Language warning: I speak Pirate sometimes.
Had a salty exchange with a guy that referred to a metaphor about students needing to know the complete science of painting before being able to actually paint a picture, and how that parallels the idea that “Science based horse training is based on intellectual understanding instead.“ Inferring that no one who could be called “science-based” has any knowledge of “...getting on the horse and discovering its unique movement and balance, then improving it.”
Like a dumbass, I broke down and commented. This was a good reminder to choose my interactions carefully if I’d like to see the “good” side of humanity, subjectively speaking. Lately I’ve had my fill of the more damaged side of humanity and I feel a bit protective of myself.
However, the point I made is a hill I’ll die on: when confronted with something confrontational, ask yourself: in what way could this be true?
Okay, so, of course the point that was made (“science based” trainers don’t have any feel because they’re overthinking everything) is a possibility. That's not really a question, and neither is the logical opposite: that someone would get up on a horse with no such knowledge and cause harm. (I think I saw that happen once.) That it’s a possibility doesn’t make it a probability. Point being that feel and knowledge are not mutually exclusive, but there is a correlation.
My salty reply was:
“Metaphor is a (scientifically studied) proven way to communicate (all language is metaphor), and not every part of a metaphor is going to align with what it's compared to. However I would also say that horses are not a blank canvas, nor are they pieces of art that we create, the notion of which objectifies the horse (as does "teaching it something useful"). They all come with experiences, and yes, knowing the various sciences involved in what it is to be a horse is an advantage. Someone making the assumption that having that knowledge means they don't actually apply it is doing just that: making an assumption. I don't understand how knowing more means you do less, unless it's doing less of the things that are harmful. Everything, and I mean everything, is science whether one wants to admit it or not. Science is a process of learning and discovery and experimentation, it's not a club. Good science, and good trainers, do better when they learn more. I find it a bit shameful and arrogant that someone is saying there is no merit to knowing more, and especially from different perspectives. There might be some good points in this (and other) posts, but a lot of it feels divisive for the sake of sensationalism. That's unfortunate. Knowledge and action are not mutually exclusive.”
In other words, you’re fucking using science all the time, dude. It’s just not the only thing that’s happening. When you can shift your perspective, and try to see what about something could be true, first of all you’re just less of an ass, but you start to see that there are so many areas of overlap that it’s impossible to count, and each of those areas has something to offer. In this case with regard to feel and knowledge. There’s a ton of overlap there. I think feel is a combination of timing, mechanics, and use of repertoire (knowledge). The more you know, the more you feel. And vice versa.
Anyhow, he called me “special” for being able to feel *and* know things, and I just gave him a care react. We could have had a great conversation, but his commitment to inflexibility just wasn’t all that fun, and my tone was close to mirroring his, so nothing productive was going to come of that.
