The Fallacy of the Tactical Toolbox

[Wendell]

(Food for thought.)

The Fallacy of the Tactical Toolbox - Mindset - Part 1 - Intro

Published to YouTube on May 9, 2013 by NOLATAC

[Lon]

The first thing I thought of when I watched the video was Hick's Law.

Hick's Law, named after British psychologist William Edmund Hick, or the Hick–Hyman Law (for Ray Hyman), describes the time it takes for a person to make a decision as a result of the possible choices he or she has. The Hick-Hyman Law assesses cognitive information capacity in choice reaction experiments. The amount of time taken to process a certain amount of bits in the Hick-Hyman Law is known as the rate of gain of information

https://www.google.com/search?q=hick...fari#itp=open0

[Erik]

The first thing I thought of was that he needs a pry bar in his tool box.

[David Armstrong]

Nothing wrong with a big tool box and lots of tools, IMO. You should have standard defaults (the middle-sized screwdriver) that are the automatic go-to, but if time and opportunity present themselves it can be nice to have that left-handed reverse thread die-cutter with Cyrillic measurements.

[TCinVA]

"How do we dig through that kit to find the screwdriver we need?"

Well I would assume that if one particular screwdriver had proven to be most useful to me in the largest number of circumstances it would be the first screwdriver I reached for should I find the need for one. I also assume that through repeated use and familiarity I would have learned the limitations of that screwdriver so that just by looking I could tell if I encountered a situation where it wasn't going to be useful, and based on my experience with that particular screwdriver I'd have a good idea of what size screwdriver I would actually need to deal with the situation in front of me.

Now if I have 40 screwdrivers and I've never busted one of them out of the blister pack and needed a screwdriver to fix the problem, yeah...I might be in some serious trouble. But it's not because I have "too many" screwdrivers, it's because I've spent all my time buying screwdrivers and I've invested zero time into actually figuring out how to use the bloody thing.

Unlike screwdrivers, ideas don't have weight and so there's no weight penalty for carrying around more than one tactic/technique in my brain. If I'm too retarded to train myself up on the stuff that's most likely to be useful in my situation in favor of collecting yet another technique and when the time comes I can't remember if I'm supposed to kick the slide or use my thumb to drop it from lock, it's not really accurate to describe me as having been paralyzed by learning too many techniques. It's more accurate to say that I've failed to train any of them to a reasonable level and as such can't recall them under stress. In other words, I didn't learn too many techniques, I didn't learn any techniques. That's why I sucked and that's why I died screaming.

Ever notice how a professional mechanic/fixer has a LOT of tools? Like entire buildings full of the bloody things? He/she may have some go-to tools that they use most frequently, but invariably if they've done much work they've encountered situations where their go-to tools weren't right for the job and so they augmented their collection to add capability they lacked before. They may not use those other tools but once in a great while, but when they need it, they need it. The dumbass off the street who walks into their building full of tools that's been collected over thousands of hours of experience might well be utterly lost. The person who invested in the skill with those tools, however, isn't.

...and that's why I want to butt-stroke the next person who decides to go off on a rant about the dangers of making the "tactical toolbox" too damn big. The analogy was initially made among people with skill as a way of describing something that may one day come in handy in a bad situation and like so many other things has been divorced from the context where it meant something and turned into yet another Tactical Boogeyman That Will Kill You!, or so sayeth instructor DooWhizzit or whatever from the Super Awesome Tactical School Of Operating Operationally that curiously enough doesn't have anyone on staff that actually did any real operating.

[/rant]

[JHC]

The first thing I thought of was that he needs a pry bar in his tool box.

Nice!

I guess he didn't want to be confused between that and a large screwdriver.

[brad413]

I don't want to start an argument about semantics, but why does the shooting industry/culture call things that would normally be referred to as techniques, tools instead? Is it to increase the coolness factor?

Are the things we carry tools? And the way we use them techniques?

For example, if I am doing a "tactical reload" aren't I really just exchanging magazines? Am I still doing a magazine exchange if I am doing a "reload with retention?" Am I still doing a magazine exchange if I holster my pistol and swap mags in the holster "administratively?" Or are tactically reloading, reloading with retention, and administratively exchanging magazines simply three different techniques for doing a magazine exchange? (why do the names overlap?) Each get the job done, but one may be more effective or appropriate than the others depending on the situation I am in. If I am not stressed, maybe I can exchange mags "tactically." If I am stressed or wearing heavy gloves, maybe I should only have one magazine in my support hand at time and "reload with retention." If I have lost the use of my support hand, maybe I should exchange mags in the holster. These are just different techniques to keep the same tool (my firearm) working. Why do we need to call them tools?

(support hand, weak hand, other strong hand - could ask the same questions on this topic too)

Additionally, if I shoot all the rounds out my firearm, do I really need to do an "emergency" reload? Is it always an emergency? If I am training at the range and shooting 5 rounds groups at 25 yards with no time limit, is having an empty weapon really an emergency? Will I work myself up too much if I apply the same amount of urgency that I would use if I was doing the FAST drill? Or in a gunfight? Should I focus on just making it smooth and getting it done? Or not focus on it all, beyond consciously assessing that my slide is locked back, and then let my subconscious handle it? But if I have conditioned myself to consider it an emergency, will my conscious mind interfere and mess with the reloading process? Would it be more effective to allow my conscious mind to focus on the situation I am in & make decisions, and let my subconscious mind operate the tasks it has been drilled in? So, I will just call it a reload and get it done using drilled techniques that are effective whether I am being stressed or not.

Do we make things more confusing (or dangerous) than they need to be because of the words we are using?

Brad

[orionz06]

I'm still trying to see how throwing away all my large and small screwdrivers will help me shoot better.

[JMS]

I don't want to start an argument about semantics, but why does the shooting industry/culture call things that would normally be referred to as techniques, tools instead?

For the ones that have made a real study of instructional theory and adult education, and putting it in the broadest of terms, taking the unfamiliar and relating it to something familiar is not only valid, but often required. Use of metaphors, similes, etc., can be extraordinarily helpful, and that's just for the auditory learner; that takes words that differ from those that strictly describe the concept or action being taught. Fold in tactile and visual learners, and all the ones that can be a combo of any two or all three. Now, you need metaphors and such that take the form of things other than words, too...

Which brings up the matter of the perception of the student. An visual or tactile learner might automatically get dulled by semantics simply because use of words or words alone simply isn't likely to reach them. An auditory learner that's too busy red-penning what's being said and sharpshooting because they have the luxury of being the student and not the instructor, may also shut down, but that's where the instructor has to dig in their own "toolbox," to keep that otherwise-nit-picking-smartypants engaged, and get his money's worth in spite of his innate desire to sabotage himself.

Is it to increase the coolness factor?

For the ones that just figure they can teach strictly on the basis of having achieved a certain real or perceived personal level of shooting "mastery,".....yes. They're like the Hooked on Phonics of the instructional realm....they make all the right noises, but don't really know the definitions, the underlying meanings, and are therefore unable to articulate them, or are only able to do so in a specific manner, which isn't going to work for everybody. Not automatically bad people, either, just the common "don't know what they don't know" situation that reaches across any number of disciplines.

Or, those just trying to make a buck, and don't care about the endstate of the student(s)....yes. They're surviving/thriving on buzzwords; flash with no content.

----------------------

I'm with you, there's tons of times that how somebody phrases something drives me nuts, and it's absolutely possible to confuse an issue by using the "wrong" words, or too many of the "right" words, or too much repetition of either, or any combo of all of that.

What we're really looking at, in this instance isn't so much a metaphor that is wrong or invalid...it's not...so much as one that one doesn't like, or that another has taken too far down the rabbit hole. You've essentially come up with your own metaphor, and might use that to get a point across to somebody that also has trouble with the "toolbox" thing. This is a good thing....

[ToddG]

Didn't watch the video.

I think the "toolbox" metaphor sometimes lends itself to a black and white assessment and that's invalid.

A guy whose job is to tune Formula 1 engines probably has a lot of tools in his toolbox. But he probably doesn't have a nail gun, pruning shears, or any number of other things that someone else might have in a different toolbox. A craftsman, therefore, needs not just a tool and toolbox but an understanding of which tools he does and doesn't need.

Let's look at it from a shooting skills perspective. Specifically, let's talk about stance. Stance is pretty straightforward because everyone understands the main points and schools of thought. Let's narrow it down even further and look at Weaver and Iso.

The "toolbox" answer is that it's worth knowing both.
The "anti-toolbox" answer is that it's not.
Which is right?

Taking the time to learn and truly understand both stances in a way that you can execute them properly under a wide variety of circumstances is going to take more training time than learning and practicing just one. Reaching a point where you automatically assume the correct one at the correct time under stress for a given set of circumstances is going to take a lot more time and practice.

Is that time and effort going to give you something worth having? For the majority of people, no. But for some -- especially those who teach -- it may. Does it belong in your toolbox? Depends on the craftsman.

It's also important to remember Hackathorn's Law: If you’re not confident in your ability to perform a task, you will not even attempt it under stress. Techniques which you've only studied in a cursory fashion probably won't be available to you under stress. So if you really feel like something belongs in your "toolbox" you need to devote the time and effort to making it stress-proof. In the end, that's the determining factor for me. Is this useful enough to be worth taking time away from other skills?

Where the metaphor really breaks down is in assuming that toolbox = brain = mastery. That's not true. I've been to classes where I've learned some truly ridiculous stuff. I know it well enough to discuss it but it's not something that I practice. It's not in my toolbox, but it's in my tool shed somewhere.