Learning Theory

There is gravitational theory, evolutionary theory and learning theory,, but only one of them claims that the theory is necessary to the performance of the action. Things drop whether you believe in Newton or not. Even if you believe that gravity is a myth and the earth really does suck, things still drop, and the earth still rises very slightly to meet them. Darwin believed that the Galapagos finches had evolved long before the Beagle set sail, and would continue to evolve long after the Beagle was forgotten, but education experts would have you believe that you can't teach without understanding learning theory.

This is demonstrably cobblers as the first learning theorist must have been self taught, ie by someone who, by definition didn't know learning theory. Learning happens. Apples fall out of trees, land on your head and teach you not to sit under apple trees if your dad is called William Tell. You can aspire to be the President of the United Satates of America and deny the theory of evolution. In a couple of decades it may be a necessary qualification to PROVE that you are incapable of understanding the Theory of Evolution.

Training anyone or anything will be easier if you understand learning theory, or would be if learning theory even began to approach the scientific rigour of evolution or gravity. Those who discuss learning theory have a problem, they want to be scientific and they want to be nice to children or animals, or whoever they want to teach.

This is not scientific. Science doesn't pick nice data, it doesn't come out with the politically correct answer. Men run faster than women. Capital punishment reduces reoffending. (Hanging the wrong person doesn't stop the criminal reoffending, it only works when you hang the right one.) I am against capital punishment and I have four daughters so I am all in favour of equal chances for women, but I don't kid myself that my beliefs will change the data.

So back to training, and learning theory, and ponies, my particular interest. Obama, my pony, is still terrified of whips and sticks though he has been trained entirely with kindness, (and occasional bad language) since January 2009. Thirty months of kindness hasn't eradicated the lesson that whips hurt. In educational terms, whips, and those who wield them, are vastly more effective than I am.

Our learning theory has to accept that pain and fear combined are probably the ultimate learning method. Temple Grandin believes that really deap seated fears are probably incurable, though she, and I would welcome any system that proved this wrong. This is where NICE conflicts with SCIENCE. But we won't understand learning theory, or learn how to teach children, animals or aspiring Presidents of the USA by denying the facts.

So let's be honest, we want a nice learning theory. No problem, as long as we can agree on a definition of nice, and learning and theory. Am I against violence? The easy answer is yes, but if my children or Obama are about to walk into danger, I will cheerfully hit them if it is the only, or even the easiest way to stop them. It may also make them think twice about repeating the action. It is certainly going to be remembered for longer than a carrot or a scratch, or for the children a Smartie. For someone as totally anti whips as I am, to admit that violence is a reasonable and intelligent, and the most effective option, shows the depth of the problem.

For a change, I am not looking for answers, I am looking to see if there are any basic principles I can lay down other than “Simon is right, send him some money.”

Animals, and children, learn by trial and error. Yes but not exclusively, and not on the things that matter. Young Zebras don't learn how close they can get to a lion by trying different distances and seeing what happens. You would rapidly have no zebras, and soon, no lions. Zebra's watch mum first, and then other herd members and mimic their behaviour, learning, by observation, the safe way to behave around lions.

Behaviour is either instinctive or learned. Again, not that simple. Researchers found that although monkeys are predisposed to be scared of snakes, the deciding factor is the behaviour of the other monkeys when they first see a snake. If the other monkeys are relaxed, the new monkey will be cautious, but not terrified. If the other monkeys are terrified, the new monkey will be terrified for life. The one that has been exposed to snakes in the company of relaxed monkeys is innoculated against the terror, even when put in with monkeys that are terrified of snakes.

The problem is actually simple, it is one of time. learning is part of life, starting when you wake up, and continuing till you go to sleep, with a strong possibiility that sleep allows your brain to sort out and file all that it has learned. The proponents of learning theory are trying to find a quick fix, a way to instil the maximum knowledge in the minimum time. It may not be possible. Learning to drive, learning to ride a bike , learning to read, how long did they take? And now, you can't see what the problem was. Changing gears, you could learn that in a minute. Hill starts, dead easy, but when you were learning, when your reactions were better than they are today, when your brain was young, and fit, and trained by all that school work, it took weeks.

But it is there, ingrained in your system, and you have been learning more every time you drive, so now, you have a vast store of memories to guide you, and still you back into parked cars.

When training ponies or children, or adults, the pace must be appropriate. And time must be allowed to store the learning. The old seven year apprenticship had a lot to recommend it, the repetitive nature of the work, doing all the easy boring bits, cleaning, painting, sanding off rough edges, boring endless boring holes. I know the saddlechariot, and the iBex backwards because I have made all the pieces at some stage or another, I have cleaned the welds, and countersunk screw holes, and assembled all the different variations. I can date any saddlechariot I see, but more to the point, I can redesign it in my head, and test ride it too, without needing to put it together, all in my head, because I have served that apprenticeship, OK, under me, and I can tell you, I am a right shit to work for.

We can't train ponies in brief sessions. Or children, or US Presidents. Life is a learning process. We wouldn't shut our children in a field or worse, a stable for 23 hours a day, (however tempting) and expect them to learn much. I really got to know Obama when I drove him from Brecon to Birmingham. Before then I deluded myself I was training him, after that I realised we were just working together. I learn from him, he from me, and both from experience.

Now when I want Obama to do something new, I just get Obama and we do it. If he is unsure, or nervous, I lead. If he is confident and relaxed, I steer.

Over the next week or so I expect to do some more rowcrop work, but Obama started doing that before we set out for Birmingham and he knows the rules. Follow the tramlines, don't eat the crops. And I know the rules, we stop at the end of each row for Obama to have a munch on the verge. He sets rules as well. We are working together. It's what they call teamwork.

Look at the things I don't do.

Where or how Obama holds his head is his business. Up down or sideways, it's his head and he can choose how to hold it. The same with his legs. He can move them in any order he likes. If he can gallop at a suitable pace for hoeing rowcrops with me walking behind, that is fine by me. How high he lifts his knees is his choice. How high I lift MY knees is MY choice.

There are huge chunks of his behaviour I never control, any more than I would control the gait of a dog, or the head carriage of a dog. On one thing I am absolutely firm. I like to be stationary when I have a crap, I allow him the same privilege. I can think of no reason for forcing an animal to walk on while having a shit other than a bloody minded obsession with having your own way