Input on Current Project

[John Hearne]

Continuing with the aviation theme...what about Capt Chesley Sullenberger's performance during his in-flight emergency. Has he written anything on performance under stress that might be useful here?

"One way of looking at this might be that for 42 years, I've been making small, regular deposits in this bank of experience, education and training. And on January 15 the balance was sufficient so that I could make a very large withdrawal."

[Redhat]

"One way of looking at this might be that for 42 years, I've been making small, regular deposits in this bank of experience, education and training. And on January 15 the balance was sufficient so that I could make a very large withdrawal."

Back when it happened I seem to recall reading he made regular trips to the simulator to practice emergency procedures. I was curious if he had written anything on training.

[Kevin B.]

Where do you think those standards most likely place someone on the overlearning continuim?

I would speculate that someone that is able to deliver that level of performance on demand has probably performed a sufficient number of correct repetitions to have overlearned those skills.

However, the point of my earlier post was that just because someone does not have a fast draw or a fast reload, does not necessarily mean that they have not overlearned the skill. I have shot with some pretty competent individuals with a significant amount of real world experience. I was surprised at their relatively slow draw (1.8-2.0 seconds)In looking closer at it, their training program did not require them to cultivate a particularly fast draw. They were able to meet the standard required of them with a draw at that speed. That level of performance was exported when they were required to execute the draw in isolation.

In the context of this discussion, I would absolutely say the individuals in question had overlearned the draw. I have no doubt they could execute the draw in a complex and stressful situation. In fact, some had. Nor do I question that they were probably capable of delivering a substantially better performance than they initially demonstrated. In fact, most, if not all, were able to get under 1.5 seconds in a relatively short period of time once that was that was established as the "acceptable" standard.

But the fact remains, the default draw speed that they had overlearned was substantially slower than what they were capable of delivering. Assessing their degree of overlearning based on their initial performance would have yielded a different result than assessing them based on their subsequent performance.

ETA: I am not trying to sharpshoot your premise, just reconcile it with my experience.

[John Hearne]

However, the point of my earlier post was that just because someone does not have a fast draw or a fast reload, does not necessarily mean that they have not overlearned the skill....their training program did not require them to cultivate a particularly fast draw....I would absolutely say the individuals in question had overlearned the draw...most, if not all, were able to get under 1.5 seconds in a relatively short period of time once that was that was established as the "acceptable" standard...Assessing their degree of overlearning based on their initial performance would have yielded a different result than assessing them based on their subsequent performance.

I think that were in damn near 100% agreement and I haven't fully described the overlearning phenomena.

Overlearning does not exist at a binary level - at its most basic level it is any degree of practice beyond simple skill mastery. There are very clearly degrees of overlearning and we tend to see the improvements associated with it as the degree of overlearning increases. One of the hallmarks of overlearning is that it allows one to learn more complex skills more quickly. I would offer that their previous overlearning was a sufficient base to allow them to quickly improve their degree of overlearning and meet the new standard.

Your story is also important because it shows how important institutional standards are in defining performance. ~85% of the people in an organization will shoot to whatever standard is defined as acceptable. If you increase the standard, you do increase performance on testing and probably in the field as well. Your standards are going to define maximum likely performance so setting them high is important.

[ToddG]

I know John didn't invent it but I hate the "over learning" term... it makes me think of overweight and similar negatively-connoted things. John has defined it for us multiple times now but someone of us -- myself included -- still seem to spin off into different definitions for some reason.

I do think George is correct that over learning and absolute skill level are separate. You can do a 2s Bill Drill until you've over learned it (can do it without thinking under stress, bad circumstances, etc). That doesn't mean you're as "skilled" as the guy who can do one in 1.5s when he's completely plugged in, calm, practiced, etc.

As I'm getting it, over learned (I still prefer preconscious or on-demand) is the ability to pull a particular level of performance out of your body without degradation under circumstances that would cause degradation in someone who isn't over-learned.

[KevinB]

People also retain learning under stress better than they do in a non stressed environment. Which I would strenuously agree with GJM's post about the recency of emergency training (or emergency non training)

I don't think you can ever come up with a fair/correct chart between different disciples, departments, agencies etc - as its all apples to oranges.

[David Armstrong]

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'm simply giong on what was the original premies as I understand it: "Ken said that in order to win armed encounters, you don't need to be great but you do need to be good." By that criteria I would stand by my statement. I'm not sure how one would determine a "dominating win" versus a "non-dominating win" without becoming mired down. One wins or one does not win seems the appropriate criteria if one is judging what is needed to win a gunfight.

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 certainly agree, it seems most if not all the research I've seen also indictes little or no correlation between qualification scores and actual performance. I'm not sure what relevance "officers murdered before they could draw" has to gunfighting.

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.

Again, I'm not sure there is some sort of need. If we regularly saw folks losing gunfights because of inability to utilize training during a fight that would be one thing, I just haven't seen that. What I see is that if a person has a gun and uses it in any manner they tend to win the fight.

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'm still not seeing the penalty for not having a high level of technical skill. I'm seeing low levels of skill tend to be sufficient. As I've often asked, is the person who is capable of hadling 99.99% of the situations really that much better off than the person who is only capable of hadling 99.95%?

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?

I would suggest there is little need for it.

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.

No disagreement. Technical skills are great things to have. I've just not seen anything to indicate not having good technical skills handicaps one to any significant degree.

[Chuck Whitlock]

John,
Your descriptions of overlearning bring to mind a little personal experience. For a while I was using the SSIII/070 Safariland holster. I practiced regularly with it, but on qual days I never struggled, but felt slow, or that I was doing the step-by-step thing. However, on the street, I remember at least three different times when my sidearm just "magically appeared in my hand". Is this kinda what you're driving at?

I also concur with the thoughts on recency. I have recently noticed that I have gotten sloppy with my grip and trigger control, which I directly attribute to not hitting the range nearly as regularly as I should. These are going to be my major immediate focus in my own practice regimen.

[John Hearne]

Everyone I've spoken to about this project has HATED the word "overlearn" and all of its variants. Since the goal of overlearning is automaticity, I've changed the word used to describe the performance level I'm looking for. Hopefully, I should only offend the cardiologists with the word change.

I would fully acknowledge that it is possible to have some automaticity if one isn't super fast. I would offer that it is impossible to be super fast without some degree of automaticity. I would say that lower levels of performance do not exclude overlearning and the resultant automaticity, but that higher levels absolutely require it (except for some genetically gifted freaks with incredible kinesthetic intelligence and eye sight)

Thoughts on this one?

[Mr_White]

Everyone I've spoken to about this project has HATED the word "overlearn" and all of its variants. Since the goal of overlearning is automaticity, I've changed the word used to describe the performance level I'm looking for. Hopefully, I should only offend the cardiologists with the word change.

My preference is for automaticity, too.

I would fully acknowledge that it is possible to have some automaticity if one isn't super fast. I would offer that it is impossible to be super fast without some degree of automaticity. I would say that lower levels of performance do not exclude overlearning and the resultant automaticity, but that higher levels absolutely require it (except for some genetically gifted freaks with incredible kinesthetic intelligence and eye sight)

I was going to bring this up as one of the standout remaining points of difference of opinion in this thread, but I am in full agreement with what you say above.

Thoughts on this one?

I like that one. I don't think I would have rated 'maxing POST qual' as highly as you did, but I am thinking of the Oregon qual, so there are probably some differences there. Overall I like it. Nice chart.