Hello, fellow partners in sanity! And to Catherine, an extremely belated congratulations on Billy's arrival, I'm so sorry it's taken me so long, if I'd left it much longer he'd soon be taking his A levels!! Oh, and happy new dog!

I find it so hard to understand why I keep finding myself displacing from the essay I should be writing on cognitive development in terms of specialization of function in specific structures of the brain.....

Catherine, in the "doggy questions" thread you wrote:
"As for "not stressed" vs "shut down". maybe I'm just way too arrogant but I firmly believe this is down to education less than difference of opinion. If more people spent moretime studying motivation, +R etc rather than different ways of applying pressure then this would be much less of an issue."

I wholeheartedly agree: you are way too arrogant! Ha ha, long may it continue! Serious now: my two-penn'orth is this: whether or not an animal is stressed cannot always be determined by external observation: blood tests on a horse which 90% of experienced handlers would describe as "calm" may provide hormonal evidence that the horse is stressed (and suppressed). Anxiety, fear or pain can be inferred from a combination of behavioural indicators eg muscle tone, respiratory rate, sweating (or absence thereof), nostril size and shape etc. An understanding of ethology and learning theory enables us to analyse the horse's situation and more accurately predict whether or not it is likely to be experiencing stress.

But it still seems to me up here in the Northern Wastes that there is a sorry lack of education to enable horse owners to assess their horses' environment in this way, sigh. As a general question, how does it look to everyone out there? and I extend the question to include all companion animals (nay, even children, forsooth).... On my travels I don't see any greater proportion of animal owners than I did 5 years ago who use positive reinforcement, or who attempt to find out, and meet, their animals' natural needs. They are suffering the behavioural consequences because of it, and then seem to choose punitive options in their attempts to solve the problem, often because an "expert" (consultant, trainer, college lecturer, television presenter) has recommended them. You are probably now thinking that aforementioned essay is part of my studies at the University of the bleedin' obvious, but it does intrigue me that more animal owners don't have the same "eureka" moments that we posters/lurkers have had. Any thoughts gratefully received, be they philosophical, sociological, practical, mutually appreciative, self-congratulatory.....

"Aint it der truuuth, aint it der truuuth", as the Lion says in "The Wizard of Oz" - I so often find I have misjudged the wave-length I'm suppposed to be on (which is probably because I'm not very empathetic) and yes, one does expect to find that everyone has been on an intensive journey of exploration and discovery, especially when the well being of sentient beings is at stake, but then it becomes apparent that the practice "on the ground" is light years from "cutting-edge" (we wish) theory. Actually, something very similar happens in many fields of human belief - in religion (any religion) what the theologians say is one thing, and what the "faithful" in the street believe and do is quite another. So that's something that has to be taken into account as a human characteristic. The role of language in all this is important - people convince thenselves by the words they use, I find (which means I do too, of course). If you tell yourself that what you are doing is for your horse's, child's dog's etc's good, you'll believe it, evidence to the contrary or not.
I had an interesting example of the straightjacket of language the other day, talking with my gardener about socialising my dogs together (see relevant thread). It has been quite clear to me from the outset that if they never have to compete for any resource, there will be no trouble. However, when I explained this to the gardener, he repeated it back to me in "dominance" terms, clearly the only context in which he can frame canine behaviour.
I'm really not sure that human communication takes place at all.....
And, of course, as a vegan, I see all the time how the different treatment we mete out to different species (races, sexes, ages)is mediated by these language habits.
Debbie's reference to Sociology is most timely and relevant. We have to understand how we construct our reality to turn it in a beneficial direction.
Rita

And, while I'm in full spate, does anyone else think this piece of research is extremely (potentially) revealing and germane to the issue?: (from The Research Digest)

----------------------------------------
6. Acupuncturists insensitive to other people's pain
----------------------------------------

When we witness other people undergoing a painful experience, our brains
respond as though we are experiencing that pain ourselves. We're simulating
their trauma in our own pain pathways. This is pretty handy when it comes to
empathy but could be a problematic distraction for people, such as dentists
and acupuncturists, who have to dish out pain as part of the help they
provide to their clients.

Yawei Cheng and colleagues wondered if medical professionals learn to
suppress their emotional brain response to the sight of other people's pain,
thus allowing them to plough on with their professional handiwork
undeterred.

Fourteen professional acupuncturists and 14 controls had their brains
scanned while they watched needles being inserted into mouths, hands and
feet, or less eye-wateringly, while blunt 'Q-tips' were touched against the
same areas.

Consistent with past research, when the control participants watched the
needle insertions, the pain regions of their brains leaped into action, as
though they themselves were experiencing the pain. By contrast, there was
barely a flicker of pain-related activity in the brains of the
acupuncturists. Instead, their brains showed activity in frontal regions,
known to be involved in emotional control, as well as memory-related areas.
(When it came to the pain-free images featuring blunt Q-tips, the brains of
the acupuncturists and controls responded in the same way).

The behavioural data fitted well with these brain imaging results: the
control participants reported finding the needle images far more unpleasant
and painful than did the acupuncturists.

It's not that the acupuncturists are a sadistic bunch: personality scales
showed they were just as sensitive and empathetic as the control group.
Instead, the researchers said their results show that rather than
"responding on the basis of automatically activated stimulus-response
linkages...humans regulate their emotions by relying on higher cognitive
processes involving knowledge in working memory, long-term memory and
meta-cognition."

The researchers said that, in the case of doctors, such emotional control
was necessary for "successful professional practice", allowing medical
professionals to "regulate their feelings of unpleasantness generated by the
perception of pain in others."
_________________________________

CHENG, Y., LIN, C., LIU, H., HSU, Y., LIM, K., HUNG, D., DECETY, J. (2007).
Expertise Modulates the Perception of Pain in Others. Current Biology,
17(19), 1708-1713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.09.020

Author weblink: http://www.tpech.gov.tw/English/eIndex.aspx

What does this tell us about how the exigencies of life can radically change our opinion of others' sufferings (including, in our case, other species) ?!! Can this help us to understand how training ideals, economic/professional considerations etc are able to override perception of aversion in "patients" - in the widest sense of that word? And how the toughening process, which pulls the wool over our eyes so often, in our dealings with other species as well as with our own, can, thankfully (or not?) be reversed - which is presumably what happens when people give up - for example - harsh breaking methods/wearing fur coats etc etc etc?
Sorry, Debbie, don't want to stray too far from your points, which are most interesting and important ones - I hope this seems at least tangentially relevant!
Rita

I wholeheartedly agree: you are way too arrogant! Ha ha, long may it continue! Serious now: my two-penn'orth is this: whether or not an animal is stressed cannot always be determined by external observation: blood tests on a horse which 90% of experienced handlers would describe as "calm" may provide hormonal evidence that the horse is stressed (and suppressed). Anxiety, fear or pain can be inferred from a combination of behavioural indicators eg muscle tone, respiratory rate, sweating (or absence thereof), nostril size and shape etc. An understanding of ethology and learning theory enables us to analyse the horse's situation and more accurately predict whether or not it is likely to be experiencing stress.

Hi Debbie

This is the bit I've been meaning to come back to you on because I think external examination can do a lot better than you make out. But I would definitely agree that the vast number of "experienced handlers" probably wouldn't be able to distinguish between calm and shut down. Most experienced handlers are competent at using -R/P to get a horse to do what they want it to do. Some will do it more aversively than others but you can almost guarantee that the vast majority will not be using +R/free shaping and actively encouraging the horse to explore his environment, safe in the knowledge that there are no wrong answers. Not ever. And if the horse never gets to experience being himself, being encouraged make decisions and choose to solve problems in the presence of humans then I would argue that there is an element of "shut down". And I would question whether the physiological research can get that subtle. I have no idea, am just guessing.

This is my extrapolation of Carl Rogers' work on his scale of human personal growth - I don't see any reason why it can't apply to other animals.

On the other hand, I do believe that if you have learnt to work with feel and instinct and have a background in +R and encouraging the horse to feel safe enough to open up and show you the real underlying "person" then you can recognise the very subtle signs of stress. We're talking the tiniest little flickers of movement which repeat often enough to make you wonder, that "look" in the eyes of horses who don't get to make decisions, licking/chewing/yawning *sometimes*, that feeling you get that there is more than meets the eye.

And that contrasts so beautifully on the rare occasion you meet a horse who just has that full personality which hasn't been damaged in anyway. Or that has been slightly damaged and you know a bit of free shaping by the right person could rectify it relatively easily. ooooh, that's what it's all about!

Catherine

Hi Catherine,

Is this the bit you wrote where you're extrapolating Carl Rogers: "And if the horse never gets to experience being himself, being encouraged to make decisions and choose to solve problems in the presence of humans then I would argue that there is an element of "shut down"."?

Sometimes you know something but it takes someone else to put it into words and reflect it back to you? It's just one sentence that strikes a chord and sums everything up, and for me it's what you said there. It is all about solving problems and making choices in reponse to motivation, and the domestic equid's inability to do that is the sorry state of the equine condition. I did study Rogers in counselling training, but I haven't used the work for some time in terms of actual one-to-one counselling, apart from trying desperately to do UPR, empathy and congruence in the face of recalcitrant clients, and I've obviously forgotten I ever read "Coercion and Its Fallout"! I think I need to put myself on some refresher reading and reflection! So thanks for giving me my latest "aha!" moment.

Take care,

Debbie

hi Debbie

Is this the bit you wrote where you're extrapolating Carl Rogers: "And if the horse never gets to experience being himself, being encouraged to make decisions and choose to solve problems in the presence of humans then I would argue that there is an element of "shut down"."?

Yes. I've not studied Rogers formally but read "On Becoming a Person" and found it excellent and relevant to horses in just soooo many ways. I've always felt that learnt helplessness must have certain degrees other than "on" or "off" and that there must be a sliding scale between "absolutely fine" and "LH". I know officially there isn't but that just didn't make sense to me. In his book Rogers describes such a scale in the context of personal growth. And he describes how the unconditional positive regard, empathy and congruence present in a proper therapeutic relationship can help the subject climb up the scale. For me, doing behaviour work with a horse is the same thing, free shaping being the means of providing the UPR/empathy/congruence in a way the horse and human can easily communicate.

I go into more detail in my article "On becoming an equine" on my website http://www.equinemindandbody.co.uk

Sometimes you know something but it takes someone else to put it into words and reflect it back to you? It's just one sentence that strikes a chord and sums everything up, and for me it's what you said there. It is all about solving problems and making choices in reponse to motivation, and the domestic equid's inability to do that is the sorry state of the equine condition. I did study Rogers in counselling training, but I haven't used the work for some time in terms of actual one-to-one counselling, apart from trying desperately to do UPR, empathy and congruence in the face of recalcitrant clients, and I've obviously forgotten I ever read "Coercion and Its Fallout"! I think I need to put myself on some refresher reading and reflection! So thanks for giving me my latest "aha!" moment.

UPR/E/C are often mentioned in the context of the client (typically by people who have studied at the NAC!) which is great, but what about the horse?

As for Coercion and its fallout, I must congratulate anyone who got to the end the first time, let alone reread it! Losing the will to live about halfway, even if I do agree with him!

Catherine

I couldn't read "Coercion etc" either - the experiments made me sick to my stomach........
On the subject of "shut-down" horses, one of my crew, Benny-the-pony (a sort of Breton cross of some sort - chunky, anyway), is on loan at a barefoot stables (Hooray! they exist!) supposedly to do a bit of hacking out, in the interests of keeping his weight down. The woman he's with, a very nice Swedish lady, wants to try homeopathy and I don't know what all else with him, because she thinks he's short on "joie de vivre" and inside there's a joyful extravert ready to burst out. Benny is very much his own person and not given to outbursts of any sort - possibly in the far off days before I knew him, he would have made a happy - or at any rate fullfilled - stallion roaming the hills, but the opportunity was cut off (sorry). If she's right (and I don't see homeopathy will do him much harm) and his quality of life improves, I'll be delighted - but how much do we read into horses' characters and ways of being? - we had a correspondence about not all behaviour being put-downable to past abuses - what about cases of genuine surliness of character? They don't all have to be sunbeams, do they?