Input on Current Project

[GJM]

John, can you define "over learned" again?

[TheTrevor]

John, if you want to look at a martial discipline where you literally cannot survive a fight against a skilled opponent unless you have overlearned a solid array of skills, check out sword fighting. I studied Toyama Ryu (Japanese practical swordsmanship) diligently for 5+ years under Sensei Mike Esmailzadeh. I was probably 3-4 years in before I could spar with the experienced folks and avoid getting slaughtered in the first 15 seconds.

When you're up against a skilled, aggressive opponent with a sword, there is no time to consciously traverse the decision trees to select responses and execute them. If you have not overlearned movement skills, reading of the opponent's intent, AND defensive/offensive sword skills, it's just a matter of time before your opponent figures this out and sets up an attack which is too fast for your conscious mind to handle.

Not exactly an everyday skill-set, but I figure if GJM can bring in aviation then I can put swordplay on the table.

[David Armstrong]

Ken said that in order to win armed encounters, you don't need to be great but you do need to be good.

>>This may have already been discussed, as I'm posting as I go through the thread<<
By that standard, a high percentage of gun owners are good. Let's face it, as a general rule at least half of all folks involved in a gunfight win, and it seems the good guys win far more than the bad guys. A quick check of most shootings indicate little if any formal training and of that most of the training is not anything beyond the level of basic CCW class. As for drills and tests reflecting ability, I remember when if you scored a 45 on an El Presidente one was considered to be an expert. Given the success of LEOs in actual gunfights that would seem to create a question about POST qualification being borderline competent/incompetent, unless one also wants to concede that low-level competence is sufficient to win most gunfights. Interesting question, just not sure what is being measured properly addresses the question.

[Mr_White]

Awesome. Thank you.....

Now that you've got me making leaps that I wouldn't normally, here is another attempt at a chart. Same disclaimers as before:

[IMG] Skills_zps102fc8f7_03 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/IMG]

[David Armstrong]

I recall going through my first Sure Fire low light class back in the late '90s when Ken Good was still running that show. Ken is a hell of a shooter, but his partner in the runs through the barricade field I found was, well, horrible.

I was really, really put out that Wade could move and work the tactics the way that he was able to, since he had a 99% or so win rate in those FoF runs. I was just about beside myself when we did the Wed night low light live fire drills and I saw that he could barely hit paper at the ten yard line. His strength was that he could get to where he needed to be to make the shot. Shooting ability wasn't that big a deal at the ranges he was able to get to.

I think people actually need, for the most part, far less technical shooting skill than we often think, not to say that people shouldn't train, it's just that most real world pistol fights just don't require that much marksmanship.

That tends to reflect what I have seen over the years. High levels of skill are nice but rarely do we find a situation where it matters. That is true of many things, not just shooting. Now when it matters it matters a lot. I learned some very high level driving skills that I never used....until a trip back to Oklahoma a couple of years back, when the difference between rolling down the side of a small mountain and not rolling down was based on a fw of those high level skills.

[John Hearne]

John, can you define "over learned" again?

One of the frustrations I've experienced reading across the various areas is that folks in different fields use different words to describe what are essentially the same phenomena. The guys that work with motor skills use the term overlearning. The guys that work with the memory systems would say that something that been transferred to implicit memory.

The Wiki* definition is "Overlearning is the pedagogical theory that practising newly acquired skills beyond the point of initial mastery leads to automaticity." Automaticity is "the ability to do things without occupying the mind with the low-level details required, allowing it to become an automatic response pattern or habit. It is usually the result of learning, repetition, and practice...After an activity is sufficiently practiced, it is possible to focus the mind on other activities or thoughts while undertaking an automatized activity"

(When we think about gunfighting, automaticity does seem to be a very worthy goal. Arguably my last diagram could readily substitute automaticity for overlearning. I avoid automaticity because it is a $5 dollar word and it is used in the cardiac world when describing the heart's ability to generate its own electricity)

Regarding different domains, I think that they are all valid examinations of the meta problem of performing "intricate" skills under life threatening conditions. One of the great lies is that natural responses are best. Natural responses are only valid for natural problems. If I want to bite and strike then natural is acceptable, though maybe not ideal even then.

If we are trying to solve non-natural problems, then we're going to have to use non-natural solutions. Implementing non-natural solutions under life threatening conditions isn't easy but it can be done and it's often the only valid solution. My goal is to figure out how to do this in the most efficient manner.

* Based on my reading in Wikipedia and the academic text books, I find the Wiki articles to be a great resource for a quick understanding of these issues. I have not found any glaring issues with the information in the Wiki articles. A lot of these concepts are largely accepted as the most accurate theories in their respective fields.

[Dagga Boy]

It is bad enough that you are destroying my limited credibility by agreeing with me. You co-own a company called Hardwired Tactical Shooting. Mr. HITS, tell me when you think pistol skills are in fact hard wired or when it might be or when it likely is.

Well somebody needs to go to our class that was purposely set up to go after yours at the Tactical Invitiational.

The key to what we try to do is to develop an auto-response of a variety of skills that can be applied in a crisis with little conscious thought. Essentially, freeing the brain to work with the rapidly changing complex variables by having pre loaded, easy to retrieve, mastered skill solutions already in the computer. We find the battle to be what skills you are loading and if they are going to be solid, efficient, legal, ethical and reasonable solutions for those problems YOU are likely to be needing. We also work to a standard that is not what your maximum performance is in a particular range skill, but what your maximum performance is in an actual encounter in its entirety.

[GJM]

One of the frustrations I've experienced reading across the various areas is that folks in different fields use different words to describe what are essentially the same phenomena. The guys that work with motor skills use the term overlearning. The guys that work with the memory systems would say that something that been transferred to implicit memory.

The Wiki* definition is "Overlearning is the pedagogical theory that practising newly acquired skills beyond the point of initial mastery leads to automaticity." Automaticity is "the ability to do things without occupying the mind with the low-level details required, allowing it to become an automatic response pattern or habit. It is usually the result of learning, repetition, and practice...After an activity is sufficiently practiced, it is possible to focus the mind on other activities or thoughts while undertaking an automatized activity"

(When we think about gunfighting, automaticity does seem to be a very worthy goal. Arguably my last diagram could readily substitute automaticity for overlearning. I avoid automaticity because it is a $5 dollar word and it is used in the cardiac world when describing the heart's ability to generate its own electricity)

Thanks for that definition.

Here is my question. In this thread, there has been an implication that "overlearning" implies some level of (desirable) competence, but I am not sure this is the case. For example, I believe my mom and Danica Patrick have both "overlearned" the ability to drive a passenger car, based on the Wiki definition. While both have "over learned," there is obviously an enormous difference in their competency. Two shooters may have "overlearned" the presentation, but one with a one second and the other with a three second draw.

I don't believe having "over learned" a shooting skill is enough. Rather, you need to have "over learned" and be able to do that an acceptable standard.

[John Hearne]

Let's face it, as a general rule at least half of all folks involved in a gunfight win, and it seems the good guys win far more than the bad guys....Given the success of LEOs in actual gunfights that would seem to create a question about POST qualification being borderline competent/incompetent, unless one also wants to concede that low-level competence is sufficient to win most gunfights.

I will have to respectfully disagree here. I see very few dominating wins in the LE world. What I see are exchanges of gunfire in which the person who sucks less is the LEO. If two guys empty magazines at each other and one runs off and the other is still there is that really a win for the guy left standing there? I realize that there are no solid numbers on LE hit rates but I see 15-18% as the most commonly accepted number. If LEO's are hitting with one of every six shots they fire is the testing methodology that deems them good enough valid?

I am aware of two studies that tried to correlate qualification scores with street performance. One found no correlation whatsoever and the other found a relationship but not a relationship that was statistically significant. If would offer that unless a qualification requires reflexive gunhandling, it probably won't be very predictive. I'd also point out that we still see some horrible losses on the LE side. I think it was the FBI data brought out the number of 85% of officers feloniously murdered never drawing their guns.

I would concede that in most instances a fairly low level of technical shooting ability is required. My question is how do we make sure that we can consistently bring that minimal level of skill to the fight - rain or shine, day or night, best day or worst day. My thought is that ONE way to do this is to have a level of technical skill that is accessible during periods of high arousal. As best I can determine, the skills that are accessible under high levels of arousal are overlearned to the point of automaticity.

Interesting question, just not sure what is being measured properly addresses the question.

What performance thresholds in common drills/quals/rankings suggest overlearning/automaticity is contributing to the observed performance?

High levels of skill are nice but rarely do we find a situation where it matters. That is true of many things, not just shooting. Now when it matters it matters a lot.

I won't argue. There are two aspects to risk assessment - probability and severity. The probability of needing to solve a high level technical shooting problem in the field are low. However, that is not the only metric we use. When you consider the severity of the penalty for not having a high level of technical shooting skill, it can be extreme and to me negates much of the probability arguments. To summarize - it's not the odds, it's the stakes.

I'd also offer that perhaps, we don't see a lot of high level of technical shooting in the LE world. Is this because there is no need for it or because very few people can pull it off? What about the LAPD guy, trained by Scottie Reitz, that shot the hostage taker at the Mexican Embassy some years back? If we had more cops in the field with that skill set (does anyone argue that there are lots of those guys out there) would be see it more?

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Please understand, I am not saying that technical shooting skill fixes everything. I fully accept that technical shooting skills is but one of many variables that can explain performance. Technical shooting skill has the advantage of being easily quantified. I'd also point out, that experience and the judgement it leads to is not readily accessible to a lot of folks. While experience/judgement is the best solution, developing technical shooting skills is something that can be done by most anyone. And for a lot of us it is "fun" and something we are willing to do. FWIW, I will also address physical fitness which is another realm that can have an impact on your ability to perform under stress and one that we have ready access to control.

[John Hearne]

As an aside, if you want a really interesting domain with lots of carryover, take aviation and add guns and missles to it - aerial combat. I've found a lot of interesting material in this realm. It's not longer published but the book "The Ace Factor" (recommended by Ken Good) was fascinating.