Animal Communicator

[Jackie_Cochran]

@Tyrus' Mom

As far as colors, that was a weird one I was saying was a red flag where I would question the authenticity of a person calling themselves a communicator. I think you are mixing up posts with someone else.

Truthfully I don’t understand how horses know months or years… but in a recent reading on a fellow boarder the horse told the communicator he had ulcers for 3 years and the owner was astounded and said it was correct. Said “how did you know that?”

Many years ago I read a book “Island of the Color Blind” by Oliver Stone about totally colorblind people. He went to an island in the South Pacific where there were a number of genetically related people who were color blind. He also worked with Western people who were colorblind. While people who have no ability to see color of course do not see color they see the BRIGHTNESS of a color, and several have apparently made artwork using this ability to notice the brightness of the color versus the colors themselves.

Could horses be doing the same?

As far as the ability to count–another Hat Tricks story. Hat Tricks was a pretty good predictor of winter weather, if it was going to snow at all his winter coat was a full snow coat. If it was not going to snow it was a much lighter coat. He was not infallible, there was one big snow after the Spring Equinox that he did not predict, but he was pretty good at it and I used his winter coat as a signal about how much I had to budget for heat that winter. Some of the snows he predicted were mere dustings, but it did snow.

One fall I was looking at his winter coat (every Nov. 1 I would do this) and it looked like a lighter, non-snow coat. Then Hat Tricks looked at me and I heard in my head “There are going to be three ice storms this winter.” I looked at him, saying “Hat Tricks, I did not know you knew how to count”.

Well, that winter there was no snow, and there were two widespread ice storms all over the area. Then one night there was an extremely small ice storm that seemed to center itself on my county, and Charlotte NC did not get any ice at all. I had to call into work (in Charlotte, NC) and tell them I had to wait until the steps cleared before I could come in (I started work at 5:00 AM). My supervisor did not believe me at first but I told him I was NOT going to risk falling on my icy steps, and that I’d come in as soon as I could get out and work a full day from then.

Hat Tricks only cared about where HE was living, the rest of the area was on its own.

So yes, some horses CAN count to three and know what it means.

Some horses, not all, can learn to understand English. Some horses, not all, can learn to translate their thoughts into understandable English.

Again I have never had an animal communicator do any work with my horses so I spent no money to get these messages from Hat Tricks or Glow, the two horses who definitely “spoke” to my mind in understandable English.

And I really do not care if anyone believes me or not. However it got to the point at work that every Fall my co-workers would ask me what Hat Tricks said about snow that winter, and when it snowed they would all greet me with “Hat Tricks was right again.”

[Frostbitten]

NoSuch Person, it’s a tough job being a scientist but someone’s got to do it. 🤔

[Tyrus_Mom]

It’s tough being a visionary, but somebody’s got to do it. (Joking, had to say it!)

[x-halt-salute]

@NoSuchPerson

Wow. You’re being a little nit pickey there, aren’t you? And I don’t really understand how you think a scientist expressing an opinion on someone else’s study somehow lacks validity because it’s not “empirical?” That doesn’t even make any sense.

Reading other scientists’ studies and and stating my opinions of the research is something that’s part of my job. It’s part of peer review, it’s part of scientific discourse, it’s part of the scientific process.

There’s quite a difference between peer review and internet hearsay about a scholar’s objections to a piece of research. I don’t think it’s nit-picky to have reservations about the latter. Post-publication, there are channels for serious objections – published responses, questions raised at scientific conferences, replication studies, and so on. Importantly, refutation of research tends not to be anonymous or vague – details of the objection and in some cases the expertise of the objector tend to be important in evaluating challenges to research findings.

In this case, I can’t evaluate this challenge to the research based on the minimal information in your comment. Can you clarify where (e.g. at which stage of the experimental protocol) and how (e.g. by what experimenter actions) the scholar you spoke with thought the blanket experiment went astray? It’s difficult to accept a second hand criticism of the research without knowing exactly what the objection is. I’m sure everyone who works in – or is curious about – animal cognition, behavior, and communication is familiar with Clever Hans, but just pointing out that horses are sensitive to humans and are prone to picking up subtle behavioral/facial cues by their handlers doesn’t clarify the objection in this specific case.

I personally have some concerns about the research design of the blanket study that have nothing to do with the Clever Hans effect. IMO what’s there in published form is neither a perfect piece of research nor irredeemably flawed. But then again, most of science is found between those extremes. Given how young this area of research is and the logistical constraints that impact research design in equine studies (difficult to recruit/test large or controlled samples, difficult to construct blind or double blind experimental conditions, difficult to control human inputs), it seems as though the best case outcome in most of this work is finding suggestive, not probative, evidence for a hypothesis. And it sounds like that’s exactly how @Frostbitten is interpreting that article.

I think horses making and communicating choices about blankets is entirely plausible, based on my own, unscientific, anecdotal observations of acceptance of (or resistance to) blanketing under different conditions, as much as on the evidence in that article. Is it proven? No. But it would take more than hearing that an anonymous researcher somewhere at some point expressed some possibility of interference by experimenters in that study for me reject the hypothesis.

As for needing more than Clever Hans to understand the effect, I believe @Frostbitten makes a great point there, too. It was demonstrated that Hans couldn’t answer questions when his view of his handler’s face was obstructed, but nobody ever determined exactly what in the handler’s face the horse was responding to. As a result, some (but not all) scientific camps reject any cognition/communication research that involves animals and humans in direct interaction. But we really don’t know what Hans was responding to, whether other species respond to the same cues (or different ones), how these cues might impact responses other than the hoof tapping that Hans used, and so on. If we knew more about the phenomenon, we would be in a better position to evaluate research like the blanket study where human-equine contact is difficult to avoid, and to design better research on a variety of animal cognition and communication questions. It’s kind-of amazing to me that people have been happy to exist in separate camps for most of the history of animal cognition studies, without doing more to explore the nature of this wedge.

[Frostbitten]

X-halt-salute, this, in spades.

[Bluey]

@x-halt-salute

There’s quite a difference between peer review and internet hearsay about a scholar’s objections to a piece of research. I don’t think it’s nit-picky to have reservations about the latter. Post-publication, there are channels for serious objections – published responses, questions raised at scientific conferences, replication studies, and so on. Importantly, refutation of research tends not to be anonymous or vague – details of the objection and in some cases the expertise of the objector tend to be important in evaluating challenges to research findings.

In this case, I can’t evaluate this challenge to the research based on the minimal information in your comment. Can you clarify where (e.g. at which stage of the experimental protocol) and how (e.g. by what experimenter actions) the scholar you spoke with thought the blanket experiment went astray? It’s difficult to accept a second hand criticism of the research without knowing exactly what the objection is. I’m sure everyone who works in – or is curious about – animal cognition, behavior, and communication is familiar with Clever Hans, but just pointing out that horses are sensitive to humans and are prone to picking up subtle behavioral/facial cues by their handlers doesn’t clarify the objection in this specific case.

I personally have some concerns about the research design of the blanket study that have nothing to do with the Clever Hans effect. IMO what’s there in published form is neither a perfect piece of research nor irredeemably flawed. But then again, most of science is found between those extremes. Given how young this area of research is and the logistical constraints that impact research design in equine studies (difficult to recruit/test large or controlled samples, difficult to construct blind or double blind experimental conditions, difficult to control human inputs), it seems as though the best case outcome in most of this work is finding suggestive, not probative, evidence for a hypothesis. And it sounds like that’s exactly how @Frostbitten is interpreting that article.

I think horses making and communicating choices about blankets is entirely plausible, based on my own, unscientific, anecdotal observations of acceptance of (or resistance to) blanketing under different conditions, as much as on the evidence in that article. Is it proven? No. But it would take more than hearing that an anonymous researcher somewhere at some point expressed some possibility of interference by experimenters in that study for me reject the hypothesis.

As for needing more than Clever Hans to understand the effect, I believe @Frostbitten makes a great point there, too. It was demonstrated that Hans couldn’t answer questions when his view of his handler’s face was obstructed, but nobody ever determined exactly what in the handler’s face the horse was responding to. As a result, some (but not all) scientific camps reject any cognition/communication research that involves animals and humans in direct interaction. But we really don’t know what Hans was responding to, whether other species respond to the same cues (or different ones), how these cues might impact responses other than the hoof tapping that Hans used, and so on. If we knew more about the phenomenon, we would be in a better position to evaluate research like the blanket study where human-equine contact is difficult to avoid, and to design better research on a variety of animal cognition and communication questions. It’s kind-of amazing to me that people have been happy to exist in separate camps for most of the history of animal cognition studies, without doing more to explore the nature of this wedge.

I think that ethology maybe is today about where psychology was almost 100 years ago, having a hard time being believable as a real science with much good, solid knowledge behind it quite yet, but still sorting thru the overwhelming material there is to work with there.

[x-halt-salute]

@Bluey

I think that ethology maybe is today about where psychology was almost 100 years ago, having a hard time being believable as a real science with much good, solid knowledge behind it quite yet, but still sorting thru the overwhelming material there is to work with there.

I agree with you, Bluey!

[NoSuchPerson]

@x-halt-salute

There’s quite a difference between peer review and internet hearsay about a scholar’s objections to a piece of research. I don’t think it’s nit-picky to have reservations about the latter. Post-publication, there are channels for serious objections – published responses, questions raised at scientific conferences, replication studies, and so on. Importantly, refutation of research tends not to be anonymous or vague – details of the objection and in some cases the expertise of the objector tend to be important in evaluating challenges to research findings.

In this case, I can’t evaluate this challenge to the research based on the minimal information in your comment. Can you clarify where (e.g. at which stage of the experimental protocol) and how (e.g. by what experimenter actions) the scholar you spoke with thought the blanket experiment went astray? It’s difficult to accept a second hand criticism of the research without knowing exactly what the objection is. I’m sure everyone who works in – or is curious about – animal cognition, behavior, and communication is familiar with Clever Hans, but just pointing out that horses are sensitive to humans and are prone to picking up subtle behavioral/facial cues by their handlers doesn’t clarify the objection in this specific case.

I personally have some concerns about the research design of the blanket study that have nothing to do with the Clever Hans effect. IMO what’s there in published form is neither a perfect piece of research nor irredeemably flawed. But then again, most of science is found between those extremes. Given how young this area of research is and the logistical constraints that impact research design in equine studies (difficult to recruit/test large or controlled samples, difficult to construct blind or double blind experimental conditions, difficult to control human inputs), it seems as though the best case outcome in most of this work is finding suggestive, not probative, evidence for a hypothesis. And it sounds like that’s exactly how @Frostbitten is interpreting that article.

I think horses making and communicating choices about blankets is entirely plausible, based on my own, unscientific, anecdotal observations of acceptance of (or resistance to) blanketing under different conditions, as much as on the evidence in that article. Is it proven? No. But it would take more than hearing that an anonymous researcher somewhere at some point expressed some possibility of interference by experimenters in that study for me reject the hypothesis.

As for needing more than Clever Hans to understand the effect, I believe @Frostbitten makes a great point there, too. It was demonstrated that Hans couldn’t answer questions when his view of his handler’s face was obstructed, but nobody ever determined exactly what in the handler’s face the horse was responding to. As a result, some (but not all) scientific camps reject any cognition/communication research that involves animals and humans in direct interaction. But we really don’t know what Hans was responding to, whether other species respond to the same cues (or different ones), how these cues might impact responses other than the hoof tapping that Hans used, and so on. If we knew more about the phenomenon, we would be in a better position to evaluate research like the blanket study where human-equine contact is difficult to avoid, and to design better research on a variety of animal cognition and communication questions. It’s kind-of amazing to me that people have been happy to exist in separate camps for most of the history of animal cognition studies, without doing more to explore the nature of this wedge.

Oh, good grief. You’re bitching about my comments but had no problem with someone else making a firm statement of fact based on the findings of one study? Biased much?

I thought the potential flaw in the original research was pretty obvious based on my post and my reference to Clever Hans. It has previously been shown, Clever Hans being probably the most familiar example, that it is important that the observer not be present/visible because horses are very good at reading subtle signals, including those that are unintentional and unconscious on the part of the human. If you read the blanketing study, you will see that the trainers were present, standing off to the side, but still within sight. Did you read the study?

I think it makes perfect sense that a horse might have an opinion on blanketing. What I’m saying is that the study in question was not adequate to support the statement made by Frostbitten.

[x-halt-salute]

@NoSuchPerson

Oh, good grief. You’re bitching about my comments but had no problem with someone else making a firm statement of fact based on the findings of one study? Biased much?

I thought the potential flaw in the original research was pretty obvious based on my post and my reference to Clever Hans. It has previously been shown, Clever Hans being probably the most familiar example, that it is important that the observer not be present/visible because horses are very good at reading subtle signals, including those that are unintentional and unconscious on the part of the human. If you read the blanketing study, you will see that the trainers were present, standing off to the side, but still within sight. Did you read the study?

I think it makes perfect sense that a horse might have an opinion on blanketing. What I’m saying is that the study in question was not adequate to support the statement made by Frostbitten.

Where do you get this hostility from?

Yes, I read the study.

Not everybody believes that the presence of human experimenters invalidates all animal behavior or cognition research.

The detail you’ve added is helpful, but it’s still difficult to evaluate this second-hand argument.

Guess I was wrong when I said @Frostbitten didn’t need to hunker down! Who knew that anyone could get so upset about the mention of a pretty unexceptional equine behavior article in the course of coming to some fairly reasonable conclusions!

[BigMama1]

@Tyrus' Mom

@Bluey you are free to disbelieve, but also free to not keep discounting every word I say as well… it goes both ways. I can agree to disagree with anyone. I got involved so deeply in this thread to be of help to animals, not to try to bend steel.

For whatever reason there are a couple of people who are not content to just disbelieve in annimal
communication themselves; they are on some kind of mission to make sure nobody else believes, or finds it comforting or helpful or useful either.

Those who believe in the experiences they’ve had are not trying to convince anyone else or telling anyone they must believe too; they are simply sharing their own experiences. What can’t the non-believers extend the same courtesy?

[Tyrus_Mom]

@Bluey

Just think, 50/50 odds in statistics are awesome odds.

She could have said yellow apples and now you were buying red ones and you would have corrected her and thought she was wonderful to …

No, there are green apples too, so odds weren’t 50/50. Don’t forget about Granny Smith apples.

[Denali6298]

@BigMama1

For whatever reason there are a couple of people who are not content to just disbelieve in annimal
communication themselves; they are on some kind of mission to make sure nobody else believes, or finds it comforting or helpful or useful either.

Those who believe in the experiences they’ve had are not trying to convince anyone else or telling anyone they must believe too; they are simply sharing their own experiences. What can’t the non-believers extend the same courtesy?

Well considering Tyrus’ Mom’s first post started with I consider non-believers to be like flat earthers. They are so annoying. I don’t blame the reaction she got on the people who don’t believe in ACs.

She discounts the skeptics right off the bat and then poo poos raki. I put ACs and raki in the same category.

[Guilherme]

@Tyrus' Mom

What is factual is open to interpretation. There was a time when the facts were thought to be that the solar system revolved around the earth. We know that is not the case. So it goes…

Facts are open to being proved or disproved. The effect of fact in any given circumstance is open to discussion. Ptolemy, who created the most plausable of the ancient astrophysical systems made two big mistakes. He put the Earth at the center of the universe and he believed that all extra-terrestrial bodies moved in circles. His actual observations and calculations are used to this day by sailors who use celestial navigation for open water operations. They were THAT good. But his base observations were flat, dead wrong. No interpretation needed. And eventually physical science caught up with data and we now know the Newtonian universe pretty well.

This same thing happened in other sciences. Volcanic eruptions as signs of the anger of gods gave way Volcanology. The idea that earthquakes were the work of giants striding the land gave way to the science of plate tectonics. But EACH AND EVERY advance of this type was based upon understanding PHYSICAL properties. Belief was irrelevant.

My road to hell is having to put an animal to sleep and deciding when the right time is. ACs have been invaluable in helping with that. Rotties are notorious for stoicism. I do not want any of my animals to suffer needlessly because of my own inability to gauge their comfort level when ill.

If an horse owner doesn’t listen to their animals and hear when they say it’s time to go then they should sell them all and buy a Harley.

G.

[Tyrus_Mom]

@Denali6298

Well considering Tyrus’ Mom’s first post started with I consider non-believers to be like flat earthers. They are so annoying. I don’t blame the reaction she got on the people who don’t believe in ACs.

She discounts the skeptics right off the bat and then poo poos raki. I put ACs and raki in the same category.

Not simply because they discount it but because they are quite rude about it as well before I even got started in a post… with assumptions of gullibility, suggestibility, feeding hucksters what we want to hear…blah blah… slaps in the face to people who have had positive AC experience. But of course the rudeness must have started with me…of course not with the side you are on.

This thread is not about Rekei or anything else you want to scoff at and tout your scientific credibility or religious fervor.

[Tyrus_Mom]

@Guilherme

If an horse owner doesn’t listen to their animals and hear when they say it’s time to go then they should sell them all and buy a Harley.

G.

You really can’t stop, can you? Give it a rest. This has gone off the deep end.

The last comment was so utterly hateful on such a sensitive subject, I’m still reeling. Why should you hate me this much? I only disagree with you. I don’t threaten you.

[Denali6298]

@Tyrus' Mom

Not simply because they discount it but because they are quite rude about it as well before I even got started in a post… with assumptions of gullibility, suggestibility, feeding hucksters what we want to hear…blah blah… slaps in the face to people who have had positive AC experience. But of course the rudeness must have started with me…of course not with the side you are on.

This thread is not about Rekei or anything else you want to scoff at and tout your scientific credibility or religious fervor.

I don’t get why your taking it so personally and I don’t scoff at ACs or Rekei. You can take your vitriol out on someone else.

[Tyrus_Mom]

@Denali6298

I don’t get why your taking it so personally and I don’t scoff at ACs or Rekei. You can take your vitriol out on someone else.

You criticized me. So I came back. I apologize if I was too harsh. It has been a real train wreck on this subject. Right when I think I’ve had enough and the thing is over, it appears there is more.

[skydy]

@BigMama1

For whatever reason there are a couple of people who are not content to just disbelieve in annimal
communication themselves; they are on some kind of mission to make sure nobody else believes, or finds it comforting or helpful or useful either.

Those who believe in the experiences they’ve had are not trying to convince anyone else or telling anyone they must believe too; they are simply sharing their own experiences. What can’t the non-believers extend the same courtesy?

It is the use of the words"believe" and “non believers” that seem to equate animal communicators with religion, for both of whom the usage of those terms I find equally bizarre. I have never thought of either AC or religion in those terms and defined in that manner, except by true “fundamentalists”.

Debating religion, or any other belief that depends on “faith”, will never be resolved to the satisfaction of neither the believer’s nor the skeptic’s side.

As long as no one on either side of the argument feels the need to advocate for hate and violence toward one another, and because of our differing views about the supernatural, we should live and let live.

[Tyrus_Mom]

@skydy

It is the use of the words"believe" and “non believers” that seem to equate animal communicators with religion, which I find bizarre, I have never thought of it in those terms.

Debating religion, or any other belief that depends on “faith”, will never be resolved to either side’s satisfaction.

As long as no one on either side of the argument feels the need to advocate for hate and violence toward one another, because of our differing views about the supernatural, we should live and let live.

Yes. Agreed.

[Beck]

@Tyrus' Mom

What is factual is open to interpretation.

Ah…no. There’s the rub.