Claude knocks one out of the ballpark, yet again...........

[Chuck Haggard]

http://tacticalprofessor.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/what-is-the-value-of-training/comment-page-1/#comment-750

[Dagga Boy]

Yes he did.

[Totem Polar]

Solid logic; concise explanation. Agreed: that was good stuff.

[KVDT]

Like!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The resistance to training fascinates me since we know how useful it is. We discussed this before that training threatens the male ego as you have to perform and look stupid at times in what a real man should know how to do instinctually. I see it all the time with some 'gun' guys. Rather talk about the new +++P++++ neutronium round.

Great summary by Claude.

[Trooper224]

I decided long ago that if I come out of a training session feeling good about myself then it was probably a waste of time. Most life lessons in anything are learned through failure. If I'm not pushing myself to my failure point it's just an ego stroke.

Wise words from Claude.

[DiscipulusArmorum]

Very glad to have Claude local to me. I've trained with him once and look forward to doing so again.

[Tamara]

The resistance to training fascinates me since we know how useful it is.

1) That's money you could use to buy a new gun.
2) Both training and competition force you to exhibit your abilities in front of others. If you have been lying to yourself about those abilities, it will be brought to your attention.

[NETim]

I decided long ago that if I come out of a training session feeling good about myself then it was probably a waste of time. Most life lessons in anything are learned through failure. If I'm not pushing myself to my failure point it's just an ego stroke.

Wise words from Claude.

Then I've been spending my very wisely. There have been some long drives home the last few years. :)

[mizer67]

The resistance to training fascinates me since we know how useful it is.

I may just be the guy that doesn't know what I don't know, but I've experienced the following:

After the first real training class I took, the subsequent half dozen or so pistol courses have been more valuable to me to incentivize my interim training to get ready for the next class than the learning in the classes themselves. "I don't want to look like an idiot in front of others" has been a motivator, at least for me. Perhaps this is just my experience or the fact that classes compared to individual training are very brief.

[Beat Trash]

I like this article.

Unfortunately I have seen instructors who suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect. Only now I have a name for it.

I've seen it with some LE instructors.

[Chuck Haggard]

I often borrow this version from Gomez's signature line on posts over at TPI. It's my go-to synopsis of Dunning-Kruger, cogent, very concise, gets the point across very effectively;


"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."
-- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999, Vol 77 No.6, 1121-1134, Kruger & Dunning

[PT Doc]

I often borrow this version from Gomez's signature line on posts over at TPI. It's my go-to synopsis of Dunning-Kruger, cogent, very concise, gets the point across very effectively;

I recall that Gomez also said the top three areas that men overestimated their abilities were: driving, shooting and screwing.

[Chuck Haggard]

I recall that Gomez also said the top three areas that men overestimated their abilities were: driving, shooting and screwing.

and leadership, and...........

But yeah, that is a scientific fact.

[Tamara]

After the first real training class I took, the subsequent half dozen or so pistol courses have been more valuable to me to incentivize my interim training to get ready for the next class than the learning in the classes themselves. "I don't want to look like an idiot in front of others" has been a motivator, at least for me. Perhaps this is just my experience or the fact that classes compared to individual training are very brief.

There's a certain subset of people who seem to do their only shooting at classes. That makes it hard to get any better.

[MVS]

The problem with Claude's great article, is that the people who need to read it won't. Those of us who agree with it will read it and say, great article.

[John Hearne]

The problem with Claude's great article, is that the people who need to read it won't. Those of us who agree with it will read it and say, great article.

Sadly yes. I suspect that Claude is largely preaching to the chorus. Just going such a website carries with it the possibility that someone might know more than you. This is enough cognitive dissonance to stop most folks.

[Tamara]

That is the sad truth. Way to bum my high, dude.

[JustOneGun]

It was a good article and I agreed with it. Never-the-less it left me with an uneasy feeling. Certainly it is worth while for all of us to think about training and practice so why did it seem that something was missing?

I thought about it overnight and realized it had nothing to do with Claude's article or the ideas as he explained them. It was how others use two phrases, "Dunning-Kruger Effect" and "You don't know what you don't know". Dunning-Kruger as applied by some (not Claude) comes about when they are intellectually lazy. They believe they are the competent and you are the unskilled. Unfortunately one aspect of Dunning-Kruger is that it's all about a test. As you are exposed to the test you can learn to better place yourself in context of that test. So if you discuss a subject with someone and they can ace the test, you must be suffering from the effect because you disagree with them. Sometimes the error occurs when we have aced the entirely wrong test. I just call it hubris. At one time or another we all suffer from that.

The phrase, "You don't know what you don't know" is neutral and takes us no where without context. As I believe Claude used it, to take training exposes one to ideas outside of their comfort zone and allows us to explore new ideas. Those ideas can round out our skills and make us a better gunfighter. Some use it the same as Dunning-Kruger. They end the argument of ideas with, well you don't know what you don't know or you just haven't seen it done right. All the while never knowing if the other party knows far more than they and just disagrees with them. Ironically it could be said that the person saying that phrase out of context could be suffering from Dunning-Kruger? Again, it is intellectually dishonest. Used out of context or without details of a subject's argument, it amounts to faith. Faith that you are correct has nothing to do with a discussion of facts, but of religion. In my estimation it is the same as saying, "We do it that way because we've always done it that way."

Disclaimer: In case you missed it I am not saying that the Professor was guilty of this. But that others use the arguments incorrectly as an intellectual shortcut.

[Trooper224]

*******************

[John Hearne]

That is the sad truth. Way to bum my high, dude.

Just think of me as your personal bubble burster......

[rob_s]

It was a good article and I agreed with it. Never-the-less it left me with an uneasy feeling. Certainly it is worth while for all of us to think about training and practice so why did it seem that something was missing?

I thought about it overnight and realized it had nothing to do with Claude's article or the ideas as he explained them. It was how others use two phrases, "Dunning-Kruger Effect" and "You don't know what you don't know". Dunning-Kruger as applied by some (not Claude) comes about when they are intellectually lazy. They believe they are the competent and you are the unskilled. Unfortunately one aspect of Dunning-Kruger is that it's all about a test. As you are exposed to the test you can learn to better place yourself in context of that test. So if you discuss a subject with someone and they can ace the test, you must be suffering from the effect because you disagree with them. Sometimes the error occurs when we have aced the entirely wrong test. I just call it hubris. At one time or another we all suffer from that.

The phrase, "You don't know what you don't know" is neutral and takes us no where without context. As I believe Claude used it, to take training exposes one to ideas outside of their comfort zone and allows us to explore new ideas. Those ideas can round out our skills and make us a better gunfighter. Some use it the same as Dunning-Kruger. They end the argument of ideas with, well you don't know what you don't know or you just haven't seen it done right. All the while never knowing if the other party knows far more than they and just disagrees with them. Ironically it could be said that the person saying that phrase out of context could be suffering from Dunning-Kruger? Again, it is intellectually dishonest. Used out of context or without details of a subject's argument, it amounts to faith. Faith that you are correct has nothing to do with a discussion of facts, but of religion. In my estimation it is the same as saying, "We do it that way because we've always done it that way."

Disclaimer: In case you missed it I am not saying that the Professor was guilty of this. But that others use the arguments incorrectly as an intellectual shortcut.

Great post, but welcome to the intheernet, where everyone is more smarter than everyone else.

That's why people like these kinds of articles. Not because it espouses any great wisdom, but because it confirms a belief they already hold, and justifies their existing behavior.

[Chuck Haggard]

Great post, but welcome to the intheernet, where everyone is more smarter than everyone else.

That's why people like these kinds of articles. Not because it espouses any great wisdom, but because it confirms a belief they already hold, and justifies their existing behavior.

Rob, I'm not even sure what you just wrote there.

Appears to be an outright slam on Claude's article, and this entire thread.

[rob_s]

Rob, I'm not even sure what you just wrote there.

Appears to be an outright slam on Claude's article, and this entire thread.

No. Maybe.

The article is very good. But it's also rather pointless. The people that like it are the ones that agree with that point of view already, and anyone without that point of view is unlikely to ever read it. I agree with all of it, but that's likely because I'm supposed to and because I've already made all of those same conclusions.

When I read things like this, I think about what we're trying to accomplish. Feeling good about ourselves and our choices, and maybe getting to that point by feeling superior to other people by taking them down a peg, or trying to get more people to take their self-preservation even a little bit seriously?

In the case of the former, I don't need that shit. I'm pretty comfortable with my take on things, what I do, and why.

In the case of the latter, my barometer for that is that I think of how the 10 coworkers I know of that own guns would react to the article. First, unless I sent it to them they'd never see it. Second, even if they did see it there are a lot of points of the article that would turn them off. Both of these are further explained in the post by JustOneGun.

The internet is full of echo chambers. Real life is too, but the internet has an echo chamber for every single point of view. If you like having sex with balloon animals, in the real world and pre-internet you're going to have a hard time finding a group of people that encourage that behavior, but online there are probably 20 websites dedicated to it.

So in that case, maybe my post is a slam on this thread, or maybe this forum, or maybe forums in general. Iv'e been around forums long enough to not only have had it happen to me, but to come out the other side and watch it happen to the vast majority of people that participate in them.

Guy buys gun
Guy goes looking for gun forums
Guy "learns" all about how he "didn't know what he didn't know" but now that he's *here* he's getting it all sorted
Guy's take on things starts to become skewed by over-indulgence of ego and agreeing philosophies.
the emperor has no clothes.

[orionz06]

So should we sell all our guns?

[joshs]

No. Maybe.

The article is very good. But it's also rather pointless. The people that like it are the ones that agree with that point of view already, and anyone without that point of view is unlikely to ever read it. I agree with all of it, but that's likely because I'm supposed to and because I've already made all of those same conclusions.

When I read things like this, I think about what we're trying to accomplish. Feeling good about ourselves and our choices, and maybe getting to that point by feeling superior to other people by taking them down a peg, or trying to get more people to take their self-preservation even a little bit seriously?

In the case of the former, I don't need that shit. I'm pretty comfortable with my take on things, what I do, and why.

In the case of the latter, my barometer for that is that I think of how the 10 coworkers I know of that own guns would react to the article. First, unless I sent it to them they'd never see it. Second, even if they did see it there are a lot of points of the article that would turn them off. Both of these are further explained in the post by JustOneGun.

The internet is full of echo chambers. Real life is too, but the internet has an echo chamber for every single point of view. If you like having sex with balloon animals, in the real world and pre-internet you're going to have a hard time finding a group of people that encourage that behavior, but online there are probably 20 websites dedicated to it.

So in that case, maybe my post is a slam on this thread, or maybe this forum, or maybe forums in general. Iv'e been around forums long enough to not only have had it happen to me, but to come out the other side and watch it happen to the vast majority of people that participate in them.

Guy buys gun
Guy goes looking for gun forums
Guy "learns" all about how he "didn't know what he didn't know" but now that he's *here* he's getting it all sorted
Guy's take on things starts to become skewed by over-indulgence of ego and agreeing philosophies.
the emperor has no clothes.


This assumes two categories of gun owners: those like you and those like your ten coworkers. Like all other pursuits of learning, I think that there is a wide range of knowledge levels among shooters. For many, that article may not provide them with anything new, and for others, it may be beyond what they are interested in pursing, but for many more the article may prove very useful. I think this is true of all information, and it is why the Internet is such a great thing. Maybe someone will read that article and finally decide to seek out more training or maybe the article will prove useful to a basic CCW instructor who wants to explain to his students why they should seek out training beyond the required course, then again, maybe it won't.

As someone who spends a significant amount of time creating information for Internet consumption, I may just be a little optimistic that all of that time is not wasted.

[Byron]

Rob,

I've been following your posts for many years now, across a number of forums.

I've seen you take some undeserved "beatings" and over time you seemed to become more cynical. It's gotten to a point almost of nihilism though.

It seems odd to write long posts lamenting how people only read/internalize things that fit in their echo chamber. If your premise is as universally true as you say, then your own posts will either be lauded by those who already agree with you, or rejected/ignored by those who disagree with you. How are your posts therefore any different than Claude's articles?

I think you're describing a very black and white view of the world that doesn't take into account the fact that we all live on various spectra.

But if a cogent article with personal examples on a subject that matters to the author is "rather pointless," then what is the point of your posts in this thread? If your purpose is to tell people that they can't achieve their own purpose......... well..... that seems like a pretty shitty purpose.

It would be one thing if you had material objections to the content/material of the article, but what is the author (or anyone) supposed to do with this kind of feedback?

The article is very good. But it's also rather pointless.

If the article is good, then let the author worry about whether or not it's pointless. If the article is bad, then by all means constructively criticize it.

But this "nothing matters" gimmick is getting old.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If the emperor has no clothes, does he open carry?

Anyway - when I started thinking about firearms, I started researching. I didn't become aware of the issues until I did such. Reading articles like Claude's may convince beginners as to appropriate issues. I think it is that simple. Then they can investigate even more deeply.

[JustOneGun]

Great post, but welcome to the intheernet, where everyone is more smarter than everyone else.

That's why people like these kinds of articles. Not because it espouses any great wisdom, but because it confirms a belief they already hold, and justifies their existing behavior.

I disagree. The article is a nice reminder about the value of training. Taken the proper way ideas in the article can lead a person to humility, a better understanding of their own ability and a craving for knowledge. My post was just trying to put into context an idea that we are all at some point that guy.
It is a complex issue that people tend to short cut intellectually but that takes nothing away from the ideas Claude presented. It's just that a deeper conversation can lead us to better training, practice and ultimately a safer life.
While we may be correct that some people incorrectly use ideas as justification, I was presenting it in a way that suggests that we all probably do that and may be doing it.
Sort of, "There by the grace of God go I" type of idea.

[JustOneGun]

No. Maybe.

The article is very good. But it's also rather pointless. The people that like it are the ones that agree with that point of view already, and anyone without that point of view is unlikely to ever read it. I agree with all of it, but that's likely because I'm supposed to and because I've already made all of those same conclusions.

When I read things like this, I think about what we're trying to accomplish. Feeling good about ourselves and our choices, and maybe getting to that point by feeling superior to other people by taking them down a peg, or trying to get more people to take their self-preservation even a little bit seriously?

In the case of the former, I don't need that shit. I'm pretty comfortable with my take on things, what I do, and why.

In the case of the latter, my barometer for that is that I think of how the 10 coworkers I know of that own guns would react to the article. First, unless I sent it to them they'd never see it. Second, even if they did see it there are a lot of points of the article that would turn them off. Both of these are further explained in the post by JustOneGun.

The internet is full of echo chambers. Real life is too, but the internet has an echo chamber for every single point of view. If you like having sex with balloon animals, in the real world and pre-internet you're going to have a hard time finding a group of people that encourage that behavior, but online there are probably 20 websites dedicated to it.

So in that case, maybe my post is a slam on this thread, or maybe this forum, or maybe forums in general. Iv'e been around forums long enough to not only have had it happen to me, but to come out the other side and watch it happen to the vast majority of people that participate in them.

Guy buys gun
Guy goes looking for gun forums
Guy "learns" all about how he "didn't know what he didn't know" but now that he's *here* he's getting it all sorted
Guy's take on things starts to become skewed by over-indulgence of ego and agreeing philosophies.
the emperor has no clothes.

Rob I think Byron might be correct. It's about perspective and context. You never know which person is at a stage of development mentally where they might take the good ideas in the article and gain from it. Others such as yourself might be past that stage and not need it. That fact doesn't mean it's pointless.
My motto is to ask, "Why" until there are no more questions. Mentally we American's feel there isn't enough time to look that deeply into subjects but then we sit on gun forums for hours at a time. I am simply of a disposition to annoyingly ask why over and over. I do it because I have found no other way to get to the root of the question.
That said, if you disagree with the premise of the article say so. If you disagree with the context of how ideas are presented then what might to suggest to improve the conversation?
Lastly, I hear a lot of, "Well it's the internet" on this forum and I disagree. We have been surrounded by bad ideas even before the internet was invented. Well some of you were born after it was invented but trust me we had some really goofy ideas that we argued about before computers and the same silliness occurred. We are all passionate, but improving the conversation is what Claude and many on this forum are doing. Don't miss the forest for all the internet trees and trolls.

[DocGKR]

Byron, JOG--well said.