There is an old saying, that is largely credited to Johnathan Swift (1667-1745); “You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.”
While it may not be 100% true in 100% of cases, my experience leads me to believe it is true in a most cases. I think the horse world is a good example of a microcosm that hold up to Swift’s scrutiny.
Why do so many people believe chestnut horses are generally have a more difficult temperament than other colours? And chestnut mares are the worst in some people’s mind.
Why do so many people believe foam from a horse’s mouth is a good sign of a horse accepting the bit and having a relaxed, soft mouth?
Why do so many people believe that when a horse licks and chews it is an indicator of a horse beginning to relax?
These are just 3 examples and I don’t want this post to become focused on those specific examples. I want to talk about what Johnathan Swift had to tell us about learning to be better horse people.
I’ve done my research on the types of beliefs I mentioned above, and there is nothing to support them as fundamental truths. They are theories. They are not truths. Yet, many accept them as truths. How many of you have heard a professional trainer say “there is a theory that foam from the mouth is a good thing”, or “some people suggest that licking and chewing may indicate relaxation”? They are never spoken about as theories, they are presented as facts.
There is nothing wrong with presenting these ideas as theories. Theories give us ideas and motive to experiment and become better horse people. However, because they become facts in our minds, a different theory is quickly rejected. Even a different theory with a stronger rationale is rejected because you cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.
I recently wrote an essay about teaching horses to follow the feel of the inside rein during turns and circles. I got an angry email from somebody who send me a quote from Alois Podhajsky in his book The Complete Training of Horse and Rider. Podhajsky wrote, “ It must be remembered that a unilateral action of the rein aid without holding the other rein would only turn the head and neck of the horse to the side….”. In other words, using the inside rein would only teach a horse to flex its head and neck and not follow the turn in a balanced way.
I pointed out that in the quote she used to support her view Podhajsky states he was talking about a horse at intermediate level. When describing the training of a green horse, Podhajsky said, “Only the unilateral rein aid should be employed at this stage when taking the horse through well-rounded corners or executing turns….”
The woman was furious and did not hold back from telling me how arrogant and stupid I was. She could not be reasoned out of her opinion because she had not been reasoned into it.
As many long-time followers of this page will know, I have developed a minor reputation for writing on controversial topics and sometimes challenging convention. This is not something I set out to do or is a part of some planned marketing strategy. This is who I am. My family knows this, my friends, my colleagues and anyone who knows me well knows this about me. I couldn’t change it if I tried without swapping a whole lot of DNA around. So when somebody tells me that chestnut mares are crazy I have to look at the evidence for the genetic link between gender, colour and temperament. If somebody tells me foam produced from the mouth of a horse is a sign of a relaxed mouth, I have to pull it apart from all angles and try to figure out why foam leaks from the mouth. If somebody claims that clicker training is a kinder approach than negative reinforcement, I can’t accept it without testing the theory and checking the validity of the science. Knowing if these claims are fact or theory is important because it affects how we approach working with a horse if we have pre-conceived ideas.
One last thought is how much better we would be if we were more like our horses. Show a horse a better idea that will result in more comfort and better safety, and it will change its idea. It won’t hold onto something because it is emotionally attached to it. A horse has no ego attached to what it thinks it knows.
I believe it is the duty of every horse person to ask “why”. It doesn’t matter if the concept is an old established principle from Pluvenil’s book published in 1627 describing the terra-à-terra or a new idea about hoof trim that somebody discovered yesterday. We should believe what we believe because we have been reasoned into it and not just accepted somebody else’s truth. Being reasoned into belief of our principles means we can be reasoned out of them when we discover they are wrong or some better ideas surface. That’s how we evolve and progress as horse people to the benefit of horses and our relationship with them.
Alois Podhajsky