course of action (which presumably seemed attractive beforehand) without the consequence being unpleasant”. It works, surely, by causing concern or anxiety, included in Derek’s definition of fear – with which I agree – or even full on fear, enough to dissuade from doing something that was otherwise attractive or compelling. Surely then, punishment does by definition include concern or anxiety and hence fear.
It is appropriate at this point to mention that I do not believe that all horse training can be done without fear, much as I would love this to be the case. In desensitising, one has to face a fear to overcome it. This, though, is nothing to do with punishment and does therefore not form part of the debate. Rather, I say this to counter Derek’s statement of “the implication in the proposition that “fear has no place in training“. It does, but not in connection with punishment.
The distinction is that the fear created by punishment is of the punisher, not of an unrelated object such as a plastic bag or a puddle. The fear, then, becomes a fear created by the trainer, even of the trainer, rather than a fear used carefully by the trainer with the aim of eliminating it.
My final point has to concern the emotions of horse training. While I applaud fth’s desire to distance punishment from emotion, I wonder to what extent this is realistic. We live in a practical world. Theory is wonderful but when you are with the horse, reality is what counts. I simply cannot work with a horse without emotion. As my emotions are already engaged, surely it is not practical to consider an word such as punishment without its attendant emotions, and without associated concepts such as wrongdoing and retribution.
To conclude, then, I shall refer to the actual wording of the motion before us: Punishment creates fear and as such has no place in the training of horses. For the reasons given above and in my initial support of the motion, punishment does create fear. Even if it is argued that it does not always create fear, it simply cannot be argued that punishment does not or cannot create fear. The fear created by punishment is a fear created by the trainer. It is this that wrong.
To be very picky, one could argue that the phrasing of the motion is a statement of current practice, that punishment currently has no place in the training of horses. We all know, of course, that there are many punitive practices uses with unfortunate regularity on horses. However, I believe the spirit of the wording is that there should be no place for punishment in the training of horses. I am convinced that I have been able to demonstrate this to be the case and would now invite everyone to participate in voting in favour of this motion.
In ending this part of the debate, I would like to thank all who have contributed. In particular, I would like to thank Catrin for her inspiration and organisation, to Derek and fth for their oppositions to the motion and to Laura for her able support in favour of it. I’m sure that I can confidently say that we all come together in agreement to thank everyone who has commented and all of you who have read our words.