Self Defense: The process of shooting your target after the decision to fire is made

[voodoo_man]

I believe we are in agreement. The eyes see a lot but the brain only allows what is relevant to be processed in the moment. If the brain doesn't determine something is important to address the immediate threat it will not process it. If it does it will allow that into the consciousness to be processed and thus likely seen.

Well, your brain may in fact determine something is important but it won't fix your tunnel vision, it may not even allow you the impulse of checking what that is.

This is where consciously and unconsciously breaking tunnel vision is extremely important. Especially for LE (even though it can be translated into concepts for CCW citizens) given that 40ish% involved two or more contacts.

Dealing with a threat is extremely important, moving on quickly to scan and assess is just as important. Our eyes may betray us a bit in this context, we have to do our part through proper training to mitigate this.

[GuanoLoco]

Excellent, then I think we're at least mostly on the same page. I don't know the answer to "how fast can you..." but assume you're familiar with the concept of mental chunking. We can only hold so many "chunks" of data in our working mind at one time. Experts can fit more data per "chunk", though. If you are a chess expert, you can memorize the positions of the pieces on the board at a glance because you memorize them as a certain strategy, whereas the novice must memorize them as individual pieces. If you are familiar with body language, as relevant to the topic at hand, it stands to reason you'll both see and react to the signs of the fight ending earlier than someone who's a novice.

...

Are you familiar with Miller's Law, 7 +/- 2?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_...s_or_Minus_Two

[BehindBlueI's]

Are you familiar with Miller's Law, 7 +/- 2?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_...s_or_Minus_Two

Yes, although I'm also aware the exact number is still debated. 4-7 seems to be a consensus, though.

[octagon]

Well, your brain may in fact determine something is important but it won't fix your tunnel vision, it may not even allow you the impulse of checking what that is.

This is where consciously and unconsciously breaking tunnel vision is extremely important. Especially for LE (even though it can be translated into concepts for CCW citizens) given that 40ish% involved two or more contacts.

Dealing with a threat is extremely important, moving on quickly to scan and assess is just as important. Our eyes may betray us a bit in this context, we have to do our part through proper training to mitigate this.

It may be that the tunnel vision is different for each person. For me when I experienced it it was very brief. The time before I realized I was in imminent danger I had normal vision and the split second the danger had subsided or was less than I initially believed the tunnel vision(I should say perceptual narrowing as I had reduced audio information and time/space distortion in some incidents as well) went away. The total time for the longest incident was no more than maybe 2 seconds max. Even as the incident was still on going and still dangerous the perceptual narrowing quickly subsided. That is how it worked for me and I fully expect and understand each person may experience more or less and for shorter or longer periods of time.

I totally agree all defensive gun practitioners should plan and practice scanning and increasing their view of a scene as quickly as is reasonable looking for other potential threats in their continued assessment. One thing I doubt most people are capable of and maybe shouldn't even be considered is looking for an unknown/unidentified threat while in the process of engaging an already known and identified threat. That it to say that if I identify my threat as one person I will engage them until they are no longer a threat and then do my scanning process of movement of head and body as well as breathing to expand my visual focus looking for other potential threats. If I initially see and determine there are 2,3 or more threats I will engage them appropriately then look for new threats once they have been neutralized. I don't believe people will or possibly can be actively engaging a threat and before it is neutralized begin to start looking for a unknown threat. A person may see more of what is in their immediate vision but actively and consciously turning the head or otherwise breaking concentration on the current threat is extremely unlikely in my opinion. Doing it as quickly after the threat(s) initially identified is the key.

[voodoo_man]

It may be that the tunnel vision is different for each person. For me when I experienced it it was very brief. The time before I realized I was in imminent danger I had normal vision and the split second the danger had subsided or was less than I initially believed the tunnel vision(I should say perceptual narrowing as I had reduced audio information and time/space distortion in some incidents as well) went away. The total time for the longest incident was no more than maybe 2 seconds max. Even as the incident was still on going and still dangerous the perceptual narrowing quickly subsided. That is how it worked for me and I fully expect and understand each person may experience more or less and for shorter or longer periods of time.

I totally agree all defensive gun practitioners should plan and practice scanning and increasing their view of a scene as quickly as is reasonable looking for other potential threats in their continued assessment. One thing I doubt most people are capable of and maybe shouldn't even be considered is looking for an unknown/unidentified threat while in the process of engaging an already known and identified threat. That it to say that if I identify my threat as one person I will engage them until they are no longer a threat and then do my scanning process of movement of head and body as well as breathing to expand my visual focus looking for other potential threats. If I initially see and determine there are 2,3 or more threats I will engage them appropriately then look for new threats once they have been neutralized. I don't believe people will or possibly can be actively engaging a threat and before it is neutralized begin to start looking for a unknown threat. A person may see more of what is in their immediate vision but actively and consciously turning the head or otherwise breaking concentration on the current threat is extremely unlikely in my opinion. Doing it as quickly after the threat(s) initially identified is the key.

We are talking about the same thing differently.

I've never had any of the aforementioned afflictions, tunnel vision, etc, more than two or three seconds. That is also how long most of the situations tend to last. The moment you made an active decision to move and look around you've already broken tunnel vision.

The rest is your autopilot doing the work.

[JustOneGun]

I see. (see what I did there?) If I can use another racing analogy for in the heat of the moment vision issue. I started off autocrossing where you run a course through traffic cones. The speeds are lower than track work but there are a lot more turns and tighter confines to keep the car in. A common issue for beginners and experts alike is when you look at a cone you are very likely to hit it. The way to do it is to look where you want to go not at what you want to avoid. When you do this you miss the cone but you are still able to see the cone. The same thing occurs on track at higher speeds you are just avoiding other objects like a spinning competitor,animal on track or other obstacle. These incidents are much higher stress level and often involve a moving threat/object. The vision narrows as stress increases but the ability to see objects more on the periphery is still possible in the heat of the moment.

I highly suggest you read the books Wet Mind and The Invisible Gorilla which both cover the issue much better than I can articulate in a few posts. If you can find a copy of Bodily Changes in Pain, Hunger, Fear and Rage that is also excellent book covering physiological changes under stress.

I will look up the books. Thanks. I can say that you are the first person, in all the years I've been asking this question, to give me an articulated answer. Thanks.

Your racing analogy is interesting because one of the minor incidents I was in was as a new driver. As a kid I literally was stuck in the middle of a 75 mile an hour crash. The idiot involved literally flowed around me, including a motorcycle driver that tried his best to have me run him over. He disappeared under my right front quarter panel. Sort of like the cone in defensive driving. Long story short, I was able to pick a reaction in my mind to just do it (I didn't have any conscious thought of doing it) and calculate the trajectory of the slower car and tumbling rider at the same time.

When I became interested in this I suspected just a BB and other suggest that I really did use my peripheral and not remembering. I went back and created the speeds of that accident. Even not accounting for my reaction time, I was well past the car and there was no way I was actually going to avoid the rider. It was just his vector and probably about 20mph over my speed that kept me from running him over. But I didn't know that at the time and as a kid. I had to have used the knowledge that I knew before I focused on the driver to calculate and move.

So this idea of can you see or can't you is in my mind the perfect place for the Precautionary Principle. What is a person who luckily has never experienced a series of incidents that causes tunnel vision to do? I suggest they assume they are average or below in their ability to use peripheral vision under stress and develop a picture of their gunfight and their training for it with that in mind. If they find their at the minority end of the genetic spectrum, then fantastic, they might change. But doing the opposite can expose a person to the negative effects as the gunfight happens. By then it's too late.

As individuals, I say, who cares. We all make our choices and take our chances. You're responsible for you. But as instructors, while these things are small nuances that can have big impacts on our gunfights. They are so small no one will call me on it. But if I want to be a good instructor I sure as hell better think about them. I'm not making choices for me, I'm making them for some young mind of mush, many of whom don't know any better.

[blues]

I've experienced tunnel vision or some semblance thereof as well as auditory exclusion to the point where it seemed like I was listening underwater but was still able to handle the task in what seemed like slow motion or a not quite lucid state.

One event that comes to mind, although like some of the others mentioned earlier, not a shooting scenario:

While climbing in the Wind River Range in Wyoming many years ago on Lizard Head Peak I was doing a standing glissade down a steep portion of a glacier when the ice below my feet fractured sending me ass over tea kettle. I couldn't dig my ice ax in for a self arrest and there was a cliff with a drop of a couple thousand feet looming.

As I'm sliding / bouncing quickly down the slope to what I know is my certain death I see the horror on the faces of two other climbing companions and an attempt by the third (who I was very close with) to intercept my trajectory to try to stop my flight. I know that this is going to result in him dying with me and in my final moment yell out "Don't do it, French!". In that brief instant I had accepted and come to terms with the fact it was the last moment of my life.

Right about then I smack into the only rock formation coming up out of the ice which arrests my progress. The others come running over thinking I'm dead from the blow against the rock at which point I mutter: "Can we take a break?"

All of this happened in a matter of a few seconds and yet it is almost as clear in my mind today as it was then when I knew I was going to die.

The end result of the fall was I dislocated my right shoulder, the pin on the brass buckle of my belt plunged into my abdomen and I was battered, bruised and torn up a bit. However, I was able to get down under my own power by down climbing and rappelling with my one good arm (and a safety rope).

So that was an instance of extreme threat where I took in a somewhat panoramic scene and communicated clearly as opposed to having tunnel vision and auditory exclusion.

I guess the point being that every incident may trigger a different response to the stimulus. (I've never had tunnel vision or exclusion when drawing and preparing to shoot at someone but I was fortunate enough in those instances that the threat ended before I had to complete the trigger pull.)

Another time I can remember sparring and nearly getting knocked out by a bigger, stronger, more experienced opponent after which when my head cleared a split second later I couldn't really discern the voices yelling at me but I went on a rage fueled rampage until I was pulled off the guy I was piston punching. But I clearly was not particularly lucid. It was like lizard brain stuff and all I could see was the target to the exclusion of everything else.

[QED]

I'll ask again, why are you so hung up on "seeing the gun drop"? Are you sure you're asking the right question? Would the better question not be "how can I see the person is no longer a threat?"

The shoot house is a terrible place to figure this stuff out. The tenth time you're shot by a student, you are play acting, you aren't responding naturally. Watch dash cams and body cams and listen to the stories being related here. Show me one where "dropping the gun" was the sole signal the shooting could stop?

Would dropping the gun be a sufficient condition for imminent threat to cease?

[BehindBlueI's]

Would dropping the gun be a sufficient condition for imminent threat to cease?

Do you understand what's under discussion in this thread?

[QED]

Do you understand what's under discussion in this thread?

Yes. Do you understand my question put to you?