They do the opposite of that in reality. Horses are naturally scared of a lot of things, in many situations the horse must be given a chance to get over that fear to make progress towards being trained. Take any example you like from the first time being saddled to trailer loading.
What I've seen CA and many, many others do(it's a very common tactic among 'natural' horse trainers) is to 'desensitise' a horse to something or other by repeatedly applying the stimulus, regardless of what the horse does, how frightened it is, and keep doing it until the horse 'gives up' and stands 'quietly'. In behavioural terms, this is called 'flooding'. I strongly believe 'flooding' is not a great way of getting someone over a fear. It actually doesn't get them over it, but mentally causes them to 'shut down' to it. In time, they might become genuinely blase about it, but that is achieved by way of a lot of mental anxiety which is not just unhelpful but can do some lasting mental 'damage'. 'Shell shocked' is a term for humans who have been through that sort of 'desensitising' during war time. That is what is the effect of his 'the more you scare them, the quieter they get' is.
Imagine putting on a wet shirt, at first that feels terrible and all that would be on your mind is taking it off. If you left it on long enough you would start to get used to it;... but the idea is close enough to convey what Dr. Stephen Peters has learned about what is going on with the horse's brain in these situations.
I'm not sure if you're still talking about frightening things. Yes, basically we(whatever species) do indeed get desensitised to stuff all the time, and
in absence of fear or pain flooding type tactics, as you describe are indeed generally a reasonable way to go about it. But when something is really frightening, the horse(or human) tends to 'melt down' mentally. Often 'sink or swim' tactics do cause sinkage!
Is this Dr Stephen Peters an animal behaviourist? A neuroscientist...? I will have to look him up - do you have a link or refs or such that will help me find the most relevant?
The more real world colt starting you see and spend time around the more you will realize that no matter who is doing it the basics are the basics. Some of the widely practiced basics are actually wrong, and are based on assumptions that we are learning are not true. If you read much from the revered masters you'll find that they are saying a lot of the same things and were ahead of their time in many ways but they are also terrible communicators.
I think the first sentence above means, as I said, that the basic principles are similar/same, across the vast majority of 'the board'. Yes, everyone has their own take, so there are always some things 'wrong' in other's eyes. But it sounds like you might be implying certain things are scientifically wrong? Agreed, that whatever the subject, ideas become outdated with further scientific info, but what specifically are you talking about there? Flooding? Using (almost or solely) negative reinforcement & punishment to train, or...? Just like the modern 'horsemanship gurus', some of the old ones were good & some bad at communicating. I'm not sure what you're getting at there though. Are you saying CA is a great communicator & no one else is, or...?
If you haven't seen everything Clinton Anderson is teaching from the fundamentals through advanced, and the colt starting you really don't know what he teaches. You don't have a frame of reference to judge how he would do the same things with an ordinary horse that is just green (fundamentals) or a wild mustang fresh off the BLM (colt starting). You've seen a youtube video or TV episode which is a commercial and the audience is inexperienced people with horses that have serious behavior problems. That is his base audience. He didn't make that horse flip over on the lady when she tries to get on, it came to him that way.
Respectfully I've heard that ad nauseum and it just doesn't gel. I do appreciate & agree with the gist of what you're saying, that IF you've only seen a few snippets from a couple of 'problem horse' DVDs then you aren't in a position to make a very objective, informed opinion.
But where it falls down most for me, is that a) he
says he treats all horses the same, and from what I've seen(way more than a couple of snippets, only of problem horses - no, haven't watched the whole ordeal tho I feel I've seen enough to have a good grasp, and I'm no novice who misunderstands what I'm seeing), he does indeed treat all horses I have seen essentially as abruptly, as aggressively, without consideration of their fear or such. Including a freshly caught brumby, which I was not impressed to see him justify his tactics & keep pushing when he caused it to fear of it's life & try to escape through steel panels...
The assumption that the audience are inexperienced people who have serious issues with their horses... yeah, that may well be the vast majority of those who watch his kind of vids. But how is that an argument for(or against, for that matter) his tactics & what we're seeing in these 'ads'? And what of those who watch who
aren't of that ilk? Just because I do(believe I) understand fully what I'm seeing, and disagree with it on many levels, how does that justify this stuff being taught to those who don't know better?
As I've said before, if all he shows in his 'ads' is not an accurate portrayal of what he is about, then it's misleading - and if he is indeed better than he comes across, he's shot himself in the foot with people like me, putting them off wanting to learn more from him. If it IS an accurate portrayal, then, the case remains, that I simply disagree with(the style of) his approach.
That last, when it boils down to it, seems to me, gets in the way of rational discussions of pros & cons of different specifics(and for that matter, the base principles, which are essentially the same for most trainers). People who are fans tend to just put down any opposing opinions by saying 'you don't know' 'you haven't seen'...
And if it is the case that the 'ads' & what I've seen aren't accurate, I'll ask you, as I've asked others... show me the money then! I'm more than happy to be shown I'm incorrect about him, to be set straight, but I'm not willing to spend money on it, when I reckon I've watched enough to believe it would be a waste of money. But perhaps you can show me something, direct me towards a clip or some such that you think will give me cause to rethink?
And on to Warwick Schiller - only heard of him in the last year or so, seen his recent stuff, including one time in person. I couldn't agree more with what he has to say & how he deals with horses. He's the first 'clinician' I've come across that I cannot recall anything he's said that I disagreed with. His approach, his philosophy is 'chalk & cheese' to CA. Now... But apparently not so many years ago, he was using the same principles as just about every other 'horseman' on the stage. He has apparently changed quite profoundly, quite recently, and watching his older stuff it is not unlike PP or CA or many others, at a base level. All that really differs is the 'spin'.