The Equine Instinct
(The instinctive nature of life - Part I)

About ten years ago it came to my attention that just about all people here in the states, and more likely in all the English speaking countries, have totally different definition and understanding of the word instinct, or to be more specific, one would have to say an incomplete definition. It is not clear to me why this false definition is commonly published, as well as taught in the schools, but I cannot think of any other reason but political one.

How do we train animals?
By manipulating their environment and their perception of it, and by exploiting their inborn and gained instincts.

Wild mustangs - Don't need us.

We either remove them from their natural environment or breed them in captivity. Then we exploit their instinct to eat by controlling their food supply.
(We do the similar to people on a large scale, it is called "blockade - sanctions", forcing smaller and less powerful nations to submit to the more powerful ones.)

Gained Instinct

A domesticated horse "works" because at the end of the work (distanced traveled = work finished) there is food.

Inborn instinct - Life/Species proliferation

Inborn instinct - Nursing

Inborn instinct - Flee - Self preservation

Gained instinct - Horse opens stall door.
They do not figure it out!

    If the true meaning of the word instinct would be taught, the so-called Darwin Theory of the Origins of Species would appear to be incomplete, especially in linking the man to the animals. In any case, understanding of the word instinct is essential to one's ability to understand and relate to animals, specifically to the more evolved species of mammals, like horses, dogs and such.  

    There are many aspects that one has to be aware of in understanding the animals in question, mainly the natures of individual species. However, without the understanding of the word instinct, one simply cannot understand the instinctive behavior and "learning" capacity of the animals in question. It would be prudent if I present the English version of the definition of the word instinct first, and then I will complete the definition by genuine facts, verified by me through 50 years of working with animals as a professional, and that not only with horses.

    The English (incomplete) definition of the word "instinct":

    There are many different definitions of this word, but in most cases they all agree that the word instinct applies to "the inherent disposition of animals toward a particular behavior". In short, the word instinct in this case applies only to what we called the inborn instincts.

     The genuine meaning of the word instinct:

    The above is only a half true, as in reality we have two types of instincts, the inborn and the gained instincts, which now will make the instinctive learning nature of animals much easier to comprehend, because the instinctive learning nature of animals is primarily about self preservation via the adaptation to the environments in which they live. Now this also helps us clarify why animals like this are easy to train, why they also reflect us in the process, since by their instinctive nature they adapt to the environment that we have created and (unfortunately for most animals) are part of.

    Because things like these are not taught for some odd reason here, not even in colleges, many folks after spending years in college simply have no clue what is happening around them, especially when dealing with animals and the natural world in whole. You can go and make your own investigation by asking the so-called experts or trainers or self-proclaimed naturalist a very simple question. "How do we train animals?"

    To this point I have yet to meet a person in the horse world, let alone outside of it, amateurs or professionals alike, that would give me a simple, clear and accurate answer, which only proves how insufficient the education is in these "modern times", while I've learned these things already in the fifth grade, and then many times over in related professions. People often come here to my sites to get materials for their own works, often presenting the things taken from my original writings as their own, but since they change the context according to their understanding, they create more misinformation. Most of my writings are genuinely original because they come from my life experiences. And so I will not be surprised if in two or three years from now many folks, or at least some of them, will have the same answer to that question as presented below.   

     In any case, the simple answer to the question "How do we train animals?" is: "By manipulating their environment and their perception of it, and by exploiting their inborn and gained instincts." Now, just watch how things start to clear up when the whole truth is presented. At this point we can present another question to which you will already have the answer, even though you did not have it before you read this. "How do we train people?" I do not have to answer that, or do I? Let's stick to the animals lest this could appear political or religious.

   And so, we have two types of instincts, the inborn and the gained, or learned, if you will. The definition of the inborn instinct is given by most dictionaries, and is primarily referring to certain behavior attributes that the particular animal inherited not only from its own kind, but also from the individual ancestry, which is how species can change only to some point, which is what Darwin had observed. However, because of his insufficient understanding of the natural world, specifically the life itself, especially when we are talking about the complexity of a single gene, he simply created a theory which in reality was nothing more but another man made religion. Needless to point out that his "theory" was embraced primarily by those opposing the church, hence convenient theory for taking the power and wealth away from the church, which is still till this day embraced by the so-called "progressives" or self-proclaimed "enlightened" people.

   The second type of instinct is the so-called gained instinct. Most people simply lack the capacity to understand the natural world, because they lack the experience with the nature, specifically the animals in question, and often also lack sufficient awareness and observational skills to learn from experience. In most cases, especially in those that studied, people simply learn some theory, which they then try to implement into their lives with animals or nature, instead of the other way around, first learning from the animals, and then using the theoretical education to explain particular things in nature. In short, they do things backwards, which is not unusual since humanity for most part see things backwards and upside down, which is another issue.

   And so, for the sake of better and simple understanding, I will use the animal and computer comparison, which of course by no means makes the animal a mere computer, because the animal is an animated species, (hence animal), as opposed to computer that is mere machine and not of flesh, hence it has no awareness and so it feels nothing, and so the computer cannot feel pain (pain = one of the key elements in the universal life preservation). The definition of life can be put in very simplified form as: "life = awareness" or "awareness = life". In short, if it does not feel pain it is dead and not alive. Now when this is clarified we can proceed to the comparison, hoping that the simple minded do not get more confused by this.

   Most important part of the computer, besides that it feels nothing, is that computers do not think, though we call them often think-pads and such. Computer simply process information that was put into them. More advanced computers can be programmed to program themselves via the new data they gained through the programming, which they then process and adjust their programming accordingly.

    The animal's brain functions in similar fashion, and so animals do not think but process gained information (gained instincts) on the programming of the inborn instinct platform (the inborn instincts) of the particular species, if you will, or one could say on the nature (the inborn predispositions) of the particular animal. It is because of this processing and not thinking animals are much faster than people in responding to the environment and actions of motions.
    People on the other hand are handicapped in the natural environment and among animals because they think, which is what actually significantly slows down their response time to the environment and motion action. This also has to do a lot with the time perception as well as awareness, but I do not wish to make this article more complex, lest people grow stupid from this, especially when bringing the issue of time into this. I have a different article pointing out the difference between animals and humans, which should help not only in dealing and relating to animals, but also in understanding life and one self.

    And so, to sum up all of the above, animals like horses, dogs and other mammals are born with inborn instincts, like the instinct to suck on a mare tits when just born, and the gained instincts, which are in essence created by the information the animal "learns"/gains from the environment in which it lives and moves. And so we can't say that animals actually learn anything, because the word learning in the human form is very much a subject to understanding, which is what horses simply do not have, though to greenhorns and laics they may appear like they do.
    The same thing goes for the thinking element, which horses also do not have, but rather process information which is purely instinctive, since the basic instinct of all life forms is about self-preservation. And so, all physical life (the life that occupies matter) has to adapt to the environments in order to preserve itself, and so the natural necessity to gain new instincts in order to preserve itself.

     And so, as horses gain all the new instincts, (or as some folks like to call it "learn") from the environment they live in, they will then in return reflect the environment that helped to form them, mentally or physically alike. Therefore, if anyone wants to create new species, he has to first create a new and different environment (that alone would not do it of course, but it is the first step).
    Also if we want to alter/change an animal, or better said, adjust the already existing animal to be used by people, we have to first create the appropriate environment, which we then manipulate, and then the animal, by instinctively responding to the change and manipulations, ends up doing what we want it to do, or becomes what we want it to become. (Animals are not aware of their state of existence, see related articles.) It is all that simple, but of course not acceptable for the horse lover and most silly women, who for most part cannot deal with the fact that animals do not think, and most of all that they do not love, specifically do not love them.

      As you can now clearly see, the truth becomes detrimental to the commercial aspect of the equine industry, and so the "theory" of horses loving people is propagated like saying, "this horse breed, or this horse, wants to please you", and other related nonsense embraced by silly women. They go even further into extremes by saying quotes like by  Marion C. Garretty: "To be loved by a horse, or by any animal, should fill us with awe - for we have not deserved it", and needless to say the silly women suck this up like mother's milk. How accurate the wise saying, "harm to women comes from women". Suffice it to say, the devious and clever minds of this world exploit this weakness in women, and that not only to manipulate and control women, but also to manipulate and control the men through women.

There is no love in nature, though horses like and dislike other animals or people, or prefer/favor one before the other. Horses do not hate, but they "resent". They prefer the company of the strong and brave and "resent" the company of the weak. Horses get annoyed, impatient, nervous, frightened, "joyful", playful, depressed etc. Horses "bond" not for friendship but for safety, or a company if separated from other horses, which often turns into a dependency, especially when moved often from place to place. Horses do not like changes (unless accustomed to if frequent) in their environment, like leaving other horses and vice versa etc.

Horses do not respond well to people that are too slow to respond to them, hence one of the key elements in riding horses is a suitable and speedy response to the horse. Therefore decent riding of a horse is based not only on the instinctive learning ability of the rider, but also the rider's ability to feel the horse and its responses to which he equally fast and suitably responds. Horses do not relate well to frightened people, who for most past cannot feel the animal due to their fear.

     This is in no way saying that animals do not feel, whether mental (like fear) or physical stress or pain, because if they would not feel they simply could not live (no awareness = no life), let alone adjust to the environmental changes, not to mention we could never handle them or train them. In addition to this, there is the issue of the heart (not the feminine concept), which has to do more with courage often defying the very instinct of self-preservation. The heart is something that defies the natural fear for self-preservation, and so it is always so admired by all who are aware of the heart, but that is again another issue. It is not for nothing said that the Earth is all about the hearts, which is not in the least referring to love, or the human concept of the word, let alone what women understand under the word love. In the silly female minds the word heart brings the Valentine concept of heart into their minds and with it romance (the animal loves them), and with it all the related nonsense they create and invent about the nature and animals.

   Unfortunately most people's thinking is very much influenced by emotions and feelings (mostly greed and fear) or other self-interests, as well as misinformation, on which basis they think and create their own versions of realities in their minds, while missing the real essence of life in all forms, while not having any understanding of life what so ever, hence having no clue who they are and where they are, let alone what anything or anyone else is. The question, "What is the meaning of life?", must be one of the dumbest question one could possibly ask, and I will not provide the answer, which in reality answered that question.

   And so, as you can see one's thinking is one's handicap in relating to animals, and so it is the first thing that one should purge when riding and relating to horses, as it obviously impedes one's ability to respond to them. We humans also have the instinctive learning capacity like the horses do, and so it is only on this level that you can relate to animals and the way they can respond to.

     And so I said that the relationships between a man and a horse, or man and dog and such, is founded in the brave hearts of both, because a brave heart is something all animals relate to, since the earth is all about the hearts. In short, you can consider your intellectual part of your brain fairly useless when it comes to the natural life and the ability to relate to it.
   Furthermore your emotions serve only to screw up your perception of nature and the reality within, as much as your ability to relate to animals, obviously. So it suffices to say that women simply cannot do any of the above, which, as any truth, is self-evident. It is like asking a cat to behave like a dog when asking a woman not to think.

   Now it also becomes very clear why women are simply incompetent in relating to horses in a realistic way (and most men these days as well), because they simply think too much, instead of just being aware of what is, and then responding to it, they first think about it.
   The ancient definition of the word "idiot" was referring to the so-called thinker, a person that spends too much time in his or her head thinking about realities, or better said about one's own perception of them. In other words, an idiot was not a person that was not thinking, that was a fool, but idiot was a person that was thinking too much, and mainly there where he should have been paying attention rather than thinking, as one is wise to do when with horses. In the natural world, and the animal world, a thinking human being is completely out of place and out of touch with reality, in short, mentally handicapped, which is obviously self-evident as all truth is.

    In addition to this, most women are extremely gullible, because they are inclined to believe any bullshit as long as they like it, and more so if it makes sense to them. If and when they lack the understanding of something, or if they do not like some truth, they simply declare it as nonsense, while discrediting the author by any means necessary, and then adopt that which they prefer (all religions or ideologies are formed like this by humans). A lot of men are like this these days as well, as they were genuinely processed like some sardines via the "politically corrective process", or in the more common term, via "brainwashing". (The actual correct term is "brain-programming", because in the actual brainwashing one removes the information without putting any in).

Related article: Reflex - Instinct (Conscious and instinctive memory)

Written by Ludvik K Stanek a.k.a Lee Stanek (2010)