It seems to me that most of the training methods I have found that could be useful to Fox and I follow three very different paths.
The first: Tried and true practical horsemanship. The guys who have been around horses their entire life, know their ins and outs. Tough and firm but fair.
The second: Science a la Andrew McLean. Methods based on scientific studies of how a horses brain works, why a horse reacts the way he does in different situations and how a horse learns best.
The third: Spiritual. I'm not sure this is the right word for this but it follows the lines of Linda Tellington-Jones and a man named Klaus Ferdinand Hempfling. This is the genre I've probably done the least research on and I am desperately waiting on a Tellington-Jones book to be returned to the library so I can find out more about her methods.
The key thing here for me is that I am probably using bits of all three in varying degrees of competency. But can I keep mixing and matching all theses styles? Will I end up confusing Fox which will negate my aim for open honest communication? Am I thinking too much into how much it will effect Fox? It seems to be working so far but I really do tend to overthink things!
All I know is that by changing the way I think when I am around my horse and being aware of every little thing I do with him has changed Fox's behaviour considerably. He is still a little too ready to invade personal space and other bad ground manners and we have yet to tackle float loading but the improvement is major. From a stubborn obstinant horse, I now have one that I like hanging out with.