External Apprehension

When others outside of the Stanford community ask about the classes you are taking, how do they often respond to your explanation of "Medicine & Horses"?

Last week I asked Beverley if she experienced negative pushback when "pitching" the idea to various parties because I notice a negative pushback in my own life when I express my excitement about this class. Personally, the ingenuity of such a simple concept is staggering. Animals do not communicate in words. They communicate through action. Each species has a different "languange" by which other species could learn through observation. Equally, people communicate through actions, often moreso, even though we have words. So to the primary question I was asked about this class....I made a statement of: "Through their ears, breathing, foot stomping, head position, etc, the horses feelings and intentions are translucent. By honing my skills of observation on their actions or responses to my actions, it enables me to acutely observe the actions my patients-- or anyone for that matter-- and change my own actions accordingly. I mean, with a horse it could lead to danger if I dont pay attention. With a patient, it could lead to danger if they won't allow me to do my job". From one friend I received a rather true and interesting response: "Yet its our ability to change our words despite our true feelings or true intentions that makes human communication different." I paused for a minute and said, "Exactly! That's why it's important that horses don't speak! It's our natural tendancy to listen to what people say and not watch what people are doing." Anyone else had experiences like this?

Comments

Post a comment