Should we TELL you or inform you?

[Kelly Marks]

I had an idea for the LP that we would let peope give their side for a situation. After all you're part of "Intelligent" Horsemanship!
Someone was very offended that we would consider anything other than their side of a 'situation' and felt we should just put their point of view forward.

I haven't made any decision as yet but I'm interested in what people think. Should we have equal space on a page in the Listening Post for and against various things like say, clicker training, branding, parelli, full time stabling, join up and the type of things that crop up on the DG?

Would you get each person to write 'blind' to the other side - or would they have to see what the other had written (then it could go on indefinitely though!)

[laurac]

definetely have both (or more) sides of the story i think
readers can make up their own minds

[arabmania]

i personally think that the most honest opinions are told 'blind'.
After all its not about upsetting someone with a different opinion to yourself, but rather about giving a honest account of ones opinion.
for or against a subject. Nothing is deemed as being 'set up' as neither is aware of the others prior to print.
Readers can then use their own imaginations and experiences on what lies well with them.
'intelligent' never takes things at face value and will usually go away, think, apply, process, assess,evaluate then make an opinion.

[sarahbing]

Mmm, writing blind would be less confrontational and less reactive, but maybe the writers could have a 'right to reply' to specific points raised by the other in a subsequent edition?

There is scope for some very informative discussions here, great idea

[cookie]

I think it's a great idea to get both sides of any arguement.

I think I would try and keep both parties on task by asking them to address a few key themes of the topic. That way, hopefully, you can get both sides to a topic without engineering it too much...

[mandal]

Jan 14, 2011 22:43:12 GMT 1 Kelly Marks said:

I had an idea for the LP that we would let peope give their side for a situation. After all you're part of "Intelligent" Horsemanship!
Someone was very offended that we would consider anything other than their side of a 'situation' and felt we should just put their point of view forward.

I haven't made any decision as yet but I'm interested in what people think. Should we have equal space on a page in the Listening Post for and against various things like say, clicker training, branding, parelli, full time stabling, join up and the type of things that crop up on the DG?

Would you get each person to write 'blind' to the other side - or would they have to see what the other had written (then it could go on indefinitely though!)

Mmmmm, interesting. The difficulty with some of the topics you have mentioned here is that there aren't always 'sides' there are differing opinions on specific points if that makes sense. This could foster divides if not handled carefully and as you suggest some topics could run and run with a reply option.

If it's done I think it should be blind and be 'a personal view'. Unless you are thinking of making it more like a debate?

[happysnail]

It is a tricky one. I was very dismissive of anyone but Monty, but to be honest the more I've learned, the more I've become a magpie. If you can explore the psychology, physiology, learning theory etc you can make an informed choice about what works with your philosophy of horsemanship and apply it to the individual horse you're working with. I think it's also a dynamic process as the key is that you're always learning instead of just working through techniques. Articles on the alternatives would be really interesting and it would also be useful to have opinions on why it is or isn't compatible with the IH.

[petethebee]

Hi Kelly,
Sounds a bit like it could turn into a "can-of-worms", depending upon the subject. The DG is probably the best place for this sort of discussion. Perhaps more emphasis should be given to publicising the DG within the pages of LP and then many more people could join in if they so wish.
My daughter who is also a member of IH did not realise the DG existed until I told her about it.
If there is a particularly interesting discussion on the DG then perhaps relevant info. could be extracted and put it into the LP.
We all know there are "Lurkers" out there who never enter a discussion, but then they may be shy like me.

[mmel001]

I think it's a good idea and I think the blind option would be best. I do think giving each side the right to reply would be valuable as well. It would be interesting to hear people's experience of what works and what doesn't work for them.

Take the Parelli debate on here, there were people who feel that Parelli has done great things for them, and others who feel that it doesn't work. What would be interesting to hear is an explanation of what worked and how it worked, what effect it had etc from those who have had success. Those that don't agree it works could give a break down of what didn't work, how it didn't work and what effect it had. Without making it emotive.

Clicker training, some people have great success with it, some people don't find it works with their horses. Again breaking down what does and doesn't work from people's experience rather than people's opinions would be great to hear. Of course, what works for one horse may not work for another, but it would be great to let people have as close to an unbiased experience based account as possible!

Just my 2p!

[ely511]

Another mostly lurker here! I was reading down the posts and had my own thoughts in mind, then I came to Petethebee's post and it was almost exactly what I was thinking.

I feel the Listening Post is the Intelligent Horsemanship's voice and I would expect the views expressed in there to be from the that viewpoint and it is what I, personally, want to read in the magazine. However, I think it would be very much in the open spirit of IH to invite discussion/other points of view on the DG. You could perhaps even have a separate forum specifically for discussions arising from various articles.

[mandal]

Jan 15, 2011 16:12:32 GMT 1 ely511 said:

You could perhaps even have a separate forum specifically for discussions arising from various articles.

I think this is a good suggestion. I've wanted to discuss the odd article in the past.

Re... should you TELL us or inform us... you can TELL me all you like Kelly but if it doesn't make sense or feel right to me I may well shelve it for the time being.

[cookie]

Hmm, a very good point by ely511 regarding LP being 'the voice' of 'IH'. From that pov you really wouldn't want to dilute the message.

So, reflecting on my orig post, I'm all fir debate and hearing different sides of a story, but perhaps in the pages of LP isn't the right place...

[Derek Clark]

Hi Kelly,

I think that's a decision for you alone.

Do you want to influence opinion; in which case publish only views that support what you believe, or do you wish to educate and inform; in which case publish all viewpoints.

Tough being in charge, innit? ;D

Best wishes,

Derek

[Deleted]

I think I'd be interested in hearing the 'IH' viewpoint and an alternative view. I'd suggest doing them blind so that each can set out what they see to be the most pertinent points. I'd avoid the replies because that's what this DG is for.

Don't forget this thread isn't just about training methods (I noticed most people have picked up on clicker and parelli) - it applies to hoofcare, stabling and turnout regimes, complimentary therapies etc too, so it's not necessarily about two opposing views - they could just be different.

[mandal]

I think it might be difficult for IH to have a stance on many issues except those of outright cruelty or neglect because often it's a case of thinking through any problems and working in a way that suits you and the horse at that time.

This is where I really like IH, it doesn't bind me to any particular techniques or methodology but has fostered a questioning and thinking outside the box mentality in me. IH gives a good basic teaching and then is open to all horse centred/friendly training.

Babbling a bit but I'm trying to say that I don't think IH has a stance on many things that are not 'bad' or unsafe for the horse or human. Or does it?