|
Post by ghostrider on Dec 30, 2010 22:28:23 GMT 1
ah, cross-posted with others, and I think we are all sort of saying the same thing now?
No, I agree, it is perfectly possible to do lots of stuff using only low key pressure and scratches and praise - it's how I've done almost all the work with my youngster up to now rather than using food with him.
Lots of methods do use high amounts of pressure - but it is not a given that if you are not using CT then you are pulling your horse's head off or pushing him all over the place - not at all. If someone is using high levels of pressure then the scratches won't be salient enough - but at lower levels of pressure scratches can work very well - and I think the confusion arose, for me hartslet, in your first post (I think) where you just said that you praised and did not mention that you used scratches. Lip curling scratches put a completely different slant on things in my opinion, as opposed to just saying "good boy" :-)
lol, Yann, I didn't know I was a multiple!!!
|
|
|
Post by ghostrider on Dec 30, 2010 23:01:45 GMT 1
I suspect, ghostrider, that actually our training methods aren't a million miles apart.
I suspect you are right :-)
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Dec 31, 2010 16:47:04 GMT 1
This has been a fantastic discussion - in terms of politeness and content! I do wonder whether there is a tendency to underestimate the aversive (i.e. perceived as unpleasant) potential for horses of even very light pressure - which could be as seemingly innocuous as a look - because they are, on the whole, so much more sensitive than we are? Conversely, something as subtle as shared movement or closeness (when the horse likes and trusts you) or even curiosity satisfied can be rewarding to a horse - although more definite rewards are usually used for training. (I was going to include "a feeling of safety" in the rewards list, but "a slightly unsafe feeling" should probably be classified as an aversive!)
|
|
|
Post by june on Dec 31, 2010 18:43:18 GMT 1
I do wonder whether there is a tendency to underestimate the aversive (i.e. perceived as unpleasant) potential for horses of even very light pressure - which could be as seemingly innocuous as a look - because they are, on the whole, so much more sensitive than we are? I suspect you are right. These days I tend to find that if something is going wrong in either my handling or ridden work then asking with less pressure is more effective than asking with more pressure, and the pressure in the first instance might only have been featherlight. It took a while for my brain to accept that, but the better response from the horses to even less pressure was unignorable!
|
|
|
Post by ghostrider on Jan 1, 2011 19:31:30 GMT 1
I do wonder whether there is a tendency to underestimate the aversive (i.e. perceived as unpleasant) potential for horses of even very light pressure - which could be as seemingly innocuous as a look - because they are, on the whole, so much more sensitive than we are? I suspect you are right. These days I tend to find that if something is going wrong in either my handling or ridden work then asking with less pressure is more effective than asking with more pressure, and the pressure in the first instance might only have been featherlight. It took a while for my brain to accept that, but the better response from the horses to even less pressure was unignorable! I can only agree wholeheartedly with the above comments. I wish that these kinds of notions were sometimes expressed on threads where people ask for help with their horses and many of the responses seem to be along the lines of the predictable, but rather simplistic assumption that the horse is "lacking leadership", "walking all over the owner" and so on. Constructive but critical assessment of the handler's role in the horse's behaviour, coupled with a genuine attempt to understand the horse's motivation for the behaviour would, I feel, be more productive. Often it is clear that the horse is not attempting to "dominate" the owner, but that there are holes in the training that need addressing to improve the horse's behaviour - the horse has simply not been taught thoroughly and systematically how to behave in a given situation. Could it possibly be that horses are not happy about having 'control' or pressure halters on, not because it means the horse "has to do as he's told" but because he has associated the headcollar with pain and discomfort, but does not know what to do to avoid the pain - or is put in situations which he finds overly-exciting or stressful and simply can't respond as the owner feels he should? Logical and systematic training - involving less pressure rather than more would be benficial in many instances. Personally I think that horses would benefit if we could find ways to interact with them that relies less on the application of pressure and aversives and more on trying to understand the world from their perspective and giving time to step by step training which builds a solid foundation of behaviours that can be relied upon in increasingly more demanding situations. Adding positive reinforcement into the training (either with or without a clicker) would make these tasks easier and more enjoyable.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 1, 2011 20:16:16 GMT 1
I wish that these kinds of notions were sometimes expressed on threads where people ask for help with their horses and many of the responses seem to be along the lines of the predictable, but rather simplistic assumption that the horse is "lacking leadership", "walking all over the owner" and so on. Constructive but critical assessment of the handler's role in the horse's behaviour, coupled with a genuine attempt to understand the horse's motivation for the behaviour would, I feel, be more productive. Often it is clear that the horse is not attempting to "dominate" the owner, but that there are holes in the training that need addressing to improve the horse's behaviour - the horse has simply not been taught thoroughly and systematically how to behave in a given situation. I agree completely with the comment about the horse often probably not being trained thoroughly enough but also there may be quite ingrained defensive behaviours.Often it's difficult (due to lack of experience often in my case) to give advice on threads especially where there are dangers in a situation. Hands on assessment is often the best advice imo. Could it possibly be that horses are not happy about having 'control' or pressure halters on, not because it means the horse "has to do as he's told" but because he has associated the headcollar with pain and discomfort, but does not know what to do to avoid the pain - or is put in situations which he finds overly-exciting or stressful and simply can't respond as the owner feels he should? Logical and systematic training - involving less pressure rather than more would be benficial in many instances. This I'm sure is true of some horses and wearing any tack at all but I don't believe pressure halters are a/the cause of bad/incomplete training unless used badly and insensitively of course. Personally I think that horses would benefit if we could find ways to interact with them that relies less on the application of pressure and aversives and more on trying to understand the world from their perspective and giving time to step by step training which builds a solid foundation of behaviours that can be relied upon in increasingly more demanding situations. Adding positive reinforcement into the training (either with or without a clicker) would make these tasks easier and more enjoyable. Mmmm, difficult one here for me because I believe the horses world is mainly aversives (-R) so for me to totally get rid of any aversives as in -R then we are providing an alien training environment for horses. Yes, they love treats and I do agree more posivity helps hugely but I start to get uncomfortable with purely positive interaction. Also it has to be very structured and carried out very carefully to avoid any aversives, and tbh I don't believe it's possible. Also horses do have to live in a human world and aversives are all around and imo horses need to learn how to cope with them. It has been said that some humans are not capable (bright enough) of training with huge amounts of free shaping and CT, I freely admit that I fall into this category. Mta. I mean aversives as any 'ask' that isn't technically a cue when I talk of training. Modified as my quoting didn't work properly.
|
|
|
Post by june on Jan 1, 2011 20:41:36 GMT 1
. Often it is clear that the horse is not attempting to "dominate" the owner, but that there are holes in the training that need addressing to improve the horse's behaviour - the horse has simply not been taught thoroughly and systematically how to behave in a given situation. I think that is true. Many people, myself included, learn to ride at riding schools and eventually buy a horse. In the beginning we have no idea how to train horses systematically. All the horses we've ever dealt with have been trained by someone else. Eventually we come across a horse that doesn't do what we expect it to do and then we have to either head off in a direction that solves that problem or sell the horse. The path we choose depends on the type of people we are and the time and also the money we have available to us. . Could it possibly be that horses are not happy about having 'control' or pressure halters on, not because it means the horse "has to do as he's told" but because he has associated the headcollar with pain and discomfort, but does not know what to do to avoid the pain - or is put in situations which he finds overly-exciting or stressful and simply can't respond as the owner feels he should? Logical and systematic training - involving less pressure rather than more would be benficial in many instances. Anyone who uses a pressure halter well will have taught the horse how to release himself from the pressure first before putting the horse in a difficult situation. I do think pressure halters have a place and help to keep people safe, but I think the aim should always to be to do away with the pressure halter asap and fill in the holes in the training. The downside is that training is time consuming and demands quite a bit of application from the trainer. There are lots of quick fixes out there, which are quick fixes rather than long term fixes, but they are an attractive option if you don't have a lot of time. It can also be quite difficult to find someone to help who doesn't use quick fixes and can be quite a lonely path to follow if all your friends are off playing with their horses while you are working through what they see as very basic exercises. Peer pressure can be quite strong. And then most people have limited budgets to spend on training so money gets in the way too.
|
|
|
Post by ghostrider on Jan 1, 2011 21:13:55 GMT 1
Mandal said: I start to get uncomfortable with purely positive interaction. Also it has to be very structured and carried out very carefully to avoid any aversives, and tbh I don't believe it's possible. Also horses do have to live in a human world and aversives are all around and imo horses need to learn how to cope with them.
Don't think anyone is suggesting that it is possible to train without any aversives - certainly not me :-) Just to paraphrase June from her previous post sometimes less (aversive) really can be more (meaningful).
June said: There are lots of quick fixes out there, which are quick fixes rather than long term fixes, but they are an attractive option if you don't have a lot of time. It can also be quite difficult to find someone to help who doesn't use quick fixes and can be quite a lonely path to follow if all your friends are off playing with their horses while you are working through what they see as very basic exercises
tbh, what I've found, is that once you've got the basics in place, progress is pretty quick.
And didn't some 'equine guru' say something along the lines of "you may as well take the time to do it right, or you'll have to find the time to do it over".
imo, horses are too big, too strong, and there is just the risk of too many things going wrong for people to take short cuts and quick fixes to just keep up with peer pressure or decide they don't have time to spend training their horses. Surely it's about the journey as much as the destination.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 1, 2011 21:41:50 GMT 1
Mandal said: I start to get uncomfortable with purely positive interaction. Also it has to be very structured and carried out very carefully to avoid any aversives, and tbh I don't believe it's possible. Also horses do have to live in a human world and aversives are all around and imo horses need to learn how to cope with them. Don't think anyone is suggesting that it is possible to train without any aversives - certainly not me :-) Just to paraphrase June from her previous post sometimes less (aversive) really can be more (meaningful). Misread and misunderstood your post there then sorry. imo, horses are too big, too strong, and there is just the risk of too many things going wrong for people to take short cuts and quick fixes to just keep up with peer pressure or decide they don't have time to spend training their horses. Surely it's about the journey as much as the destination. I agree. We need to learn to train effectively and it is definitely a journey in every respect.
|
|
|
Post by june on Jan 2, 2011 1:26:08 GMT 1
June said: There are lots of quick fixes out there, which are quick fixes rather than long term fixes, but they are an attractive option if you don't have a lot of time. It can also be quite difficult to find someone to help who doesn't use quick fixes and can be quite a lonely path to follow if all your friends are off playing with their horses while you are working through what they see as very basic exercises tbh, what I've found, is that once you've got the basics in place, progress is pretty quick. I agree, but quick fixes do work, at least for some of the time. If something works then you, the trainer, get +vely reinforced, even if it then goes wrong at a later date. I think the people on this forum realise that the training for today is for tomorrow and we want our horses to enjoy their work, but I can see why people might not want to go down that route. It can feel like you're going backwards for some time before you make progress. And didn't some 'equine guru' say something along the lines of "you may as well take the time to do it right, or you'll have to find the time to do it over". Yes, again I agree, but only to some extent. Punishment does work so a combination of -R and +P can be quite effective. It isn't the way I'd like to train horses, but it can make for an easy time with a very compliant horse. The horse won't have a whole lot of personality but that does suit some people. imo, horses are too big, too strong, and there is just the risk of too many things going wrong for people to take short cuts and quick fixes to just keep up with peer pressure or decide they don't have time to spend training their horses. Sometimes the horses that aren't allowed opinions are the safest to work with. They simply do what their told. Again, it isn't how I want my horses but I do sometimes look at the polo ponies that arrive here and realise they can be easier than the ones we have had here for a while that realise that they are allowed to express their opinions and will get listened to. Surely it's about the journey as much as the destination. Lol. Is there a destination? I think its all about the journey! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Yann on Jan 2, 2011 22:16:30 GMT 1
I have to say I have mixed views too. Whilst to me +R training is without doubt the most humane and effective approach the constraints many people find themselves working under don't always make it the easiest or most practical option, and sometimes the alternatives do give a perfectly satisfactory and workable result. It might well be that mixing the two reduces the impact of the clicker overall, but on the other hand anyone with a basic understanding of clicker work is likely to thing more carefully about the -R and +P they use.
I have to say I'm also not convinced that there's necessarily that much wrong with -R training done well either. Everything I have seen suggests that it is something that horses understand innately and aren't troubled by amongst themselves. I think the negative effects of using -R can be overstated, especially in terms of the horse's perception of the handler. I do think the trainer can sometimes be as significant as the particular training method being used.
I think the really important thing is that we're honest and accurate in describing what we're doing, because that means we stand more chance of doing it right. To me that applies equally to someone in a cowboy hat with a halter talking about rewards as someone with a clicker and a bumbag who says they don't use -R.
|
|