|
Post by Yann on Jan 3, 2012 21:22:12 GMT 1
Thanks going to the trouble of posting those vids Francis, a very interesting selection. I'd agree with that, particularly with the latter sentiment The last vid was absolutely superb too, and so simple. The thickness is probably all mine as his views were new to me I think I mentioned that I liked the last few paragraphs in an earlier post, it was refreshing to read something that acknowledged that dominance is part of the dynamic amongst social animals and our relationship with them, but it's not necessarily anything terrible or the whole story by any means
|
|
|
Post by Kelly Marks on Jan 4, 2012 17:31:53 GMT 1
Hi Francis Ooo I'm going to sticky this so I don't forget to look at them as soon as I can! Perhaps the most important thing for us to achieve is an awareness of submissive, dominant, preditorial behaviour (I think I'll add in an 'etc' there as I'm sure I've missed a lot out!) Not so we have to use any of it all the time - but so we build an awareness of how we are coming across to the horse plus it's another tool we can use as necessary. I'm not sure I am really qualified to enter a debate on 'dominance' though - I have 6 horses and they are all utterly delightful* - ermm... is there a particularly SICKENINGLY SMUG SMILEY I could use here please ? Actually to be serious and qualify that - they will push each other around and make clear who comes in first for feeding or 'privileges' but are all gentle and very kindly behaved towards all the human beings with whom I've seen them come into contact.
|
|
|
Post by gporter1 on Jan 4, 2012 22:48:43 GMT 1
I must be very niave I haven't watched all the videos, but I watched the one with the woman with the "aggressive/bolting" horse, and I've never seen anything like it. Surely that isn't what passes for horse training nowadays It's appalling. Nothing short of abuse. I thought the one with the young lady using positive reinforcement with the aggressive stallion was superb - now that's horse training To my mind, "dominance" is used way too often, and at least 99% of the time completely inappropriately in horse training. Where people see "dominant" horses I seem to see horses that are confused or scared. Dominant seems to be a label to stick on a horse which means you can then blame him for your training short-comings, or mis-management. It all seems to be a way of justifying all sorts of aggressive abuse, if those videos are anything to go by I saw the video whereby someone said the guy was calm-assertive Cesar Milan of the horseworld. They were spot on, Cesar Milan is an abusive, punitive trainer who has knocked dog training back by ten years. This idiot was forcing the horse to attack him, and even then she was being defensive, same way as Milan forces dogs into defensive aggression. I'm sickened by what I have seen so far. I have eight horses and they are all trustworthy animals who are a pleasure to handle and be around. I've never used any of this "dominance" type of training, it is completely unnecessary in my experience. Thank you for posting the videos, they are depressing but eye-opening. All the ones I've seen so far are American, does this sort of stuff go on in the UK as well?
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Jan 5, 2012 15:18:16 GMT 1
Thanks going to the trouble of posting those vids Francis, a very interesting selection. No trouble really - it's amazing what one can find on YouTube these days! What I didn't come across were any videos showing people who were both advocating the dominance paradigm enthusiastically and handling horses in what I would consider to be a sympathetic rather than a punitive way (even when dealing with pushy, aggressive or 'dominant' individuals). That's not to say they don't exist though! But I should make it clear if it wasn't already that what I wanted to show, in answer to Kelly's question, was examples of what can (but not necessarily will) happen when people put dominance centre stage in their approach to training. I'm not sure I am really qualified to enter a debate on 'dominance' though - I have 6 horses and they are all utterly delightful* - ermm... is there a particularly SICKENINGLY SMUG SMILEY I could use here please ? I wouldn't expect it to be any other way, Kelly! Does this mean that they don't consider humans to be part of their dominance hierarchy and so don't push us around in the same way, or that they consider the people they are gentle towards as dominant? Or something else? My own feeling is that horses assume we aren't other horses (Abrantes notwithstanding) and are happy not to have to worry about where they stand in relation to us in terms of pecking order - although they still have to learn specifically how we would like them to behave with us. I thought the one with the young lady using positive reinforcement with the aggressive stallion was superb - now that's horse training Yes, and wonderfully low-key! I really don't know the extent of it. My guess is that the "show him who's boss" approach has always been practiced (and always will? ), but the rationalization for any rough or punitive treatment wouldn't be the same. It would tend to be more humans dealing with horses as humans, rather than humans dealing with horses by doing such horse-like things as 'moving feet' - 'traditional' vs NH. So I would expect to hear more people talking about their horses being "naughty" rather than "dominant" or "disrespectful". However, that may be changing as NH methods from the the US become more popular here.
|
|
|
Post by marychick on Jan 5, 2012 17:47:22 GMT 1
From a human psychology point of view I find it really interesting (although incredibly infuriating!) the language people use to justify certain actions. I think the issue with words like "dominance" and talking about herd hierarchy is people use it to justify what IMO seems like cruelty. The women in the video with the bolting horse was a classic example of this. I think she had utterly convinced herself that she was "breaking things down into chunks the horse could understand" when really the horse had no idea what was being asked of her, and also that any sign of distress shown by the horse when she was repeatedly being beaten were because she wanted to be dominant not because she was in pain and scared???! it's as though she uses this language to justify her own actions- partly as a way of self preservation because being violent clearly didnt fit in with her desired self image so had to reason it away. I was also particularly disturbed by the girls hobbling the horse who claimed that it was not cruel but "natural" and they even went as far as to say it was used in the wild!!! Have you ever seen wild horses with rope tying eachothers legs up? ! I find it really sad because I've even heard some well known, and generally lovely, NH people justify their Farrier biting their horse because "that's what would happen in a heard". That's why I think people need to be really careful with all the herd hierarchy standpoints. I think its true that we need to understand how horses behave and interact in the wild and this should not be ignored in our training but I think unfortunately the word "dominance" often goes hand in hand with agression or violence. Ultimately I believe horses are under no illusion that we are fellow horses- we more closely represent predators- thus acting agressively tends to puts us more firmly into that category rather than "herd leader" and therefore we need to be careful with this. I believe it's only fair to the horse to be clear an consistant with our boundries but IMO this does not necessarily need to come from a "dominance" standpoint.
|
|
|
Post by gporter1 on Jan 6, 2012 11:36:45 GMT 1
My guess is that the "show him who's boss" approach has always been practiced (and always will? ), but the rationalization for any rough or punitive treatment wouldn't be the same. It would tend to be more humans dealing with horses as humans, rather than humans dealing with horses by doing such horse-like things as 'moving feet' - 'traditional' vs NH. So I would expect to hear more people talking about their horses being "naughty" rather than "dominant" or "disrespectful". However, that may be changing as NH methods from the the US become more popular here. So, really it is about the frame of reference that people use to understand horse behaviour? Traditional people believe horses are naughty, taking the pee, pushing boundaries etc so they should be shown who is boss. Doesn't take into account how horses think, feel or behave, that they don't think like humans! NH think they are being dominant and disrespectful. so they need to reclaim space, move feet, send the horse away from food or some such. NH justifies aggressive training by saying it is what horses do to each other, but there is no evidence that horses view us as part of the herd and is there any need to compete with horses for their resources? They talk about horses being soft and light but it seems like they have to get tough with the horses to get that I think I prefer to think that my horses understand I am not a horse and doesn't need to be included in any 'hierarchy' that may be going on - which I think is way more complicated than most of us see, anyway. If I want my horse to back out of my space (to get into the barn, say) then I do it by using clicker and food reinforcers until it is trained. All my horses back up on cue, but I don't believe they see it as a submissive behaviour nor do i - just the thing to do that gets me to come through the door dragging the hay bags. Perhaps they think they have trained me to bring them food by backing up When I work with dogs and clients I definitely rely on explaining behaviour in terms of what has been reinforced (usually inappropriately), what is self-rewarding for the animal, the impact of the day to day management, diet, exercise and so on, whether the animal is scared or confused or frustrated etc. and where the holes are in the animals training, definitely don't need to include dominance or naughty anywhere in that - i find that behaviour problems can usually be explained without worrying about that. I think of my horses in the same way, but it seems that lots of people don't think about learning theory very much when they are trying to understand their animals behaviour. of course ethology is very important as well, but it strikes me that the ethology that has made it's way into the public knowledge is not usually the most unbiased or accurate but i can see that without good ethology and learning theory then it is understandable why the other ways of thinking about horses and saying that they need to be trained in those ways is very popular especially as nh seems very good at marketing and i am sure will become more popular, as you say, but to me it is just as harsh as the worst kinds of traditional, just dressed up a bit different sometimes i think dominance is way more about human ego than it is about animal behaviour
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Jan 6, 2012 12:12:43 GMT 1
So, really it is about the frame of reference that people use to understand horse behaviour? Yes, I think so - and you just summarized my pov perfectly! The only thing I would add in response to "They [NH people] talk about horses being soft and light but it seems like they have to get tough with the horses to get that" is that NH isn't all the same and one sees different degrees of 'toughness' and different levels of 'feel'. At one end of the spectrum are trainers like Leslie Desmond and possibly Buck Brannaman; at the other end are xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx and xxxxxx, with the likes of Parelli arguably nearer the tough end of the spectrum.
|
|
|
Post by june on Jan 6, 2012 20:03:38 GMT 1
I prefer to think of horses as trained in something or untrained. If a horse bashes you with its head and you don't like it then you ask it not to. If you're consistent with that request and reward a different behaviour, or even punish that behaviour, then it will stop bashing you with its head. If you don't mind the horse bashing you with its head then you won't train it to stop bashing you with its head. Others may think the horse is being disrespectful but really, the horse doesn't know that that behaviour is not what is wanted so can't possibly be being disrespectful. It is just doing what it has always done that has resulted in some benefit such as scratching an itch, moving someone out of the way, getting attention or whatever else it has found rewarding.
|
|
|
Post by Yann on Jan 7, 2012 9:21:06 GMT 1
I personally think it's clear that they know we're not horses, but I'm not so sure that their interactions with us don't contain at least some elements of their normal social behaviours, just as ours do with them. I don't think that means we have to be part of the herd as horses do, but I do think that some of the things we do with them might have an impact on their view of us because of that. And I'm also not convinced that we can say that a horse trained to yield using only positive reinforcement doesn't view it in the same way as a horse taught to yield using pressure and release.
We just don't know how they see it though, regardless of how we originally trained the behaviour.
As a general question are we equating 'non dominant' training methods with those that primarily involve positive reinforcement? Or that not taking a 'dominant' approach means you would never use any great amount of pressure whilst training?
|
|
|
Post by gporter1 on Jan 7, 2012 14:25:57 GMT 1
And I'm also not convinced that we can say that a horse trained to yield using only positive reinforcement doesn't view it in the same way as a horse taught to yield using pressure and release. We just don't know how they see it though, regardless of how we originally trained the behaviour. As a general question are we equating 'non dominant' training methods with those that primarily involve positive reinforcement? Or that not taking a 'dominant' approach means you would never use any great amount of pressure whilst training? no, i dont think it is safe to say that positive is automatically non dominant because lots of people are pairing dominant training and clicker training so there is a mix. and the dominant training will be more important to the horse than the treats and the horse will not see it differently. for me, it is about not using any great amount of pressure, or feeling that moving feet or backing horses up is about teaching them to respect me. i have been following ben harts work for about five or six years, and he says something like there is an inverse relationship between amount of time taken vs pressure applied, more pressure, less time, and less pressure equals more time. so i have gone for the more time less pressure approach - but have still made good progress in reasonable time i think, possibly because by using less pressure i've met less resistance from the horses. and i've paired it with little steps (and now he has brought out his own shaping plans i can see that in some cases even my little steps were quite big, which is why i probably hit some snags) and used clicker and food and scratches. i've also never used back up as a punishment to supposedly gain horses respect, so i am hoping that they dont have that negative connotation with it. what i am hoping (but i dont know if it is real) is that the very light pressure gives the horse a clue as to what i want to get help them get the treat in training, so the pressure does not involve any kind of adrenaline or stress response. they dont seem stressed unless i muck it up but then it is frustration with me i think i would certainly never correct or up the pressure if the horse gave the wrong response, i would just start again. and if they kept giving the wrong response it would probably be my fault. i think actually it is possible to have some idea how horses feel about doing something by watching their body language when they do it and their response to the person generally. also to see how quick the horse reacts and its head pose, whether it exects a tug of leadrope or something for not responding quickly enough or not doing the right thing. i think using pressure halters can cause this kind of problem, of not knowing how the horse feels. the horse seems to do it willingly but he knows the consequences if he has a rope headcollar and a leadrope with a heavy clip on. they are not daft. so long as they know how to avoid the pressure though it does not seem so bad, it is the early stages of training that are so hard for them, when they dont know how to stop the jerks and things like on the videos and i think set the associations for the future and how they feel about what they have to do.. according to the brain chemistry stuff (see below) horses would definitely feel different about backing up if it was free shped, but i didnt free shape my backing up. i do think though definitely that pairing positive reinforcement with any kind of force or increasing pressure will not change how the horse sees the situation. it doesnt take the dominance out. this is a really good article which explains why it is not a good approch to pair positive and negative reinforcement. www.theequineindependent.com/home/?p=234the person who wrote this says that to get the best from clicker we should do free shaping. however, when i tried freeshaping i felt i was getting too much frustration because i wasnt very good at it. so i used targetting instead, and also did all my despooking stuff without headcollar and leadrope, so i think that was a sort of freeshaping but not exactly. and all touch work. and sometimes now we just play with targetting different things or followed targets, instead of the freeshaping i couldnt do. however, i hope it had a good effect on dopamine anyway, and i would like to think my horses see me as reinforcing. i have copied a bit out of the article i really like. If an animal is experiencing genuine positive reinforcement then it is believed from neuroscience studies that a particular region of the brain is activated and dopamine is released. This is the opioid which makes us feel good when something good happens. Over time, this dopamine release can take place even in the absence of an actual reward. So if we do lots of reward-based training and trigger dopamine, then even just our arrival at the field can do the same, whether or not we have treats. It’s not just about the horse wanting us for our treats. We make the horse feel good. This is the neurological basis for the Pavlov’s dogs result. We feel genuinely pleased when our payslip arrives, because of what it represents, even though it’s only actually a worthless piece of paper. If we do pressure-based training or even just “neutral” training then there is no dopamine released, even when you release the pressure. A different brain circuit is stimulated and, depending on how much pressure you use, there may be an adrenalin release, i.e. a stress response. and there is a really good video link at the end of the article. and lots of interesting articles on the site generally. ps thank you francis burton for mentioning those trainers, i will go and take a look at some you tube clips. i have seen parelli and i found it very difficult to watch.
|
|
|
Post by marychick on Jan 7, 2012 19:27:31 GMT 1
hi gporter, whilst I agree with your analogy about pavlovs dog and clicker training. I don't necessarily agree that dopamine will only be released with using food as a reward and it's not really the kind of process where it's as simple as food=dopamine release each time. 1st of all, theoretically seratonin or dopamine could be released with anything the horse finds pleasurable or fun. Without being able to do proper neurological studies we mustn't make asumptions as to what this will be. Horses aren't always particularly food orientated and they certainly aren't as food orientated as dogs- who have to hunt for food and this is one of their primary drives. Obviously it is always nicer if we can keep things fun for our horses wherever possible but this can be done with a nice rub/scratch. We cannot assume that there are no dopamine pathways activated in these instances. I don't belive Pavlov ever really looked into the activation of dopamine pathways anyway- that was not his primary concern.
Also you don't necessarily need dopamine for learning to take place nor do you necessarily need to add any sort of positive reward, taking something away can be rewarding too, especially if you are working with a horse that is not used to or does not like horses. Dopamine is just a neurotransmitter that is released when people- and in theory- horses are happy or alert etc. The dopamine pathways will be active more often than you think. Whilst I agree that clicker/ food training can be very useful in some circumstances- i personally find with my horse- pressure and release very effective much of the time. It gives the horse a clear yes when they're getting it right and a no if they haven't quite got it yet- which I believe is very important too (if any of you have been on Kelly's horse psychology course you will have played the yes/no game and will understand how useful using yes and no together can be). First of all let me be clear that pressure for me is a directional cue- NOT something that will make the horse uncomfortable, which seems to be far too often what people feel they should use. In my training pressure/release is not about dominance- it's about cure. My horse learns very well with this sort of training and I always throw in lots of rubs and praise. My horse enjoys her training sessions which is apparent by her willingness and body language, and if she does the dopamine pathways should be active. You cannot know that dopamine is active in one instance and not in another without neurological evidence.
Please don't think I am criticising clicker training I am all for it if it works for your horse but don't dismiss pressure/release training either. It is very effective if done right and does not have to be uncomfortable for your horse. I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between this and dominance- I dont believe they are the same thing. It can just be a cue or an aid and we all use some form of pressure in our horsemanship/riding and it doesn't have to be mean.....Sorry for going slightly off topic, just wanted to add that in!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by marychick on Jan 7, 2012 19:36:15 GMT 1
*Correction- i meant a release can be a reward for a horse that is not used to/afraid of people not horses! hehe*
|
|
|
Post by gporter1 on Jan 7, 2012 23:33:47 GMT 1
hi marychick, I don't want to drag this thread off topic but i think my post has been taken a bit out of context so i will try to respond but keep it fairly brief! i so dont want this thread to turn into the pros and cons of clicker training, of which there are many! as i thought the topic of dominance was far more interesting, but i will try to respond to your points. First i must point out that it is not my analogy, i am not so bright, it is taken from an article which i put the link to 1. you are absolutely right, dopamine is not just about food reward, it is about anything the hrose finds plesurable. scratches are just as rewarding, and with one of my horses i can only use scratches as he finds food too exciting and then cant remember what hes' supposed to do to get it!! 2. i'm afraid its a bit of a myth that horses wont work for food. there are very few horses who are not motivated treats, anything that is not available to them in their daily diet is worth working for as far as most horses are concerend. i have even seen horses who will clicker train with hay. and like i say with one of mine i cant use food as he gets too frustrated, its ok though as he loves scratches 3. you are right, pavlov was looking at digestion i think, and classical conditioning was discovered by accident. i think it was used in the piece i quoted to show how horses form a classical association between the trainer and the rewarding training, so they already feel good just by seeing the trainer. not to say pavlov was much into studying neural pathways. 4. i think there have been some really good studies done on what prompts dopamine release now. the video link mentioned in the article i linked to is of Robert Sapolsky who is prof of neurology at Stanford uni. he says that dopamine is released in anticipation of a reward (it does not have to be food reward, just something enjoyable). so the reward does not have to happen, just the anticipation of it is enough for dopamine to be released. and the most dopamine is released if the reward rate if 50/50 which is the most unpredictability. 5. i dont actually feel qualified to critique the article myself as i am not a neuro-expert, i am just interested in what other people know however, i think it is published on quite a reputable website as the person who owns the website has a degree in neuroscience so she would have been able to check it for errors before posting it i guess 6. you are right that dopamine is not necessary for learning, however there is something about positive reinforcements that seems to improve memory for training and people in horses - see the abstract below. Positive interactions lead to lasting positive memories in horses, Equus caballus. Carol Sankey, Marie-Annick Richard-Yris, Helene Leroy, Severine Henry, and Martine Hausberger. Abstract- Social relationships are important in social species. These relationships, based on repeated interactions, define each partner’s expectations during the following encounters. The creation of a relationship implies high social cognitive abilities which require that each partner is able to associate the positive or negative content of an interaction with a specific partner and to recall this association. In this study, we tested the effects of repeated interactions on the memory kept by 23 young horses about humans, after 6 and 8 months of separation. The association of a reward with a learning task in an interactional context induced positive reactions towards humans during training. It also increased contact and interest, not only just after training, but also several months later, despite no further interaction with humans. In addition, this ‘positive memory’ of humans extended to novel persons. Overall, positive reinforcement enhanced learning and memorization of the task itself. These findings suggest remarkable social cognitive abilities that can be transposed from intraspecific to interspecific social contexts. 7. pressure and release is negative reinforcement - the removal of an aversive stimulus in order to strengthen a desired behaviour. the negative refers to the removal - not that the stimulus is bad - but it has to be something the horse wants to get rid of, even light pressure is something the horse will want relief from eventually. removing an aversive is relief, not reward. according to the article this involves a different part of the brain to what is involved in rewards, which is giving something the horse wants. i think i also remember reading karen pryor REading the animal mind, and she talks about the seeker circuit which is activated during clicker training. so it seems that there are different bits of brain involved for positive and negative reinforcement - sorry that's as technical as iget. but if you think the article is incorrect it might be worth contacting the owner of the site or the author as they do not strike me as the sort of people who would want to be promoting the wrong stuff. 8. pressure and release is very effective if done correctly, definitely not sayin it isnt. 9. yes and no like on kellys course, yes, that is used in all training. in pressure and release the no is pressure and the yes is release . in clicker training the yes is the click and treat and the no is no click and treat. personally, i dont find it helpful to mark a wrong response when i am clicker training - i know that someother clicker trainers use no-reward markers, but i have seen some bad results in dog training, with sensitive dogs, so i have not bothered with that with my own animals, and i dont teach it in my dog class either but i do teach a 'keep going' signal which helps animals to know they are doing the right thing and i just want them to do it for longer! its really important in clicker training not to correct otherwise you risk the animal stopping trying. the whole point of clicker training is that the animal gets confiden to offer behavours and you tell him whichis the right ones. then he doesnt get frightend about making mistakes. we all have to make mistakes to learn, there is no need to correct if you are using positive reinforcement. they just dont get rewarded so they try something else. this is where shaping is so important, so it is not to hard for them. 10, pressure as directional cue, yes exactly that is how i want to think of it when i use it with the clicker. that is what i was trying to say. it helps the horse undestand what i want. i totally agree pressure and release does not need to be about dominnce, i use it in all day to day interactions with my horses. light pressure is no problem, it is when the pressure become heavy and harder, or people punish horses by pushing them backwards or around in circles that i dont feel comfortable. it is not for me. but light negative reinforcement and pressure and release is no problem. i think so long as you can look at your horses body language and know that they are happy and enjoyin what they are doing then there is no problem. i definitely dont think that pressure is automatically dominance, it is how it is used that matters. positive reinforcement can be used without clicker training, just like light pressure and release does not mean dominance. and clicker training is not perfect either, it is about judging what is right for us and our horses at any time i think ohdear, not very brief but a lot to answer.
|
|
|
Post by marychick on Jan 8, 2012 0:03:39 GMT 1
wow not very brief at all and I think you slightly mistook my post too but that may well be because I slightly mistook yours- so I apologise ;D let me try and respond quickly to your points: 1. hehe that's cute my dog does this! 2. never said that horses don't work for food- I have used food rewards and clicker training to great effect with my horse. I said they are not as food motivated as dogs- if you disagree thats fine- it's my opinion and I'm sure varies from horse to horse 3. maybe I misunderstood your point then I'm sorry. But I do think this may be difficult to prove a link??- again not aguing just wondering?? 4.the point I was making is there havent been enough dopamine studies on horses- if you know of any studies I'd love to read them as I have a genuine interest!! 6. I think i made this point anyway, but thanks for the study! 7. I am fully aware that release is negative reinforcement- I didnt say it wasn't. I also didn't say different parts of the brain weren't active for different training methods- it's not something I've looked at. I saying that the release of dopamine isn't exclusive to positive reinforcement. 8. we agree then i think! ;D hehe 9. I genuinly have no issue with clicker training- i know it can be very effective esp with dogs. I do think that looking for yeses can be slightly tricky in some situations and a guidence (such as pressure is helpful) but i'm sure you wouldnt disagree with that- which is what was meant by my yes/no game comment So in summary I kind of think we're saying much of the same thing. I perhaps misunderstood what you were trying to say with your dopamine reference. I love neuroscience and did it at uni so love to have discussions about it- which was all that was meant by my comment. I really wasn't trying to start an argument or cause offense so I'm very sorry if thats how it was taken! I'm not against clicker training in horses although I admit I don't use it as often as some other techniques but anything that isn't violent and makes the horse/handler relationship stronger is good in my books!! anyway back to dominance! ;D hehe.........
|
|
|
Post by gporter1 on Jan 8, 2012 0:23:35 GMT 1
definitely no argument or offence ... just trying to clarify things. i think we are pretty much on the same page, especially judging by your earlier post in this thread on language etc. I think it's fine to have minor disagreements on details, so long as we are all rowing in the same direction, thats the main thing!! :-) (i wish there were more dopamine studies on horses ... one day maybe, hey!! But Robert S is very cool ;-) good to find a fellow neuro-fan!)
|
|