Bill Wilson and Ken Hackathon's Crystal Ball Predictions

[JCN]

Can you expand on this?

I respect you immensely and don’t want to say anything that seems disrespectful or is meant to be irritating.

Watching Ken’s shooting videos in the past year, he’s not shooting that great. Especially at speed.

He will often miss shots but the slow motion shows excellent trigger presses and mechanics as you would expect.

Which suggests that the limiting factor is vision.

He wears glasses and is of the age where vision and focus can get difficult.

Many competition shooters experience this decrement, only to have immediate restoration of vision and accuracy of hits with red dots.

So that’s my assessment. If Ken wants to shoot better (basically to his mechanical potential), he “needs” a red dot.

[YVK]

Most of the 1,600 aren't active. There's what? A couple hundred here that post with any regularity? I don't know how many of those carry dots.

I presume we can set up a poll but percentages don't really matter. We've a number of folks who do dots, some more vocal and some less, but I think that regardless of the denominator - 200 actively posting, 1600 actively listed, or 10,000 listed as members - there still will be more people carrying irons than dots. I don't think that your characterization of opinion of more enthusiastic dot proponents as a "PF groupthink" is really that accurate.

The reaction to Ken's opinion is rather predictable. Somebody says something publicly and that something sounds questionable or biased - people will call you out regardless of your reputation. Has happened time and time again. More recently, I don't know if Bruce Gray has fixed his rep to pre-drop safety 320 scandal level even now; he certainly has not returned to his previous online presence.

Anyway, Ken's right in that future will show. I wish him good health so he's around to see what happens.

[SouthNarc]

I respect you immensely and don’t want to say anything that seems disrespectful or is meant to be irritating.

Watching Ken’s shooting videos in the past year, he’s not shooting that great. Especially at speed.

He will often miss shots but the slow motion shows excellent trigger presses and mechanics as you would expect.

Which suggests that the limiting factor is vision.

He wears glasses and is of the age where vision and focus can get difficult.

Many competition shooters experience this decrement, only to have immediate restoration of vision and accuracy of hits with red dots.

So that’s my assessment. If Ken wants to shoot better (basically to his mechanical potential), he “needs” a red dot.

I appreciate your respect for my reputation and you haven't said ANYTHING I've found to be personally disrespectful. So we're fine.


I'm not sure that a 75 year old man who is retired from training really cares about improving his shooting. You may very well be correct in that a red dot could improve his speed and accuracy.


My question for you is do you think this is an issue of ego or ambivalence?

[GJM]

My question for you is do you think this is an issue of ego or ambivalence?

Like many things, I bet it is multi factorial. Awareness of the growing pains with dot technology, living in an area with rain and snow, a reluctance to invest in the significant dot learning curve, satisfaction with where his shooting is now, and part being curmudgeonly.

[SouthNarc]

Like many things, I bet it is multi factorial. Awareness of the growing pains with dot technology, living in an area with rain and snow, a reluctance to invest in the significant dot learning curve, satisfaction with where his shooting is now, and part being curmudgeonly.

I think that's fair.

[blues]

I think that's fair.

Hell, even I could use all of those excuses explanations.

(Being of a certain age and generally not giving a crap about the new hotness. Besides, who said being curmudgeonly is a bad thing? Get off my lawn. )

[JCN]

My question for you is do you think this is an issue of ego or ambivalence?

My impression that it’s primarily ego and I’ll tell you why.

The visible pain on his face when he misses a shot on video then quickly tries to hand wave it away, knowing full well he wouldn’t have missed that shot in his prime.

It’s not that I think he wants to work at improving his shooting.

I think he’s deathly afraid of losing what he currently has because so much of his identity (ego) is built into that.

At work, I talk with a lot of elderly about their losses of function and I recognize that pain (with a hint of fear) on the face.

To use a different analogy, it’s like erectile dysfunction.

And red dots are Viagra.

If you don’t believe in taking pills, you might not admit you have ED.

If you embrace what it is, you might opt for Viagra even if you don’t have ED…. hehe.

[HCM]

I appreciate your respect for my reputation and you haven't said ANYTHING I've found to be personally disrespectful. So we're fine.


I'm not sure that a 75 year old man who is retired from training really cares about improving his shooting. You may very well be correct in that a red dot could improve his speed and accuracy.


My question for you is do you think this is an issue of ego or ambivalence?

Would he be improving his shooting or restoring his shooting? The latter is how many similarly aged bullseye competitors described their experience going to red dots.

I have a co-worker who is in his late 50s and similarly situated to @JCN’s description. He is a firearms instructor and his physical condition is good but his shooting ability has declined noticeably to the point he now declines to participate in our quarterly shoot off during our instructor day. Yet he refuses to use both RX glasses and/or red dots. His arguments mirror those previously discussed. The difference is, while there is certainly some ego involved at a personal level, he has not extrapolated that to red dots not being viable for others.

[Wondering Beard]

I just want to point out that ascribing motivation (i.e. knowledge of a person's mind on any topic) is the very definition of ASS-U-ME.

Speculating is fine, coming to a conclusion shouldn't be.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Fundamental Attribution Error:

In social psychology, fundamental attribution error (FAE), also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect, is the tendency for people to under-emphasize situational and environmental explanations for an individual's observed behavior while over-emphasizing dispositional and personality-based explanations. This effect has been described as "the tendency to believe that what people do reflects who they are",[1] that is, to overattribute their behaviors (what they do or say) to their personality and underattribute them to the situation or context. The error is in seeing someone's actions as solely reflective of their personality rather than somewhat reflective of it and also largely prompted by circumstances.

I am still personally torn about spending the bucks for a new RDS set up. Money doesn't grow on trees but I could see it's utility. I shoot irons OK, IMHO, for my SD needs - my goal in shooting nowadays. If I can shoot 25 Alphas and 5 Charlies on a stage with a stock Glock with the Glock factory sights - that would work for most likely scenarios. I'm not winning anything - running and gunning on move - tell my back and knees. I kind of sadly chuckle at some older folk who try to hurry up between positions as they see the young ones flash step to each. Not me, I'll get there when I get there. Maybe this is geezer whining, perhaps - FAE.