Why Scientific Methods in Horse Training Can't (Yet) Fully Address Feelings and Emotions

Exploring the Pros, Cons, and Personal Approaches to Equine Training

When it comes to training horses, the debate between the use of scientific methods and more intuitive, emotion-driven approaches is ongoing. While science-backed methodologies have brought about substantial improvements in safety, consistency, and welfare, they often fall short of addressing the complex emotions experienced by both horse and rider. In this blog post, we’ll examine why scientific methods in horse training can't fully respond to feelings and emotions, outline the pros and cons of such methodologies, and discuss how you can select an approach that suits both you and your equine partner.

This blog aims to initiate discussions about possible gaps in the equine field and is not meant as an attack on equine sciences.

Why Scientific Methods Potentially Fall Short With Emotions

Plutchick's Human Flower of Emotions

Science in horse training is grounded in observable behaviours, measurable outcomes, and repeatable results. Methods like operant conditioning, classical conditioning, and positive reinforcement rely on what can be objectively seen and recorded. However, horses and riders are sentient beings, each with their own unique emotional landscapes.

Feelings such as fear, anxiety, excitement, or trust in both horse and human influence the way training sessions unfold. Scientific methods, by design, tend to overlook these internal states because they are difficult to quantify. You might notice that your horse feels “off” or that you’re anxious in the saddle, but these subtle emotional cues are not always addressed by strict scientific protocols.

Moreover, the bond between horse and rider is built on more than just learned responses—it’s about connection, understanding, and mutual respect. These elements transcend what can be measured in a controlled study or training manual, making the human-animal relationship inherently richer and more complicated than science alone can capture.

Additionally, scientific studies and research have not uncovered so many things in the equine world and are even less advanced than what has been done in the human world. This observation highlights a significant disparity between the vast potential of scientific inquiry and the actual progress achieved in various fields. So, of course, there will be significant gaps in "what we don't know".

While humanity has made remarkable strides in various scientific fields, it is essential to recognise the areas where research has not yet reached its full potential. By fostering an environment that encourages exploration and prioritises a diverse range of scientific inquiries, we can hope to uncover the myriad complexities in the equine realm that remain hidden and continue to advance our understanding of the world around us.

Pros of Scientifically Backed Methodologies

• Consistency: Science-based methods provide structured, repeatable approaches, helping trainers and horses achieve reliable results.

• Safety: Many modern techniques are designed with animal welfare in mind, reducing the risk of harm to horse and rider.

• Evidence-Based: These approaches are tested, refined, and peer-reviewed, offering a level of credibility and predictability (in most cases).

Cons of Scientifically Backed Methodologies

• Limited Emotional Scope: Scientific methods generally ignore or minimise the emotional states of horse and rider, which can lead to frustration or misunderstanding.

• One-Size-Fits-All: What works well in a study or for one horse may not work for another, especially when individual temperaments or anxieties are at play.

• Lack of Flexibility: Strict adherence to protocols can sometimes mean missing opportunities to connect or adapt in the moment to what the horse is feeling.

• Potential for Over-Reliance: Relying solely on science can discourage riders and trainers from developing their intuition and sensitivity to their horse’s unique personality.

• Lack of Clarity (Advanced Movements): In more advanced horse movements, science-based methodologies often lack clarity when it comes to combinations of cues, leading to confusion for both horse and rider. A case in point is the half-pass. In scientific methods, some cues become mixed up, such as the use of the outside leg aid at the girth, which causes the horse to struggle with bending since the rein aid is used for controlling neck bend in another movement. This results in confusion for both horse and rider when trying to achieve a better bend throughout the horse's body during the half-pass - particularly for the bending required from the ribcage to hindquarters in this movement. For more details or examples, you are encouraged to research this further.

• Too Many Variables: As Thirza Hendriks has discovered, in her multiple clinical horse dissections, there can be so many variables in the equine world. What scientists think may be the root cause can more often than not be secondary or tertiary to another underlying cause, which can only be found in the dissection process. What may be seen in one breed of horse may not be seen in another and is always difficult as training varies from horse to horse, amongst other variables in this equine world (such as unknown history and so on).

Selecting an Approach That Works for You and Your Horse

Choosing the right training approach is a deeply personal decision. Here are some steps to help guide your choice:

1. Know Your Horse: Pay attention to your horse’s temperament, history, and emotional responses during training. Not all horses respond the same way to the same methods.

2. Self-Reflection: Be honest about your own feelings, experience level, and comfort zones. If you’re anxious, your horse will pick up on it.

3. Mix Methods: Don’t be afraid to blend scientific principles with empathetic, emotion-focused approaches. Listen to your horse and adapt as needed.

4. Seek Guidance: Work with experienced trainers who understand both the science and the art of horsemanship. Be open to feedback and learning.

5. Prioritise Welfare: Above all, ensure that the training approach respects the well-being of both horse and rider, fostering trust and mutual respect.

   
   

Conclusion

While scientific methods offer invaluable tools for consistent and safe horse training, they can’t fully capture the emotional nuances that define the relationship between horse and rider. By recognising both the strengths and limitations of these approaches, and by prioritising empathy and adaptability for equine welfare and quality of life, you can create a training environment that honours the unique partnership you share with your horse. At the end of the day, the best approach is the one that works for both of you (human and horse)—mind, body, and heart.