Post by Elaine on Nov 4, 2011 20:21:01 GMT
Words - Kathleen Lindley
I wish I got a dollar this year for every time someone said, "See, he wants to (insert negative behavior of the horse here)." For instance, "He wants to push me around at feeding time," or "He wants to back out of the trailer early," "He only wants to get the left lead."
WANTS? Really?
Now, most of you know that I am an ex-English major at the college level, and that I love words. Some of my friends say I am "ruled by words", and I'm willing to accept that. Among us humans, words are one of the main mechanisms we have to communicate among ourselves, so I feel like it's important that we use them well. If you look in a dictionary, different words have different definitions, and further to that, different words actually have different feels. We know that the feel we present to the horse plays a large part in how he is going to respond, therefore the words we use while we're working with or thinking about our horse can certainly influence how all that turns out.
When we say our horse "wants" to do something negative, we make that behavior his "fault". We put the responsibility for the behavior square in his lap. This is kind of silly, because given his druthers, he'd probably be out in the field with his buddies eating. So as I see it, we need to accept responsibility for the value system that we impose on the horse. For instance, many horses wouldn't really care which lead they get at the canter because the arena is plenty big enough to counter-canter in. It's US that puts a value on the "correct lead."
I hand out a clinic questionnaire for students to fill out to help organize their thoughts before a clinic. These are really interesting to read because I usually read them before I actually see or meet the horse and rider referenced in the questionnaire. Sometimes the information in the questionnaire will create a certain picture in my mind, and it's interesting to see the next day how reality tallies with what was in the questionnaire.
More times than not, if someone has what they feel is a "pushy" horse, they will use "pushy" to describe their horse in response to the "describe your horse's personality" part of the questionnaire and not mention it in the "what I'd like to work on" section. If we see being "pushy" as a personality or character trait, we can't work on that. If we see it as a training issue, we can at least try. So what category a student puts the trait "pushy" in tells me subtly if they think it's changeable or not. Might even be that we put "pushy" down as a character trait rather than a training issue to excuse the behavior.
If I right-click on the word "pushy" in Word, the software gives me these synonyms: assertive, forceful, aggressive, loud-mouthed, over-ambitious, go-ahead and dynamic. Hmmmm......
How we choose our words and how we use them has a lot to do with how things turn out between us and our horses. Words don't only have a definition, but more subtle than that, they have a feel and an intent behind them. Obviously, the words "piggy" or "stupid" have a different feel to them than the words "confused" or "green". But all those words could be used to describe the same horse in the same situation.
We know that horses operate off of "feel" - from the obvious physical feel we can offer them to the more subtle energy and intent "feels" we can offer them. They are aware of all of it. We also know that the kind or texture of the feel we present to a horse has a lot to do with how they respond to it. If we believe our horse "wants" to get the wrong lead or push into our space, that belief is going to create a certain feel between us and our horse.
This gets pretty simple for me in the end. I choose to believe that horses basically operate off of two motivations in a training context: instinct and learned behavior. That may be a gross simplification, but with a lot of the situations that happen with our horses, if we can look at things that simply, we can get the situation to resolve quicker and easier for everyone. Most of the time, when learned behavior runs out, instinct takes over. Many "misbehaviors" are actually learned behaviors that aren't what we want them to be, or instinctive responses. If a horse gets (what is in his mind) a release or a reward for doing something (good, bad or indifferent), he will likely repeat it. That's a learned behavior. Learned behaviors can range from biting to flying lead changes. A release is a release, from the horse's point of view.
So if we look at our horse's behavior as either instinctive or learned, things become much less anyone's "fault" and we can proactively work toward either teaching a new learned behavior so the horse doesn't have to revert to instinct, or we can perhaps replace an undesired learned behavior with a more desirable behavior.
"Doesn't want to" could also be "can't", which is a completely different word. Perhaps that horse who "doesn't want to" canter on the left lead CAN'T canter on the left lead for whatever reason, physical or mental. Or yes, maybe he "doesn't want to" canter on the left lead because it hurts or it scares him.
We also know that positive language tends to be more successful than negative language. The instruction to "remind me to pick up my keys" is more likely to be successful than the instruction to "don't let me forget my keys". This is actually a scientific fact, and the cornerstone of performance and sports coaching. Therefore, we are more likely to successfully get our horse to "canter in a smooth and balanced manner" than to "not buck". "Not bucking", looking at it from a simple perspective, actually puts the picture and WORD "buck/bucking" out there between us and our horse, while "cantering balanced and smooth" does not. We can only achieve positively-stated goals. It is difficult to impossible to achieve a negatively-stated goal.
By the same token, we don't want to take the positive language thing so far that we lose the truth of the communication. When I see "in your pocket personality" in a horse-for-sale ad, I read "no ground manners or boundaries, poor halter skills." "Very athletic" translates to "too much horse for me, and probably for you too!" "Lazy" could mean "crippled". So we want to call it what it is as honestly as we can, from our own perspective.
There are lots of very subtle things that separate very good and competent horsemen from less skilled horsemen. This could certainly be one of them. Watch your language for a while and see what you notice. See if you can say what you mean and mean what you say in a positive but truthful way.
At its core, at its heart, horsemanship is about communication. The more we practice communicating (any kind of communication) with skill, accuracy and grace, the better our horsemanship will be. That's not all of it, but it's certainly part of it. If we can create a positive but honest dialogue with our horse, it will only help our relationship. Heck, I guess you could apply that to human relationships too.....
I wish I got a dollar this year for every time someone said, "See, he wants to (insert negative behavior of the horse here)." For instance, "He wants to push me around at feeding time," or "He wants to back out of the trailer early," "He only wants to get the left lead."
WANTS? Really?
Now, most of you know that I am an ex-English major at the college level, and that I love words. Some of my friends say I am "ruled by words", and I'm willing to accept that. Among us humans, words are one of the main mechanisms we have to communicate among ourselves, so I feel like it's important that we use them well. If you look in a dictionary, different words have different definitions, and further to that, different words actually have different feels. We know that the feel we present to the horse plays a large part in how he is going to respond, therefore the words we use while we're working with or thinking about our horse can certainly influence how all that turns out.
When we say our horse "wants" to do something negative, we make that behavior his "fault". We put the responsibility for the behavior square in his lap. This is kind of silly, because given his druthers, he'd probably be out in the field with his buddies eating. So as I see it, we need to accept responsibility for the value system that we impose on the horse. For instance, many horses wouldn't really care which lead they get at the canter because the arena is plenty big enough to counter-canter in. It's US that puts a value on the "correct lead."
I hand out a clinic questionnaire for students to fill out to help organize their thoughts before a clinic. These are really interesting to read because I usually read them before I actually see or meet the horse and rider referenced in the questionnaire. Sometimes the information in the questionnaire will create a certain picture in my mind, and it's interesting to see the next day how reality tallies with what was in the questionnaire.
More times than not, if someone has what they feel is a "pushy" horse, they will use "pushy" to describe their horse in response to the "describe your horse's personality" part of the questionnaire and not mention it in the "what I'd like to work on" section. If we see being "pushy" as a personality or character trait, we can't work on that. If we see it as a training issue, we can at least try. So what category a student puts the trait "pushy" in tells me subtly if they think it's changeable or not. Might even be that we put "pushy" down as a character trait rather than a training issue to excuse the behavior.
If I right-click on the word "pushy" in Word, the software gives me these synonyms: assertive, forceful, aggressive, loud-mouthed, over-ambitious, go-ahead and dynamic. Hmmmm......
How we choose our words and how we use them has a lot to do with how things turn out between us and our horses. Words don't only have a definition, but more subtle than that, they have a feel and an intent behind them. Obviously, the words "piggy" or "stupid" have a different feel to them than the words "confused" or "green". But all those words could be used to describe the same horse in the same situation.
We know that horses operate off of "feel" - from the obvious physical feel we can offer them to the more subtle energy and intent "feels" we can offer them. They are aware of all of it. We also know that the kind or texture of the feel we present to a horse has a lot to do with how they respond to it. If we believe our horse "wants" to get the wrong lead or push into our space, that belief is going to create a certain feel between us and our horse.
This gets pretty simple for me in the end. I choose to believe that horses basically operate off of two motivations in a training context: instinct and learned behavior. That may be a gross simplification, but with a lot of the situations that happen with our horses, if we can look at things that simply, we can get the situation to resolve quicker and easier for everyone. Most of the time, when learned behavior runs out, instinct takes over. Many "misbehaviors" are actually learned behaviors that aren't what we want them to be, or instinctive responses. If a horse gets (what is in his mind) a release or a reward for doing something (good, bad or indifferent), he will likely repeat it. That's a learned behavior. Learned behaviors can range from biting to flying lead changes. A release is a release, from the horse's point of view.
So if we look at our horse's behavior as either instinctive or learned, things become much less anyone's "fault" and we can proactively work toward either teaching a new learned behavior so the horse doesn't have to revert to instinct, or we can perhaps replace an undesired learned behavior with a more desirable behavior.
"Doesn't want to" could also be "can't", which is a completely different word. Perhaps that horse who "doesn't want to" canter on the left lead CAN'T canter on the left lead for whatever reason, physical or mental. Or yes, maybe he "doesn't want to" canter on the left lead because it hurts or it scares him.
We also know that positive language tends to be more successful than negative language. The instruction to "remind me to pick up my keys" is more likely to be successful than the instruction to "don't let me forget my keys". This is actually a scientific fact, and the cornerstone of performance and sports coaching. Therefore, we are more likely to successfully get our horse to "canter in a smooth and balanced manner" than to "not buck". "Not bucking", looking at it from a simple perspective, actually puts the picture and WORD "buck/bucking" out there between us and our horse, while "cantering balanced and smooth" does not. We can only achieve positively-stated goals. It is difficult to impossible to achieve a negatively-stated goal.
By the same token, we don't want to take the positive language thing so far that we lose the truth of the communication. When I see "in your pocket personality" in a horse-for-sale ad, I read "no ground manners or boundaries, poor halter skills." "Very athletic" translates to "too much horse for me, and probably for you too!" "Lazy" could mean "crippled". So we want to call it what it is as honestly as we can, from our own perspective.
There are lots of very subtle things that separate very good and competent horsemen from less skilled horsemen. This could certainly be one of them. Watch your language for a while and see what you notice. See if you can say what you mean and mean what you say in a positive but truthful way.
At its core, at its heart, horsemanship is about communication. The more we practice communicating (any kind of communication) with skill, accuracy and grace, the better our horsemanship will be. That's not all of it, but it's certainly part of it. If we can create a positive but honest dialogue with our horse, it will only help our relationship. Heck, I guess you could apply that to human relationships too.....