|
The real problem with punishment is that it
is SOOOOO self-reinforcing for the punisher.
Even if it only changes behavior to a small degree,
the idea that it "worked" seems to take on a life of it's
own.
"If a little is good, a lot is better".
"If it worked for this, it will work for that".
The punisher loses any recognition, quite
quickly, that the punishment is NOT in fact,
changing the behavior to what was desired initially.
Seems to me that the one who is punished
generally finds two options -
get better, quicker, smarter, more creative at avoiding
punishment
(and I think this includes all "fall-out" behaviors),
or adopting punishment themselves - "meet fire with fire".
But neither of these options has any positive
elements of "relationship" to them.
One of the critical factors to developing the qualities of a
positive
(and I define that as *MUTUALLY reinforcing* ) relationship
is consistency.
I guess you could say that consistency is a FOUNDATION
quality for the
other qualities that develop in a mutually reinforcing
relationship.
You certainly don't get trust without it.
And I think there's the problem with
punishment –
the punisher fails to recognize that punishment results in
INCONSISTENT behavior,
both on the part of the punisher AND the one who is
punished.
In the end, neither one can make any sense (meaning,
understanding, coherence) of it.
jr-cr
+++++++
A horse that's swiping is trying to tell you
something.
He IS paying attention to what he's doing –
he HAS a reason.
If you block him with your elbow,
he is going to try to figure out another way to send his
message.
You haven't addressed the reason he would do
it in the first place.
Horses very seldom just "walk" into your
elbow because they're not paying attention :)
Usually, they're telling you something :)
The horse might receive a consequence of swiping by your
elbow.
But if he is not learning something from that consequence
(except ANOTHER, perhaps "escalated" way to tell you
something),
then wouldn't that be punishment
(the horse has no information about the behavior you
want jr/cr
++++++++++++++++++
If we use the example of swiping, the
question is –
does your elbow eliminate this behavior *completely*?
If it doesn't, it's not really working.
If your horse changes from swiping to something else
equally "unwanted",
then you've just applied a temporary "fix" with your elbow.
>If I don't know what exactly I *want* except what I *don't*
want,<
You DO know what you want. But *knowing* it
in the way that you can use it for training purposes
requires that "paradigm shift".
In order for your horse to think (and act) differently,
you have to think and act
differently FIRST. Think about it.
If you don't want your horse swinging his head into your
space,
where DO you want his head?
THAT is what you train.
THAT is being a pro-active trainer, not a reactive one.
jr/cr
+++++++++++++++++++
And about here is probably a
good place to restate one of the very important
'little pearls of wisdom'
you cannot ask for something and expect to
get it on a consistent basis
unless you have gone through a teaching process to teach it to your
horse.
AK/TCTT
And also a good place to
quote a prominent dog training lecturer,
Ian Dunbar
Every punishment you administer is a blatant
advertisement
that you have yet to train your dog (horse) correctly.
For the "now hear this!" forms of horse
training work, you need two things:
the willingness to escalate pressure
and the relationship, the authority to make it work.
That's why for this type of training there is so much
emphasis
placed on respect and leadership. …
if you cannot established yourself in a position of
authority with your horse,
these methods may backfire completely.
Instead of a well-mannered horse, you end up with
an angry, resentful, and sometimes aggressive mess.
Again I would say that we do not work in pure
systems.
But our philosophical comfort level plays a huge role in
determining the balance
of the tools we choose and the ultimately experience the
horse has with us.
ak/tctt
And another repeat from our
pearls of wisdom..
If you can't watch it, you shouldn't ask your
horse to go through it. AK/TCTT
But there's another way of looking at
obedience too –
that is the idea of reliability.
Reliability
could also be called dependable results.
Isn't that what we're after with stimulus
control?
– the four rules of
stimulus control together say:
"this
behavior,
and only this behavior,
happens immediately at this signal,
and never at any other signal or when the signal isn't
given."
But because
humans have a hard time keeping emotionalism out of anything
>grin< ,
the word `reliable' is defined as confidence
and trust, safe and secure.
I think from the horse's viewpoint –
and he surely doesn't know anything about these words –
if he is "obedient"
it's because he believes
that there is a dependable result from his actions.
We want
dependable results. Horses want dependable results.
Simple ideas :)
JR/tctt
|
