# data[].attributes.headline
Photo: Man's Relationship with his horse: Photo

# data[].attributes.subject
Photo: Man's Relationship with his horse: Photo

# data[].attributes.body
Photograph

# data[].attributes.headline
Arabian Horse Documentary: 26 minutes long

# data[].attributes.subject
Arabian Horse Documentary: 26 minutes long

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arabian Horse Racing Documentary ~ From Desert Sands to Racecourses Around the World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kylar Productions presents "Arabian Horse Racing ~ From the Desert Sands to Racecourses around the World." Winner of Documentary Short FIlm - People's Choice Award at the 2016 Equus Film Festival in NYC. Directed by Amanda Roxborough, Produced by Kylar Productions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rebel parts of Syria revive beloved Arabian horse races

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dozens of men and young children, their faces enveloped in red checkered keffiyehs, watch as about 20 horses race each other in the northern Syrian desert.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Purebred Arabian horses imported to England by Lady Ann Blunt became known as "Crabbet Arabians" after her farm, Crabbet Park. In the U.S., horses were associated with the individuals or farms that bred them, which explains why enthusiasts refer to "Babson," "Davenport" and "Kellogg" bloodlines.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The sun is not yet up over the desert, but already 50 horses and riders are gathered at Qatar's Endurance Village in Al-Wakra, half an hour's drive from the capital Doha.

They are gathered to compete in a 120-kilometer (74.5-mile) endurance race, the likes of which are held here most weeks. Masked riders gaze steely-eyed into the desert as their horses crest their necks and paw the ground, eager to get the race under way.

The starter counts down in Arabic, and the horses and riders surge over the starting line, galloping into the pitch-black desert with their high-held tails streaming behind them.

Hot on their heels a fleet of Land Cruisers hares after them across the sand, the glare of their headlights creating a moving oasis of light. These are the support vehicles from which the owners, trainers and managers can observe the race in progress and shout instructions.

Today, the horses will complete laps of a 30 km (18.6 miles) course, stopping for checks at the end of each lap. Any horse deemed unfit to continue the race will be eliminated at each check point.

They will travel at speeds of up to 40 km per hour (25 mph) for around eight hours. Of the 50 who started the race, fewer than a quarter will complete it.

Most of the horses are pure-breed Arabians who are revered in Islamic culture, prized for their beauty, intelligence and, above all, their endurance.

It was the Arabian horse that formed the genetic blueprint for the modern racehorse, with every modern thoroughbred tracing its DNA to just three "original" oriental stallions imported to the UK in the 18th century.

Some say the Arabian horse was a gift to mankind from Allah. The ancient breed is supremely well-adapted to the unforgiving desert terrain of the Middle East.

Many of these animals are ex-racehorses, gradually trained and brought up to fitness to compete in endurance races.

Although the sport is ancient in its origins, today's races are as professional as they are competitive, with horses conditioned to the peak of fitness and subject to rigorous veterinary inspections both during and after the race.

At each stage's completion, the horses are doused with water and their heart rates measured. A team of veterinarians inspects each horse thoroughly before it is allowed to continue the race. The number of competitors is gradually whittled down until only the very fittest are left to contest the final laps.

Endurance is taken seriously in this part of the world: many of the horses are owned by members of the Qatari and Dubai Royal families. One such owner is Sheikh Maktoum, ruler of Dubai.

His son Sheikh Rashid is a champion endurance rider in his own right who is competing here today.

"I've been riding since I was 11 years old and doing endurance since 2006," he said during an inspection.

"Some people in my family are more into flat racing (his father owns one of the most important thoroughbred racing operations in the world), some are more into endurance racing. I actually started with polo but then I was attracted by endurance and I loved it. Hopefully I will be doing it for the rest of my life."

Unfortunately for Sheikh Rashid, he and his striking grey horse are eliminated after the penultimate lap. But is it one of his compatriots from Dubai who claims first place in a sprint finish with another rider. They are among only a handful of riders to complete the grueling course.

The enduring appeal of such a sport is easy to understand; physically and strategically demanding, it is also an expression of the extreme respect with which horses -- particularly Arabian ones -- are treated in this part of the world.

Muslims were told that if they treated these precious horses with love and respect, they would be handsomely rewarded, both in their earthly life and beyond.

While the winning rider accepts this congratulations from the crowd, his horse -- a magnificent chestnut with the dish-shaped face and high tail carriage characteristic of the breed -- is handed to a team of grooms to be looked after.

With a last look back over his shoulder as he is led away, the horse flares his nostrils and whinnies, a final call to the desert from whence he came.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
desert riders uphold ancient tradition - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The sun is not yet up over the desert, but already 50 horses and riders are gathered at Qatar's Endurance Village in Al-Wakra, half an hour's drive from the capital Doha. They are gathered to compete in a 120-kilometer (74.5-mile) endurance race, the likes of which are held here most weeks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Scientific Name:

Equus ferus caballus

Size:

Height at the shoulders: 30 to 69 inches

Weight:

120 to 2,200 pounds

Size relative to a 6-ft man:

Horses and humans have an ancient relationship. Asian nomads probably domesticated the first horses some 4,000 years ago, and the animals remained essential to many human societies until the advent of the engine. Horses still hold a place of honor in many cultures, often linked to heroic exploits in war.

Wild and Domesticated

There is only one species of domestic horse, but around 400 different breeds that specialize in everything from pulling wagons to racing. All horses are grazers.

While most horses are domestic, others remain wild. Feral horses are the descendents of once-tame animals that have run free for generations. Groups of such horses can be found in many places around the world. Free-roaming North American mustangs, for example, are the descendents of horses brought by Europeans more than 400 years ago.

Wild horses generally gather in groups of 3 to 20 animals. A stallion (mature male) leads the group, which consists of mares (females) and young foals. When young males become colts, at around two years of age, the stallion drives them away. The colts then roam with other young males until they can gather their own band of females.

The Przewalski's horse is the only truly wild horse whose ancestors were never domesticated. Ironically, this stocky, sturdy animal exists today only in captivity. The last wild Przewalski's horse was seen in Mongolia in 1968.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore the ancient relationship between human and horse. Learn why hundreds of distinctive breeds are all members of a single species.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fans of sports underdogs have had an amazing run these past few months. In February, the New Orleans Saints won their first-ever Super Bowl, an upset victory over the invincible Colts. At the beginning of April, a little-known college from the Midwest made it to the NCAA basketball title game against the hated Blue Devils. (When the kids from Butler finally lost, the papers called them " triumphant in defeat.") And more recently, the Oklahoma City Thunder very nearly forced the defending champion Los Angeles Lakers to a seventh game in the first round of the NBA playoffs.

Case in point: I cheered for Butler, ranked No. 5 in their region, as the long shot against Duke, ranked No. 1. But a few days before, when the Bulldogs had played another five seed, Michigan State, I didn't know which team was the underdog. The only solution was to root for the side that happened to be losing. Soon I found myself cheering for a Spartans team that couldn't get it together in the second half. They made a late run -closing to within one point in the final minute-but, alas, my disappointment was guaranteed. (If Michigan State had come back, I would have been pulling for Butler.) When the game ended, I fell into a sour mood.

"What did you expect?" my girlfriend asked, later that night. Rooting for the little guy is the American way, I said. It's Horatio Alger and Rocky Balboa and the Miracle on Ice. It's human nature.

That didn't quite answer her question. What's so natural about our love for the underdog? Why do sports fans choose to suffer?

In 1992, an Indiana University professor named Edward Hirt conducted a famous study on the psychology of sports fandom. One hundred sixty-seven undergrads were invited into the lab and shown a broadcast of a Hoosiers basketball game. Afterward, they were asked to throw Velcro balls at a target, solve anagrams, and rate their chances of getting a date with members of the opposite sex.

Hirt showed that by varying the outcome of the basketball game, he could influence the results of the study. The students' test scores had little to do with the Hoosiers' performance on the court. But when they were asked how they felt about the tests, the basketball game made a huge difference. Big-time Indiana fans were more confident in their skills following a home-team victory-they expected to ace the ball toss and anagrams and declared themselves more sexually desirable. When the Hoosiers lost, the reverse happened: Students were dejected and lacking in self-esteem. Clearly there were real costs associated with sports fandom- a defeat on the court felt like a personal failure.

Researchers have found plenty of support for what seems like an obvious notion: In sports, we're drawn to a winner. Other factors-like where you live and who your friends are-can influence your choice of a favorite team. (Why else would you root for the Chicago Cubs?) But "team success is kind of like the icing on the cake," says Daniel Wann, a Murray State psychologist who studies the causes and consequences of being a fan.

Which brings us to that peculiar situation, so common in college basketball, where too much icing ruins the cake. In 1991, a pair of researchers at Bowling Green State University, Jimmy Frazier and Eldon Snyder, published a paper on what they called " the underdog concept in sport." Frazier and Snyder posed a simple hypothetical scenario to more than 100 college students: Two teams, A and B, were meeting in a best-of-seven playoff series for some unidentified sport, and Team A was "highly favored" to win. Which team would the students root for?

Eighty-one percent chose the underdog.

Then the students were asked to imagine that Team B had somehow managed to win the first three games of the series. Would the subjects root for the sweep or switch allegiance to the favorite? Half of those who first picked the underdog now said they'd support Team A. It was the same, cockamamie approach I'd taken to Butler and Michigan State: Root, root, root for the losing team-no matter what.

If watching your team go down makes you feel like garbage, why are we drawn to teams that seem destined to lose? Frazier and Snyder tried to explain the effect with a bit of emotional economics. The sports spectator might be seen as a hedonistic animal, they argued, always out to maximize her excitement. So long as she's not beholden to any one team for sentimental reasons-she's a life-long Royals fan, perhaps-then she'll choose her rooting interest based on a rational calculation of costs and benefits.

Since a close game provides more entertainment than one that's lopsided, the self-interested fan might, for example, choose to support whichever team happens to be behind on the scoreboard. That's what I did in the Final Four: Instead of pulling for one side or the other, I hoped the game would go into triple overtime.

My strategy has an unfortunate side effect: The team you're rooting for never wins. On account of that, it may be smarter to gamble your emotions on the team that's most likely to reward you with a stirring victory-and that's least likely to crush your soul. For Frazier and Snyder, that means betting on the underdog: If they win, it's the greatest feeling in the world. And if they lose-well, you kind of knew that would happen all along. The same reasoning applies in reverse: If you're pulling for the favorite, then a loss cuts extra deep, while a victory merely delivers what you thought you deserved. "Thus a utilitarian model would indeed predict the underdog effect," the authors observe.

Let's give this a closer look. In effect, Frazier and Snyder are saying that the expected value of a bet on an underdog-its average payoff in raw, chest-bumping excitement-will always be higher than the expected value of a bet on the favorite. In other words, if you multiplied the odds of an underdog victory by the amount of pleasure it would produce, you'd end up with a higher number. Let's say you were rooting for the Giants against the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII. The odds against the Giants were something like 4-to-1-meaning that bettors saw New York as being about one-fourth as likely to win the game as New England. Now imagine that the Giants' remarkable upset turned out to be four times more gratifying for Giants fans than a corresponding victory would have been for Patriots fans. (I remember that game. It did feel pretty darn good.) If that's the case, the expected payoffs would have been exactly the same. As a matter of emotional economics, it wouldn't matter which team you were rooting for.

The hedonistic sports fan would be drawn to the underdog only if these numbers were out of whack-if the amount of joy associated with an upset were disproportionate to the odds. Imagine, for example, that a Giants upset were one-fourth as likely as a Patriots victory but 10 times more gratifying. In that case, rooting for the long shot would be a no-brainer. (Even the folks in Boston might get on board.) But to assume that an upset would confer some dazzling, disproportionate joy begs the question altogether: What makes the underdog so wonderful to begin with?

This bias might be explained by a tendency that behavioral economists have labeled the " availability heuristic": We make judgments about probability based on whatever data spring most easily to mind. The examples you remember are the ones that influence your beliefs. If you've just watched hours of footage about 9/11, for example, you might think you're more likely to die in a terrorist attack than in a car accident.

It's easy to see how the availability heuristic might lead us to favor the long shot. When you think about horse racing, which comes to mind first: Seabiscuit's underdog victory in the 1938 Pimlico Special or Cool Coal Man's unremarkable loss at the 2008 Kentucky Derby? If you're thinking about Seabiscuit when you step up to the betting window, you'll be more inclined toward horses with long odds. The same goes for any other sport. We'll reminisce about the fifth-seeded Butler Bulldogs for years to come. But what about Temple and Texas A&M-similarly ranked teams that didn't make it through the first weekend of the tournament? And consider all the other underdogs in our culture-from the Bible, from literature, and from every sports movie ever made. It's no accident that we remember the Titans.

So how biased are we? A few years ago, a graduate student named Nadav Goldschmied decided to find out. Goldschmied, who's now a professor of psychology at the University of San Diego, invited students to read a fake newspaper article about an upcoming rugby match. According to the article, odds makers had given one of the teams just a 30 percent chance of victory. When asked to make their own predictions, the students were more optimistic. Instead of pegging the underdog's odds at 30 percent, they guessed it was more like 41 percent. If the article specifically referred to the disadvantaged team as an "underdog," the effect was even stronger, with the students pegging the chance of victory at 44 percent.

Goldschmied repeated the experiment twice more, replacing the rugby teams with mayoral candidates and then a pair of businesses competing for a contract. In each case, the results were the same: The mere act of labeling one side as an underdog made the students think they were more likely to win.

A purely economic theory of underdogs doesn't satisfy Goldschmied, though, nor does it appeal to his former mentor, Joseph Vandello of the University of South Florida. Their work has shown that our love for the little guy is as much a judgment of character as an emotional investment. In one study, they found that two-thirds of all voters in the 2004 presidential election described their preferred candidate as the "underdog." A follow-up four years later revealed that presidential candidates were deemed more likable after being characterized as an "underdog" by someone else. More recent data from Vandello's lab suggest that being cast as the underdog can make your actions seem more virtuous and your face appear more beautiful.

Why is an underdog so attractive? It may have something do with how hard he tries. Vandello showed subjects a video clip of a basketball game between two international teams said to be playing for a championship. One side was described as the 9-to-1 favorite, having won each of 15 previous playoff matches. After viewing the footage, which showed a close game, students were asked to rate the players according to their ability and effort.

As a rule, the underdogs were characterized as having less "talent" and "intelligence" than the favorites but more "hustle" and "heart." That was true even when subjects viewed the same video clip with the labels reversed. It didn't matter what was actually on the screen-which players jumped higher or who dived for the loose balls. The test subjects attributed more effort to whichever team had the underdog label.

So here's another theory of the underdog effect: We like it when people try as hard as they can. A mediocre team with a lot of "heart" is more appealing-and thus more deserving of our fandom-than a lineup of distractible superstars.

But there's one problem with this idea: In real-life competition, underdogs don't seem to have any more gumption than the odds-on favorites. In fact, recent data suggest that the underdogs might be dogging it.

For a study published in January, researchers Nathan Pettit and Robert Lount tested a bunch of undergraduates on a simple cognitive task-their ability to generate possible uses for a knife. Some students were told their scores would be compared with scores from a similar experiment conducted at a more prestigious university, while others believed they were going head-to-head with students at a worse school.

The subjects who believed they were up against the stronger competition ended up performing worse on the test. Playing the role of the underdog appeared to sap their motivation. Likewise, the group that was ostensibly paired with a lower-ranked school seemed to try harder.

Another paper, by economist Jennifer Brown, used the results of hundreds of PGA golf tournaments to arrive at a similar conclusion. She examined how the performance of professional golfers changed when they were playing against Tiger Woods. Controlling for the course, the weather, and other factors, Brown found that Tiger's opponents shot almost a full stroke worse, on average, whenever he was in the tournament. (The quality of Tiger's game also made a difference: When he was on a roll, the competition suffered all the more.) Brown calls this an "adverse superstar effect": In the face of a superior opponent, pro golfers have less incentive to compete.

Whether or not the underdogs are really trying harder, what's important is how they're perceived. And for some reason, we tend to assign positive attributes to whichever team or players are at a disadvantage. The utter ubiquity of this effect is part of what makes it so remarkable. Vandello has found that between two-thirds and three-quarters of us are prone to its influence, regardless of gender, political orientation, or personality type. And it applies in areas as diverse as sports, international relations, product branding, and the dating market. One group has even documented a preference for underdog landscape painters.

Even Frazier and Snyder, purveyors of the emotional economics model, wondered whether their findings might reflect some more noble human drive. What if it's not a cost-benefit curve that attracts us to the underdog? Maybe he appeals instead to something deeper-a primal sense of fairness. It's the ancient emotion aroused by the story of David and Goliath: We just want David to have a shot.

The same idea might apply to sports fans. A lopsided championship game makes us uncomfortable; it seems unfair. The underdog effect, then, serves as ballast for crooked odds. If we're at the stadium, we might use our fandom to influence the game directly-by screaming over the snap count or waving thundersticks at a free-throw shooter. And when we're watching at home, our efforts to help the underdog might take the form of magical thinking: If I just cross my fingers ...

Our dislike for inequity in sports could explain why we appreciate teams that appear to try harder on the court. Natural talent is unfair: You either have it or you don't. But a game that's decided on effort alone gives everyone an equal shot. The Bulldogs may not be as gifted as the Blue Devils, or as smart or well-coached. So we're hoping a little elbow grease can even things out.

Vandello and Goldschmied set up an experiment to test this hypothesis. They started by presenting their subjects with the classic underdog scenario: Two teams, A and B, are about to play an important match, for which Team A was the odds-on (7-to-3) favorite. Then they made things more complicated. The students were to imagine that the players on Team A had lower salaries than the ones on Team B-their payrolls were $35 million and $100 million, respectively. Which team would the students root for-the small-market team that was a heavy favorite? Or the big-market team that was expected to lose?

Two-thirds supported the favorite, Team A. When two kinds of underdogs went head-to-head, the students came out in favor of the one with better odds but less money. For the authors, this was evidence that inequity aversion drives the underdog effect, "above and beyond" emotional self interest.

Indeed, Vandello suspects that a sense of fairness may be an evolved trait that isn't specific to humans. He cites a Nature study from 2003, showing that brown capuchin monkeys reject unequal rewards for the same trained behavior: When one monkey was given a piece of cucumber and another received a delicious grape, the first became uncooperative. In 2008, similar findings were reported with canine subjects: One dog might refuse to offer her paw if deprived of the sausage treat offered to another. Like the people who play the Ultimatum game, these animals were ready to give up their share if they didn't get a fair shake.

The Hoosiers study showed that we're more confident when our team succeeds-that victory gives us hope. Maybe that's what we like about the long shot: I'm more like Butler than Duke; if they can win, so can I.

So how does the rest of the world respond to a sports mismatch? Vandello says monkeys and chimps might share our proclivity for long odds. What about the French and the Chinese?

Two research groups have conducted surveys in the Far East, finding that people in Singapore and South Korea have more or less the same love for the long shot as Americans. Nadav Goldschmied has more specific cross-cultural data: He presented subjects in Israel, China, and Japan with the same hypothetical scenario he'd posed to students in the United States. When they were forced to choose sides, 72 percent of the Japanese and 57 percent of the Chinese picked the team that was at a disadvantage. The Americans fell somewhere in between, at 67 percent. Meanwhile, the weakest effect turned up among the Israelis, who chose the underdog just 52 percent of the time.

For Goldschmied, though, the data showed an effect that was largely consistent across cultures. The underdog, he says, is a global phenomenon.

For all its globetrotting, the underdog effect can be a fickle thing. Sure, I rooted for Butler, but I don't recall ever having cheered against the Giants or the Knicks on behalf of some plucky long shot. I realize that upsets are exciting, but ... Let's go Mets!

Scott Allison, a professor at the University of Richmond, has a theory for why underdog fandom can seem a little flimsy. He calls it the "Wal-Mart effect." We root for our neighborhood store when a mega-discounter moves in down the street. But when it's time to buy a new television, we opt for the cheaper price. Mom and pop may win our heart, says Allison, but they're not getting our money.

To test this idea, Allison's lab presented a bunch of adults with another underdog hypothetical. This time a pair of companies were vying for a contract to test the drinking water in far-off Boise, Idaho. One was a large, well-established firm founded 30 years ago; the other was an eager startup. Which company would the subjects root for?

As expected, people were inclined toward the underdog. But the experimenters changed their minds by tweaking two key variables. If the subjects were told that the water in question might contain "cancer-causing mercury," the underdog effect disappeared. And if the site of the water testing was changed from "Boise, Idaho" to somewhere in their own community, the results flipped altogether. In that case, the subjects started rooting against the underdog.

Our affinity for the lesser team "is a mile wide and an inch deep," concluded the researchers. "We may feel morally good about rooting for the underdog, but our positive reaction is quite malleable."

Could that be right? If so, it doesn't really matter whether we're cheering for the Bulldogs out of some convoluted self-interest or because we think they've got hustle and heart. It doesn't matter whether we're egging them on for the sake of fairness or because they remind us of ourselves. Our attraction to the underdog may not matter very much at all.

Perhaps that's why the underdog seems most at home in the trivial world of team sports. With nothing much at stake, we're free to indulge an idle preference for an upset. "At an unconscious level, we know we don't take underdogs all that seriously," says Allison. "We love them, but it's a weak effect."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why do we love to root for the underdog?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fans of sports underdogs have had an amazing run these past few months. In February, the New Orleans Saints won their first-ever Super Bowl, an upset victory over the invincible Colts. At the beginning of April, a little-known college from the Midwest made it to the NCAA basketball title game against the hated Blue Devils.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Galloping Through Time, Horses Accelerated Global Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The horse, once hunted and later domesticated, helped advance human communication and transportation, accelerating global change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Native Americans of the Great Plains: "People of the Horse"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The history and traditions of the Native-American tribes of the Great Plains were tied to the horse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Native American Cultures: The Great Basin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tracing the American Indians of the Great Basin through the 21st century.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's amazing how hypnotic a horse's ears can be as they bob slowly in front of you, stretching forwards and back rhythmically as your mount strides out. For me, going for a hack on a horse is a heady combination of adventure, exhilaration and deep relaxation. Your mind wanders as you explore country lanes, woods, bridle paths and cinder tracks. You go at your own pace - a sedate trot or a full out gallop, should you fancy it. The overwhelming feeling is one of freedom. You are, quite literally, on the hoof.

I no longer own my own horse. I have two small children and I work full-time, so I don't have the spare time or the spare cash. But as a child I was amazingly lucky to have a horse-mad mum, and I had my first pony, Patch, a very cheeky Welsh Mountain pony, before I could walk. It's all about your relationship with your horse and they all have such different personalities. We discovered that Patch loved jam sandwiches when he once wolfed mine from the boot of the car. He was a real character - very difficult to catch when he was out in the field, and he had to be rounded up, western-style, even in deep snow in the depths of winter. He had an inexplicable hatred of Shetland ponies and would try to buck me off whenever he saw one.

I grew up on Patch, and then had a succession of ponies and horses until my early 20s ... Dusty (fluffy angora jumpers were in when I had him in the 1980s and he liked resting his nose on my big roll necks), Tiger (a brilliant jumper who would turn his top lip inside out to "laugh" when you bathed him with a hosepipe in summer), Music (it was very embarrassing calling his name in the field but he had the comfiest, bounciest canter) and Jubilee (so handsome and with serious attitude and presence - he was a stallion until just before we had him, so he really thought he was the bollocks even though he no longer had any).

Once I was old enough I spent all my school holidays up the yard while my mum was at work, going on glorious hacks as well as making camps in the hay barn, having water fights and getting chased by the cockerel (which has left me with a life long fear of birds). I still escape for very treasured hacks on my friend Philippa's giant horse Brickett occasionally and, should I ever win the lottery rather than buying a fast car, the first thing I would do is buy a fast horse!

Sat in the saddle you're only a few metres off the ground but crucially this affords you a slightly different perspective on the world. You spot things you wouldn't normally spot and, from your perch on a horse's back, you are totally immersed in the natural environment. You can reach out and pick catkins off the trees as you pass, you can pause to watch a robin wolfing berries or bring your horse to a halt to admire a lovely view of a valley. You can't help but live in the moment, at one with your horse and nature, because there are no other distractions.

It's this close proximity to the natural world that provides such a sense of escapism and relaxation. Suddenly, you notice the small stuff (that robin, that view) and, because you ride all year round, you become highly atuned to the seasons.

Each ride has its own appeal. It's hard to beat a hack through the woods in autumn, ducking your head to avoid stray branches adorned with golden leaves, the sound of your horse's hooves muffled by those that have already fallen down and covered the floor in a jewel-like carpet. In the winter, I love cold crisp days when the hedgerows sparkle with frost and your horse blows huge clouds of steam from his nostrils. Dismounting when your feet have gone numb is agony, as is uncurling hands that have frozen tightly around the reins, but it's worth it. Even riding in the rain has its appeal - splashing through puddles, seeking shelter under huge horse chestnut trees and bolting home as quickly as you can to escape a downpour.

The paths you trot along may be mostly familiar but you never know quite what you might find round the next bend. In my 30 years of hacking across country my steeds and I have stumbled across naked lovers entwined on a rug in the middle of a field (awkward, for all of us), found abandoned diaries on a river bank (I am afraid to say that my friend and I did look, but in our defence we were only 13 and reading illicit extracts from an 20-year-old's diary was deeply thrilling) and discovered a magical, misty dell hidden deep in the woods that was like a scene from Tim Burton's film Sleepy Hollow.

I have been caught singing at the top of my voice to my pony by a group of walkers who managed to sneak up on me because I was making such a din. I've gone blackberry picking on horseback. I've trespassed in woods where I wasn't meant to be, then got lost and felt gnawing panic rise as it started to get dark. How did I get out? I gave my horse Jubilee his head and let him lead the way - he was an equine Lassie!

While riding alone is a strangely philosophical experience, hacking out with a friend is all about fun, for you and your steed. The horses enjoy having company and will vie for the front position and egg each other on, going faster and faster as you canter through the countryside. If one horse bucks, chances are the other will too, leaving both riders struggling to stay on and in fits of giggles. You can take a packed lunch and head off on longer treks to explore new paths or routes and there's someone there to hold a horse while the other leaps off to drag a log out of a hedge to create an impromptu fence.

And on the ride home there's always something important to discuss: "Where shall we go tomorrow?"
Interested in finding out more about how you can live better? Take a look at this month's Live Better challenge here. The Live Better Challenge is funded by Unilever; its focus is sustainable living. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature. Find out more here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's amazing how hypnotic a horse's ears can be as they bob slowly in front of you, stretching forwards and back rhythmically as your mount strides out. For me, going for a hack on a horse is a heady combination of adventure, exhilaration and deep relaxation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genes and the environment influence each other to create unique individuals through complex interactions. Thanks for watching! Leave feedback below!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The nature vs. nurture debate is the scientific, cultural, and philosophical debate about whether human culture, behavior, and personality are caused primarily by nature or nurture.

Nature is often defined in this debate as genetic or hormone-based behaviors, traits, and dispositions, while nurture is most commonly defined as environment, culture, and experience.

History of the Nature vs. Nurture Debate

The nature vs. nurture debate is an ongoing one. The modern debate often centers around the effect genes have on human disposition as opposed to the influences that early environment and development might have. As culture changes, so have popular understandings of this debate. In the 1960s, for example, psychologists-and pop culture in general-were heavily influenced by the theories of behaviorism. This theory led to the widespread belief that human personality is primarily influenced by experience and training. It was during this time that researcher John Money attempted to demonstrate that gender was a product of early conditioning by raising a boy, whose circumcision was botched, as a girl. His experiment seemed successful in the beginning but ultimately was a failure.

In recent years, the nature side of the debate has gained more attention, with headlines trumpeting newly discovered genes for virtually every behavior. Evolutionary psychology and sociobiology are two branches of science that attempt to demonstrate the evolutionary roots of human behavior. Books authored by scientists in these fields are extremely popular. However, critics still emphasize the important role of early childhood environment, development, and cultural influences. Many have argued that sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are deterministic pseudosciences.

Twin and Identical Twin Studies

Several studies done on twins separated shortly after birth reveal that genetics do play a significant role in the development of certain personality characteristics, sexual orientation, and religiosity. The bond between identical twins was also suggested to be genetic by these studies, as 80% of identical twins reported that they felt closer to their twin than they did to their closest friends, despite having just met their twin.

One study also suggested that genetics play a significant role in the development of personality: Environment had little effect on personality when twins were raised together, though it did have an effect when they were raised apart.

How Nature Affects Mental Health

While nature, or genetics, has been proven to be an important factor in the development of some mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia, bipolar, and major depression, the development of mental illness is not entirely genetic. Nature, or genetics and disposition, has been proven to be an important factor in the development of some mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia, bipolar, and major depression. Bipolar, for example, is four to six times more likely to develop when there is a family history of the condition. However, although the importance of genetic factors cannot be denied, the development of mental illness is not entirely genetic. For example, identical twins share their genes, yet if one twin develops schizophrenia, research shows the other twin only has a 50% chance of also developing the condition. This indicates that nature, while it plays an important part, is not the only contributing factor.

Another area where researchers may place more emphasis on nature than on nurture is that of addictions. Research indicates that alcohol addiction, for example, can recur in families and that certain genes may influence how alcohol tastes and the way it affects the body.

How Nurture Affects Mental Health

Certain genetic factors may create a predisposition for a particular illness, but the probability that a person develops that illness depends in part on environment (nurture). When a genetic variant indicates the possibility of developing a mental illness, this information can be used to direct positive (nurturing) behavior in such a way that the condition may not develop or may develop with less severity.

James Fallon, a neuroscientist who discovered that he had the brain of a psychopath, has stated that he believes growing up in a nurturing and loving environment helped him become a successful adult and may have been effective at preventing him from fully developing traits of psychopathy. Similarly, the basis for addiction is not thought to be entirely genetic by most researchers. Environmental aspects, such as the habits of parents, friends, or a partner, might also be significant factors contributing to the development of an addiction. A genetic predisposition to alcohol addiction may be far more significant if one is routinely exposed to binge drinking or other forms of alcohol abuse and comes to view this as normal alcohol use.

Researchers at the University of Liverpool recently found that while a family history of mental health conditions was the second strongest predictor of mental illness, the strongest predictor was in fact life events and experiences, such as childhood bullying, abuse, or other trauma. This supports the idea that nurture plays significant role in the development of mental health issues.

Nature vs. Nurture in Therapy

In the mental health field, some therapeutic treatments and approaches may be nature-based or nurture-based, depending on which paradigm to which they adhere. For example, an extremely nature-based approach might seek to address mental health on a biological or genetic level, while a nurture-based approach could be more likely to address a person's learned beliefs and behaviors. Most approaches borrow from both nature and nurture-based philosophies, and many seek to address the interaction between nature and nurture.

For example, using medication to treat a mental health issue may be a primarily nature-based approach, while behavioral therapy, which stems from behaviorist psychology, addresses a person's upbringing and conditioning and takes a nurture-based point of view. Meanwhile, therapies based in cognitive psychology may be more likely to address the effects of both nature and nurture.

It is possible to find a therapist who takes a more nature or nurture-based approach to treatment. However, many therapists today consider multiple factors, including how the nature and nurture work together, during a session.

How Nature and Nurture Interact

Many scientists eschew the nature vs. nurture debate by emphasizing "nature x nurture." In this schema, nature and nurture are inseparable. Some genes, for example, cannot be activated without certain environmental inputs. The development of vision is a prime example of this. People cannot develop normal sight without exposure to visual stimuli.

Similarly, some environmental inputs may be undermined by some genes. For example, some lifelong smokers may never experience smoking-related illnesses, and this may be due at least in part to their genes. Environmental toxins may alter the expression of some genes, and genes for many behaviors presumed to have a genetic basis have not been discovered.

Developmental systems theory, among other theories, presents an alternative to this debate that does not require scientists to advocate either for nature or nurture.
References:

1. Agin, D. P. (2010). More than genes: What science can tell us about toxic chemicals, development, and the risk to our children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2. Alcoholism Nature vs. Nurture. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.dualdiagnosis.org/alcohol-addiction/nature-vs-nurture.

3. Facts about Bipolar Disorder. (n.d.). Retrieved May 12, 2015, from http://adamhscc.org/en-US/facts-bipolar.asp.

4. Iliades, C. (2013, February 7). Mental Illness May Be In Your Genes. Retrieved from http://www.everydayhealth.com/depression/mental-iillness-may-be-in-your-genes-1751.aspx.

5. Lewis, T. (2014, August 11). Twins Separated at Birth Reveal Staggering Influence of Genetics. Retrieved from http://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-genetics.html.

6. Ohikuare, J. (2014, January 21). Life as a Nonviolent Psychopath. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/life-as-a-nonviolent-psychopath/282271.

7. Moore, D. S. (2003). The dependent gene: The fallacy of nature vs. nurture. New York, NY: Henry Holt.

8. Putt, G. (2013, October 20). Nurture Over Nature: Mental Illness and Traumatic Life Events. Retrieved from http://www.decodedscience.com/nurture-nature-mental-illness-traumatic-life-events/3836.

Last Updated: 09-28-2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nature vs. Nurture Debate - GoodTherapy.org Therapy Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The nature vs. nurture debate is the scientific, cultural, and philosophical debate about whether human culture, behavior, and personality are caused primarily by nature or nurture. Nature is often defined in this debate as genetic or hormone-based behaviors, traits, and dispositions, while nurture is most commonly defined as environment, culture, and experience.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A brief description of Indentured Servants as discussed in American History.

# data[].attributes.body
lol