Has anyone out there read Debbie Marsden’s new book, ‘How Horses Learn’? I was looking forward to reading it and was delighted when I was sent a review copy. However I found it pretty disappointing in many respects. It had a rather old-fashioned feel to it, rather like some of the equestrian books published between about 1930 and 1960-ish, with inappropriate use of capitals and an excess of italics. It could definitely have done with some tighter editing, too – some of the grammar was sloppy and certain sentences very confusing. I know this sounds like nit-picking and I could have lived with all that if there hadn’t been so much else wrong with the book.
I expected great things of someone with Dr Marsden’s background, so I was disturbed by the number of unexamined assumptions in the book. For example, she says that observational learning in horses ‘does not happen’ (p.22). To my mind this is thoroughly unscientific. The best we can say is that experiments carried out to date (very sparse) suggest that it does not, but these experiments have been not been very horse-friendly and it may be that better-designed experiments will have a different result. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, Dr Marsden! She also says that humans ‘evolved needing to hunt prey to eat’. Er, no they didn’t, actually, as any anthropology student could confirm.
The author refers numerous times to ‘naughty’ behaviour but she doesn’t say what she means by ‘naughty’ or ‘naughtiness’. Shouldn’t an animal behaviour scientist have moved beyond this kind of anthropocentric view of equine behaviour? She also seems stuck with the idea that certain problems are caused by social dominance issues, and that some human actions can lead the horse to think he is ‘the boss’. She doesn’t say what she means by ‘social dominance’ and her assumptions here are based on very muddled ideas about equine social structure. I really don’t think, for example, that getting ahead of a horse when we lead him out is going to make him think he is ‘the boss’ (although it could be dangerous if he gets a fright and scoots forward). There seems to be confusion here between ideas of social dominance (a ‘dominant’ horse driving another horse away) and the kind of leadership shown by a band stallion when he drives the band from behind (usually away from danger). But this is not a matter of social dominance; the band stallion does not compete with his mares or offspring for resources; when he drives them away from real or perceived danger he is only protecting them. As for what the ‘dominant’ horse driving another away is doing – well, that depends on context, and it just isn’t good enough to say don’t get ahead of your horse when leading him, or don’t let him follow you around because he’ll think he’s being ‘the boss’ (it is in any case highly debatable whether horses have any concept of ‘boss’, no matter what all too many trainers believe)! And I really doubt very much whether any horse, unless he has been malimprinted as a foal, is going to see a human as another horse!
But for me the most disappointing aspect of the book is the explanation of conditioning processes and reinforcers. I was astounded to read Dr Marsden’s definition of negative reinforcement: ‘…a punishment is an unpleasant consequence, also known as a “negative reinforcement”’ (p.31). Later in the book she says that ‘Positive reinforcement (or reward) makes the preceding Behaviour more likely to happen again and negative reinforcement (or punishment) makes it less likely to happen again.’ (p.103). To find this confusion of punishment with negative reinforcement in someone with Dr Marsden’s particular academic background is disturbing, to say the least. In this way the whole subject of negative reinforcement – vitally important to understanding how training methods affect horses – is swept to one side and lumped in with punishment, which of course has the opposite effect to negative reinforcement. I think this greatly reduces the book’s overall value.
This is a great pity, because there is much to like in the book and certain chapters are very good. I particularly like the author’s description of how the brain works and her recognition that horses can learn concepts and so clearly think about things in certain ways just like we do. There are some helpful case-histories which explain how certain problem behaviours arise; the explanations of how brain chemistry affects learning are very useful, and the chapters dealing with subjects such as chaining conditioned responses, habituation, de-sensitizing and retraining techniques are excellent. Dr Marsden also provides some cutting insights into what is going on in various ‘Natural Horsemanship’ methods; her comments will not please devotees of those methods but they are, sadly, very accurate.
So I’d be interested to know if anyone else feels the same as I do – that this was a missed opportunity to cut through the fog of confusion that so often hangs around the whole subject of learning principles. Unfortunately in some respects Dr Marsden has succeeded only in making the fog even denser.
Thanks for that. I've not read the book, although it was one I was planning to look out for as I'd spoken to someone about it. She said exactly the same thing as you - that the definitions of -R and P were all muddled up again. What is it with operant conditioning, and -R in particular? No-one seems to be able to get it right, people either misdefine it or they define it correctly but then contradict themselves with bad examples. Does my head in as it really doesn't need to be complicated in this way. Aaaaaaarrggghhhhh!!
Hmmmm, I still want to read it but think I'll borrow this book rather than buy it!!
I've tried to sort out the muddle in my own new book (due out at end of November) 'Let Horses Be Horses' and also in another one that I'm doing for a South African publisher - I hope the examples I've used come across OK! I think part of the problem so many authors (self included) face is lack of space to do the subject justice - 1 or 2 chapters just isn't enough, and if your book has to cover a number of other topics, 1 or 2 chapters on learning is realistically all you're going to get. That was why I thought Debbie Marsden's book would be great - she had nearly a whole book to explain it in and give some great examples - but look what happened! So frustrating.
In the meantime, I thought you might be amused by an example of behaviour that was inadvertently reinforced.When my Arab gelding Zareeba was a youngster I taught him to take a mint gently from between my lips. Because he could not see directly in front of his nose, Zareeba had to tilt his head in order to see the mint. This gave him a very comical appearance and, as he was being given a mint, this reinforced his behaviour of tilting his head. He now tilts his head to solicit goodies from humans, who find his expression so irresistible that they invariably comply! Having paired this behaviour with the phrase, ‘Tell me what you want’ I now have only to say this and Zareeba tilts his head. The attached photo shows him sticking his head out of his stable's back window to try & persuade me to give him a mint.
A friend's horse, who used to put its ears back when you approached its stable, never got a treat when it was looking unfriendly, only when it put its ears forwards. It now deliberately pins its ears back whenever you approach its stable, waiting for you to give the verbal cue "nice ears please", at which prompt it immediately pricks both ears forwards, and consequently gets a treat
Has the horse been trained by the owner to put its ears forwards in response to a cue, or has the owner been trained by the horse to offer a treat in response to horse pinning its ears back? LOL
Understanding exactly what is being trained is one of the hardest things for CT beginners (I guess anyone trying to teach a horse something but somehow it becomes more obvious when using +R, I would guess because you are actively trying to encourage new behaviours rather than shut down wrong behaviours). It always makes me chuckle when you read CT-related threads on forums where this sort of thing is going on and the person is obviously oblivious. One of the many things on my list of "what I don't think some CT teachers are teaching properly"....!
I’ve just had my knuckles rapped by my publisher for some of the comments I made about Debbie Marsden’s book on the Amazon website (it’s published by J.A. Allen). Dr Marsden has posted her response to my criticism on Amazon, above my review – to see it go to www.amazon.co.uk , Books, type in Debbie Marsden & click on the book details to see my review & Dr Marsden’s comments.
I’d be interested to know what you knowledgeable people out there make of her response. I’m not going to go into it here except to say that the whole thing leaves me feeling rather depressed & wondering why I bother…anyway as I say I’d appreciate some feedback.
Head in hands sobbing, pausing to smack head against wall.......
Lesley, I'm definitely with you on this one. I don't think I've ever seen a "definition" quite like that one!
But I was intrigued to see what she said about the European vs American definitions. I'd be interested to see a little more about that, would have been nice if she could have included a few proper references from both "sides". I was really surprised to hear Marthe Kiley-Worthington also describe negative reinforcement and punishment as almost the same thing (I think she distinguished them as -R occurs simultaneously with the behaviour whereas +P was slightly delayed) so maybe there is a tiny bit of truth in what she says.
Thinking about it, the only consistent set of definitions is the +R, -R, +P, -P where + means something is added to environment, - means something is taken away, reinforcement means the behaviour is increased, punishment means it is decreased. This is also the only set of definitions that works when applied to real life without becoming contradictory.
So while other "definitions" abound, they all seem to contradict each other. Which makes me wonder if these two supposed American and European definitions weren't just "Chinese Whispers" going badly wrong, rather than genuinely different lines of thought.
Hmmm, think I will spend a bit of time this weekend digging out some references. Will get back to you if I find anything!
Dr Marsden wrote:
"I feel I must reiterate here for safety reasons that horses drive subordinates ahead of them as anyone who watches any group of horses for a short time will be able to see for themselves."
So who leads when the group moves? And does this mean the 'lead mare' is necessarily the most subordinate (being driven by all behind her)? Oh dear, more confusion!
I will add my slightly less scientific point to this - I was hoping to put this book in my Christmas present list, but based on all of the above, I now definitely won't. I am shocked at her views, and I am totally with Lesley in this.
Thanks to everyone who's replied supporting me re this. 'More confusion' just about sums it up! But it seems that one isn't allowed to challenge academics of repute because of possible damage to their reputations...
Amazon wouldn't print my original view! I've taken a deep breath and written another - I certainly couldn't be as generous as you about the book though! It's so sad that people (like you and I) will totally waste £20 thinking that 'this well respected behaviour expert' is going to offer something of value. I was talking with two friends who teach at Bristol (one vet one professor) neither have heard of her. What's particularly sad is it wouldn't surprise me if this book is going to be offered as an academic text book for students. JA Allens should be ashamed of themselves. Oh well in the long run it may encourage people to value our books more
Lesley - Dr Marsden will not win plaudits from anyone, including other scientists, by taking such a precious attitude to her book. As a scientist she should know that statements of 'fact' are there to be scrutinized, argued over, tested and (sometimes) proved false. Nowhere in your review did you criticize her as a person - that was manifestly not the point! Yet, despite your politeness, your praise for some chapters and for giving the book a recommendation overall, she seems to have taken it personally. In my opinion, it would be a terrible shame if you felt you had to retract your views.
Dr Marsden identified the "most serious allegation" as the confusion of terms 'punishment' and 'negative reinforcement'. But this is an area where there is clearly some disagreement between scientists, practitioners and writers (although she would appear to be in the minority camp when it comes to current usage). If she admits there is a lack of consensus over the use of these words, then she cannot claim to be personally 'defamed' when someone happens to point out the contrary view. The fact that you were "astounded" by this is neither here nor there.
No - methinks the lady doth protest too much!
Lesley, please will you keep me/us informed about how this pans out? If there is anything I can do in the way of support (beyond this public 'on the record' statement), do let me know.
Thank you all so much for your support! I do hope all this turns out to be storm in a teacup but one can't be too careful these days...Since receiving that e-mail from my publisher I've really felt like giving up writing altogether; I think what's the point when it's becoming virtually impossible to be honest about so much that's going on in the horse world nowadays? Francis, of course I'll keep you informed - knowing that I have the support of people as sane as you is what stops me jumping out of the window!
While checking textbooks to see whether and how 'negative reinforcement' and 'punishment' were distinguished by different authors, I noticed that the second edition of George Waring's HORSE BEHAVIOR (2002) contains a paragraph in the section on operant conditioning which talks about these two terms in the expected, 'modern' way. The same paragraph in the first edition (1983), cited by Dr Marsden on Amazon, is much shorter and mentions reward and punishment merely as things to be sought and avoided respectively. So maybe she hasn't seen the more recent edition?
I really do wonder why, if she was aware of the possible semantic confusions, she didn't briefly mention the different usage that anyone looking in most current textbooks on equine behaviour would find, with a statement that she would be following the "classical European tradition" instead, and her rationale for doing so. That wouldn't require a "lengthy academic discussion"!
Kelly brought up this topic on the IH Members Forum and I have read this thread with great interest.
Thirty five years ago, I studied Psychology as part of my degree. Even then, I knew that BF Skinner discovered 'operant conditioning' around 1928 and I read an article which he wrote in 1956. In it he said "Reinforcers may be positive or negative. A positive reinforcer reinforces when it is presented; a negative reinforcer reinforces when it is withdrawn. Negative reinforcement is not punishment. Reinforcers always strengthen behavior; that is what "reinforced" means. Punishment is used to suppress behavior."
Even I can still understand what Skinner wrote, how come Dr Marsden is so confused?
Oh blimey! I'm going to have to get hold of this book, fortunately there are a few second hand ones on amazon. I think it'll be worth it just for the entertainment value...I wonder if it will be as good as the book I read recently that in the introductory paragraph said that horses were lazy and slept for 23hrs a day. How do they get away with publishing this kind of thing?
So now here's a silly question but obviously a fairly important one...if I was born in the UK and moved to the US which definitions would apply to my horse? Oh now here's dreadful thought what if I was Austrailian...sorry to be flippant but had to be done.
I suspect that a lot of the confusion arose because many trainers and animal behaviour scientists who teach about aspects of learning have not read the original psychology texts which set out the principles of reinforcement, and somehow the message has got distorted (see Catherine’s remarks re ‘Chinese Whispers’!).
Yet obviously the so-called 'European tradition' (?) isn't that widespread among academics. A relatively recent paper, by someone from the dept of Zoology in Oxford, gives the following definitions of negative reinforcement and punishment
'...negative reinforcement, where performance of the correct response is followed by removal of, or decrease in, intensity of a unpleasant stimulus; punishment, where an incorrect response is paired with an undesirable consequence' (Cooper, J.J.: 'Comparative learning theory and its application in the training of horses' Equine Vet J Suppl. 1998 Nov; (27): 39-43)
I haven't read the above paper, only an abstract, but I'll try to get it from the British Library.
An even more recent paper, by Daniel Mills of Lincoln University, distinguishes between the use of so-called 'punishers' and actual punishment: 'Deliberately applied stimuli which tend to be avoided may be called 'punishers' which relates to the properties of the stimulus, not the learning process it brings about. The application of 'punishers' does not necessarily result in learning through punishment but may result in negative reinforcement.' (Mills, D.D: 'Applying learning theory to the management of the horse: the difference between getting it right and getting it wrong', Equine Veterinary Journal Supplement 27 (1998) 44-48)
So one can see how the confusion arises, yet Mills is careful to separate negative reinforcement from punishment. I'd recommend reading this paper if you can get hold of it; Mills is very good on the subject of why punishment tends to be ineffective and why any reinforcer must be appropriate.
McCall’s review of learning behaviour in horses is rather more specific, much closer to the Behaviourist definition given by Skinner. McCall states that ‘Reinforcements in horse training can be either giving the horse something it likes (positive reinforcement) or removing something it does not like (negative reinforcement’ and later that ‘Punishment differs from reinforcement (both positive and negative) in that it works to suppress or eliminate a response, whereas reinforcements increase the probability that the response will occur again with the presentation of a specific stimulus.’ (C.A. McCall, ‘A Review of learning behaviour in horses and its application in horse training’, Journal of Animal Science, 68, 1990, pp.75-81).
One of my biggest concerns about the confusion between negative reinforcement and punishment (and also with the equation of –R with unpleasant stimuli) is that the use of –R, albeit hopefully in a very mild form, is a necessary component of the kind of riding which actually helps the horse as opposed to just telling him what we want him to do (e.g. the touch of the leg, which when used correctly stimulates the nerves and muscles which raise the back (enabling it to carry the rider’s weight more easily and without strain) and move the hind legs forward). Riders wanting to avoid the use of unpleasant stimuli may be discouraged from making use of the aids effectively if they think they are punishing their horse. This would certainly not help horses and could have the opposite effect.
I won’t go into this any further here because I’ve already covered this in detail in another thread sometime ago; for anyone wanting to know just how crucial correct use of the aids can be, I can strongly recommend ‘Invisible Riding’ by Sylvia Loch and also Sara Wyche’s ‘The Anatomy of Riding’.
Just wanted to add this: One thing about Dr Marsden’s book that I didn’t mention in the review (and perhaps should have done, except that I thought I’d been negative enough) is the lack of sources for her information, or indeed even the most basic bibliography. I’ve always believed that you should be prepared to state your sources of information, even if it’s only personal experience (I say ‘only’ yet personal experience is extremely valuable – if it is examined carefully for potential bias). I don’t know the reason for this; perhaps it was lack of space, or perhaps the author thought readers would find it off-putting. Personally I like to check out sources, partly so I know what researches the author has carried out, and partly for my own future reference. At the very least it enables readers so inclined to find out whether the author has made good use of sources, and to me a lack of even a basic a bibliography (or even a ‘recommended reading’ section) in a serious modern book is a grave fault.
One thing that amused me about Dr Marsden’s reply to my review (which was extraordinary in itself; I’ve never seen an author reply to a review on Amazon before, although I suppose it must have happened) was her remark about my supposed ‘preconceived ideas’. If I’ve learned anything from my researches over the years, it’s that every time I think I’ve understood a subject I find some further information that quickly makes me realise that so far from having thoroughly understood it all, I have a whole lot more to learn about it. Looking back at things I’ve written I sometimes think, ‘Hmmm…did I really know what I was talking about there?’ I think this continuous learning process is essential and that if we ever reach the stage when we believe we know all that can be known we are in deep trouble…and this applies no matter how many academic qualifications we have (or don’t have, as the case may be!).
Well, I've not found any other reference to these supposed European and American approaches and am still inclined to believe it's just wrong. If all the other "wrong" definitions at least agreed with each other then I'd be more inclined to accept there might be some truth in it. But generally all the "wrong" definitions contradict each other as well!
But I'm obviously in a charitable mood as have posted a "review" on Amazon asking her to elaborate and provide a reference! (If they print it, ignore the 3-star rating as I've not actually read the book. Just had to give a rating before being allowed to "review" it). I'm not holding my breath for a reply but would be interested to see what she says if she does.
I definitely agree with people above, that she has done herself no favours by responding like this. It's just lead us all to trying to find out more about her - and so far there seems to be very little to find (following a PhD in sheep husbandry in 1989!). I feel really strongly that if you are going to use your doctorate to give yourself extra credibility when selling a book, then you should also abide by the standard criteria by which you get academic work published. Everything presented as fact should be referenced or backed-up by your own results. And if it isn't then it will be criticised as unprofessional and unscientific. That's just something you accept (rather than like!) and you make sure your work conforms. Of course, you can also present your work as opinion, as long as you make it clear that you are speculating - you can still be controversial, just be careful with the phrasing.....!
Catrin - thank you for your Skinner quote (I'm assuming it's a direct quote?). As I've not read any of his original works I was beginning to worry that maybe he'd not actually used the exact terms as I'd always understood. So I was relieved to see your post. Is it possible to get his papers on-line anywhere or do I need to go to some special library?
And Catrin, welcome to the THF, Kelly too. Although a shame about the circumstances!
Lesley thanks for your references as well. Will see if I can get hold of them through work. BTW, does it cost much to get papers from the British Library? I've never tried
Lucy me too! Will have to find a cheap 2nd hand copy somewhere. What breed is your horse? I'm pretty sure they're European! Eeeek, how about Jak, an American quarter horse bred and living in the UK?!! I'm pretty sure he distinguishes between +P and -R but maybe that's just because I've been brainwashed by my preconceived American ideas....
Having read some of the book (borrowed from a friend) I have to agree with all the comments on it. Apart from the obviouse errors with punishment and negative reinforcement she has also written things that I found quite confusing. For example marsden recomends giving treats from the sternum (horses) so he has to tuck his head in and down to get the treat. The reason given is that it puts him in a socially subordinate position! the acompanying pictures show a black and a chestnut with their heads tucked onto their chests. I can't for the life of me ever rember seeing a horse submit to another by curling its head in. If anything the outline is bulkier and more assertive as a result. It also looks extremely uncomfortable for them (think massively over bent dressage horse).
I also found alot of it fairly simple, for example the piece on Millers imprinting puts it down to habituation whereas it would appear to me to invole an element of flooding and possible even learned helplessness (having seen millers video)
"The reason given is that it puts him in a socially subordinate position! the acompanying pictures show a black and a chestnut with their heads tucked onto their chests. I can't for the life of me ever rember seeing a horse submit to another by curling its head in. If anything the outline is bulkier and more assertive as a result. It also looks extremely uncomfortable for them (think massively over bent dressage horse)."
Adam - That's a good point. I haven't read the book yet, but the more I hear about it the less keen I am to start. The author seems somewhat obsessed with dominance. She's not alone, of course - it's an all too popular paradigm.
As a new person to this message board , I have been really interested in this thread - and have learnt more about conditioning processes and reinforcers as a result.I actually found this forum because I have the book to review (very much from a layman's point of view) for The natural horse magazine (Rachel bedingfield, Abigail Hogg) et al (quarterly magazine fo natural horse group)
Would people on this board mind if I used some of the points raised , particularly about the discussion on the definitions on negative reinforcement etc which I don't think I would have picked up on (yes I have to go read Don't shoot the Dog!)?I would obviously mention the forum which enabled to learn more about this.
I was also interested in the comment that horses don't learn from each other.I have done some trick training (adding in clicker) and the horses certainly seem to learn from each other. In Texas, Allen Pogue who does a fair amount (does not use clicker - but he uses some vocal cues - his horses understand - that was good but you can do better, and they defintiely understand what a cookie is (Texan for horse treat) .If they have a training session the young horses will be tied up where they can watch - It certainly seems to help ( my yearling took very little time to go on a pedestal - she watched my older horse getting rewarded for doing the same , and so she soon realised it was a "good" thing to do.Similarly my yearling and foal get used to my 2 year old playing with a ball, for instance, and realise they will get rewarded for touching it.The example in L.Marsden's book seemed to me that the horse watching could not see any reward for doing the offered behaviour - so what is the point of doing it?
Catherine - it's quite expensive obtaining papers through the British Library but it is very fast and so very useful if like me someone is not on the faculty or part of the student body of any university and can't readily obtain papers through academic sources. I used to get them via my local library but it's a painfully slow process and useless if one wants to consult a paper in a hurry. Provided they have the relevant journal issue (which they usually do except if it's pretty obscure)the British Library will send photocopies of papers and articles by post (usually a few days)which costs (if I remember rightly) about eight quid; or you can order them for electronic delivery - 1 hour, 2 hours and 24 hours (I think - I'd have to check!) Being a naturally impatient person I usually go for 1 hour which is expensive - around 21 quid! but worth it if you need a vital reference in a hurry. You can register by following the links on this page: http://www.bl.uk/services/copy.html
Adam - some very good points there. I too have never seen a horse submit in the way Dr Marsden describes - most horses just go away from a horse they perceive to be threatening. (Even the so-called 'foal face' or snapping is now thought to be a displacement activity rather than a gesture of submission - not least because as a way of deflecting aggression it doesn't actually work very well!). This seems to be another example of Dr Marsden giving her own interpretation without any further explanation. (Accept this because I say so..?)
Regarding the controversial 'imprinting' technique (which I really wouldn't recommend) I think you are spot on here - this is flooding, which is one reason why I wouldn't recommend it...
Hilary - you are welcome to use any of the points I've raised in this forum. Re observational learning in horses - when you think about it, it would be pretty miraculous if a social species like the horse *didn't* learn by observation. One of the researchers who carried out one of the experiments which supposedly disproved that such learning occurs in horses, Dr Paul McGreevy, actually says that he thinks the experiments carried out so far have not been particularly horse-friendly and he thinks that better-designed experiments might well show that horses do in fact show observational learning. So for Dr Marsden to state categorically that it 'does not happen' is - as I said in my review - unscientific. At best we can only say it hasn't been proved to occur - not at all the same as saying it *doesn't* occur! You might be interested to know that some years ago we did an experiment with one of our mares to see if she could learn by observing us. One day when my Arab mare Roxzella was in the stable and Brian was about to put some fresh straw down for her, he decided to try an impromptu experiment. He put his own foot on the bale of straw, to see if Roxzella, who had seen her son Nivalis do this numerous times, would get the idea. Within a few minutes she was imitating Brian and putting first one hoof, and then the other, up on the bale of straw. To see if this could be repeated with another horse, we then tried it with Zareeba - with the same result, though this time a few more attempts were needed. Both horses had repeatedly seen our stallion Nivalis do the same thing, and appeared to readily associate what Brian was doing with what they had seen Nivalis do. Now that wouldn't be accepted as a scientific experiment, but it's certainly suggestive! Whether they would do it now I have no idea as we never followed this up to consolidate their learning (unlike Nivalis, who will put his forefeet up on a bale of straw - not really recommended as bales too unstable to be safe - at the drop of a hat). Dr Marthe Kiley-Worthington has also carried out a similar experiment with positive results - she describes this in her new book 'Horse Watch - What it is to be Equine' (which has its faults but is a MUCH better book than Marsden's).
An easy and cheap way to make bales of straw (hay is probably better as it is more dense) safe(or much safer) for horses to stand on : go to your local carpet shop, and ask if you can rummage in the skip which they often have out the back where the old carpet and the scraps from fitting the new carpets go in.Retrieve what you want. Then go and push the bales tight together and wrap over with several layers of carpet.If you have any spare rubber on top put a piece on top - and it makes it fairly user friendly - particularly for youngsters as there is nothing to catch their legs on.
BTW, observational learning is mentionned in the newest edition of Warings book (page 111 in my copy) and he distinguishes it from social learning, tutoring and imitation and provides references.
Not much detail but a starting point if you find the other refs.
Christine Nichols from Bristol Uni did a talk involving this subject at a conference in March, will try to dig out the notes.
Googled her name and found this - read on it's worth it! http://www.usask.ca/wcvm/ae/archives/may01-07.95 - turns out the huge long "from the horse's mouth" post is from her. Not a lady to disagree with lighly, it would seem :O
I actually asked Amazon to remove the review (i.e. I chickened out!) because of the veiled threat in the e-mail I received from the publisher (who happens also to be my publisher). I wish I hadn't, now, but I wasn't thinking clearly at the time as I was so annoyed that the publisher had actually seen fit to wag a finger at me and tell me how naughty I'd been, daring to write an adverse review of a J.A. Allen book (well she didn't phrase it quite like that but that was the gist of it).
I see that Debbie Marsden's reply has also vanished - did anyone by any chance copy it? I can't remember what she actually said in reply, just that it was rather rambling and incoherent.
Since the only review left on Amazon is a one-star effort, I rather think she's shot herself in the foot...
Sorry - just looked at the Amazon site & Dr Marsden's reply is still there...
Also just thought I'd better point out that the item mentioned in the Blimey! message referred to Dr Marsden, not to me - just in case anyone was wondering, as that's how I read it to begin with - as it came immediately after the mention of my review.
Just wanted to add this - I checked the book again last night and there are actually 2 references to other works in the book, both on the same page (63): one from anarticle by a vet in the magazine In Practice, and another from an article in the Equine Veterinary Journal, both references to stabling. Nothing at all on learning itself though! It would have been nice to be able to check some of the facts presented in the book, but it seems we are being asked to take this on trust. I remembered a great quote from Broca's Brain by the late Carl Sagan (not exactly a nobody in scientific circles)re scientific authorities:
'Arguments from authority simply do not count; too many authorities have been mistaken too often.'
Sometimes you have to 'kick-start' Amazon before they actually post a review. You can do this by e-mailing Amazon on reviews-help@amazon.co.uk asking them why a review hasn't appeared.
Thanks for that Francis, Lesley. OK, will email them.
I didn't actually write a review as I haven't read the book (tried buying it for 4 quid off ebay but got outbid over the weekend when I'm not on-line - bugger!). I don't have a record of it but it was along the lines of:
"I was fascinated to see you mention American and European schools of thought on the reinforcement and punishment definitions. Please could you elaborate on this and provide a reference as it's not something I'd come across. It had been my understanding that these terms had been defined unambiguously by Skinner in the 1930's"
It was kind of grovelly, kind of trying to wheedle information out of her. It wouldn't surprise me if Amazon refuse to print it as it's not actually a review but just a response to her "outburst". I've not put a review on amazon before and had assumed it would be automatic rather than moderated - oh well, worth a try!
Lesha - Oh my God!!! I was a member of that email list for a little while and had been thinking about rejoining. But seeing those exchanges reminded me of why I decided that there was more to life than sifting through lots of emails from bickering academics! Too much of that at work!
Having said that, I was childishly amused at the reply to Debbie Marsden's post!
Current Topic - Debbie Marsden's new book How Horses Learn
Francis, of course I'll keep you informed - knowing that I have the support of people as sane as you is what stops me jumping out of the window!