09/26/2019
We are critical thinkers here at Savvy Racing. We are positive it will make all the difference and create a path to save racing.
The Paradigm Shift
Ronda Hanning
We, as SOM students, often speak of the paradigm shift to which SOM has introduced us. We speak of the shift from the model of the horse as a bow and string to the model of a horse as a complex system in which the kinematics of the legs originate in the back. We speak of the shift from the Pavlovian model of the horse to the model of the horse as an intelligent, sentient being capable of thinking as a partner. We speak of the shift from the model of the aids making the horse do it to the model of the horse following our subtle changes in tone and energy.
The paradigm shift is supported by modern science, and proven through application which can be replicated over and over. Jean Luc Cornille has rehabilitated horse after horse with navicular, kissing spine, sacroiliac damages, etc. through sound application of this paradigm.
Acquiring accurate facts about the physiology of the horse and the forces acting on both horse and rider is part of the shift. The usefulness of those facts is theoretical only, unless they are applied. The successful application of the knowledge requires one final paradigm shift. In fact, I propose that this one paradigm shift I am going to discuss is the most important one. Even more important than whether you know the facts about physiology and the forces acting on it. It is the shift between the standard thinking model, which is egocentric, and the critical thinking model, which is the style of thinking that has been the foundation of all of the enlightened progresses that we enjoy.
Critical thinking approaches all things as if they are a continuous research. It is a process of asking a question; accumulating information; using that information to take an action; reflecting on the result of the action, then asking another question, accumulating information, using that information to take an action, etc. There is no place in this process for the egocentric view. The egocentric view is exclusionary, whereas the Critical thinking process is an inclusionary view. The egocentric view asks the question, “How is this relevant to me?” The Critical Thinking view asks the question, “Is this relevant to the purpose I have decided?”
Let me give an example: In my example Rider 1 and Rider 2 have the same technical knowledge (SOM knowledge). Rider 1 and Rider 2 have the same technical ability. In fact, Rider 1 and Rider 2 are the same person but Rider 1 rides using egocentric thinking and Rider 2 rides using critical thinking.
Both riders are presented with the following situation. The horse develops tension during the work which results in avoidance behavior that becomes a significant barrier such as refusal to move, intense shying or bolting, etc.
Rider 1 is frustrated because they wanted to get some actual work done that day. They do not understand why the horse is acting this way since what they asked of the horse was not difficult. They think that the horse is just wanting to avoid the work. They did everything right in what they were asking but their horse refused to listen, comply, try, etc. They decide that they cannot end the session until they let the horse know that they can control the avoidance behavior. Now, the session is no longer about preparing the horse for the athletic demand of the move but instead about showing the horse who is boss. A part of their mind is whispering to them that this is not the way to proceed but another part of their mind is louder. It tells the rider that if they don’t nip this in the bud the horse will think that it can get away with this tomorrow. Rider 1 goes home frustrated, angry, discouraged, etc. They review their SOM knowledge determined to do it better tomorrow. The next ride they are on a mission to “do SOM riding” and get it right!.
Rider 2 is aware that tension is escalating. Rider 2 has applied all the knowledge they have and yet the horse is getting worse to the point of extreme evasion. Rider 2 also cannot explain the intense behavior from the standpoint of the difficulty of the work or the misapplication of the work as Rider 2, like Rider 1, applied the knowledge the best they could and tried to keep the work within the ability of the horse as they perceived it. Rider 2 considers the current situation and evaluates the potential to prepare the horse for the athletic demand that is asked. Rider 2 recognizes that the potential for that quality of work is not there. Rider 2 gets off the horse and goes home. Rider 2 reflects on the ride and analyzes it in order to prepare for the next day's ride. Rider 2’s reflection on their ride includes reflection on whether the prerequisites for doing useful work were there. If they were not, Rider 2 commits to establishing those prerequisites tomorrow before expecting useful work to begin. If they were there but the work deteriorated as the session went on Rider 2 looks at all possible angles for why this happened. Rider 2 recognizes, as one of the possibilities, that a small detail in the beginning that was missed grew into the large evasion at the end. The large evasion seems like an overreaction to the small detail, but, Rider 2, unlike Rider 1, does not judge themselves or the horse for that they treat it as useful information that can inform them for tomorrow’s ride. Rider 2 plans on paying even closer attention to small details early on. They determine that they may be able to get useful work done tomorrow by being more precise. They will pay attention to the result of this and adapt their session accordingly. If the increased precision is useful but brings the blood pressure up, they will keep the session short or add long breaks. If the increased precision is useful and the horse can keep going they will build on that and ask more with movements to further the coordination. Rider 2’s process of reflection on today’s ride is part of the information gathering step which then leads to a plan of action, which leads to application of the action, which leads to evaluation of the result, which leads to the gathering or information, which leads to a plan of action, etc.
Egocentric thinking has as its goal for us to be good, or right or powerful or validated in some way. Critical thinking has as its goal finding solutions to problems and answers to questions to apply for a well defined purpose. I invite you to examine how you define the purpose of your riding and training. Then examine the thoughts you use to fulfill that purpose. Is your thinking, clear, accurate, precise, relevant to the situation, deep (treating a situation appropriately for the complexity), broad (are there any sacred thoughts you are unwilling to give up?) and logical? Or are there elements of your thinking that are unclear, inaccurate, imprecise, irrelevant, shallow, narrow or illogical?
I propose that our thinking process is more important to riding and training our horses than the knowledge acquired through our SOM education. In fact, I propose that an SOM student who does not shift their thinking will be less successful than a rider that is ignorant of the facts but utilizes critical thinking when riding. Indeed, JLC is an example of a rider that did not have the facts that are available today but has always been a high level thinker, naturally gravitating to asking questions and experimenting. He achieved results that were later explained by science but it wasn’t the science that allowed him to achieve the results. It is his thought process that did it!
JLC warns us to not take the new knowledge and try to meld it with the old ways. You may think that you have completely accepted the SOM education and you are not combining the old with the new. But, if you are using the new information with a thinking process that has not evolved, you are attempting to combine the two. I wish that the awareness of correct information would make the existence of incorrect thinking impossible but it does not. Unfortunately, the existence of incorrect thinking negates the effects of correct information. I have observed this in my own life. At first I did not realize how important the change in thinking is to the application of the knowledge. I thought the knowledge would direct the application. But, the application actually happens at the level of thought and not at the level of doing. Thought comes before doing. Egocentric thought is stagnant and limited. Critical thought is dynamic and creative. Your thought is reflected in your doing. If you are stuck, look to your thoughts and free yourself. Open your mind, redefine your purpose, practice being clear and accurate in your thinking. The more often you practice the more natural it becomes. You begin to realize that the rewards of the egocentric thought system are shallow and easily lost. The rewards of the critical thinking process are continuous and deeply satisfying!
JLC says of the work he teaches, “It is a research!”
To learn about our SOM IHTC COURSE click here: http://www.scienceofmotion.com/documents/in_hand_therapy_course_.html
