Reimagining the Story of Clever Hans
‘Clever Hans’ has typically served as a precautionary tale, warning against the dangers of anthropomorphism and of overestimating non-human animals’ cognitive abilities.
But what if our limitations – rather than Hans’– have been the problem? What if Hans was in fact exceedingly ‘clever’ and his trainer, Wilhem von Osten, a gifted trainer?
To consider this, we humans must look beyond an anthropocentric worldview to consider equine abilities from perspectives that fit with their evolutionary journey and species’ needs, rather than our own.
If you’re not familiar with the story of Clever Hans here it is in a nutshell. In the late 1800’s von Osten, a school teacher, decided to teach his horse, Hans, math. Hans demonstrated his intelligence to amazed audiences by tapping his foot to provide the correct answers to complex math questions. However, investigations ultimately showed that Hans only knew the right answer when von Osten did, and was in fact responding to extremely subtle, likely unintentional, cues in von Osten’s body language.
This discovery prompted important steps forward in scientific procedure to control unintentional influence from experimenters on research results, aka ‘the clever Hans effect’. Sadly, it also contributed to the many decades when researchers avoided studying the possibility of animal intelligence or sentience, or suffered a lack of funding and the ridicule of their peers if they were brave enough to do it anyway.
So where did we go wrong?
While von Osten correctly believed Hans to be clever, the problem is he – like most of us – defined ‘clever’ in human terms, and then tested it in a non-human. This would be rather like assessing my intelligence by testing my echolocation skills.
Because why would a horse need to know math? Will math help him find forage or water? Identify the approach of a potential predator and run to safety? Navigate complex social cues and relationships within his herd?
Evolution tells us a species will develop the abilities needed for that species to survive. Humans evolved as meat eaters who can’t run particularly fast or defend ourselves without tools, so we needed to plan and strategise in order to eat and not be eaten. This meant the gradual development of complex cognitive abilities, supported by multiple parts and systems within the brain including a highly granular dorso-lateral pre frontal cortex.
Equines, on the other hand, evolved in herds eating grass (which doesn’t hide or run away) on the open plains and were hunted by many species, including us. Thus they developed excellent senses and memories for finding forage and water, acute senses and the physicality to detect and flee from predators, and finely tuned abilities to notice and respond to subtle shifts in others’ body language.
Hans didn’t – couldn’t – know the answer to von Osten’s math questions but he noticed, understood and responded accurately and consistently to subtle cues in his trainer’s body language.
Precisely as evolution intended.
How does this apply within Equine Assisted Services (EAS)?
This narrative holds many lessons for those of us committed to creating living and working environments that prioritise our equines’ physical and emotional wellbeing. As a start, I propose that we:
- Better educate ourselves on what our equines’ world is really like and stop assuming it’s just like ours. Because it’s not. Research is now providing us with a growing body of data we can access to help us better understand how horses think, feel, receive and process sensory information, learn, communicate, attach and remember. If two species want to collaborate, one of them needs to make the effort to understand the world from the others’ perspective. Since we are the species pursuing the collaboration within EAS, that responsibility falls squarely on us.
- Create living and work environments that reflect what our equines truly need, not what makes us feel good. That may mean less fancy stabling, blankets and flashy gadgets and more access to friends, forage and freedom.
- Become more familiar with our own non-verbal cues, and how they may be impacting and even ‘training’ our equines, including towards outcomes we don’t intend.
- Stop blaming equines for things they are not able or designed to do. Claims of, ‘he did that on purpose’ or, ‘she knows what she did wrong’ are simply not supported by ethology, evolutionary psychology, experimental research or anatomical investigation. Plus, we may inadvertently be the cause of whatever it is our equine just did!
We can also apply so much of the above to enhance the safety and efficacy of our client interactions and relationships within EAS. For example:
- We can work with equines in more informed (by research, not folklore) ways to enhance safety for all – including our clients.
- We can support our clients to become more familiar and skilled with their own and others’ non-verbal communication and body language, with our equines being the greatest teachers!
- We can validate, trust and support the feeling of being truly accepted by an equine for who we are in the moment, regardless of what we may have done in the past, and harness this non-judgemental invitation in our work with clients.
- We can follow our equine’s lead in meeting, honouring and working with each individual as they truly are, rather than as we are, or think they should be.
- We can invite our clients into a world where one person’s, one group’s, or one species’ worldview is not assumed to be superior to, or the ‘right one’ for all.
We have probably all made mistakes in these areas in the past, doing the best we could with what we were told and believed at the time. I know I certainly have! But now we have options to know better, we also have choices to do better.
Our equines and clients deserve no less.
Want to know more? Join our upcoming mini series, Equine Neuroscience in Equine Assisted Services. Register online here
Acknowledgements and Disclaimer: The fields of equine ethology, neuroscience, behaviour and welfare are rapidly growing and self-correcting, with new data becoming available all the time. I am not a neuroscientist so am necessarily leaning on and applying the work and support of many who know much more than I do. These include: Plotine Jardat, Stephen Peters, Lucy Rees, Andrew Maclean, Janet Jones, Andrew Hemmings and Helen Spence. Any errors I have made in applying their work lies with me, not them!