The same thing happens with cats. People complain about the stupid cat who trips them in the kitchen, jumps on the bench and hits it’s head on the bottom of the cupboard. Yes cat has been trained to do that to get fed.
The one time when I used mostly +R with my mare was when she was laid up and I couldn’t ride her. So, in addition to lots of ground work etc, I taught her carrot stretches and “steps” without ever touching her. I used my voice and body language and and then waited for just a hair of desired behavior before giving her the baby carrot. It didn’t take long for her to grasp what I wanted her to do, because she is smart and loves attention (and baby carrots!).
Drawback was that for the longest time, when she smelled baby carrots on me, she would go through all the moves/tricks she knew without my prompting, in the hopes of getting one. It’s like she was put in overdrive lol.
1 Like
You train a horse by making what is right easy and what is wrong hard. It’s a “yin-yang” system. ’
Horses trained exclusively with positive reinforcement only know two things: behaviors that bring rewards and behaviors that will bring rewards. These horses can be brilliant performers but don’t know about boundaries and can be dangerous under a rider with limited skills.
Horses trained exclusively with negative reinforcement only know two things: behaviors that bring punishment and behaviors that will bring punishment. These horses are dull performers as their boundaries are narrow but can be safe for riders of about any level.
The trouble with postulating only two possible methods and those methods being mutually exclusive is that it makes the world into only two possible forms. IME the world has many forms and to shackle yourself and you horse to only one is a very foolish approach to training.
This could go one for a while, but I’ll end it by saying you train the horse in front of you, not the one in somebody’s book or video or “system.” Not all horses are created the same and the same system will not work for all of them. What more need be said?
G.
1 Like
Negative reinforcement is not punishment, and does not result in punishment or unpleasant consequences.
This is the problem with the OP’s thinking - thinking that negative reinforcement is inherently unpleasant, painful or onerous. It’s not. It’s simply the removal of a stimuli when the correct response is achieved.
3 Likes
One of the things I really appreciated about learning the clicker training technique was that it made me much sharper about thinking exactly what I was rewarding, and when. It helped create clarity in my plan for what I wanted to communicate.
Someone points out the idea of trying to extinguish over enthusiastic play between two horses by removing one horse when it gets too far. IME with horses, you cannot do that in a way that creates clarity without adding some other signal that can tell them what you just did that moment was wrong. People are capricious about getting horses out for no reason, so they won’t connect it. Heck a person probably wouldn’t connect it without a conversation.
Using the clicker, I learned I had to be very precise about when I used it. But I also transferred that to my other aids, like releasing pressure instantly when I got any response. I also think you can possibly use a clicker a little bit under saddle if you feel like it will aid in clarity - it is a tool to communicate with the horse, once the meaning is established. You don’t necessarily have to follow with the treat.
So put me in the camp of “train all the ways.”
1 Like
This is a great Half Truth. But only a Half Truth. If you have a horse that bites and you wish to end that practice what do you do? Or one that tries to kick your farrier? Or engages in any other truly hazardous to humans behavior? These events are real and people get hurt badly by these actions every year. What stimuli do we remove to address such things?
I would agree that not all “negative reinforcement” comes from a whip or a spur. But some does and it should. But in what measure and in what form depends upon the context in which the behavior shows itself.
Working with a horse is not a “cookbook” exercise. It is not binary process.
G.
G - you should read this whole thread for good descriptions of the four quadrants of Operant Conditioning and horse related examples. Positive Reinforcement, Negative Reinforcement, Positive Punishment, Negative Punishment.
Negative Reinforcement is used to strengthen a behavior. That’s what Reinforcement means. I would respond to a horse that bites with Positive Punishment, because Punishment is used to diminish a behavior.
Biting would result in a response from me that would (hopefully) diminish the undesirable behavior, like a loud shout or smack.
Negative Reinforcement would be removing a stimulus if the desired behavior is achieved (not biting)…so it would be much harder to use effectively in that situation. Can’t really think of a way to use it except to try to strengthen “stand quietly.”
1 Like
I don’t remove anything. I use what is called, in the lexicon of operant conditioning, positive punishment. The classic “come to Jesus” moment is positive punishment, i.e. the addition of something undesirable (a slap, a jerk on the halter, a shout or growl, a kick in the ass…) in response to an unwanted behavior.
As several people have tried, without success, to convince the OP, you cannot rely on just one of the 4 modes of operant conditioning to produce a well-trained well-rounded horse. You need to use each of the modes appropriately when the situation calls for it.
