Let me go back to what I originally wrote. I gave examples of how to correct poor responsive behavior by 'over-correcting' it. It is not rocket science to understand that over-correcting one problem is going to differ for over-correcting a completely different one. But, the concept is the same -- OVER-CORRECT --- NOT JUST 'CUE HARDER'. Here is the first example I gave. The concept and not the problem is for the OP, since reining horses do not have to 'jog' anywhere in any pattern.
I understand how and why over-correcting works and why you would have to do it differently for different problems. But I can't figure out (or get an answer too) why simultaneously nullifying that over-correction would work.
Then I went on to further explain the concept of 'over-correction'. "Everything you do, should be approached the same way. You 'over-correct' the horse, bring him back to 'start' and ask again with the lightest possible aid. Then and only then can to get the opportunity to reward the right thing. Do this consistently and you will have a horse that the most seasoned observer will not be able to see you cue."
yes; but you're not rewarding the right thing. The right thing in the example was to jog, and yet you're holding the horse back from that?
So, my next question. How many 'high' level winning competition horses have YOU actually trained? How much of YOUR knowledge is from actual experience and how much is speculation on 'how you think it should work' from writings from behaviorists that also have ZERO experience?
this is nothing to do with my experience. I could've never seen a horse before in my life for all it really matters in this thread, this isn't about me or my horses or my "methods". It's about your method & the now aparent fact that it's exempt from explanation.
If high level trainers find this a very effective and necessary training method to get and to keep horses at that high level, I would be trying to observe them (what I did) or listen to them rather than listen to 'experts' in behavior that have never even watched or handled high level competitive horses in training?
an "expert" in behaviour and the modification of behaviour is by definition a "trainer". Perhaps the "experts" in question don't need the ends to justify the means because they can actually explain the means, and perhaps the trainers in question can't explain the means, so use the ends to justify that? Both are totally respectable.
I just assumed that "how does it work?" could be answered better than "it's very effective and necessary and high level trainers use it."
The concept of 'over-correction' is one that every high level 'effective' trainer I have ever met, uses. In fact, most lower level horsemen that do a very good job at their level as well, also use 'over-correction' to get a more responsive horse. The fact that I knew non-trainers would not understand this concept or could use it wrongly is why I have not written about it before. I feel like I 'know' enough of the riders on this forum and believe there are a good number of them and their horses that are ready for this concept. That is why I chose to finally talk about it. I also knew that some people would not 'get it'.
I do understand the concept of over-correction, and I use the concept of over correction, and like you said most of the better trainers i've seen and know use the concept of over-correction.
But I still would like to know how preventing a horse from responding at all constitutes as over-correction?
The riders that learn to use this technique will not only have more responsive horses; they will have a LOT happier horses. Horses that are nagged and asked over and over and with more and stronger aids are the most miserable horses you will see. Their attitude goes further and further downhill. I'm sorry (but not surprised) that behaviorists 'don't get it'. I have read a LOT of so-called 'scientific findings' about horse behavior that is just plain WRONG. I can't help it that I know what works from experience and it does not agree with what some guy in a university thinks 'should' work.
I agree with what you've said about nagging. Sad horses with sad responses. I do understand that and i'm not suggesting that to OP.
Also, point me out some current science that is just plain wrong - and more importantly - explain why.
You just have to believe what you want. I really don't care what or who anyone wants to believe. I just hope I have helped the people that 'get it'.
indeed i'm sure we all will believe what we want regardless. But for me anecdotal evidence based purely on personal experience that is unexplainable by any other means won't make me believe something. It might be enough to make me wonder and ask further questions, which is what I did.
And yes muppetgirl, horses are not robots. And that is why a "perfect" or "finished" horse is not really an achievable ideal (again, a good ideal to strive for, but not truly achievable).
Yes we are going around in circles, but that's because you're not answering my question with an answer that actually answers the question I asked. Plenty of good (unrelated) answers, but no on topic answers. Tell me where I contradicted myself?