ArabianAmor said:
:idea: As for upnover, I know what you mean when you say that every horse has its individual way of training needed. That makes perfect sense.
But I still think that the way a horse thinks and responds to certain things can be somewhat the same in a sense. Due to the fact that they are all prey animals and think and act relatively alike.
Yes! While many specifics might have to be 'tweaked' differently for different horses according to their personalities, the basic principles are the same. Even so far as species, while different things concern or motivate us according to our species & personalities(& the time & place), we all learn in essentially the same way whatever animal we are.
I think a big part of the issue is that we all also learn based on our own perceptions & perspectives, from previous experiences. Therefore, 'natural horsemanship' is one of those terms which has come to sort of mean everything & nothing - it means different things to different people. Same goes with the perceptions and understanding of different techniques, understanding(or lack of of the principles behind the specifics....
So I will give my own personal opinion, understanding & perception of the subjects....
To my mind, learning about & working within a horse's natural way of thinking, natural horsey tendencies is what 'natural horsemanship' is about. It is also about working with a horse in a way that promotes *willing partnership* rather than a sort of master/slave relationship, which 'old fashion' methods often develop. Therefore, it applies equally to all horses.
Taking Parelli as an example(because that's the NH 'guru' I know best), while many of his 'games' etc are based on natural equine behaviour, I don't know that I'd call the actual techniques natural. In hindsight, I can also see that without enough knowledge, this teaching still led only to a master/slave relationship with me & my first horse, tho this was plainly not his intent.
As for positive & negative reinforcement, while different things motivate different people, within or outside a species,
everyone learns like this. Punishment is also a learning 'tool', but it is not as effective or well accepted(without 'side effects') as reinforcement, even by humans, who have an understanding of abstract concepts such as past, present & future. For clarification....
Positive Reinforcement(+R) =
addition of something
desirable in order to
strengthen the behaviour
Negative Reinforcement(-R) =
removal of something
undesirable in order to
strengthen a behaviour
Positive Punishment(+P) =
addition of something
undesirable in order to
weaken a behaviour
Negative Punishment(-P) =
removal of something
desirable in order to
weaken a behaviour
People often don't understand the principles behind these concepts, so therefore they are often not effective in their use tho. For eg. reinforcement or punishment must happen *at the time of* the behaviour that you are wanting to modify. And the behaviour is either strengthened or weakened, not 'known' or understood as 'right or 'wrong', without many, many repetitions.
I find with regard to c/t & especially feeding treats, there are a couple of mental blocks that people have. The first is the idea that an animal 'shouldn't' have to be given treats in order to 'work'. That because you 'own' the animal, it 'should' work just because you tell it. Or it should work because you're the one who feeds it it's dinner.
I think this is an incredibly flawed view, because firstly, There is a difference between using treats as conscious and well timed positive reinforcement and giving them whenever, without thinking about reinforcement. In the first instance, it's not just about 'rewarding' 'good' behaviour, but actually teaching it. Secondly, animals live in the here & now, don't have moral understandings of right or wrong, should or shouldn't, but do what works *for them* and quit doing what doesn't work. They might bond with someone because of the care they get, but they won't learn to come when called(for eg.) if they're never reinforced - or inadvertently punished - for it. Thirdly, the concept that an animal should feel obliged to do as it's told for this reason, or just because you own it & order it, is flawed, because they don't understand these concepts, and didn't ask to be owned & have no choice in the matter.
Another problem people have with positive reinforcement that comes from a lack of understanding is specifically food treats. People think that feeding treats causes or encourages bad behaviour. They often aren't fully conscious of exactly what they're reinforcing, so it leads to them inadvertently reinforcing 'bad' behaviour. Eg. the person wants to reinforce the horse for coming when called, so they give the horse a treat. But they don't notice or don't worry that the horse also comes at them with his ears back, or uses his teeth to take the treat.... until they've reinforced (strengthened) this behaviour often enough that it becomes an established problem.
People also seem to commonly think of things like praise and patting as adequate positive reinforcement for a horse. While this may be adequate for a person, praise is just noise to an animal(tho it can be effectively associated to true +R to have some meaning, in the same way that a clicker is...) and horses often - never say never - just tolerate(or actively dislike) patting & other grooming, rather than really desiring it. For a positive reinforcement to be effective, it needs to be something truely desirable *to that animal at that time*, whether it's food treats or otherwise.
Anyway, that's my..... 2000 cent's worth :lol: I hope this has given you some more food for thought! Have fun with the assignment.