|
Post by dalesfan on Dec 6, 2011 17:18:31 GMT 1
Finding this thread really interesting. For me,discovering IH has helped me to take both the horse and myself in the moment, to work with where we both are rather than limiting myself or my horse with ' he's sensitive/bargy/switched off and I'm nervous/tense/easily distracted' etc etc. The more I've learnt about IH, the more I appreciate and see new facets of my horses' characters. They both have tendencies towards particular reactions/behaviours, but no day is ever the same with them. My ex racer will hack out quietly even if he hears or meets other horses, whereas my big cobby girl finds the whole thing incredibly exciting:) I love observing how they respond to new things both when in the herd and when being handled or ridden. I wouldn't restrict a person to a personality group or type,so I don't do it with my horses either
|
|
|
Post by SarahW on Dec 7, 2011 9:14:55 GMT 1
It's good that this thread has broadened out to consider 'personalities'. I think they are infinite and therefore shouldn't be reduced to fixed human based categories. I don't think they work for humans either.
Going back to the original point though, I know we all guilty of anthropomorphism and it can be fun so long as we realise that underneath it all, a horse is just a horse. He doesn't plan ahead, he doesn't do things just to annoy, humiliate, take the P or make us laugh. He's just a horse. There's a really simple equation for them (see, they can do maths). A behaviour starts through instinct, nature, pain or pleasure and then is reinforced if it works. Job done. There's no moral context for a horse.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Dec 7, 2011 9:28:16 GMT 1
There's no moral context for a horse. This is such an important point for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2011 10:07:15 GMT 1
Perfectly put, Sarah. Summed up in a few brief lines what I waffled on about for paragraphs!
|
|
|
Post by gporter1 on Dec 7, 2011 12:57:40 GMT 1
I think we have to be very careful of anthropomorphisms. It is very easy to see horses through our own eyes and attribute our own feelings and motivations. If you think about it, horses have evolved to interact with horses, not with humans. Their emotional and other needs are therefore determined by horse-horse interactions, not horse-human interactions. If we can make a case for emotions and reactions in that context, then it makes evolutionary sense. Otherwise it doesn't. Horses are clearly individuals, with individual temperaments, likes, dislikes, etc. In a way that makes evolutionary sense as they're not all after exactly the same thing, which means resources can be spread further. Some are more confident, others more assertive, for example. There are also differences that have been developed by us through selective breeding. We liked a reactive thoroughbred but would not have wanted that same level of ping in a shire. To that extent yes, the do have characters. I don't, though, see a case for a sense of humour. They may play (an activity that has a real value in a herd) but I have yet to see a group or even pair of horses just having a laugh, any more than I've seen cows, sheep, etc. having a good giggle. I think what most people mean when they say their horse has a sense of humour is with relation to us. This doesn't stand up on (at least) two grounds. Firstly, if they don't have a sense of humour in a horse-horse environment, they are unlikely to have developed one as a result of being in a human environment. More importantly, though, is that this would mean that they would have to be able to see things through our eyes, in other words project themselves into human skin, to understand what would make us laugh. That's a heck of a lot to ask of a horse! I know there are many, many examples that people can give of horses with a sense of humour. If you look at these, though, they are (at least nearly all) cases of horses doing things that we have reinforced somehow, or things that we think look funny. A horse who keeps tipping his bucket over (silly old thing) is the sort of example often quoted. Here, the horse may like the reaction he gets (attention, etc.). Or the horse who stands in his stable pulling faces - very often it's actually a stress reaction that we think looks funny. I know we like to give them our own attributes - it's easy to do and helps us feel that they are relating to us on our terms. It is, though, misleading. As a general rule, if a horse would do something in the wild or even out in a paddock, then we can say that it is natural horse behaviour. If they only do it in our human environment, then it is something that we have created, directly or indirectly. By the way, I have no problem with people giving their horses light hearted attributes because it feels nice, as long as the underlying understanding of the fundamental horse is still there. I think this is one of the best posts I've read on here and I agree whole-heartedly, and also with SarahWs summary of it. if more people understood this the horseworld would be a better place, i am so sick of reading that the horse is 'taking the mick' or 'having a laugh', it means absolutely nothing. however, how do you reconcile not humanising horses emotions with then saying things like 'he doesn't respect your leadership'. I found this quote in an article the other day We do have some evidence of horses’ ability to understand categories e.g. shape, colour and size, but not yet that they have the cognitive capacity to understand concepts such as ‘respect’ and ‘leadership’. These are all best explained by the horse’s responsiveness to the trainer’s signals; if instead of saying that the horse “respects us” we say that he responds quickly to our light signals, there is very little, if any chance of confusion about exactly what is meant.the full article can be read here 69.73.177.164/equitation-science-articles/326-different-horse-training.htmlso surely if the horse cannot lead properly it is better to just accept that as yet he hasn't been taught how to lead rather than saying he doesn't respect our leadership? the learning to lead nicely happens becuase of reinforcement, timing of pressure and releases and or rewards, so it could be explained that we have not yet used the right reinforcements to teach the horse to lead, and obviously take things like pain and fear nto account as well, but i think that saying the horse doesnt respect my leadership is very humanising of the horse whereas saying i haven't managed to teach him to lead properly because my timing is wrong or i have made it too hard and need to do things more gradually puts the responsibility onto the human?? surely 'he doesnt respect you' is not a million miles away from 'hes having a laugh' or taking the p. and then if the horse leads properly, is he doing it because he respects the handler, or because he has learnt how to do it and is confident because he knows what is expected of him? so if a nervous novice handled him he might pull about, but then would that be because he didn't 'respect' the handler, or just because he had got a bit scared himself because things had changed and he didnt feel safe with her? or because he had just learned that he could pull her over and get the grass, but again that is what he has learned he can do and get rewarded for by eating grass and may not be anything about respecting leadership
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Dec 7, 2011 16:02:16 GMT 1
I think I agree with all you have written there gporter. To me a good human leader is a good/effective, consistent trainer. I came to this realization a while ago. To say a horse doesn't 'respect' any aspect is again denying that we haven't trained fully and or modified situations so the horse can accept calmly and understand. I think that explains clearly what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by curlytobiano on Dec 7, 2011 22:31:01 GMT 1
What a very interesting and educational thread! I am still at the Ladybird books stage in understanding horses and find this all fascinating. One thing I do think though comes from many years of dealing with people in business ( and as I find horses much more interesting I try to relate what I learn at work to what it may make me think about with horses and vice versa).
There are some great points on here about anthropomorphising, labelling, and some of the shorthand 'he is taking the mickey' type judgements that we seem to agree are unhelpful. I would go a little farther and suggest that the language we use even just when thinking about our horses is very important in our ability to deal with the horse that we have in front of us rather than the one we may have fantasised for ourselves. Its something I know I need to work on - my horse IS to a large extent my fantasy, the escape from everyday drudgery and a recapturing of some of the innocence and joy of youth. I own a horse primarily for my pleasure and i do find it all too easy to fall into the trap of relating to my horse in my terms rather than hers. I think language - avoiding those unhelpful labels - is probably key to help me avoid this.
So my question to myself is: am I strong enough to give up some of my comforting fantasies so that I can truly relate to my horse as a horse? And moreover - as Lily, with her own personality and day to day feelings, and not my projection of her.
(hope that hasnt gone off the topic! )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2011 9:25:27 GMT 1
A couple of really interesting questions! And hey, if they're off topic, who cares?
Respecting leadership - it's quite complex, isn't it, as to why on earth a horse should agree to go along with us. There is definitely an element of training but I think more than that is the feeling you give of being confident, trustworthy, all that.
When doing basic groundwork with a first time client, very often you'll need to work on leading. You'll typically find the horse is either making all the decisions or is tucked in behind. It's the latter scenario that's interesting here. So often, you'll have this apron strings feel, where the horse is very uncertain as he totters along in this low energy, low confidence set up. Very often, all the handler needs to do is lift their head, up the energy, and GO! As soon as the horse has a leader to follow, he's more than happy to go along with it.
So there is an element of something more than training. I don't think that horses see us as horses, so I don't like to think of myself as lead mare, for example, but I do still need that complete confidence that a lead mare would have. That's where I see the word "respect" come in, although it's probably not the one I'd use. It's more to do with trust and confidence.
This question of the words we use is so important. There's a completely different feel to "my horse doesn't respect me" and "my horse doesn't trust me", although they both have elements of the same thing. I don't know about you, but if I say "he doesn't trust me" it feels that I myself have failed to be trustworthy, whereas "he doesn't respect me" feels more that the horse is at fault, which is obviously not going to be the case.
One great tool we have for helping manage problems is being aware of and maybe changing the words we use. I try hard not to use the word "problem" with clients as it feels rather out of your control, something to worry about, and generally very negative. A challenge, on the other hand, is something to rise to, a goal to achieve, and overall much more positive. Just by changing your phrase - "leading him past the other horses will be a problem" to "leading him past the other horses will be a challenge" makes the same event so much more feasible, doesn't it?
That same power of words is why a lot of these very common labels are so unhelpful. When we say "he's trying it on", we might well mean "he's testing his boundaries". One sounds naughty, the other sounds like necessary behaviour to establish position or safety.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Dec 8, 2011 10:59:39 GMT 1
Respecting leadership - it's quite complex, isn't it, as to why on earth a horse should agree to go along with us. There is definitely an element of training but I think more than that is the feeling you give of being confident, trustworthy, all that. Respecting leadership to me implies a conscious decision that comes from a complete understanding that someone is worth following or obeying. I use the word worth on purpose because I believe respect in this sense has a value judgement. Disrespect implies a complex thought process from a good understanding that this person needs to be scuppered/ignored. The converse here is disrespect, isn't it? So there is an element of something more than training. I don't think that horses see us as horses, so I don't like to think of myself as lead mare, for example, but I do still need that complete confidence that a lead mare would have. That's where I see the word "respect" come in, although it's probably not the one I'd use. It's more to do with trust and confidence. I agree there are other elements involved and as you say the big one is confidence of the human which is transmitted to the horse. After much thought I realized that a good teacher is one who is confident and also good at listening and responding to the students needs at that time and also can 'speak' in ways that make sense to the horse (student in this context). Ability of the horse to understand what we want is imo down to us to convey in ways the horse can understand. As in your leading example, just a change of 'energy' and posture can convey so much. This question of the words we use is so important. There's a completely different feel to "my horse doesn't respect me" and "my horse doesn't trust me", although they both have elements of the same thing. I don't know about you, but if I say "he doesn't trust me" it feels that I myself have failed to be trustworthy, whereas "he doesn't respect me" feels more that the horse is at fault, which is obviously not going to be the case. One great tool we have for helping manage problems is being aware of and maybe changing the words we use. I try hard not to use the word "problem" with clients as it feels rather out of your control, something to worry about, and generally very negative. A challenge, on the other hand, is something to rise to, a goal to achieve, and overall much more positive. Just by changing your phrase - "leading him past the other horses will be a problem" to "leading him past the other horses will be a challenge" makes the same event so much more feasible, doesn't it? That same power of words is why a lot of these very common labels are so unhelpful. When we say "he's trying it on", we might well mean "he's testing his boundaries". One sounds naughty, the other sounds like necessary behaviour to establish position or safety. I agree completely. The word respect has become a problem word for me for the reasons I have stated. I don't believe horses ever respond out of disrespect, I think they respond out of not knowing, not understanding, stress, fear etc. etc. Disrespecting our training implies they have truly understood and agreed to behave as we wish at all times. To add, and then choose to say 'actually what you said/did before is useless and so are you, I'm off!' Just to say, these are my personal thoughts, I am still learning and hoping to improve my practice and still have a long way to go. Also sorry for the modifications but I didn't make sense at all. Writing slower than I'm thinking.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Dec 8, 2011 11:32:47 GMT 1
What a very interesting and educational thread! I am still at the Ladybird books stage in understanding horses and find this all fascinating. One thing I do think though comes from many years of dealing with people in business ( and as I find horses much more interesting I try to relate what I learn at work to what it may make me think about with horses and vice versa). There are some great points on here about anthropomorphising, labelling, and some of the shorthand 'he is taking the mickey' type judgements that we seem to agree are unhelpful. I would go a little farther and suggest that the language we use even just when thinking about our horses is very important in our ability to deal with the horse that we have in front of us rather than the one we may have fantasised for ourselves. Its something I know I need to work on - my horse IS to a large extent my fantasy, the escape from everyday drudgery and a recapturing of some of the innocence and joy of youth. I own a horse primarily for my pleasure and i do find it all too easy to fall into the trap of relating to my horse in my terms rather than hers. I think language - avoiding those unhelpful labels - is probably key to help me avoid this. So my question to myself is: am I strong enough to give up some of my comforting fantasies so that I can truly relate to my horse as a horse? And moreover - as Lily, with her own personality and day to day feelings, and not my projection of her. (hope that hasnt gone off the topic! ) Not off topic at all imo. I'm still at the Ladybird book stage too. Love that btw. I'm still in kindergarden with my grammar and writing skills. I really do agree about our 'fantasies'. Learning as much as I can about horses as a species is crucial for me and I've learned not to take their actions personally which has been very liberating for me .and helped me, I believe, to see clearer. I've also learned not to 'need' things from my horses to feel I'm a good owner. It stops me putting my emotional interpretation on their actions. This may sound unemotional to some I know but it has been important for me to remain more objective.
|
|
|
Post by rifruffian on Dec 8, 2011 11:36:04 GMT 1
hullo LizP your post at 0825 contains several points with which I do disagree but never mind the detail of that because it provokes me to this question addressed to you with respect to your work as an RA.......when engaged to solve some difficulties for a client, how much of your work is to train the client, rather than attempt to train the horse...?
|
|
|
Post by medicinepony on Dec 8, 2011 11:38:51 GMT 1
Quote: This question of the words we use is so important. There's a completely different feel to "my horse doesn't respect me" and "my horse doesn't trust me", although they both have elements of the same thing. I don't know about you, but if I say "he doesn't trust me" it feels that I myself have failed to be trustworthy, whereas "he doesn't respect me" feels more that the horse is at fault, which is obviously not going to be the case.
I guess from my point of view which admitedly is more around a therapeutic, emotional balance or healing stand point both statements are two sides of the same thing and I would be asking "what do you think you would need to do to get your horse to trust or respect you"
in each case the horse is only responding to the energy of the person holding the rope and that response can be changed instantly by changing your energy
its the maintining of the correct energy by the human thats the tricky bit, the horse is only showing us whats there and its up to us how we use the information
for example if you take my horse doesn't respect me
someone who strives to be emorionally balanced will look for ways to earn the respect (which is most people on a horsemanship journey of some sort)
someone who is unaware of being unbalanced will either try to bully the horse to get the respect
or will go the other way and give away even more power to the horse in the hope of gaining respect through love which won't happen and will spiral out of control
our horses try so hard to point things out to us and discussions like this show that many people are trying to work out the solutions, the more we know our selves the quicker we will find the solution and it is useful to be with outher people who can share solutions with us
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2011 12:17:04 GMT 1
hullo LizP your post at 0825 contains several points with which I do disagree but never mind the detail of that because it provokes me to this question addressed to you with respect to your work as an RA.......when engaged to solve some difficulties for a client, how much of your work is to train the client, rather than attempt to train the horse...? I'll happily answer that, but I'd like to hear where you disagree first
|
|
|
Post by SarahW on Dec 8, 2011 12:21:50 GMT 1
What about "leading him past the other horses will be a great training opportunity" ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2011 12:27:25 GMT 1
What about "leading him past the other horses will be a great training opportunity" ;D Indeed!
|
|