|
Post by rosemaryhannah on Jan 3, 2011 23:23:53 GMT 1
This week I was watching my two and a bit year old twin grandchildren and my very nearly two year old grand daughter with a variety of my animals. My grandson is totally unafraid of the whole lot - happily feeding the ponies from his flat hand, the sheep, etc etc. His sister is more cautious and their cousin a bit timid. The net result is the animals flock to the wee lad, and seem instantly happy to be careful of him (needless to say an adult is standing with him the whole time, usually holding him and we have one adult per child, often more!). They are more cautious and at the same time behave with more barging with the others. It was a lesson in body language. (Of which my little grandson is totally unconscious)
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 3, 2011 23:53:21 GMT 1
Lol, careful you don't do yourself a mischief in your excitement Ghostrider. I Dominance - I don't think it's an unempathic force to 'control', because (the way I see it) it is rather limited in achieving any kind of control of horses! Control of resources, yes, but not of what other horses do. All the dominant can make a subordinate do is go away or get out of the way. That's all! Useful in some situations - though I would argue that you can teach or make horses do that without being dominant (e.g. pretend to be a predator). But to get a horse to follow you into a trailer, say - could a dominant horse ever do that?! I don't equate dominance with predatorial/being a predatior though. Dominance to me is ultimate control, I don't see it purely with regard to resources. Am I a 'leader' when I insist my horses stay within my home boundries by fencing them in? If I'm not exerting dominance then what am I exerting? Control? I know the behavioual meaning is fight, fight, fight over resources but to me that isn't the whole story. So if dominance is controlling movement I am being dominant by fencing my horses in surely? And if displaying dominance doesn't inspire liking or trust or obedience - which I don't see any evidence for it doing - what is it good for apart from making sure you get and keep the hay or feed, or get first drink at the waterhole? (Admittedly those are important when food/water/breeding rights are scarce!) I don't agree. I have observed my horses exerting dominance by moving each other and very close bonds seem to have been formed primarily though this. Two of my horses who I have never observed engaing in affiliative behaiour, but a lot of moving around goes on, become a anxious when separted sometimes. Why? OK it's been hinted at that (on Forums) my horses must be abberant and always be fighting when I describe what I observe so perhaps they are and I'm observing abberant behaviours? Given that horses can be 'leaders' without also being dominant (sorry but I have to put the word in inverted commas because it really isn't the same for horses and humans), then what purpose does dominance serve in addition to the above? Dominance and dominant personality are not the same to me. I see dominance as the driver and way in which horses stay cohesive and build relationships in society. I certainly do not believe it is the only thing going on though but I see it as fundamental in all aspects of life. What is the differenvce between horse 'leaders' and human 'leaders'? Surely a leader is a leader and has qualities that extend throughout all species? Leader is a word that implys attributes or qualities isn't it? Maybe it doesn't with my definition, but does with yours - in which case I need to try and understand what you mean by dominance a bit better! I have tried to explain on a few occasions and can see why you dislike the term used in horse behaviour but I don't have a problem with it because dominance is just a fact of my life, it is nether good or bad it just is to me. We've been here before and I still struggle to explain myself. My aim is certainly NOT to be a dominant horse though. I certainly would not expect any horse follow me anywhere trying to be a dominant horse! lol So what am I to my horses in a 'whole' sense not just a behavioual sense? What word would you use? Leader doesn't do it for me in an holistic sense I'm afraid. Mta. Found this definition of leader so perhaps that really is what I aim tobe in an holistic sense. (2) : a person who has commanding authority or influence
|
|
|
Post by silverrocn on Jan 4, 2011 1:10:59 GMT 1
Just to clarify, I didn't mean that we should feel guilty about the way we treat our horses OR because we feel that sometimes we must 'make' them do something (ie: Yann saying there must be some 'has to' in the relationship).
Yes, we want the horse to do as we ask preferably when or very soon after we ask it!! But the path to getting the horse to respond in a soft willing manner, I feel, is to make sure he is calm and focused on me and not got his head and thoughts elsewhere because he is anxious.
I always work towards something in little steps not forcing the issue because I had a particular goal today, if things don't go to plan then I back up a step and make sure things end in a relaxed and calm manner.
I can see that that is not the way most people want to work, I am not criticizing or suggesting that you should all feel guilty, it is food for thought that is all.
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Jan 4, 2011 17:10:31 GMT 1
I don't equate dominance with predatorial/being a predatior though. Neither do I. The example I gave was one way to make a horse move away from you without being dominant. I like the word 'control' - simple, means what it says, and not loaded with any potentially misleading equine social connotations. Plus it doesn't make any assumptions about the how of it. Well, I wouldn't say so - I would consider fencing to be a different kind of control. You raise an interesting point though. 'Controlling feet' is often said to be at the core of establishing dominance over a horse. However, there is a variety of ways that one can determine or influence a horse's movement oneself (excluding external stuff like fencing, horse-walkers or even leadropes). Acting in a dominant fashion, as an alpha would towards a subordinate, is one. Then there is: acting predatorially, blocking, coordination (something Hempfling demonstrates rather well), initiation of following, attraction by being seen as a source of togetherness or food or safety or some other comfort, stimulating curiosity, and of course as a simple response to a taught cue. I think it's an oversimplification to assume these are all linked to dominance and doing so is bound to skew the way one thinks about the relationship with horses and how one interacts with them. So which of the pair is dominant? I don't think one can label something as dominance, at least in the scientific sense, if it isn't fairly obvious there's a dominant and subordinate individual involved (even if their relationship were to change at some point), because that's an important part of how it's defined. I think two horses can have a bond of something - 'friendship', or dependency? - even if they don't (or rarely) engage in overtly affiliative activies like mutual grooming and frequently show grumpy or pushy behaviour towards each other. I knew a pair of pony mares - a Highland called Misty and a New Forest called Filly - which sound just like the two horses you described. As it happens they were alpha and beta in the group (and although it wasn't so obvious who was at the top of the dominance hierarchy just be watching them in the field, Filly clearly had the edge if it came to a showdown over feed). However, they were good pals too and never wandered very far from each other. Regrettably they were also rather horrid to the other ponies. Perhaps a greater tendency to show aggression can colour the interaction between dominant 'friends'. Another random thought... I wouldn't necessarily assume that a lack of some typical affiliative behaviours - I'm thinking of mutual grooming in particular - indicates a lack of affiliation. Enjoying and/or wanting to stay near to each other would be enough. I knew another pony who simply didn't seem to enjoy mutual grooming. I don't remember him ever initiating it or participating for more than a very short time if it was 'imposed' on him. However, he was still a very 'social' pony with definite friends and attachments. No, I wouldn't like to assume that! I can't see anything 'attractive' about showing dominance when its effects are so clearly 'repulsive'! That a dominant horse repels subordinates might even be considered divisive, although there are clearly other forces at work to create social cohension, such as the instinctive desire/need to be with other horses that is evident soon after a foal is born. I guess I'm struggling to understand how dominance is separated from a dominant personality that manifests in showing dominance over others. Yes, I agree 'leader' implies a whole range of different qualities, but they are not necessarily uniform across species. A major difference between horse and human leaders is whether the leader demands or expects respect and obedience. I don't see behaviour in horses that can only be explained by 'respect for authority'; nor do I believe horses think in those terms. To my mind, leadership is much more passive in horses. I don't mean this in the same way as Mark Rashid does. He uses the word 'passive' to describe the qualities of the horse - I'm talking about the way it is decided, viz. how leadership arises. Human leaders may actively seize leadership or impose it on others, and this may be accepted because people admire or respect a strong leader. With horses, this doesn't appear to happen; rather, it looks like leaders are chosen, typically resulting in some kind of herd consensus. Does the chosen 'leader' then command anything at all? I don't think so, and the others are always free to change who they follow. That's why I tend to prefer the word 'followership' - it seems to represents the relationship more accurately, and avoids the implication that the leader imposes her/his will over the others. Well, as a fact of horse life, it's not good or bad to me either. What I do have a problem with is that the idea can be twisted to explain or justify people behaving towards horses in ways that are - in my opinion - ugly, unpleasant and unnecessary. I think this latest exchange has been helpful, going some way to clarify our respective points of view. We do seem to agree on a lot of the practical implications of our theories, even if the language we use differs. Good question! Tricky question too - you're wanting a single word to cover all aspects of the relationship. 'Leader' doesn't do it for me either. Hmm, I can't think of one word that says it all. Do we need one? What do other people think? Not sure I like the sound of "commanding authority", even if it sometimes applies to humans dealing with horses!
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 4, 2011 17:19:24 GMT 1
I knew a pair of pony mares - a Highland called Misty and a New Forest called Filly - which sound just like the two horses you described. As it happens they were alpha and beta in the group (and although it wasn't so obvious who was at the top of the dominance hierarchy just be watching them in the field, Filly clearly had the edge if it came to a showdown over feed). However, they were good pals too and never wandered very far from each other. Regrettably they were also rather horrid to the other ponies. Perhaps a greater tendency to show aggression can colour the interaction between dominant 'friends'. I'm reading your post with great interest but have to quickly ask what you mean when referring to "alpha and beta in the group"?
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Jan 4, 2011 17:27:46 GMT 1
I'm reading your post with great interest but have to quickly ask what you mean when referring to "alpha and beta in the group"? No problem, Mandal. Sloppy terminology perhaps - all I meant was top and second-from-top of the dominance hierarchy. I didn't study this in detail, but it was fairly easy to see that all the other ponies moved out of the way of both Filly and Misty, and that Filly was dominant over Misty. Interestingly (perhaps), both Misty and Filly behaved like bullies towards the others when they felt like it, but Filly hardly ever bullied Misty - it took food to provoke aggressive behaviour between them. Leadership (or followership) was a bit more complicated... and my memory of the details may not be 100% accurate.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 4, 2011 17:56:51 GMT 1
Now I'm completely confused I'm afraid. I was under the impression that dominace hierarchy was no longer something you and others think actually exists in horses society? I seem to definitely have some sort of brain/thinking/understanding disorder.
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Jan 4, 2011 18:13:21 GMT 1
Now I'm completely confused I'm afraid. I was under the impression that dominace hierarchy was no longer something you and others think actually exists in horses society? It wasn't me! Can you quote anything I wrote which implies that? What I do think is: - the dominance hierarchy isn't the only or even the central organizing principle of equine society (not sure it's very meaningful to say any one factor is central) - however, I don't think it can always be so important because - in some feral groups and ecologies studied, dominance-related behaviour occurs very infrequently, sometimes hard to see at all (unless provoked artificially) - but it is typically easier to see in domestic herds (for reasons we can discuss) - most controversially, training methods based on the notion that the human must be dominant (in the scientific sense, not yours Mandal!) over the horse are fundamentally flawed
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Jan 4, 2011 18:42:05 GMT 1
Sorry to interject another tangent - I don't want to hijack the thread completely - but... Mandal, have you ever read Lucy Rees's "Bullies, Leaders and Friends" (a section in her book Understanding Your Pony)? Although it was written for children and in rather simple language - but I think that is its strength. Anyway, it summarizes pretty well the way I think about dominance, leadership and affiliative bonds. I also think it offers good advice to young riders and others!
I found it again on another forum when I posted it there some time ago. If it's considered acceptable to post a link to another board, I will do that, otherwise I can pm.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 4, 2011 18:59:57 GMT 1
I don't equate dominance with predatorial/being a predator though. Neither do I. The example I gave was one way to make a horse move away from you without being dominant. Quote. "That's all! Useful in some situations - though I would argue that you can teach or make horses do that without being dominant ( e.g. pretend to be a predator)." I obviously misunderstand you here then? I took this as an implication that dominance = predatorial. I've reread the exchange and still get the same understanding. I like the word 'control' - simple, means what it says, and not loaded with any potentially misleading equine social connotations. Plus it doesn't make any assumptions about the how of it. I agree but neither does dominance if it's neither good or bad. It too has a scale and intent in my head. You raise an interesting point though. 'Controlling feet' is often said to be at the core of establishing dominance over a horse. However, there is a variety of ways that one can determine or influence a horse's movement oneself (excluding external stuff like fencing, horse-walkers or even leadropes). Acting in a dominant fashion, as an alpha would towards a subordinate, is one. Then there is: acting predatorially, blocking, coordination (something Hempfling demonstrates rather well), initiation of following, attraction by being seen as a source of togetherness or food or safety or some other comfort, stimulating curiosity, and of course as a simple response to a taught cue. I think it's an oversimplification to assume these are all linked to dominance and doing so is bound to skew the way one thinks about the relationship with horses and how one interacts with them. This is the nub isn't it? Because I use dominance I am being, erm what? Self serving and aggressive in my approach to my horses? Constantly chasing them, and forcing them? Only moving them by chasing? I'm not though? Perhaps control is the right word? Perhaps I need to substitute dominance with control. It still doesn't fit for me and you're probably right there isn't a word to describe my approach. lol Mmmm wonder why? I do of course mean a word I can use that fits. I'm of the obviously outdated belief that horses moving each other is part of their fundamental relationships and cohesion. That of course could never be achieved with all horses being aggressive at all times in their moving each other. So which of the pair is dominant? I don't think one can label something as dominance, at least in the scientific sense, if it isn't fairly obvious there's a dominant and subordinate individual involved (even if their relationship were to change at some point), because that's an important part of how it's defined. I think two horses can have a bond of something - 'friendship', or dependency? - even if they don't (or rarely) engage in overtly affiliative activies like mutual grooming and frequently show grumpy or pushy behaviour towards each other. Domino is the dominant personality and dominant in that relationship. Appropriate name. ;D She is not what I would call a leader though. Another random thought... I wouldn't necessarily assume that a lack of some typical affiliative behaviours - I'm thinking of mutual grooming in particular - indicates a lack of affiliation. Enjoying and/or wanting to stay near to each other would be enough. I knew another pony who simply didn't seem to enjoy mutual grooming. I don't remember him ever initiating it or participating for more than a very short time if it was 'imposed' on him. However, he was still a very 'social' pony with definite friends and attachments. They stay near but not together much of the time. Domino is almost always with Bracken. I can't see anything 'attractive' about showing dominance when its effects are so clearly 'repulsive'! That a dominant horse repels subordinates might even be considered divisive, although there are clearly other forces at work to create social cohesion, such as the instinctive desire/need to be with other horses that is evident soon after a foal is born. I guess I'm struggling to understand how dominance is separated from a dominant personality that manifests in showing dominance over others. I don't see (using your description of dominance) being dominant ie. moving another as clearly repulsive! It can be of course and frightening to boot. Domino displays her dominance in a very aggressive way if she is ignored... chasing and threatening to kick. She is what I would describe as a dominant personality ie. bossy and short tempered. Dominance can be used by her and Bracken for example (in your description again) in very light, subtle ways too. Dominance to me is over all control of something, in this case the herd. I would say Bracken is the lead horse. To me he has overall control (dominance) by controlling the other horses behaviour either directly or indirectly, immediately or over time. The biggest difference is he does this in the main to keep calm and status quo and the good of all. So to me he exerts dominance over the herd. I can substitute control fairly well here. Yes, I agree 'leader' implies a whole range of different qualities, but they are not necessarily uniform across species. A major difference between horse and human leaders is whether the leader demands or expects respect and obedience. I don't see behaviour in horses that can only be explained by 'respect for authority'; nor do I believe horses think in those terms. To my mind, leadership is much more passive in horses. I don't mean this in the same way as Mark Rashid does. He uses the word 'passive' to describe the qualities of the horse - I'm talking about the way it is decided, viz. how leadership arises. Human leaders may actively seize leadership or impose it on others, and this may be accepted because people admire or respect a strong leader. With horses, this doesn't appear to happen; rather, it looks like leaders are chosen, typically resulting in some kind of herd consensus. So our differences seem mainly to be on leadership it seems to me? I certainly agree horses don't expect respect but I would add that human leaders who expect respect may not be good leaders. To me respect is something given by others it cannot be demanded or expected. This to me is where the arrogance in humans often lets us down imo people try to force or impose respect which to me just causes fear and or resentment etc. Does the chosen 'leader' then command anything at all? I don't think so, and the others are always free to change who they follow. That's why I tend to prefer the word 'followership' - it seems to represents the relationship more accurately, and avoids the implication that the leader imposes her/his will over the others. Mmmm, I don't like followship I'm afraid it implies no effort on behalf of the leader to me... Well, as a fact of horse life, it's not good or bad to me either. What I do have a problem with is that the idea can be twisted to explain or justify people behaving towards horses in ways that are - in my opinion - ugly, unpleasant and unnecessary. Yes it can be twisted, as can many other ideas or concepts, to justify what we do. This is what I am making this effort to avoid. I think this latest exchange has been helpful, going some way to clarify our respective points of view. We do seem to agree on a lot of the practical implications of our theories, even if the language we use differs. I do think we agree mostly. I'm reading away (as I was in Marthe KW's books) agreeing happily, then suddenly a sentence crops up that seems totally out of context to me and I think... erm what have you been saying then? ;D My perception and understanding is clearly warped. ;D Not sure I like the sound of "commanding authority", even if it sometimes applies to humans dealing with horses! I'll have to look up commanding now! I'm dreading pressing post! What will it come out like?
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Jan 4, 2011 20:01:11 GMT 1
Neither do I. The example I gave was one way to make a horse move away from you without being dominant. Quote. "That's all! Useful in some situations - though I would argue that you can teach or make horses do that without being dominant ( e.g. pretend to be a predator)." I obviously misunderstand you here then? I took this as an implication that dominance = predatorial. I've reread the exchange and still get the same understanding. Hmm, in that case my apologies for being unclear. What I meant by that was just that you could indeed make a horse move away from you by convincing it that you were dominant by using the body language of a dominant - though there are some assumptions there, in particular that the horse no longer viewed you as a predator but rather as it would another horse (which arguably is a fairly major assumption!). Alternatively, however, you could make a horse move away by doing a convincing impression of a predator (i.e. not another horse). Actually, I reckon that in many cases where people assume they're acting like an alpha dominant, the horse is really responding to predator signals. However, people who play "dominance games" vigorously enough, like shoving horses off their feed for the sake of it, may in fact start to be viewed by the horse as a potential competitor and rival. Dangerous territory there! Any clearer? Probably not... As I don't know how you go about moving horses, I really can't begin to suggest which of the various possible principle(s) you might be using. Also, one might start moving a horse by acting predatorially (say) and then the horse quickly learns that a) you're not a danger to him, but also b) that if you make a particular cue - like a kissing sound when he is being lunged - that he should start to move (or move faster). By that stage, it has become a learned behaviour and you no longer need to be scary or 'big' to get him to move, at least most of the time. I'd really like to understand what essential features the word 'control' leaves out for you. Oh, I think movement is central to horses if anything is! One could almost propose that movement is the 'language' they think in, like words are for many people (highly speculative, of course). That doesn't surprise me at all. The leadership role in the pony herd I mentioned seemed to be rather diffuse - or to depend on the situation. There was no one clear leader. If anything, Misty or another pony called Suzie tended to initiate movement of the group, not Filly. And the whole dynamic was altered when Max, the stallion, was living out with them. Well it is in the sense that the subordinate always moves away and not towards the dominant. Also, I don't get the impression that subordinates like being made to move in this way, though they comply of course to avoid threats of aggression (which can be as mild as a swing of the head or even more subtle signal) being escalated to actual aggression. I also equate dominant personality with bossiness and short temper. I think what is missing from the scientific literature, if not from our collective anecdotal knowledge, is a proper description of the types of control that horses can exert on each other through whatever means we care to name. Scientists have concentrated solely on dominance interactions for too long - presumably because they are easy to recognize and quantify. Quite possibly! When people talk about leadership it's evident they can mean subtly different things. The precise meaning can also differ if someone is talking about leadership of horses by humans or leadership amongst horses. Completely agree with that. That's precisely why I like it! Oh well... ;D However, as you say, I think we do agree mostly, and on a fairly fundamental level.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 5, 2011 12:02:23 GMT 1
Now I'm completely confused I'm afraid. I was under the impression that dominace hierarchy was no longer something you and others think actually exists in horses society? It wasn't me! Can you quote anything I wrote which implies that? ihdg.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ght10&action=display&thread=104846This thread left me with that understanding. Rereading part I may have focussed on only parts of your argument and got an incorrect understanding. However this was in context of many heated discussions with some posters who had posted things like 'the dominance hierarchy theory has been debunked'. Perhaos I have taken it all too literally but over the last couple of years I have had the impression that many no longer believe dominance is relevant to horses. Believing as I do, that it is fundamental to their (horses) existance, has possibly affected my ability to see what some are saying clearly. If as you said you concur with Stuart A Altman's observation commentary on Irwin S. Bernstein’s paper, as you quoted above then I don't think or even suspect we are coming from the same angle... I'd be interested to hear your reasons for that. I can see what Altmann was getting at in that paragraph, and broadly agree. Here is an analogy which I hope will clarify why hierarchy is a purely human invention (I think). Just as a "pecking order" is a hierarchy based on dominant-subordinate relationships, a family tree is a hierarchy based on parent-offspring relationships. Foals clearly know about their dams (though not always their sires), and vice versa. They probably know about siblings too. This knowledge matters and has definite effects on behaviour. However, horses do not also need to know about the family tree - for them it is an superfluous and arguably incomprehensible abstraction. It is a useful concept to us because it allows us to display and summarize all the parent-offspring relationships in a form that facilitates thought and communication. However, I believe it is an unnecessary complication for horses. It's unnecessary because they already know about individual relationships. The same argument would apply to the dominance (or any other) hierarchy. While there is evidence of a hierarchical system of dominance in equine social organization (though it may be hard to discern in wild herds), it doesn't follow that horses are aware of the system even though they are aware of the relations that give rise to it. In other words, the hierarchy "has causes but not consequences", as Altmann writes. I do have a quibble with Altmann's use of the word "relationships" because I think is potentially confusing. Clearly, horses learn to behave towards other horses in certain ways depending on the others' behaviour towards them, and come to regard them in different ways. So they must be aware, in some sense, of the relationships they have with other horses. However, Altmann appears to be using the phrase "dominance relationships" to refer to the overall structure or pattern or system, i.e. the hierarchy, judging from his reference to "Asymmetry, transitivity, linearity", and not to individual relationships. I realise the distinction between the system and the individual parts that make up the system is an easy one to blur. Understandably, it's a convenient shorthand for us simply to refer to the system. However, it may colour the way we think. Because we find the idea of "hierarchy" comforting - it is something that implies authority and certitude, something good in itself - we will tend to feel the same when we use the term in relation to horses. That may not be justified, given the prosaic nature of the agonistic interactions that are responsible for the hierarchy. It may also lead us to ascribe more significance to it, from the horses' point of view, than it actually has. Control isn't enough for me because it then has to be quallified when used to describe our total control over even the basic needs of (domestic) horses... food, water, reproduction etc. etc. Perhaps the title 'The Fat controller' or 'The crumbly Controller' would suit for me?
|
|
|
Post by fircones on Jan 5, 2011 19:23:14 GMT 1
This is an interesting set of ideas to discuss and one which seems to exercise a lot of people on horse boards! Just some random thoughts: We humans are dominant in the sense that we control where our horses live, what they eat, what they do and (in general) how they behave. I dont see how we can escape that conclusion. Horses together mainly co-operate because they have to in order to survive. They are much better at this than most people. It seems to me that the leadership in a group is NOT always fixed, sometimes it changes from horse to horse, it can be quite fluid. I think to be successful we employ a degree of co-operation with horses - "meet them halfway" if you like. I am interested in people who keep horses who challenge this in quite a physical way because my experience with Icelandics is that they "outhink" you if they can, for example by employing tricks which mean they expend less energy when working with you. They are not pushy or aggressive on the ground or under saddle (or at least mine arent) but they "question" you quite clearly sometimes and (as someone here said) if you dont anticpate and give the right answer, you may end up not getting what you want! I am also interested in Michael Peaces ideas about partnership and allowing responsibility to the horse. I can give one example which is where I was clearly disobeyed at a road crossing because my horse heard a speeding car before I did and got me out of trouble. In this instance I was very happy that he ignored me and thought for himself. Sorry - this is a bit of a ramble but I am still thinking about some of the replies on here and working out what I think.
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Jan 6, 2011 21:31:37 GMT 1
Control isn't enough for me because it then has to be quallified when used to describe our total control over even the basic needs of (domestic) horses... food, water, reproduction etc. etc. How about husbandry, or horsemanship? Or dominion? You might think that; I couldn't possibly comment! ;D
|
|