|
Post by marychick on Jan 8, 2012 0:31:29 GMT 1
completely agree! ;D I've never heard of Robert S before but will definitely be looking him up now!!! bit of bed time reading me thinks! hehe- thanks! x
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 8, 2012 12:17:47 GMT 1
Back to dominance in it's 'correct' meaning (not mine ) I have a question, yes I'm simple minded. When is moving a horse (for example) not dominant?
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Jan 8, 2012 14:47:11 GMT 1
As a general question are we equating 'non dominant' training methods with those that primarily involve positive reinforcement? Personally I wouldn't equate them, although 'dominant training methods' might well be associated with more use of pressure for particular reasons that flow from the idea that the human must be dominant to the horse. I don't think that's necessarily the case. A 'traditional' person, for example, might use a lot of pressure for reasons other than explicitly emulating a dominant horse. Back to dominance in it's 'correct' meaning (not mine ) I have a question, yes I'm simple minded. When is moving a horse (for example) not dominant? When a horse has decided he wants to follow you because, for example, he simply likes being with you?
|
|
|
Post by gporter1 on Jan 8, 2012 19:21:32 GMT 1
but how do you know the horse isn't domnating the human??! ;-) i don't know what definition we are using for dominance now, but the definition i found in this link drsophiayin.com/philosophy/dominance/ (think this link is brilliant discussion of dominance generally and specifically about dogs) says that dominance is about priority access to food, mates and sleeping areas. well, i'm never moving my horses for any of those reasons! so does that make it not dominant if it is dominance about authority and control, well i suppose we always say we are exerting control over horses when we move them. but i think it is a bit limiting or extreme to think of relationships only in dominance and submission though, but thats just my view. i have read that horses are very aware of human intent (i guess body language and energy levels) so maybe they pick up on whether we intend the interaction to be dominant or not. Because i still don't think horses automatically think of all requests to move as dominance i think for me it is about how the behaviour is trained, not esclating pressure to bring in stress or fear, and the horses general relationship with the person, and how the person asks the horse to do the particular behaviour. its like if you had a boss who always said "could you do xxx" and "thank you very much, great job" you would feel different to one who said "just do it" and never praised or thanked, even though both are you boss so there is control and authority there. also, with the first boss you would be more likely to say "actually i dont think i can, because i am snowed under" or something, and horses say that as well to people (well, not that they are snowed under, but that they find something too hard), i think, when they are not afraid to express their feelings so then the relationship is not about dominance. i like a point that sophia yin makes when she says in the link that dominance hierarchies are not stable, so if people take the dominant/hierarchical approach in trying to train their animal they may forever be having to make threat displays to keep our animal in line. and what if you are not strong enough for threat displays. im not going to to a threat display to my cob, hes nearly 16 HH with hooves like dinner plates, he could flaten me if he wanted !!! ;-)) it's true as well because how often do you read on forums that people who hit their horses seem to have to hit them fairly regularly. it shows somethings not working! or the same with lots of backing up and ground manners stuff.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 8, 2012 19:28:38 GMT 1
I was under the impression that space was one of the criteria that defined dominance. Along with food water etc.
|
|
|
Post by gporter1 on Jan 8, 2012 19:31:32 GMT 1
ah, then we are back to intent! and trainng and relationship and way of asking :-)
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 8, 2012 19:37:09 GMT 1
ah, then we are back to intent! and trainng and relationship and way of asking :-) Imo that is what is important in any form of training. I didn't mean field space btw I mean personal space, the 'best' place to shelter etc.
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Jan 8, 2012 20:20:15 GMT 1
I was under the impression that space was one of the criteria that defined dominance. Along with food water etc. Space may be relevant if there is competition for it, according to the 'correct' definition - so, yes, sheltering spots may provoke and test horses' resource holding potential. I think personal space works differently, as it's not directly competed for. Incursions into personal space may elicit aggressive responses - or not, if the horses involved are happy with each other's proximity. Moving a horse backwards may or may not be 'dominant', depending how it is achieved. Obviously a dominant horse will be able to make a subordinate move away (and possibly backwards esp. if there is lack of room to manoeuvre) very easily. However, why would a person moving a horse backwards a step by touching his chest necessarily have anything to do with dominance if there is a) nothing to compete for and b) dominant body language isn't used? The horse could just as easily take a step forward towards you again when you stopped touching his chest and took a step back yourself - if that's what he was taught. The fact that he is yielding one moment and you are yielding the next kind of suggests to me that we aren't dealing with a dominance interaction in this case. It certainly doesn't look like a typical 'dominant displaces subordinate' scenario. It is true that you are controlling his movement, but this example shows why I don't like to equate dominance and control - it's just too big a blanket.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 8, 2012 20:42:41 GMT 1
So control of space isn't a defining criteria. ok It seems to me that dominance, correctly defined is actually more about intention and intensity of behaviour ie. aggression than about claiming a resource then? I have many, many times observed my horses claim hay by just an almost imperceptible head nod or more tense(with intent) walk... I call this dominant behaviour (non aggressive) but it obviously isn't. I call the horse moving as displaying submissive behaviour (compliant in this case). How is this scenario described in scientific terms? If dominance is about resources why call aggressive training dominant if it has nothing to do with a resource? In this dominance'model' it seems to me dominance is rarely involved in training unless you do the chasing away from food stuff if space isn't automatically linked to food water etc? No one except me would see food rewarded training as dominant I do realize.
|
|
|
Post by marychick on Jan 8, 2012 22:28:39 GMT 1
I think to be honest the fact that we are struggling to agree on a definition for dominance is sort of the point. If people set out with the idea that in order to be effective in their training the need to be dominant they can get pre-occupied with it. Everything suddenly becomes about how they are percieved by the horse from a dominance standpoint and nothing else "the horse just moved his foot- is he eserting his dominance??" etc and that's when things escalate to aggression- it's like trying to one up the horse all the time. We can never really know the horses intent.
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Jan 9, 2012 10:28:19 GMT 1
It seems to me that dominance, correctly defined is actually more about intention and intensity of behaviour ie. aggression than about claiming a resource then? I have many, many times observed my horses claim hay by just an almost imperceptible head nod or more tense(with intent) walk... I call this dominant behaviour (non aggressive) but it obviously isn't. I call the horse moving as displaying submissive behaviour (compliant in this case). How is this scenario described in scientific terms? I think everything you describe would be part of dominance-submissive behaviour. It doesn't have to be obviously aggressive, though of course it may be. Once a horse learns to avoid a dominant's advances, the signals can be very subtle indeed as long as they are heeded. If a subordinate horse ignored them, the dominant might choose to escalate them into more obvious threats of aggression or even actual aggression. How readily the escalation occurs may depend on a number of factors including external motivation (e.g. owners bringing buckets of especially yummy morsels into paddock), individual temperament (more or less aggressive or excitable) and the extent to which individuals like or dislike each other. Those who train aggressively may call it 'dominant' in the believe that what they are doing is consistent with a 'dominance model'. However, not everyone believes in exactly the same model. For instance, it isn't unusual for the model to be extended or elaborated to include human notions of dominance that arguably have little relevance to horses - such as respect for and/or obedience to a "strong leader". Lots of things are done in the name of dominance; whether or not the horse perceives them as dominant is another matter. My personal view is that horses can learn to be moved by humans (and other animals or objects) in a variety of ways that don't necessarily make the horse feel he is involved in a dominance interaction. However, the chances of that happening increase significantly when people play 'dominance games', chasing off food being a prime example where the human deliberately acts like a dominant horse would and, despite a natural disinclination to view us as another horse, press salient buttons that can trigger thoughts, emotions and responses to do with dominance.
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Jan 9, 2012 10:29:05 GMT 1
I think to be honest the fact that we are struggling to agree on a definition for dominance is sort of the point. Yes, it is! And the YouTube examples I posted illustrate what can happen when that assumption is taken to extremes - although I am sure milder versions of the same thing happen all the time. So the best we can do is...?
|
|
|
Post by marychick on Jan 9, 2012 12:27:41 GMT 1
So the best we can do is...? Personally- and obviously this does not mean I'm saying this is what everyone should do- I do my best not to infer intent at all- I think it can be very counterproductive. For example; if my horse knocks into me it may be that she is trying to be dominant (i suppose- for arguments sake) it may be that she was distracted or nervous and coming to me for safety. The fact of the matter is the way I would deal with is would be the same- I would calmly move her out of my space and give her a rub when she is where I would like her. IMO people infer the horses intent too often and whilst it can be harmless we have seen that it can cause very unessesary aggression. People tend to lean towards negative attributions when they are frustrated "he's not scared he's just being stubborn" or "he's just trying it on" are the very common ones- IMO these are not helpful and should not be the angle from which I would choose to approach a correction. Thus, personally, I would be very cautious when it comes to inferring intent at all.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 9, 2012 12:50:09 GMT 1
Tbh,I don't believe horses are ever or are rarely trying to 'dominate' humans, they are in my experience reactive animals and respond to fears for their safety and out of the herd they are always more vulnerable. I suppose they could be considered to try to dominate over food but this is where our brains come in to set situations up where this isn't an issue especially in herd situations.
|
|
|
Post by marychick on Jan 9, 2012 13:20:39 GMT 1
Tbh,I don't believe horses are ever or are rarely trying to 'dominate' humans, they are in my experience reactive animals and respond to fears for their safety and out of the herd they are always more vulnerable. I suppose they could be considered to try to dominate over food but this is where our brains come in to set situations up where this isn't an issue especially in herd situations. Completely agree!!! ;D
|
|