Is the RP a more effective, longterm learning environment than any other?

["Tracey" <tracey@tbt.co.za>]

Dear Marv.


Before I respond to your post, let's put this discussion into context.


It started with your assertion (correct me if I'm wrong) that you could
"spookproof" a horse via your RP technique in half an hour?  Am I right so
far?


My assertion is not that you can't.  My assertion is that :

1.  This will not work with all horses; and
2.  The horse will not remain spook-proof.


As to the rest:

>> Isn't that a bit limiting : each horse, and each person is an
individual - your methods may not work with that person or that horse.  It
is not the method which is flawed (unless it is harsh : harshness is always
flawed), nor is it the horse, nor the individual, but the mix of the three.
Don't throw out the method, try to adapt it, or use something different in
that circumstance.>>

>It may be a bit limiting in what you'll accept, but it is boundless in
building a useful knowledge base. >

Marv, with all due respect, you have not responded to what I said in any way
: you have simply thrown in a vague assertion which seems to bear no
relationship to what I said.  Please explain yourself.

>And I did say fixing _or_ dumping.  If I cannot fix them, I dump them.  I
certainly won't promote them.>

You have just contradicted yourself.  I still read what you said as fix or
dump.  And I don't recall asking you to promote them, just not discard a
method as worthless, just because it didn't work in this instance.


>Trying something and failing and then feeling like a failure is no
reflection on the procedure.  That is
a product of the person.>

I see it as both : you are dealing with people who are desperate to fix a
problem they are having with their horses.  They come to you, see you fix
it, and then go home and find that it all unravels for reasons they are
unable to comprehend.  Perhaps this is the wrong audience for this
discussion, as very few of the subscribers to this list are newbies who are
not confident in their own skills, but I have found that, at the clinics I
have attended, the majority of the audience was made up of newbies,
desperate to do right by their horses.  The "procedure" which is invariably
followed at the clinic is for the clinician to say "you will fix your horse
if you follow my method".


>We all know that people are different mostly because they think and
rationalize and do all that with a
minimum of information.  They often superficially compare what is being
offered to what they believe
and discard either the whole concept or important chunks of it.>

You might know that, Marv, I prefer not to make generalisations of that
nature.  I am NOT saying that people are accepting or discarding any
concept.  I am saying that when a desperate person is offered something
marvellous, and virtually guaranteed success if they try a particular
method, and that person fails in the application of that method, the failure
is frequently internalised - no clinician would say that the method was
flawed, therefore the person's application thereof, must be.


I think that's a crock of s..t, frankly.

>We see that all the time in the exchanging of recipes no matter how
explicit they are written.  The new cook begins thinking "Hmmm, I have no
Martha Wright's flour but I got some Econo-Milled", "One cup of sugar, that
sounds sweet, I'll just use a tablespoon full."  Next time they see the
recipe writer they say, "I made your recipe, it was awful.">

I don't cook.  However, your analogy is wrong for another reason - when you
cook, there is one mind at work, when you ride, there are two.  You can't
leave the dynamics of the horse and rider combination out of the equation,
Marv.  And the relationship is different for every horse and rider and for
every horse and rider combination!  Therefore, ipso facto, the method each
rider applies will have a different result, even if in a subtle way, for
each horse.  And, for this reason, I maintain that any method which puts the
interests of the horse first, and does not seek to inflict physical or
psychological damage upon either horse or rider, has validity for someone,
somewhere.

>Common sense should say that when someone says something works infallibly,
that they mean, for them according to the recipe.  If they follow the
recipe, they produce the same dish, that's why they call them recipes. Of
course, very little is foolproof, they'll always invent a better fool but
that has little bearing on the quality of the recipe.>

And I still think you have the wrong analogy.



>But the recipe itself, performed in the manner it is written out, works.  I
cannot really say that my methods work on every horse because I have not
worked every horse yet.  I can say that so far, on a considerable number of
horses, they have not failed me.>

Great.  But please bear in mind what I said about the dynamics which come
into play between horse and rider.  Just because you succeed with every
horse you come accross does not mean that your method will work for
everyone.  Example : when I jump my horse, I prefer to take a very light
contact, and I stay out of my saddle, sitting lightly two strides on,
applying leg, getting out of the saddle upon takeoff.  Works for me, works
for my horses.  My friend sits into the saddle right up until takeoff.  My
horse jumps well for him, too (okay he's an A-grade rider who can make a
donkey jump, but still...).

Dynamics, see?



Tracey