Calling in the experts. "Rewire

[Dismas316]

Interesting article and would love to hear from some of you trainers/instructors on this subject.

http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2...ck-to-one.html

Edit: To clarify a specific question I would have. First, I believe we all learn and most become better, through experience. But does a violent encounter somehow change that? Fortunately I've never encountered one and hope I never do. Many experts on this forum certainly have, and may have a different take as many of you have gone through these encounters. Curious to what your thoughts are on this.

[Drang]

Link?

[Dismas316]

Link?

sorry, dang ipad, I hit a wrong button before finishing?

[Ed L]

Not to be disrespectful, but I cannot follow this guy's writing and I cannot explain why.

He has an obtuse writing style. Maybe it is a type of reverse neuro-lingistic programming that makes it so hard to follow.

[JustOneGun]

I didn't like the article because it sounded like the author was having an argument with himself. I think it needs rewriting.

Violent encounters can certainly motivate a person. That encounter may dispel certain absolutes that they had been told. Nothing in the encounter would make a person suddenly a great or poor instructor. Example, I could be in an other than average fight and then, as the author says, I can fix on it to the detriment of other important things. But I could also take the experience for what it's worth, learn from it and use the motivation to expand that knowledge to other subjects.

Experience is many things. A gunfight is certainly one of them. But regular fights, close encounters and the entire breadth of experience also counts. And then there is experience as an instructor. Many poor instructors worked hard and got better. Many continue to try to improve. Others find their niche market and stick to it.

As a student I have only found one way to get around any instructor problems and that is to break down each subject to it's most basic level. Or as I say, ask, "Why" down to the geek level. If we don't take the time to do that then perhaps we are following a guru, or fooling ourselves? Ultimately we as students should think more about what we are studying before and after we study it.

[Sammy1]

Violent life or death encounters do change you or affect you, some for the better and some for the worse. I agree the article is poorly written.

[LSP552]

You can survive due to luck or skill and hard work. And no matter how skilled you are, luck can still kill you. I'm familiar with a couple of hand of God shootings that were nothing but luck.

Most people just aren't comfortable with naked violence, If they experience it, you would expect the event to have some lasting effect. There so many variables that I don't think you can say exactly what the change will be or how an individual will react afterwards. I personally "think" a lot depends on how you see yourself, victim or predator.

About the article; war stories are not science.

[Nephrology]

I am extremely skeptical of non-experts mucking around with neuro-psycho-pseudo-science....

[JustOneGun]

I am extremely skeptical of non-experts mucking around with neuro-psycho-pseudo-science....

The problem with that is, taken to the extreme only a neuro-scientist can suggest that you might change your training? I don't believe that's how it works, usually. Because we all, students and instructors, must strive to improve we take what the true scientist say and try to make it work. Sometimes we do it right. Sometimes we do it wrong. Sometimes in between. It is because we can and should strive to do this that we should be skeptical but not totally dismissive.

For instance, I am certainly no neurologist but if I say something that you have never heard of you might wonder if I'm right or wrong. Perhaps you look around and low and behold you find scientist that seem to say the same as me. Sometimes you might find scientist that believe I'm wrong. Certainly a buyer beware type situation.

Unfortunately the opposite can be true. I have heard experts tout something as cutting edge and in my experience it was not true. I am skeptical of that also. Sometimes I was correct and the person was not such an expert. Sometimes it's a communication issue and I find that it's only a bit different than I understand it. After looking at that I might find that it's an improvement over what I thought was correct.

Such is life. We all should be skeptical but that goes for the experts also.

[Nephrology]

The problem with that is, taken to the extreme only a neuro-scientist can suggest that you might change your training?

Quite the opposite. I think those who have the most helpful suggestions for improving one's ability with a firearm don't know much more about the brain than the fact that it sits between your ears.

Similarly, while I trust a neurologist would be able to help me read a head CT, I don't really think they will have a lot of insight on how to improve my dry fire practice. (A neuroscientist can't even help me with the CT, let alone my firearms training... )

Those who I really don't trust are those who don't understand the science (which is OK, I think most of neuroscience is made up anyway) but enthusiastically apply it to their topic of interest regardless. I think most of the neuroscience of behavior type stuff that has any practical application to daily life (guns or otherwise) is going to be common sense (you get better at things by doing them a lot? You don't say!). I don't need the psychobabble.

Those who I really trust and pay careful attention to speak plainly. They say what they mean, as simply as they can, and let the message speak for itself. It is shooting after all - not brain surgery